Kent Squash & Racketball
Leagues . News . Forums
A Casual Observation
No longer playing but having spectated at some of the local matches (at various levels) I thought that I'd bring the following to people's attention. It's very sound advice which can be read in full on the squashmagazine.com website.
"A 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."
Views: 336
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Woods on -
I agree with all of that Phill, and it's the markers need to be more aware to enforce the rules properly.
I had a match a few weeks ago where I was given a no let on 2 or 3 occasions from my opponents drive to the back left of the court, (my forehand) with my opponent not clearing his shot either quick enough or in what I would call the right way out, he was basically in my path before I even made any movement towards the ball and his clearing the shot was also into my direction to the ball.
This could have been down to where I was standing possibly, or the fact his footwork was not quite right which left him slightly out of position, either way he was in my path to the ball he had just hit which stopped me moving in towards the ball quite a quickly as I perhaps would have done had he not been there, as I knew contact was inevitable. The marker must have seen this as a lack of effort, and not me being aware and reading the ball, myself and my opponents movement.
Because the marker said I could have played it earlier (in the service box area I guess) and he thought I had not made enough effort to 'get around him', I got 'no let' every time. In the end I had no option other than to push through rather than stop prior to heavy contact - as you can imagine I was very frustrated, and my pushing caused problems with the marker and my opponent. I had no other options though, and on the occasion I pushed I got my let ball, and a pi55ed off opponent.
I said at the time that it's my choice where, when and how I play a shot and I have to have a path to the ball available, even if the ball dies in the corner, I have to be given the chance to hit it, as at the point of contact or obstruction the ball is still in play which is when I stopped and asked, what happens after the call I think is pretty much incidental.
Another thing that frustrates me.
I have worked my opponent out of position, he has then played a fairly loose shot and is in front of me, and I have about half of the front wall available to play a straight drive or straight drop. But I want to take advantage of his bad shot and bad positioning by taking a very early quick shot. I want to for example play a deep cross court volley from mid court, or a soft cutting cross court drop shot back to the opposite front corner. (This happened playing JP the other night) and I can't because he is between me and the point on the front wall I need to hit, stopping this shot and any other cross court option completely. I stop and ask and get told I could have hit the ball onto the left of the wall and played a straight shot, basically where my opponent could easily get it and get back into the rally - this is not my choice obviously as I know this and have chosen to stop and ask.
As part of the rules, surely a stroke should be enforced as the punishment, and it not be me who is penalised for wanting to play something more difficult to return or read to take advantage. I am not looking for a 'cheap stroke', but for the rules to be enforced, I should not be limited in my shot selection because someone is in my way, and if this obstruction is stopping me from hitting a shot with a direct path to the front wall, the rules say it's a stroke, not a 'you could have hit it straight' reply from the marker.
-
Permalink Reply by George Bushell on -
I don't normally bother with the forum these days as you end up taking more stick than it's worth (and know doubt will happen again this time !) However, fully agree with both points made by Tom and Phil. The reason I have stuck my two peneth in is because I have made calls whilst marking in the last couple of weeks which totally replicate the scenarios mentioned above. I won't name names but I had the privilage to mark a really top notch game that got very tense in the 5th and I had to make a call when player one hit a tight drop but it didn't hit the nick. Player two I could see had anticipated the drop and was moving to the front to make the retreval. Player one clearly thought he had hit a winning shot and went mental when player two asked for a let. That was nothing compared to his reaction when I gave the let and the reason I explained was because player two had every right to take a direct line to the ball. That apparently was 'a load of *ollocks'. Player two went on to win and apparently it was down to 'crap marking'.
The instance Tom is refering too regarding choice of shot when player one is obstructing a partial area of the front wall is a little more tricky to call as you need to take into account whether the player was clear enough at the point when player two wants to play his shot and if player one is making every effort to clear. That said, I have made 2 calls this season where I have given the stroke as I did think the front wall hadn't been cleared in time. Again, I gave the reason for the stroke being given because player one hadn't cleared. In both cases I was informed by player one 'there was loads of room to play that' indicating the area of the front wall he was not obstructing. Although in both cases the rant wasn't to bad, I was told in no uncertain terms that I didn't have a clue about the rules.
What does make me chuckle is the people who shout and bawl most on court are the same people you very rarely see marking and when they do their bloody awful !!
Tom Woods said:I agree with all of that Phill, and it's the markers need to be more aware to enforce the rules properly.
I had a match a few weeks ago where I was given a no let on 2 or 3 occasions from my opponents drive to the back left of the court, (my forehand) with my opponent not clearing his shot either quick enough or in what I would call the right way out, he was basically in my path before I even made any movement towards the ball and his clearing the shot was also into my direction to the ball.
