Squash Magazine

Notes from the British Open
Referees cracking under pressure

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

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 British Open was held in early June 2002—as it will be for the next several years—in the magnificent venue of the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham. A splendid glass court is surrounded by arena seating, from which several hundred spectators can follow the action. As is all-too-usual at such major events, however, the refereeing position is less than ideal, being far behind the back wall (nothing is allowed to spoil the pretty television picture).

The men’s draw saw the early exit of No. 1 seed Jonathon Power (the John Daly of squash), the surprise defeat of Peter Nicol (by Englishman Lee Beachill) in the quarterfinal, and the incredible run of the oldest player in the draw, 33-year-old unseeded Chris Walker, who reached the final (won in five games by David Palmer of Australia, who is now No. 1 in the world rankings).

On the women’s side, the return to prominence and dominance by Sarah Fitz-Gerald produced a semifinal—in which she beat defending champion Leilani Joyce in five games—that was the real final, because in the final itself, after a tight first game (10-8), Fitz-Gerald utterly dominated Carol Owens (9-1, 9-1).

The most striking conclusion I drew from watching the later matches (the semifinals and the finals) was that the referees—with only one exception—universally cracked under the strain of the match and made major errors.

The simple fact of the matter is that a single referee in a pressure-filled situation is under too much stress to render dispassionate, objective decisions for the duration of a high-level squash match. Even a match in a local tournament is a daunting challenge for many people who are called on to referee. As the importance of the match increases—from a local final to the final of the British—the strain on the referee increases geometrically. It is twice as hard to referee a semifinal as a quarterfinal; and twice as hard again to referee a final. To the stress of the occasion is added the almost inevitable conflict with one or both of the players.

In this regard most players have always failed to understand that by adding to the burden on the referee they cannot hope to receive better calls. In every situation the reverse is true: when assailed by criticism by a player, the referee will inevitably make worse calls. The sensible course of action by players would be to attempt to reduce the strain on the referee by not arguing.

That may be too much to ask of some players, whose behavior on court often verges on the pathological. There have always been “bad boys” in squash (and the occasional “bad girl” too), but the inaction of the ruling body of the PSA has had a devastating impact on the worldwide image of squash.

Readers may be thinking: But aren’t the referees at the international level trained and experienced enough to deal with pressure situations? The fact is that even the most experienced referees in the world are overawed by the magnitude of the event: the importance of the match, the hundreds of spectators, the presence of TV cameras. The astonishing thing is that the spectators—reclining in comparative comfort and under no pressure at all—often can (and do) render better calls than the referee does!

Jonathon Power—and this is no surprise—has an opinion on these issues. He claims that “elderly amateurs” should not referee the young professionals at the top of the game. He may be right—it seems to me to make no sense at all for the two professional associations (PSA and WISPA) to rely on another (amateur) association (the World Squash Federation) to provide them with referees. Professional organizations that run their own sports ought to provide their own referees, too. But before the situation can be improved, both the PSA and WISPA will have to commit themselves to a positive program for improving refereeing. So far, in their history, their players have shown no interest at all, nor have they done anything except exacerbate the situation by constantly criticizing match referees.

Since the PSA and WISPA control their own fate—to the extent that they even change the Rules of Squash to suit themselves—they could begin by announcing that any form of dissent or other bad behavior be penalized immediately by a penalty point. That would instantly cure bad behavior, reduce the pressure on referees, and greatly enhance the image of the sport. And since what happens at the highest level of the sport sets the tone for lesser mortals from Dubai to Duluth, a fine example of sportsmanship shown at the top would have a salutary effect of behavior at all levels of play.

Of course, there will not be professional referees in squash until there is the money to pay them adequately—and the chances of that in the near future are less than slim.