|
|
|
Would You Please Repeat That?
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 many e-mails I receive as a result of this column tell me two things: first, that a large number of people read this column; and second, that the message is not sinking in!
So this month’s column will illustrate a well-known teacher’s axiom: “Tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em; tell ‘em; then tell ‘em, what you told ‘em!” Topic of the month: the Front Wall.
At the PSA Tournament in Egypt in April, Jonathon Power played David Palmer in the final. At one point Power was refused a let, and the journalist who wrote the report for the tournament website commented that this was a good decision on the part of the referee because Power had “almost the whole front wall to hit to.”
The problem with this description is this: if Power had only almost the whole front wall to hit to, then it was certainly not a No Let, but either a Let or a Stroke (depending on where his opponent was standing). The striker must be given the entire front wall to hit to. So in this scenario either the journalist saw the situation incorrectly or the referee’s decision was wrong. Being a referee myself, I would be inclined to side with the referee and conclude that the journalist didn’t know the Rules.
Common Error
The fact that an experienced squash journalist would be so wrong about the Rules should be a consolation to a correspondent who wrote me the following:
 "You make the comment “If the opponent is in the way of a direct shot to any part of the front wall, and if the incoming striker can make a shot, the latter wins the rally.” My problem is the phrase ‘any part of the front wall.’ If my opponent serves and then immediately moves to the T, and the served ball comes close to the center line, then he is limiting me to about 1/3 of the front wall. His position at the T effectively blocks me from directly hitting the other 2/3 of the front wall. If I read your comment correctly, I should win the rally since he has blocked me from most of the front wall. But I don’t think this is right. I think that as long as I have any direct shot to the front wall, then I have to continue play. Please clarify."
The quick and dirty answer is: No, you certainly don’t have to play the ball if your opponent is blocking even a sliver of the front wall. It would be disastrous for squash (and your game particularly!) if you were expected to play the ball when you only had one-third of the front wall to hit to. You would be granting your opponent an enormous advantage by permitting him to limit your choice of shot to a portion of the front wall—after which he is in a great position to reach the ball with ease and put you under even more pressure. Why would you want to place yourself at such a disadvantage? Your opponent has the entire front wall to hit to‚ and you are content to play only one-third of it. In effect, you are letting him confine your shots to one-third of the court, whereas you are covering all of it. You are a very generous man!
It’s obvious: unless the non-striker gives the incoming striker the entire front wall, the non-striker is gaining an unfair advantage. If the Rules were to say that you had to play the ball, what if you only had one-tenth of the front wall to hit to—and who is to say how much of the visible front wall is enough so that you had to play the shot?
Up to about 12 years ago the Rules said “the front wall and the side-wall near the front wall.” The second half of that was dropped because it was too imprecise. But it has always been recognized that you should also have the room to play a crosscourt or a reverse angle if you choose to do so.
The Rule is clear—and has been for many decades: your opponent must give you the entire front wall to hit to—otherwise your freedom to play the shot of your choice is being impeded, and you win the rally.
The only qualification in respect of this Rule concerns the situation where, due to the position of the ball, the striker cannot physically hit the ball to the entire front wall. Imagine that the ball is somewhat past the striker who can now only hit the ball down the rail (or hit a boast). Under those circumstances the non-striker does not have an obligation to grant the striker the entire front wall, just the portion to which the striker can actually hit the ball.
Under normal playing circumstances, however—that is, 95% of the time—the striker must be given the entire front wall to hit to.
End of class. Study this chapter. There will be a test next time. Those who fail will have to learn the actual Rule Book by heart. Good luck. |
| |
|
|
|
Feb 2008
(click for contents)
|
