|
COMMENTS RECEIVED |
|
Idea by Clive Pollard Do you have any comments on the content or any suggestions ? Please fill in our comments form |
From Christy Looby (christy.looby@micrel.com) - recvd 9 Feb 2001 Good work on letting us see the 2001 rules. Wow! Wow! These must be THE most radical changes since the double-serve. If you'd posted the referee_ruleschanges.htm to rec.sport.squash, you'd have generated more debate. This is THE critical webpage. The vast majority of changes are good for the game, I think . However, it is such a big change, all at once. At grass-roots, players & officials will be a two-tier system - those who are educated with the new rules and those who aren't. With players ending up very frustrated and confused. If the rule changes are disseminated passively as in the past, chaos will result. Unless there is a concerted attempt from the top down to get the rules accepted, the gulf between the squash people educated in the rules and those who pick it up as they go along will cause a de-facto split in the game to emerge. |
|
| Question
by Joost Leeuwesteijn (original in Dutch - received 13 June 2001): On the WWW, I have read that the Rules of Squash have been changed. The following Rule (referring to Rule 9) is not yet completely clear to me. According to my reading of the Rule, for 'unnecessary turning', you are awarded a 'no let'. If you ask for a let for 'necessary' turning (if it can be called that), then you are awarded a 'let'. However, if you strike your opponent with the ball after turning, then the opponent is now awarded a 'stroke'. I have two points here: 1) What is the 'recommended course of action' if you hit the ball, without hitting the opponent, but it is really (too) dangerous play (e.g., a boast that only just misses the opponent). Does a referee have the option of stopping the rally and awarding a 'stroke' or 'let' ? Or does it depend entirely on the 'sporting nature' of the player ? I can imagine that the opponent who has dived against the side wall and is so shocked by the boast that zips past that they are not quick enough to get to the ball, while the player surely should have asked for a 'let'. 2) Where do the limits lie between 'unnecessary' and 'necessary' turning. This, of course, will mean the difference between the award of a 'let' or 'no let'. I believe that this is a very difficult decision, and therefore a difficult question to answer. Answer (and further comments are welcome): You may not be aware of the history regarding the 'unnecessary turning' situation. A few years ago (5-6 years), a certain group of juniors from Egypt were coached to move into a deep lob to one of the corners in a way such that they have turned, but from our point of view as referees, this movement to turn was not required for them to hit the ball. They were simply making this movement to cause the award of a let, according to the then-current Rules. Several of the tougher referees went so far as to award a 'no let' and this then became the accepted response. Eventually, it was becoming also apparent that more senior players (including some of these same juniors who had turned professional) were also using the same tactic. It became very disruptive to the game. PSA stepped in, on the advice of many referees, to introduce a recommendation (it could not then be called a Rule) to all its players to the effect that this 'unnecessary turning' was now a 'no-go' area. Referees were able to (and often did) award a 'no let' in that situation. That recommendation has now become an official WSF Rule. By the way, I have never personally noticed this situation occurring in the women's game - is that because women are more fair at playing the game ? Of course, your question (2) regarding the limits to 'necessary' or 'unnecessary' turning is of vital importance. It is not a simple situation. As a referee, you must look at whether the player could have played the ball by moving in a normal movement without turning, but only used the turning Rule as a means of delaying play. The new Rule has been strengthened insofar as it is now a 'stroke' to your opponent if you hit the ball against the opponent AFTER turning (or allowing the ball to pass behind you). If, however, you are either clever enough (or in most cases lucky enough) to miss your opponent in this situation, then play MAY continue. It is then up to the referee to intervene if considering that the ball was hit 'dangerously'. As you will now see, definitions become of vital importance. At the top level, a player can appropriately claim that they played the ball safely, even if it missed the opponent by a very small margin. But at what playing level do you say, as a referee, that the player did not have the skill to miss the opponent, and it was 'dangerous' play ? Or was it just lack of knowledge, or stupidity ? Both of these latter cases are no excuse if you seriously injure your opponent. My personal opinion is that anyone hitting the ball in that situation, except the very top players, is acting against the 'spirit of the game'. It is entirely up to the opinion of the referee to make a decision in all cases (your question1). Of course, the better a referee, the more accurately they will be able to judge the situation. The most worrying factor from my point of view is the unofficiated m atch in which players start to hit the ball dangerously at each other !! The referee MAY stop play and award a stroke against the player, but only in the most extremne circumstances, if the ball has missed the opponent, for example, when the player yells o ut, "Damn it, I missed!!" In most situations, it would be appropriate for the referee to let the rally proceed to its conclusion and then warn the offending player at the end of the rally. However, if play ceases because the opponent has stopped to ask for a 'let', then the referee is in another difficult situation, and needs to apply that referee's own interpretation to the situation. I think you will agree that we all come across players who do not play within 'the spirit of the game'. Perhaps there shou ld be some way of removing these players from the ranks of true 'squashers'. However, there are some within the game who believe that the 'controversial actions' of some players bring interest into the game, which generates sponsorship. I will make no comment on that, as a referee having often had to suffer from the actions of these players in the middle of a full tribune !! In any case, the referee's decision is final and both players must agree on that. In fact, simply going on court to play a match with a referee officiating, you are accepting that referee's jurisdiction over any situation that may occur while on or off the court during that match. If you are yourself involved in coaching and playing, then you would be advised yourself NOT to turn on th e ball at any time. However, if the situation demands that you do turn, then DO NOT hit the ball and ask for a 'let'. Then you will be awarded a let, whatever the position of your opponent (unless the opponent is behind you towards the back of the court). I hope that this answer satisfies your questions - you will see that a referee must use their own interpretation; not everything is 'black-and-white' in squash. That's why we call refereeing an art, not a science. |
||
Continue ? |
Read on - Rules |
Read Guidelines |
