Hey, Ref, There's a Fly in My Soup!

Distractions During Play

By Rod Symington, W.S.F. Rules and Referees Committee

Illustration By Tony Cristovich

Rod Symington is on the WSF Rules and Referees Committee and is a consultant on Rules and Refereeing to the USA. He has also been the Tournament Referee for, among others, the Women's Worlds, Pan Am Games, and Junior Men's and Women's Worlds. To contact Rod with questions or to enquire about clinics and his Squash Rules for Players, email him at symingto@uvic.ca

Get the WSF's Rules of Squash!

The Men's World Championships in Egypt in September were played in the spectacular venue of a glass court erected outdoors in front of the pyramids. Thus the players were performing in unusual conditions and had to adjust accordingly. In one match Jonathon Power suddenly stopped in the middle of a rally and asked for a let on the grounds that he had been distracted by an insect flying into his eye. If you had been the Referee, what would your decision have been?

Hey ref! There is a fly in my eye!

According to Rule 13.1: “A let may be allowed ... If, in the opinion of the Referee, either player is distracted by an occurrence on or off the court.” Should a fly in your eye be considered “An occurrence on the court?” We'll answer this question at the end of the article, but first some basic principles.

Distraction

1. This is one of the rare occasions where either player has the right to ask for a let. In almost all other instances only the striker has the right to ask for a let; the non-striker must keep quiet.

2. If you believe you have been distracted and you want a let, you must stop play immediately and request it. If you play your shot (or several shots), you may not wind back the clock and say: “Oh, I was actually distracted before that shot and shouldn't have played it. May I have a let, please?” Even your exemplary politeness won't get you a let under these circumstances. At all times, making an attempt to play the ball means: “I was ready to play the ball and nothing that happened on or off the court was sufficiently serious to prevent my attempt.”

At the Women's World Open in Seattle in October, a stupid press photographer took a flash picture through the front wall during a rally. The rally continued for a few more shots before it ended, but neither player had stopped and asked for a let. A request for a let at the end of the rally would have been too late. So remember: In all instances, if you want a let, don't play the ball!

3. If you are claiming distraction, it had better be something significant—your opponent's bad breath won't suffice. Examples of things that would justify an appeal for a let on the basis of distraction are: something falling from the gallery into the court, a baby crying or another loud noise from the gallery, a mobile phone ringing (grrr!), a door slamming loudly, the buzzer sounding at the end of a playing session, etc. On-court distractions would include a ball coming in from a neighboring court, your opponent stamping his feet or shouting just as you are about to hit the ball, your opponent falling down just as you are about to make your shot, etc. (In Argentina, at the Pan-American Games in 1995, a frog on court halted play.) All these situations require a judgement call by the Referee: Was the distraction serious enough? Was it accidental or deliberate?

For the sake of fairness, referees should err on the side of generosity. After all, it is really not possible to place oneself in the mind of a player and know for certain whether or not the distraction put the player off. In most situations (except the most frivolous), the appeal for a let should be sufficient evidence that the player was, indeed, distracted.

In most instances, a let will be the appropriate result of the rally. However, in the case of deliberate distraction (e.g., the opponent's shouting or stamping the feet), this is clearly unfair play and the proper decision of the Referee would be to award a stroke under Rule 17: Conduct on Court.

Fallen Object

Another form of distraction occurs when the opponent drops something, such as eyeguards, coins from the pocket, a wristwatch or (God forbid!) the racquet. This situation is now covered under a separate Rule (Rule 7.8) that stipulates that a) the Referee must stop play immediately (for safety reasons); b) the player who dropped the object loses the rally (you'd better make sure that all of your equipment is secured about your person!); but c) a dropped racquet may be picked up (by the player who dropped it, naturally) and play may continue. If you are the striker and are distracted by the fallen racquet, you may of course stop play and ask for a let.

One final note: In all the above situations, if in the Referee's judgement the distraction interrupted a winning shot (or had no effect on the final shot of the rally), the principle of “fair outcome” is applied: the striker wins the rally.

Decision Time

So what do we tell dear Jonathon—who in another match, having lost a long and furious rally, proclaimed to the referee: “There must be something in that rally I can appeal!” This is clearly a judgement call—and not an easy one—but in my opinion flying insects were a common problem on the court, thus making play difficult for both players. Picture yourself on your home court: a speck of dust (or a fly!) gets into your eye: would you think you have a right to let under such circumstances? You could, I suppose, argue for one and hope that the referee is more generous than I am and agrees with you. Good luck!