Oh and Pol...... 12.7.4......

Easy way to think about it....... where was P2 when the ball was struck....... which was the direct path to the ball.........

If the player doesn't take the direct path and their opponent doesn't move either and interferrence occurs then most of the time they have caused that interferrence themself so no let.

Of course the question of a direct path to a moving ball is a whole other kettle of fish......

"but referee, I was moving to where the ball was at the time, not where it's ended up"

Bah!!! Who'd be a referee eh??

Back to top

ha ha!! I knew someone would disagree and that's the difficulty you will always have with any subjective decision.

mlongobard raises an interesting point......

If P1's shot is so loose that by not moving he's obstructing P2 from striking the ball, then it's a clear stroke. But if P1 is simply interfering with P2's path to the ball (and the ball is reachable), it's a let.

But I have to ask, what's the difference between reaching the ball to play a shot and striking the ball? Let's not forget the definition of the rules is "would have made a good return" and not "prevented the swing". How difficult that word "would" makes the situation. "Would" implies that the player moving to the ball was not in a position to play the ball, otherwise the rule would read:

12.8.1 there was interference, which the opponent did not make every effort to avoid, and
the player was in a position to make a good return

Now the subtle difference in my version and the official version is that it is possible for the official version to be applied to a moving player, whilst mine only applies to a player who has reached the ball.

In your description:

if P1 is simply interfering with P2's path to the ball (and the ball is reachable), it's a let. You see this call made over and over in pro matches -- it's the most common let scenario

You see how your interpretation assumes that the player is being prevented from "reaching the ball" implying movement (so a let), but your earlier case implies "striking the ball" which means they have already reached it but are unable to make the strike (so a stroke). You class one as moving to the ball and the other as having reached the ball which is how you make your difference of a let or stroke. Unfortunately the rule is currently written in a way that can be applied to the player being stopped from reaching the ball; as "would" implies a future event. Therefore this rule does suggest that the movement scenario is actually a stroke.

So I have to ask....... was my outcome of a stroke the incorrect interpretation given the example.....

1) P1 is causing interference to P2 whilst making no effort to clear a path to the ball.

2) P2 can reach the ball and make a good return if it wasn't for P1 causing the interference.

So by letter of the rule book does 12.8.1 uphold a stroke decision? It has to!

But now the next question...... do I agree with this application of the rule in every situation? Of course not! I agree with mlongobard that 99% of the time this is a let through and through and to hell with the letter of the rule book and possible interpretations. But that's what makes this argument so annoying for those who disagree with what I wrote...... you can't find fault in it. It makes sense. It fits the rules. The interpretations are correct. It's "textbook".

But somewhere more experienced players all know that this situation more often than not should be a let. It's common sense yeah?

mlongobard, please don't take my comments personally....... As some of my older posts on other threads will show, I love playing devil's advocate and coming up with testing situations when it comes to discussing the rules. The complex rules of ANY sport can always be open to varying interpretation in unusual situations. My examples were deliberately chosen to show how varying the result can be depending on the position of P2 at the point the ball was struck and the strength or weakness of P1's shot. They are also given to generate debate over how they are being applied!

Hopefully my arguments illustrate how difficult it is to provide a clear answer without know all the factors or at least considering them!

So do I think I answered Pol's question? Somewhere in there......

Adz

Back to top

The game really depends on good faith, respect, and mutual understanding -- especially when you're playing without a ref (which is the case for most of us most of the time, and I think is the case in pol's example).

If P2 is behind P1, and P1 plays short, and P2 says he's obstructed in getting to the ball, P1 pretty much has to take P2's word for it and play a let unless circumstances clearly dictate otherwise (e.g., P1's shot rolls out of the nick, or P2 is still standing in the back corner, saying, "You would have been in the way if I'd tried for it").

As much as I love squash, there's no getting around it that the issue of lets and strokes is a shortcoming of the game. Almost makes me want to take up tennis. (Then again, maybe not.)

Back to top

Some very subjective directions in the rules sthough particularly 12.7.4!!?? 

