Much has been written through
the squash media about this tournament or that tournament & how the
refereeing has influenced the outcome of the match. It seems that it's
easy to pick on the refs as the reason why a player lost etc. I realize
that this criticism comes with the territory so to speak.
What hasn't been written, which is the focus of my story, is that the
person saying "No Let" isn't some Joe off the street but rather someone
who has progressed through various levels (D4,
C2, B1, A1) to become qualified to referee the
match. Not much has ever been written about refereeing, period, except
what's perceived to be wrong with it.
If there are problems who better than referees to point them out,
and who better than Graham Waters, Director of the WSF Rules and Referees
Committee ...
Question #1:
How long did it take you to get to the position you're now at?
I started refereeing in 1978, mostly because it was a condition of playing
at local events that you referee the match after the one you played. I
decided that I had better learn how to do it properly, so enrolled in a
clinic being put on by Squash Canada, which was just in the process of
establishing its certification program.
Partly because the programme was in its infancy,
there were plenty of opportunities for me (and others) to referee a lot of
matches at many levels, including our National Championships. I was also
fortunate to have the experience of refereeing at the Women’s World
Championships held in Canada in 1981, my first real exposure to
international squash.
By 1983, I had achieved the A1 (National Referee) designation in Canada.
At about that time the Canadian (Men’s) Open Squash Championship was being
held in Canada annually and I was invited to attend the 1985 “Drakkar
Noir”. I was also selected by Squash Canada to attend the first
“International Refereeing Conference”, held in Cairo in conjunction with
the Men’s World Championships in November, 1985. The groundwork for the
ISRF (as it was then) International Referees Programme
was laid at that meeting.
In 1986, I attended the 2nd International Refereeing Conference held in
Toulouse in conjunction with the Men’s World Open. It was there that the
International Referees Program was put into place, and the first 5 IR’s
were named - David Donelly (Australia), Mike Fitchett (Scotland), Chris
Foo (Malaysia), Marcus Fischer (Sweden) and myself. Coincidentally, that
was the event where Ross Norman ended Jahangir Khan’s incredible 5 and a
half year undefeated streak.
Since then, I have been fortunate enough to referee at a great many
National events, many PSA and WISPA tour events, several World
Championships, two Pan American Games and the recent Commonwealth Games in
Manchester.
Question #2:
How would you assess the quality of officiating at the International/World
Level?
Well, that depends on what you mean. There are 10 world Referees and 23
International Referees on the World Squash Federation (WSF) roster. A
Review Board who reviews referee performances and activity in the process
of making the annual appointments has appointed those people to those
positions. Half of that Review Board is made up of PSA and WISPA players.
I would have to say that, in my opinion, the quality of those on the WSF
roster varies, that is, the standard that one referee sets might be
different than that of another. We are always striving to achieve a
worldwide consistency, but since referees are humans, there will always be
some degree of difference from one to another.
Another large concern that I have is that, at many top level tour events,
the organisers choose not to use WSF referees, preferring to give the job
to local officials, or sometimes the competing players themselves. First
of all, how can a sport trying to promote itself as a major professional
sport do so when using players as officials? You don’t see Leyton Hewitt
or Venus Williams in the chair at Wimbledon, or Sergio Garcia or Tiger
Woods giving rulings on other golfers' requests
for relief, do you? So, why, in squash, is this still regarded as
acceptable? To me, it simply breeds inconsistency, and the quality of
officiating suffers. It is not uncommon in such situations for the
(untrained) referee to have no idea what the rule is or how it should be
applied when something a little out of the ordinary develops (e.g. an
injury).
Question #3:
Without getting too personal. Is it monetarily worth it to become a
professional referee? Is there anything headed down the pipe to make
refereeing in squash more attractive financially?
Question #4:
What expenses are paid for & what are some of the hidden costs nobody
knows about except professional referees?
I’ll try to answer these two questions together.
Well, here’s a major misconception and there’s nothing personal about it.
While we all try to be professional in attitude, appearance, comportment,
and performance, the truth of the matter is that squash referees do not
get paid …. at all. So, clearly, no it is not worth it monetarily. We
usually have our direct expenses (travel, accommodation, and meals)
covered, but I would be willing to wager that every single squash referee
has spent money out of their own pocket to attend some squash tournament
or another, some more than others.
Even with our direct expenses being covered, there is always a cost to
attending every event. Depending on our “real jobs”, we either lose income
directly, if self-employed, or we spend “holiday time” that could be used
otherwise. Additionally, there always seems to be something that comes up
that costs you something.
I would like to think that there is something coming “down the pipe”, but
whenever the subject is discussed, tour promoters cry poverty, the players
recognise that any money spent on referees would probably negatively
impact the prize money, etc. etc.
Question #5:
If you could implement any changes to professional squash to not only
benefit the game but improve on it what would they be?
(i.e. Two-Referee system, etc.)
Well, the first think I would change has nothing to do with refereeing. I
would scrap the PARS system of scoring. The debate has raged for some time
about whether PARS shortens the matches – it doesn’t. I have gone back
after the fact and taken my sheets from matches using PARS, and re-scored
them using the traditional nine-point system. It
is staggering how many games end up as being only within one or two rally
difference. I have done this over about 50 matches, so it is pretty
reliable.
