Calling Foul
When is the Interference “Created”?
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! |
Recently, I received an e-mail message that described a very common scenario and asked an equally common question:
The interference rule entitles a player to direct access to the ball. But sometimes a player chooses a direct path to the ball that would lead through his opponent, when he has another path to the ball that would not involve interference. In choosing the path that involves interference, is the player not, in effect, creating his own interference?
Here’s a recent example I saw:
From midcourt, player A hits a straight volley down the right-hand wall. The ball will bounce perhaps a foot behind the midcourt line, still near the right wall. He clears toward the T, expecting player B to try and retrieve the ball from the rear of the court.
Player B, however, springs toward the right wall, hoping to reach the ball before it passes him. But he collides with player A and asks for a let.
Player B could perhaps have just reached the ball and played it had they not collided. Nonetheless, I’d like to say “no let” since his movement unnecessarily led to the interference. Player B would have had an easier shot if he’d moved behind player A and played the ball from the back of the court, and there would have been no interference. Furthermore, if I allow player B this let, this could deter player A from playing future volley rails from the midcourt.
Here is my reply:
If I have understood your scenario correctly, the player a) is not "creating" interference under the Rules, and b) is entitled to a let.
The player has a right to go directly to the ball, and if the opponent is in the way of his direct path to the ball, a let is the correct outcome—as long as the player would have been able to reach the ball and make a good return.
The player does not have to choose to go to the ball on a path that avoids interference. You can't say to a player, "You could have played the ball over there with no interference, but you chose to play it here where interference occurred, so no let." The player always has the right to choose to play the ball wherever he wants to play it—and as long as his direct path would have taken him to the ball before it has bounced twice, he is entitled to a let.
As far as that chosen path "deterring" further volleys is concerned, that is not quite true: as a player, you have the right to play a volley whenever you want. However, if your opponent can go directly to the ball and if his path to the ball takes him into you (resulting in a let every time), that's your choice; you chose that shot, you must live with the consequences. If you don't want that to happen repeatedly, hit a different (i.e., better) shot!
Under the Rules, created interference occurs when a player has a direct, unobstructed path to the ball, but deliberately deviates from the direct line and runs into you instead, asking for a let. (This is often called “playing the body,” instead of the ball.) In such a situation “no let” is the correct outcome, because, in effect, the player is cheating: he wants a cheap let instead of making the effort to go and play the ball. A cheat does not deserve a let. |
| |
|
