|
Back to rules Page
Missing the Point
(Click
to see Excel Spreadsheet from Burmuda 2007 World Open Refereeing Statistics)
Squash Player editor, Ian
McKenzie gives a personal view on the
refereeing debate and asks: can we have some facts, some
proper analysis and some open debate.
I am sure we have been
here before in the refereeing debate. One perspective on the issue
encapsulated in the the latest PSA press release, which explains it as
“solving the problem of player-referee confrontation and inconsistency.”
I think we are really
missing the point.
There is belatedly a
realisation in the sport that the constant friction between players and
referees and the regular decent of referee’s decision is harming the sports
prospects. Let me quote from the same PSA press release again: "The PSA are
very driven to attaining Olympic status for our sport and it was noted that
one view of the Olympic committee was that squash is a sport with too much
vocal confrontation between referees and players.”
If this is really the
problem it can relatively easily be handled. Referees have massive power –
and can award conduct warnings, strokes, games and even matches when
required.
However is not the problem
really that the best players in the world cannot play the game without
constantly running into each other?
We are asking the wrong
questions. Should not we should be asking? What is an acceptable number of
stoppages? What is an acceptable number of decisions for a referee to have
to make? What are facts?
After a little off court
interference on my part at the World Open excellent World Referee Roy
Gingell was exceeding helpful and compiled a full record of the number of
decisions referees made in the World Open. The results are below. They
showed that on average there was a decision required, (a stoppage generally)
every two points. Isn’t this the central problem? Why can’t the game be
played without all these stoppages? And is there a solution to this?
This is not a new problem,
it is a historical one. Former PSA President Chris Dittmar grappled with it
and the perception that there were too many lets. And the perception that
squash would not get on TV, certainly live TV, with this number of lets. (I
think it is more useful to think in terms of stoppages.)
There have been a number
of initiatives to help solve this problem – ‘so called tough refereeing’ and
a number of rules changes. Have they been any use? Not in my opinion but I
am open to persuasion and would like to see the facts. Have the number of
stoppages reduced? I do not know if any of the the officiating bodies has
any comparative statistics on the issue.
My opinion is that the
perceived solution is really the problem. Giving easy strokes has only
encouraged players to stop and look for strokes and look for rewards from
the referee rather than playing the ball.
The solution is not too
difficult. Make points won from a referee a little bit harder to come by
than those earned in play.
If referees constantly
reward players for stopping they will stop. If referees award punitive no
lets for balls players could retrieve, without warning them, these players
will be aggrieved and have no compunction about trying to pick up points
from the referee whenever they can.
Certainly there are a
whole range of situations were players could safely play the ball that have
almost become convention for scoring points from the referee. For example:
the perceived non-clearing of the front wall (especially on the forehand);
the perceived encroachment into an opponent’s backswing (even resulting in a
rule change); the blocking in of an opponent into a hitting area after a
loose shot, to name a few.
On question we forget in
jumping to solutions for the ‘refereeing’ issue: how do we want the game to
be played? It is one I would like to ask referees.
Is it not that we want
players to win the points on court, not for referees to award them.
My view is that we need a
new culture where players play the ball, not play the referee, and accept
minimal interference in doing so’.
How do we want the game to
be refereed?
Can I quote Dick Hawkey:
“We want the fair result to each rally”. We want referees to encourage
players to play the ball not reward them for not playing it.
Look at the top rugby
referees managing matches, and helping the players, letting them know when
to play the ball, when not to play it, when to get on side – and they don’t
have to take any backchat. Why do referees in squash continue to penalise
players by awarding points to their opponents, out of the blue, with ‘no
let’ decisions on gettable balls for so called ‘marginal interference’
without ever explaining to those players where there individual guidelines
are.
Unfortunately with the
previous emphasis of tough refereeing (easy strokes) we have a whole
generation of young players who do not play the ball.
It is not so much tough
decisions we want but fair ones. We want a sport where players play the ball
and not the referee, and refereeing decisions aid this end not sabotage it.
It would be useful in the
debate on the issue of stoppages, refereeing decisions and refereeing
systems had some proper analysis of the causes and some facts. Statistics
should be collected. Then we know what we are talking about.
I believe that proper
analysis would show whether the rules changes implemented at PSA bequest
have contributed to solving the problems or exasperating them.
The more intrusive the
referees decisions are required to be, the more pressure put on them, the
more mistakes they will make. Having three referees is not a panacea. It is
not without a down side. We may alleviate the odd ‘wrong’ decision but we
may get more ‘confused’ ones when the grounds for an appeal are not clear.
What we will not get it a confident referee, committed to getting players to
play the ball and to getting the fair result to each rally.
Lets face it, we cannot be
an Olympic sport with one stoppage every two points. One solution, may seem
ridiculous to many readers but it is already the decision the sport has made
– in doubles. If the court was bigger the problem could largely be solved.
There may be of course a
few logistical problems in this. Alternatively we could agree that a culture
were player’s play the ball, and are not rewarded for not playing it; were
points are harder to come by from the referee and than in play; is in the
interests of the sport. And were the referees, whether there is one or three
of them, encourage players to play the ball, make fair decisions and give
appropriate explanations.
Back
to rules Page
World Open Refereeing Decisions
(Click
to see Excel Spreadsheet from Bermuda 2007 World Open Refereeing Statistics)
TOTAL match statistics
Number of matches: 31
Number of games: 116
Number of points: 1,917
Number of minutes: 1,734
TOTAL refereeing
decisions
Number of decisions: 959
Number of lets: 706 (74%)
Number of No lets: 111 (11%)
Number of Strokes: 145 (16%)
Decisions
Decisions per match: 31
Decision per game: 8
Back to rules Page |
