New Wording and a New Proposal
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! |
By now we all know that if you swing at the ball and your opponent is in the way of your swing, you win the rally, right? Well, yes and....er, not quite
It is important to keep in mind at all times that if your swing is prevented, you win the rally. This is because your opponent (who has just hit the ball) has the obligation to permit you “freedom to hit the ball with a reasonable swing.”
So far, so good. However, since May 1, 2001, the Rules have introduced some subtle new wording that distinguishes between a swing that is prevented, and a swing that is merely affected.
Guideline G8 reads (in part):
“If the striker stops play as a result of slight racquet contact with the opponent, who is making every effort to clear, the Referee shall allow a let.”
So what does this mean in practice?
It means that if your opponent is making every effort to get out of your way, but that as you swing you touch him or her slightly with your racquet, and you stop and call let, it is a let. The most important aspect of this scenario lies in the fact that if the full swing still takes place, the swing is not prevented (i.e., you can’t take a full swing), but only affected (i.e., the slight touch puts you off, but does not prevent the full swing from occurring).
I am sure that we can all see where this is going to lead: to yet more disagreements and arguments on the squash court. Where does the dividing line lie between “prevent” and “affect”? A referee can set a standard for the match and apply it to both players equitably, but what happens in a so-called “friendly” game—who decides then if my swing was “prevented” or merely “affected”?
Squash demands a large degree of fair play from players in friendly games: calling your shot “not up” when the ball bounces twice, offering your opponent a stroke when you are in the way, only taking a let (and not a stroke) if that’s really what you are entitled to. And in this instance, too, fair play will have to prevail if the game is not to deteriorate into an ugly war.
If you are the player whose swing is affected by the position of your opponent, it will be incumbent upon you to be honest and say, “That’s only a let: my swing was not prevented, and you were making every effort to get out of the way.”
However, if your opponent truly prevented your reasonable swing at the ball, you have every right to expect to be offered the stroke. And if you are the guilty party, you should be honestenough to offer your opponent the stroke.
New Proposal
While attending the World Festival of Squash in Melbourne in October, I heard a very intriguing proposal from a professional player: a player who stops play and asks for a let should have to ask for precisely what he wants. If he wants a let, he says: “Let, please.” But if he wants a stroke, he must say: “Stroke, please.”
Now here’s the trick: the player can never get more than what he asks for. So if he asks for a let, he can only get a let (and never a stroke). But if he asks for a stroke, and the referee believes it is only a let, the decision is “No let”!
What is the point of this? To stop players from “fishing” for strokes. Some players, especially at the top levels, ask for too many lets, hoping that the referee will give them a stroke or two in the course of the match. (It is not unusual for there to be upwards of 80 let calls in a professional match.) This system discourages (in theory) the asking for lets in the hope of getting a stroke, because if you ask for let, that’s all you can get. And if you ask for a stroke when it isn’t, you end up losing the rally! The ultimate aim is to make the game flow more, and to reduce stoppages.
I’d like to see this system tried out during a tournament, to see if it really does cut down on the number of lets that players ask for.
|
| |
|
