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! |
One of the most common and most contentious episodes of the game of squash is this: From about half-court you attempt to hit a tight rail shot, but the ball does not behave itself and comes back off the front wall three or four feet away from the side-wall. As you complete your followthrough, you see that the stupid ball will soon be heading straight for you instead of tight down the rail.
So immediately you leap away (towards the center of the court), while your opponent leaps the other way (towards the ball) – and he or she calls “let”, fully expecting to win the rally, because you are in the way of a direct shot to the front wall.
If Stewart Boswell (R) asks for a let as this photo is taken, the ref has to decide if Thierry Lincou (L) as in the direct path to the frontwall, if Boswell had chosen to hit the wall. If yes, it could be a stroke to Boswell. If no, it could not be any more than a let. Photo by Steve Line/Squashpics.com Archives.
This is the moment when the “discussion” begins: You claim that you were just clear at the moment “let” was called and the ball could be hit. Your opponent, however, firmly believes that you were still in the way of a shot to the front wall – that you “crossed the flight” of the ball on its return from the front wall, thereby placing yourself in the way.
Who is right?
This is one of the most difficult situations to judge, because one player is going one way, and the other player is going the other way, and the ball is coming right between them. In other words, the situation is very fluid, and the correct outcome is determined by where the two players and the ball are at a particular instant in time.
At one instant the outgoing striker (who just hit that fabulous rail shot) is in the way of a shot to the front wall), and the next instant he or she is clear. The key issues are these:
1. Was the incoming striker able to hit the opponent with the ball going directly to the front wall? In order to win the rally, you must be able to hit the ball (i.e. the ball must be within the range of your swing), your racket must be in the ready position, and you must be able to hit your opponent (but you don’t, of course).
2. At the precise moment when the incoming striker could have played the ball to the front wall, where was the outgoing striker? Was he or she still in the way of a direct shot to the front wall, or had he or she got out of the way just in time?
These questions won’t solve all the arguments – there is no magic formula for that. But if applied honestly by both players, they will allow you to come to better and fairer decisions.
Of course, if you hit the sort of rail shot described above and simply stand there, admiring it, nothing can help you. Unless your opponent is lying on the floor, you will lose the rally by virtue of being in the way of a direct shot to the front wall. Take your medicine, walk across the court to receive the next serve – and resolve to hit better rail shots in future. |
| |
|
