Racket Rage: The Umpire Strikes Back Ryan Barnett interviews Graham Waters, Director of the WSF Rules and Referees Committee. |
|
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:
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? |
September 2002 Grapevine exclusive: from Ryan Barnett, our Canadian Correspondent (and Caption Competition regular). REFEREES HAVE THEIR SAY Canadian correspondent, Ryan Barnett, elicits some illuminating responses from Graham Waters, Director of the WSF Rules and Referees Committee.
Let's hear your views
|