Cheers Pol 

Back to top

 Many thanks for all your replies. They have been really useful in understanding the logic behind the LET rule! Ultimately I guess the rule balances itself out over the course of a match...

Some very subjective directions in the rules sthough particularly 12.7!!?? 

Cheers Pol

Back to top

Take a read of these rule guidelines which might be a bit easier to interpret than the Rule book.

The bit in the explanation above that I have most problem with:  "In the process P2 runs straight into P1 who has not moved from the T (because there has been no need to and who has their back to P2)"

My accent on this whole decision would be based on this aspect.  If player P1 does not know where his opponent is how can he avoid interference?  How can he judge if P2 is going to be able to reach the ball as it is likely he anticipated a short shot and was ready and waiting (that is all part of the process of knowing whether to award a Let or Stroke). Supposedly the Referee can see more than the players as he is focussing on both player movements/actions.

If there are movement problems during play the Pair Routines will help sort out those problems, and watching the ball and avoiding interference is something they really help.

Back to top

Adz, let me fulfill your prophesy:  you're wrong! Just because you quote the rule book doesn't mean you're interpreting it correctly.

In your case #3, you can't punish P1 for not clearing if he doesn't know where P2 (positioned behind him) is located. If P1's shot is so loose that by not moving he's obstructing P2 from striking the ball, then it's a clear stroke. But if P1 is simply interfering with P2's path to the ball (and the ball is reachable), it's a let. You see this call made over and over in pro matches -- it's the most common let scenario.

You also don't really address the OP's question. P2 is rushing from the back of the court to the front, and P1 is in his path to the ball. If P2 is taking a direct line to the ball, and the ball is reachable, it's a let, regardless of whether P1 is occupying the T.

Back to top

Adz is so right, squash rules are simple but man has to understand some basic rules before getting to understand FULLY the entire beauty of the game.

My advice to all players who can't understand the LET/NO LET/ STROKE rule is: play the ball stuck to the side-walls or straight into the nick. Actually in theory squsah is very simple: play four corners and make NO MISTAKES.

Back to top

Damn!! Just had half a reply written and the page refreshed by accident!!

Okies basics are......

It's all about the position of each player at the time of striking the ball, and how good the shots are that they play.

1) P1 plays a tight drop shot which CANNOT BE REACHED from P2's position (regardless of back corner or on T) and this situation is a NO LET.

2) P1 plays a loose drop which can be reached but at the time the ball was struck, P2 was still moving from the back corner to the T. In doing so P2 moves in behind P1 after the ball was struck, thus causing their own interferrence by not taking the direct path to the ball. Very subjective, but NO LET (often given as a LET if the drop was bad enough to be reached despite P2 creating the interferrence themselves).

3) P1 plays a loose drop which P2 can reach. BEFORE P1 has struck the drop, P2 has already recovered to a point behind P1. By playing the REACHABLE drop and NOT MOVING out of the way, P1 has caused the interferrence and the lack of effort to clear the ball is a STROKE to P2.

Now this might seem crazy to some people, but depending on the physical position of the players at point of striking each is a plausible outcome!

Here's the back-up......

Situation 1:

12.7 The Referee shall not allow a let and the player shall lose the rally if the Referee decides:
          12.7.2 interference occurred but either the player would not have made a good return or     

           the player has not made every effort to get to and play the ball;

Situation 2:

12.7 The Referee shall not allow a let and the player shall lose the rally if the Referee decides:

          12.7.4 the player created the interference in moving to the ball.

Situation 3:

12.8 The Referee shall award a stroke to the player if:
          12.8.1 there was interference, which the opponent did not make every effort to avoid, and
the player would have made a good return;

So you see how a simple situation can be unique everytime it plays out depending on the smallest of factors! This is why referees have to be so good at making split second decisions based on where each player is at the point the let is called, where the ball is and where the players were when the ball was previously struck!

All fun!! You have to remember that some situation can be very subjective and the way people perceive them can have a huge impact on how they make the call (and I'm already waiting for people to tell me I'm wrong despite quoting the exact rules!!!).......

Cheers

Adz

Back to top