Rule 4 - THE SERVICE

Explanations & comments

Idea by Clive Pollard

Do you have any comments on the content or any suggestions ?

Please fill in our comments form

HAND-IN & HAND-OUT

This is probably the most difficult concept for non-native English speakers to understand. 'Hand-in' simply means the person who started the rally (i.e., the server). 'Hand-out' therefore means the person who did not start the rally (i.e., the receiver, or server's opponent).

The call of 'hand-out' is also used by the Marker to indicate that a change of server has occurred, i.e., the server from the previous rally has just lost that rally and now becomes 'hand-out' (in badminton, the call is 'service over').

Right or left ?

A player may start a match by serving from the left or right box; it is their own choice. However, some players seem to believe that they must start serving from the right box. As a Referee, it is not your decision as to the box from which a player should start to serve. If a player asks at the start of the hand-in from which side should the serve take place, simply ask your marker to call or call yourself "hand-out".

Racket spin

In Squash, we use the spin of the racket to decide who should serve first. However, our everso clever Rules do not indicate how the spin decides this : does the winner of the spin have any choice with respect to serving first or not ? Most players in the singles game seem to accept that, if they win the spin, then they start serving. However, this is not specified in the Rules. Should we make the Rule more clear ?

And why do we not use a coin as in tennis and many other sports ?

And why haven't racket manufacturers given us a clear indication on a racket which says 'my serve' and 'your serve' ? OK, OK we know that some do, but not all.

Wrong box

If a player actually does serve from the wrong box, without this being noticed by the players, Marker or Referee, the rally should be allowed to continue. Play should then continue as if the player served from the correct box.

There is no allowance for an error being made here, in the Rules - they simply require play to continue without trying to replay the point from the correct side. If a player stops after the serve, or sometime later in the rally and queries whether the serve was made from the correct side, then the referee has a difficult choice - how to determine why the player then stopped ? If the player was going to lose that rally, was that player just being clever by stopping ?

Let/stroke

The Rule clearly indicates that the server starting a rally serves again from the same box if that rally ends in a let.

What if the rally ends in the award of a 'stroke' ?

1. If the stroke is awarded to the server in that rally, then that player gains one point and starts the next rally by serving from the opposite box (unless by the gain of that point, the server wins the game or match).

2. If the stroke is awarded to the receiver in that rally, then that player (becomes 'hand-in' and) starts the next rally by serving from whichever box they choose.

Fault

Yes we know - there is no such thing as a 'fault' in squash these days! This call is the last of the great traditions in squash and goes back to the time when a server was allowed to serve again if the first serve was on or below the service (cut-)line, or bounced in the wrong quarter of the court. Most of you playing today will not even have been playing when the two-serve Rule was taken out of the game.

It really is about time, with the 2001 rewrite, to abolish this call, as any 'fault' on the serve is automatically 'hand-out', i.e., the server loses that rally. Exactly what call should be used in its place needs to be determined. In fact any ball hitting the wall or floor outside the designated area should be called 'out', as it is out of the required area.

What do you think ?

Not up

How many times do you hear a call of 'not up' to the situations described in Rules 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 ? OK, both calls are technically correct, but why not just call 'down' for consistency ?

A similar case can be made for Rule 4.4.7 - just call 'down'.

Footfault

In a similar way to the call of 'fault', this call of 'footfault' is now also incorrect. It is not a fault, it is simply 'hand-out' for the server.

However, there is a more serious side to this call and that is the fact that Referees tend to look at the 'footfault' call as proving that they know how to be a good referee. After numerous discussions with players and referees, we have come to the conclusion that this Rule is there simply to prevent a player taking unfair advantage from the serve.

As a Referee, you should look at 'footfaults' as being ignored and found totally uninteresting by almost all players. There are some who will take advantage, there are some who will complain. But if you call a 'footfault' for the first time to a player serving after 90 minutes at 9-9 in the 5^th game and that serve then hits a dead nick, you will be in trouble !!

There is, as yet, no real answer to this problem. You can look at the above example and say technically you were correct, however minor the infringement. But could you face that player some time later after they had lost that match ? Would you sleep well that night ?

Ball down centre

The service brings up one of the eternal inconsistencies about Squash Refereeing.

Take this example : the server serves the ball down the middle of the court, moving towards the T immediately. The receiver decides not to hit the return and appeals.

Almost all referees will allow a 'let' in this situation.

Put this situation in a normal rally (not the serve), and that same referee, with the ball travelling exactly the same path and the players in exactly the same positions, will award a 'stroke' to the intending striker.

This is seen to be 'fair' !! We need to get consistency into our decision making and prevent players from taking advantage of their poorly directed serve in this way.

Time wasting

Many times, we have seen a very tired player move to take up position to serve or receive, only to find them looking up and querying the calling of the score. In many cases they will have heard the score, but they are trying to gain a few precious extra seconds to recover.

As a Referee, you should be aware of this time-wasting situation and take action by warning a player who does this 'excessively'.

Continue ?

Read on - Rule 5

Return to Rules index