I asked the squash coordinator at my club about this issue. She is a qualified squash referee assessor.

She confirmed that the player would NOT be entitled to a let due to an opponent being in the path to the ball.
It is the incoming players responsibility to make every effort to play the ball, and so the onus is on them to run around their opponent.

Being on the T (for example) and dropping to a corner, making your opponent run around you is fine because interference hasn't occurred at the point where the ball would be played.
The player in good position has hit away from them self and is therefore not liable to concede a let.

Back to top

Hi Guys

Here's an example of created interference and disrepect for the ref and opponent(player;s are not supposed to tell or influence the ref's judgement/ unfair to his opponent),.

Written by Mr. Martin Bronstein(issue2006/2) on Jonathan Powers

 "On occasions his speed was staggering. There were times when he knew where the ball was going knew that his opponent would be on the way and was appealing and giving his reasons to the ref before the ball had bounced."

No disrespect to JP. , I admire his game and love to watch him play  and like him as a great champion, but not the greatesr champion of all time, as one "Billy' proclaimed and insisted( must be a Canadian). 

That shd belong to the two JK's whom. during their reign, seldom love to players outside the top 5.

Cheers

Edmond

 

Back to top

Fishnicker is right, I remember reading some discussion on a mailing list between psa refs, including Graham Waters siting this exact Khan article and how it is wrong.  
I think the rules state that as soon as you have played your shot, then you need to clear the ball to allow your opponent access to it.  Doesn't matter if they've played a rubbish shot or not.  Taking a direct line to the ball is not "creating interference".  It is the responsibility of the non-striker to clear.  I see "creating interference" as when you run into your opponent instead of taking a straight line to the ball so as to get a let.  You know there is always one guy at the club who does that ;-).
Most people you play against will simply let the point go if they've made a bad shot and trapped themselves in the back corners and you make a reasonable shot, but I agree that it you are entitled to a let (if you could have made the return).

Back to top

Great replies everyone.  I just have one thing to add regarding Mr. Khan's advice...

It works!  It's a great way of punishing your opponent for weak shots, and it wins you some rallies, and it frustrates your opponent. 

Cheers,

Dan

Back to top

Congrats to fishnicker - what a great answer. You must be a politician or peacemaker not sure which. I guess the only question left is for the Ref to decide when the players are of sufficient standard to ref to the convention rather than the rules. I take all your points and really well explained. Just as a final comment we have in our local comp a player who is considerably better than the rest of us (I think he likes the red wine and supper) and he plays at very high State grade in Adelaide and at times he seems mystified by our refereeing calls - He is expecting convention to apply due to our bad positioning once he has run us ragged - Guess what - we ref by the rules and if he's on the B line to the ball you know the call!!!!!   cheers guys good forum - I' im Impressed.

Back to top

I think Rita's point number FOUR is the deciding factor here:

4. Did  the obstructed player create the interference in moving to the ball? - Yes (No let).  If NO, the player would have made a good return

If in any given situation a player is judged to have created his own interference, thn he shall be given NO LET for his next shot. In the case of him putting himself in a position of disadvantage where he will undoubtedly suffer from interference, then clearly it is his fault that interference occurs.

 

So next time someone traps themselves behind you, play a good shot away from yourself and they then have to get passed you WITHOUT interference to retrieve the ball. This rule APPLICATION really helps those with better court position, so start working on getting and holding that T position!

Back to top

.HI Guys,

World Squash Rules apply to all levels of players and so both players in court have equal rights and opportunies to exploit them to their avantange in a game and it's the referee's job to make sure that his intrepreation is Fair to both parties involved.

Therefore, shud u, guys got on the wrong end of a referee's call and it's result's in match point to yr opponent, Be a Good Sport and shake yr opponent's hand for a gd match

It takes two hands to clap, and the match in in yr hands, if you play badly, don't put the blame on the ref., he's not out there to rob u of yr earnings (gd or bad ref) he's doing his job.

So do yr's best playing Good squash and not rubbish. and if yr best is not good enough, train harder.( otherwise quit and not be apain to others. Ha! Ha!)

Cheers

Edmond( a qualifed ref.)

