By Stu Hadden
(and Mick’s 2¢)
Refereeing in my opinion is one of the major problems which faces squash, particularly in relation to its exclusion from the Olympics. It seems that even seasoned pro refs barely have a basic grasp on the rules at times and so where on earth does that leave the average spectator? In part I think this is due to the PSA trying to minimize interference to make the sport more watchable but it has left a lot of confusion and almost a different rule set for pro and amateur players.
I’ll jump in early here. Refereeing at the pro level is emphatically difficult. Made even more so because as far as I know, none of the official world referees have ever played squash at the elite level. Understanding the pace and nuances of the game is virtually impossible if one has never personally experienced it. Olympic exclusion is because of many reasons (money being one them!), and undeniably refereeing is up there. But, I also think that many of the players’ negative reactions to the referring has a significant bearing on it too. That’s a story for another day, however.
I feel that the rules need to be simplified somewhat as it has all gotten a little bit confusing at the pro level and that going back to the normal rules would help tidy up the sport. A let is usually called by an incoming player looking to play a ball if the opponent has obstructed the path to it. A basic perspective on this is that a let should be awarded if the opponent is in the way of you moving to the ball. This is contingent on the opponent trying to clear the shot, however if one makes no effort to clear the ball and you would have reached it, then that is a stroke. Obviously as pro athletes, top players are expected to do a better job of clearing the ball and so the margins for clearing at pro level are finer than what is expected of an amateur player, and therefore lets would be given in a more lenient fashion. A basic ‘no let’ is given if the incoming player has looked for the man and has no intention of playing the ball, should have played the ball, or could not have reached it because the shot was too good.
The expectation of the striker to make every effort to hit the ball and the non-striker every effort to clear the shot is simple enough to comprehend. Interpreting an on court situation in real time in a split second is not. What is considered “every effort”? What is the right path to the ball? How much does the non-striker have to clear? It’s probably impossible to define. No two scenarios are identical, and the conundrum that the referee has to contend with is that they are asked to predict what would have happened if there wasn’t any interference to begin with.
There are times, more so in pro squash than amateur, where a basic let can become a stroke because the outgoing player has deliberately blocked the opponent. This can be very confusing to referees and spectators who have not played at the pro level because blocking is, sadly, as close to an art as rolling a cross court nick from a backhand overhead. The better a player is at blocking, the harder it is to tell. The most subtle of movements onto an opponent’s hip as they are coming round is just enough to put them off balance, but they are still allowing them to get through to the ball, thus hugely interfering with their shot but making most referees take the opinion of, “Mr Hadden, you needed to play that ball.” This can lead to situations where players are gaining an upper hand by purposefully creating interference as a tactic. The more experienced the referee, the more subtle and minimal one must make the interference in order to get away with such behavior. This is considered bad etiquette at best and outright cheating at worst depending on your perspective on such matters.
The “minimal interference” rule was introduced a few years ago, which I believe has made the application of the let even more inconsistent. The premise behind it was to stop asking for “soft lets” and force players to accept “minimal” contact and not continuously stop rallies to ask for a let. But what may appear to be minimum or innocuous contact between players is often significant enough to completely affect a player’s movement or stroke. As Stu just mentioned, some players have turned this tactic into a finely tuned skill: blocking. So is this still a let? Or even a stroke? Very often, a no let is awarded, which just encourages the blocker to continue the practice.
Generally speaking, a stroke is different from a let in that the opponent is interfering with you striking the ball so long as it is going directly to the front wall as opposed to you moving to it. Again, the striker may be penalized with a ‘no let’ if they made no effort to play the ball and instead wrapped their racquet around the opponent looking to create the interference. In essence, the rules generally look to penalize a player for creating any type of interference, whether it be a failure to clear, a failure to attempt to play a ball, or a deliberate ploy to try and manufacture interference in order to get a cheap point. A referee must be experienced at the level they are officiating in order to make quick game-time judgment calls on overlapping and grey areas.