The other claim is that PARS is easier for the fan unfamiliar with squash
to understand. I have yet to meet anybody who cannot grasp the great
complexities of the traditional scoring system.
However, that is not why I would scrap PARS. The spectacle of the “tank” –
the one sided game where a player simply gives up and doesn’t try when
trailing by a wide margin – places the sport in a very unfavourable light.
I totally understand the player’s tactic in thinking: “it is very unlikely
that I can come back from this 10-4 score, so I will simply conserve my
energy and concentrate on the next game when I can start again on an equal
footing”. That is not what the paying public wants to see and it doesn’t
seem to happen with traditional scoring except in extreme cases and
usually combining a physical problem with the one-sided score. This one
thing alone is, to me, justification to scrap PARS.
Sorry, I digress. The 2-Referee system. We have tried it at a variety of
events and have observed the following:
- Players tend to appeal because they are permitted to
do so, resulting in some ridiculous appeals when everybody in the hall
knows that the original decision is correct.
- The Referee cannot establish his or her “line in the
sand”. Players want consistency, and usually try the referee on in the
first game, so that they know what is going to be a let, and what is
going to be a stroke. Any appeal system negates this and turns it into a
lottery.
However, the comment I heard in the crowd in Grand
Central Terminal one year at the Tournament of Champions sums it up best –
“If the second guy makes the final decision, why bother asking the first
guy?” Why, indeed?
Question #6:
Once you have obtained the A1 grade it's my understanding that you are now
eligible for World/International Refereeing
status. Is this criteria standard throughout the world?
The A1 grade is the highest designation in the Squash Canada system and
equates to “National Referee”. Other countries have similar systems and
equivalent designations. Unfortunately, many countries do not have any
formal refereeing programme. It is my desire to
attempt to develop something that the WSF could promote to member
countries as a benefit of membership, and this would in turn raise the
profile and the quality of the squash referees around the world. The
problem is, of course, these things take funding to develop, and there
always seem to be other priorities.
To be considered for WR/IR appointment, a referee must have achieved the
top level in his or her own country and be nominated by the National
Association. Unfortunately, reaching the top level in one’s own country
has quite a different meaning depending where you come from.
Question #7:
What are the biggest problems you see with regards to professional squash
& refereeing? Players say that today's referees
aren't familiar with the game at such a high level & therefore are not
qualified to referee. Players have said that
retired players should referee matches as they
know first hand about the professional game. Your thoughts on this issue?
There is a school of thought that subscribes to the theory that nobody
should referee at a level higher than one at which they played. Obviously,
I disagree. If that were the case, there would only be about a half dozen
people in the world who could referee the World Open Final, and I don’t
think that many of them have done much refereeing at all!
I do agree that a referee, probably of any sport, must have played the
game to a reasonable level. It is certainly not true in other sports to
see former top professionals acting as referees/umpires. I haven’t seen
Martina Navratilova, Jack Nicklaus, Muhammed Ali, Pele, Susie O’Neill, or
the like doing any officiating lately.
Having been at events where the referees sometimes get together to “have a
hit” when not on duty, I can assure you that all of the WR/IR
that I have seen are pretty useful on the court. Most of them are now
older than they were at their peak, and can no longer play at a top level,
but most were there at one time, not at touring
PSA level, but certainly at a top club level.
They are, however, “familiar” with the game at the top level, despite not
having reached that playing level themselves. They have also spent many
long hours learning the rules and their interpretations, and watching
countless hours of video in an effort to improve their skills.
The WSF has had a longstanding offer to “fast-track”
former tour players through the path to become International Referees.
This offer has never been taken up. We do, however, have some former tour
players on the WSF Referee Roster – Nasser Zahran, Fahim Gul, and Jamshed
Gul Khan. I have not noticed the current crop of players treating them any
differently than they do the rest of us.
I believe that the players and referees need to get together more often to
discuss rules and interpretations. This is always difficult at events as
there is little down time until later in the week, by which time many
players have left town. I also believe that the sport needs to punish more
severely those players that misbehave on court. It is one thing for a
referee to impose stricter penalties, but the various governing bodies
(National, WSF, PSA, WISPA) must support the referees and further sanction
those offenders. This point was made loud and clear by visiting
dignitaries to the Commonwealth Games in
Manchester. They were amazed and aghast at how much backchat and ill
temper was tolerated without any penalties being imposed. |
September 2002
Grapevine exclusive:
from Ryan Barnett, our Canadian Correspondent
(and
Caption Competition regular).REFEREES HAVE THEIR SAY
The World Squash Federation
is once again placing players' behaviour on the agenda at its annual
meeting and conference. WISPA and PSA have opened dialogue on the very
same subject. Visiting Olympic delegates to the Commonwealth Games
expressed astonishment at the way squash players were allowed to disrupt
matches, and players quickly countered with the view that the referees
were to blame, not the players. So, here we are, turning full circle with
a problem that has affected squash at all levels down the years.
Canadian correspondent,
Ryan Barnett, elicits
some illuminating responses from Graham
Waters, Director of the WSF Rules and Referees Committee.
Let's hear your views
on
Points of View
|