Back to top

Well, I might as well get into the act.  Firstly, in my rule book Rule 11 covers Appeals.
And, firstly, I think the rules were written by the TAX OFFICE!! Well same sort of lingo anyway.
So, during play, and within a split seconds the Ref has to make up their mind (Let or NO Let).  Under Rules 12 Interference, and situations discussed in "Guide to Understanding the Rules of Squash" we have the following situations addressed:

• Minimal Interference
• Access to the Ball
• Going the wrong way
• Created Interference
• Fair View
• Freedom to hit the ball

Take your pick, but it sounds to me as though at least 3 or 4 of the above could apply to the situations described in the posts.  The book says:
1. Did interference occur? - No  (No let)
2. Was the interference minimal? - Yes  (No let).
3. Could the obstructed player have got to the ball and made a good return, and was that player making every effort to do so?. - No  (No let).  If YES, Did the obstructed player move past the point of interference and play on? - Yes (No let).
4. Did  the obstructed player create the interference in moving to the ball? - Yes (No let).  If NO, the player would have made a good return. 
5. Did the opponent make every effort to avoid interference? - No (Stroke to player).  If Yes, the player would have made a good return.  Did the interference prevent the player's reasonable swing?- Yes (Stroke to player)
6. Could the obstructed player have made a winning return? - Yes (Stroke to player)

And the other couple of situations do not apply to this question.
I hope this helps sort out the interpretation of the interference rule, the cause of so many heated games of squash.

Back to top

Adam - you're talking about "Position of Advantage" - where the striker has hit the ball right at their opponent on the T and creating a position of disadvantage for themselves.  This is covered (not very well IMO) in guideline 11.  Here's the excerpt

"...if a player plays a poor return that gives the opponent a position of advantage, the Referee shall allow the player a let only if, in taking the direct line to the ball for the next return, the Referee determines that, but for the interference, that player would have been able to get to and play the ball."

So according to the guidline, a let should be allowed.  The ref's line of thinking should be "forget the interference for a minute, could they have reached the ball in a straight line."  Yes - let, No - no let.

However, as ADZ points out, the convention in squash is to punish the player who puts themselves in a postition of disadvantage by playing a poor return. The opponent certainly believes that the incoming striker caused this problem and should be penalized for it – or at the very least, should be forced to play around the interference.

I know in my own matches, I will make very little effort to move off the T in that situation, and almost all my opponents feel as though they should play around my interference as punishment for a bad return.  I also would not call for a let if I was the incoming striker who made a poor return.

But as the guideline clearly states, it should be a let if the incoming striker can make a good return and has made every effort to get to the ball.   However, I never see this called in top flight or even low level provincial squash, as the "convention" seems to trump the rules!

If any of you get the fantastic newsletter Canadian Squash Official, it's been covered many times and most of what I'm saying comes from their publications. 

Nick

Back to top

Okies, Stevo and Rob........ Let me explain myself a little clearly (I hope)

 

In the situation I described, by a "loose drop" I meant a drop shot that was loose enough to be able to be returned by the opponent if he were to take a direct line to the ball. In this situation he has allowed himself to become stuck in the back corner behind his opponent. In turn his opponent has been given the opportunity to play the ball anywhere on the court (which in turn he played the drop).

The trapped player must reach the ball regardless of his opponents position, assuming that the opponents shot was a reasonably good shot (e.g. not returning back towards themself). In this case they played the ball directly away from themself (into the opposite corner), and thus did not create the interference with their shot. The interference was actually cause by the trapped player who allowed his opponent space and an open court to play into.

In this situation the trapped player was not entitled to a let due to the fact that they caused their own interference and their opponent played a reasonable return (e.g. loose enough to reach but NOT loose enough to be considered a poor shot). It is the distinction between how you define the shot as poor or good which makes the decision so controversial. If the return is reasonable then NO LET, if the return is poor then LET (or maybe even stroke!!), but in this situation the responsibility DOES NOT lie with the opponent to give free access.

 

Now as we said, this is a VERY grey area and open to interpretation of a referee with regard to how they view the position of each player and the quality of shot played.

 

Horrible place to be in with semi-pro / county standard players!

Adz

Back to top

Rob said
"This is exactly what the Khans are talking about  - Hit the ball somewhere else  so that you do not cause interference - try a boast or cross court drop or reverse boast - or a good drive down the wall or even cross court"

Nah, I think they meant play a shot that would make your opponent go round you. Not sure which Khan this quote was from, but Jansher was known to deliberately block so I am wouldn't be surprised if it was him.

Good to see someone agrees with me

Back to top

Hi Guys - I will probably also get shot down in flames - However, take the scenario where the player A in the middle of the court is to play a drop shot to the corner, player B is a couple of metres behind him on a direct line to where the drop shot is aimed. At this point there is no interference as player B is not interfering with player A's shot. Player A plays a poor drop shot to the corner that sits up - lets say for arguments sake that player B would almost certainly be able to get the ball if he took a straight route - but can't because player A is still standing on the direct line to the ball - and you guys are now telling me that player B has caused his own interference - you are kidding aren't you??? The rules of squash clearly state that the incoming player must be allowed unobstructed direct access to the ball - the interference is occuring because player A has not allowed unobstructed direct access - Player A has caused the interference - There is nothing in the rules that talks about if you make a bad shot and are in a bad position that you forfeit your  right of direct access to the ball - Are you guys making the rules up as you go ? This is exactly what the Khans are talking about  - Hit the ball somewhere else  so that you do not cause interference - try a boast or cross court drop or reverse boast - or a good drive down the wall or even cross court.       Cheers Rob

Back to top

Adz said
"I've been in a situation where a player trapped themselves in the back-right-hand corner and their opponent played a loose drop to the front left. Now I knew that the first player could reach the ball in a straight line. The opponent knew it and the player knew it, but he just ran straight into his opponent and asked for a let (which I didn't give due to the player creating his own interference)."