Blocking is the main situation in the pro game where a let is not a let. There are, however, common situations more so at amateur levels where a stroke is not a stroke. The primary ones which spring to mind are examples of what is termed as “dangerous play”. If a player turns on a ball and then hits the opponent with it, even if the ball is going directly to the front wall, this is a stroke against the striker for dangerous play. Should the same situation occur again, at any level, it is common practice for the referee to continue using the code of conduct and give a stroke as well as a penalty point. If it happens again it would be conduct game. This is because when you turn on a ball you completely lose perception of where your opponent is on the court and so hitting it directly to the front wall is considered dangerous. In this situation amateurs should absolutely not play this ball. There will be times when top pros will turn and play this shot, although just like the margins for clearing being finer, the margins for dangerous play are also finer. I have watched Daryl Selby thread a squash ball through a toilet roll live on Instagram on his first attempt from 20 feet. These guys have awareness and ball control far beyond our comprehension and I have never seen it happen where they have turned and hit a ball anywhere near the opponent.
Turning also puts the non-striker immediately and directly in the way. They simply have nowhere to hide. Although turning is part of the rules, I strongly believe it should be banned at the amateur level. All too often I have seen members turn unnecessarily. I would venture to guess 95% of all turns are unwarranted and are done because the player is either too lazy to back up and hit it on their backhand, or simply don’t like the fact that the ball is too deep in the back wall / corner to return effectively and the easiest way to get out of it is to turn. The other 5% is when a turn would be the absolute only option to return a shot and if that ever happens, then one should never hit the ball. Ask for a let. One more point - turning should also never happen on a return of serve.
Dangerous play in amateurs is not only limited to turning on a ball though and the same line should be taken for any situation in which one player consistently hits another with a ball. Even if the opponent is heavily encroaching, you should not hit them with the ball more than once. One thing which we commonly see is when a player hits a decent straight drive, stands on the T and then the opponent from the back wall tries to hit an extreme angle and hits the opponent with the ball. This is not a stroke, and not only is it not a stroke but it is terrible etiquette, bad sportsmanship and dangerous play. If you find yourself consistently hitting different opponents with a shot, particularly going cross court off the back wall when they have not taken up an extreme T position, then you need to select a different shot. Chances are it is you creating a dangerous situation for your opponent and you creating the interference to try to gain the upper hand from a deservedly bad position while buried in the back of the court. To put perspective on it I have hit one person with the ball in a match since college (I framed it into Mick Joint’s back).
I am questioning Stu’s “frame” shot…!
This goes both ways. As discussed before, the non-striker has the obligation to clear their shot. We often see a player hit a ball down the wall into the back corner and in the attempt and belief that they are returning to the ’T’, frequently plant themselves close to the service box instead. This is cutting off the angle for the striker to be able to hit a normal (non-extreme angle as Stu put it) crosscourt and have voluntarily, albeit unaware, put themselves in harms way. One major reason players do this is because they are not watching the ball, but are staring at the front wall instead and have no idea what is happening behind them. If a player is struck with the ball in these situations, they have no one else to blame but themselves. It’s also a clear stroke. It not only hurts, but you lose the point as well. As the striker, Stu said you shouldn’t hit your opponent more than once… I’d rather you didn’t hit your opponent at all to be honest!
Overall I think it is fair to say that the interference rules are there in order to create a fun, safe, and free flowing game, and when people view it like that and observe them properly we will create a more enjoyable sport with less arguments and a fairer outcome than we often see. Clear your shots, play the ball when possible, and do not hit the opponent with the ball or racquet, it really is bad form.
I can’t argue with that. Apply common sense. At the club level, it is best when you look at the let rule as straightforwardly as possible without the ‘fluff’. 99% of the time, you will be playing without a referee and adjudicating yourselves. You should know if you are making every effort to get to the ball, making every effort to clear the ball, whether you could or couldn’t reach the ball. Last consideration: If your opponent is asking for a let it is because they think it is one. Arguing ‘no-let’ is rather pointless. And unless it’s an obvious stroke… play a let. Safety and sportsmanship first.