This could have been down to where I was standing possibly, or the fact his footwork was not quite right which left him slightly out of position, either way he was in my path to the ball he had just hit which stopped me moving in towards the ball quite a quickly as I perhaps would have done had he not been there, as I knew contact was inevitable. The marker must have seen this as a lack of effort, and not me being aware and reading the ball, myself and my opponents movement.
Because the marker said I could have played it earlier (in the service box area I guess) and he thought I had not made enough effort to 'get around him', I got 'no let' every time. In the end I had no option other than to push through rather than stop prior to heavy contact - as you can imagine I was very frustrated, and my pushing caused problems with the marker and my opponent. I had no other options though, and on the occasion I pushed I got my let ball, and a pi55ed off opponent.
I said at the time that it's my choice where, when and how I play a shot and I have to have a path to the ball available, even if the ball dies in the corner, I have to be given the chance to hit it, as at the point of contact or obstruction the ball is still in play which is when I stopped and asked, what happens after the call I think is pretty much incidental.
Another thing that frustrates me.
I have worked my opponent out of position, he has then played a fairly loose shot and is in front of me, and I have about half of the front wall available to play a straight drive or straight drop. But I want to take advantage of his bad shot and bad positioning by taking a very early quick shot. I want to for example play a deep cross court volley from mid court, or a soft cutting cross court drop shot back to the opposite front corner. (This happened playing JP the other night) and I can't because he is between me and the point on the front wall I need to hit, stopping this shot and any other cross court option completely. I stop and ask and get told I could have hit the ball onto the left of the wall and played a straight shot, basically where my opponent could easily get it and get back into the rally - this is not my choice obviously as I know this and have chosen to stop and ask.
As part of the rules, surely a stroke should be enforced as the punishment, and it not be me who is penalised for wanting to play something more difficult to return or read to take advantage. I am not looking for a 'cheap stroke', but for the rules to be enforced, I should not be limited in my shot selection because someone is in my way, and if this obstruction is stopping me from hitting a shot with a direct path to the front wall, the rules say it's a stroke, not a 'you could have hit it straight' reply from the marker.
-
Permalink Reply by Duane Harrison on -
What makes me chuckle is that the people who bawl and shout most on court are the same people from the week before, and the week before that, and the week before that etc etc....... ;)
Why is this?!
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Woods on
-
It's because of the markers lack of knowledge most of the time and the frustration that causes.
Some people just accept it and play on, and others feel the rules have not been enforced correctly and want to know why, and want the marker to explain the reason behind the bad call.
I know I get frustrated, and it's not always that I want to change the decision, but that I want them to tell me why I am wrong, which in most cases they can't.
Goes back to what Phill was saying I guess.
-
Permalink Reply by andy brackstone on -
Did anyone go to the marking course last year? I understood that if you could not go directly to the ball and you racquet was up and ready to play the shot then this is a stroke; or are you using the work 'let' as a generic term?
-
Permalink Reply by Phill Crane on -
There's a difference between just getting your racket on the ball and getting in position and being ready to play.
Take a look at the following on youtube and the ref's decisions, and then view the comments by SquashReferee - probably the worst decision is in the seventh example where Power actually reaches the ball and the decision by the ref is no let.
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Woods on
-
I think the distance between the player and the ball is key. Two players with no space getting tangled up and a loose ball could end in a stroke, and I think a path from the front corner to the opposite rear to pick up a shot with contact on the 'T' I don't think should be a stroke.
I think you have to be in the general area of the ball moving towards it and clearly able to have played it directly to the front wall, with your opponent stopping you by their bad positioning.
-
Permalink Reply by John Creek on -
Yes, but wasn't the point of the video to show that most of the decisions were wrong? Look at this one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=eIn0Ix063ZY
and it might be interesting to ask the views of messrs Garner and Lennox, who feature in the audiences.
If you buy the World Squash Marking video, and listen carefully, you will find that many of the decisions in the accompanying booklet are different from the ones made at the time of the clips.
Isn't it odd that most of us say 'I think the decision should be so and so', rather than 'the rules say'.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Steeden on -
it's funny how there are no decent markers around, yet when we play there are always two experts on the court!
The professionals have to make every attempt to play the ball these days as shown when watching squash on TV, running round players, which contadicts the rules according to Phil's post.
Just get on with the game
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Woods on
-
Surely the stroke and let rules are there to keep the game fair and safe in between the hitting of the ball so no one gains any advantage.
The only two elements that a player should be able to use over his opponent should be fitness and shot selection, and not positioning themselves in such a way to limit shot selection to gain an unfair advantage.
A marker not following the rules may as well be saying you should have played a boast or off the back wall as he wasn't in the way then - no let.
If the rules state one thing they should be followed, if they change these existing rules then we play to those new rules not make our own up because we think something different.
Having said that it's never easy and when a match is tight the decisions are always difficult.
© 2012 Created by Mark Lennox.