I know I am gonna be shot down in flames here, but based on what you have described, I have disagree with your call. If the player played a loose drop he should clear. You should be allowed direct access to the ball no matter where your starting point is.

Of course if I saw the exact circumstances I may give the same decision as you. But if the dude stuck in the back corner could reach the ball then its a let.

Back to top

Hi Guys,

I guess it all boils down to Honesty, whats the point of pushing the bucket around when the going gets tough.

There's no Glory in victory and yes it might meant, a bigger pay check. Wil it make u happy?, knowing u win at all cost.

Great champions do not needs to cheat and r well respected.

Not people who do drugs n those who win matches with hands of god, etc,etc,etc......

Cheers

Edmond

Ps. Rippa , i choke on my first comp, was really rusty and was white wash 9zip.9zip( brain dead)

 

Back to top

adam - I like adz explanation to your question. 
My thoughts from your extract above.  There are no hidden rules in squash, as is quoted of most other things in the law of the land.  However, all rules and laws are out to be exploited to the limit is how I see it, some deliberately and some accidentally. 
Without a good ref some players try to bluff the ref and get away with what looks more like cheating. Very annoying.
I interpret what has been quoted to mean, make the opponent run around you to get to the ball, and if they try to go through you, it will be NO let (referred to as playing the player and not the ball).  Often the use of the body and footwork in playing the ball can have the same effect, and it does make the opponent have to run more of course.  Though, mostly this situation happens because of the bad positioning of the opponent's return.
Mind you, in doing this there must be clearly enough room for the opponent to play the ball, or a Stroke will be awarded.
I think the vital thing as a Ref is to read the situation "at the point of interference" as opposed to a player creating their own interference and not making every effort to get to the ball and when the let is asked for they were no where near the ball, and they say "I cold have got to it" and the reply "well why didn't you"!

Back to top

Ed, many thanks for the compliment, and hopefully you can see what I mean about decision making in this situation? In the game you have to decided on whether the shot that a player made was actually a strong or a weak shot. The higher the level the more technical the shot play and positioning becomes, and can you imagine trying to explain to a very fast and stretchy pro player that even though they could have reached the ball, it was their fault that there was interference and thus is no let!!

They'd argue all day long that their opponent's shot wasn't strong enough and thus a let should be allowed! Horrible place to be in making that decision!

 

Back to top

HI Adz,

Hats off to u, Im impress by yr knowledge of the rules.

My humble apologies to u on my earlier post.

Keep it up and best of wishes to u in every matches u play in.

And to Adam, there's no hidden rules in squash..

Cheers Guys

Edmond

 

Back to top

This centres around the point of making a recovery after putting yourself into a bad position.

 

Basically, if you at any point put yourself into a bad position, and your opponent plays a good shot off your bad one, it is YOUR responsibility to reach and play the ball as by playing the bad shot, you YOURSELF created the interference, and as the rules clearly state, if YOU created the interference then it is NO LET.

 

Of course, this is where the rules get REALLY tricky! If your opponent plays a bad shot after your bad shot, then technically they could be the ones causing the interference and thus could be in a position of giving away a LET or even a STROKE!

 

I think if you were refereeing a match you have to use your knowledge and experience in making this type of decision, but most importantly you have to be prepared to stick by your guns! I've been in a situation where a player trapped themselves in the back-right-hand corner and their opponent played a loose drop to the front left. Now I knew that the first player could reach the ball in a straight line. The opponent knew it and the player knew it, but he just ran straight into his opponent and asked for a let (which I didn't give due to the player creating his own interference). This type of decision doesn't go down well with players who think they can reach everything, and it certainly doesn't sit well when they definitely could have reach the ball! But put simply, explain that it is THEIR responsibility to reach the ball if THEY have put themselves into a bad position.

A similar decision follows when a player moves forward infront of their opponent, who in turn hits the ball passed them! In this case the player tries to change direction to retrieve the ball but meets interference. Once again they caused this by moving into a poor position to begin with and thus I would give a NO LET decision! Not always the most popular decision, but you have to make your judgement based on what you saw happen.

 

So in summary: If someone creates their OWN interference then it is NO LET.

 

Cheers

Adz

Back to top