Have you ever been in a group conversation and had no idea what they were talking about? Do you mitigate the chances of looking like a complete idiot by creating some “go-to” phrases that will get you out of a tough jam, like “oh, that is SO pedantic!” or (when speaking of philosophy or other such obscure fields) “well, that is an existential question that I dare not enter into”….If you are reading this right now as a squash player and shaking your head as if you’ve never done such a thing….you’re probably lying to yourself.Here is the proof: if you have ever refereed a squash match, or assumed yourself to be a connoisseur of the sport, you have likely witnessed a player being hit by their opponent’s racquet while trying to strike the ball. When confusion arises as to what the call should be (ie. stroke, let, no let), it seems that the classic “go-to” phrase, the one that demonstrates a sophisticated knowledge of the game, is “was the player hit on the back-swing?” Everyone: the ref, the players, the spectators all turn to one another with this question. But does anyone REALLY know what this assessment means for the call? Or is this like that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer keeps insisting that the postal company will “write off” the mailing damages, without actually knowing what a write-off is?!
What’s the call if you are hit on the back-swing, versus being hit on the follow-through? Is there a difference?
According to the WSF rules, there isn’t. In fact, from what I can tell, there is really only one clause that addresses the problem of hitting an opponent with the racquet, which states that a stroke will be awarded if a player’s “reasonable swing” was impeded from making a “good return” (12.8.2) ….which certainly clears everything up! [Yes, insert sarcasm here] I think, in layman terms, this means that if you hit your opponent at any point of your “not showing off/imitation Jonathan Power” swing, while going for any shot, other than a dodgy reverse boast off the frame, (or some other return that only you find to be ingenious), a stroke will be awarded.
Putting aside the fact that the WSF squash rules are more porous than a US-Mexico border crossing, I think the more disconcerting issue is that we have been using the wrong terminology all along! Nowhere in the rules is there talk about “back-swings”, which could be the source of this continued confusion. It’s actually all about the “reasonable swing”! So the next time the referee is searching for the right call, we should all be turning confidently to one another with the new and improved “go-to” phrase: “reasonable swing?!?” We still won’t know what that means for the call, but at least we’ll be able to nod our heads and wink at each other, secure in the knowledge that we are all completely clueless and lost in this wonderful sport together.
2 comments:
Posted by Robert Pacey for Rod Symington:
"It was nice of Runa Reta to post a comment on swing interference in the sport of squash and especially useful of her to quote the relevant Rule.
However, her question of what consitutes a swing would have been answered on the spot if she had gone to the end of the Rule Book and consulted the Definitions:
Reasonable swing: This consists of a reasonable backswing, strike at the ball and reasonable follow-through.
The two definitions above that (too lengthy to quote here) define what is reasonable. Admittedly, in the final analysis the judgement of
"reasonable" will be somewhat subjective -- as are many aspects of the Rules of Squash.
Unfortunately, I do not have a Google account, so wasn't allowed to post the above comments.
Cheers
Rod"
- Thanks Rod!
The recent inputs on this issue are, as usual, interesting – because the swing certainly garners its share of misconceptions and variations in interpretations – variations in interpretations even when there is no misconception about the rules. Rod has quite correctly referred the reader to the definitions section - which essentially points out that a swing is reasonable if it’s done with a bent elbow and generally in the vertical plane – in contrast to the so-called ‘helicopter swing’ – with a straight arm in the horizontal plane.
However, Runa’s main question remains unaddressed.
>>What’s the call if you are hit on the back-swing, versus being hit on the follow-through? Is there a difference?
She proffers an answer – but unfortunately, comes up short:
>>According to the WSF rules, there isn’t. In fact, from what I can tell, there is really only one clause that addresses the problem of hitting an opponent with the racquet,
There are multiple places that help someone figure out swing issues – including 12.2.3, 12.8.2, 13.1.2, and especially Guideline 7. The 12.8.2 rule was added in 2001 to simply put in words what was common practice before that.
>> which states that a stroke will be awarded if a player’s “reasonable swing” was impeded from making a “good return” (12.8.2) ….which certainly clears everything up!
Unfortunately, a key word has been left out - the word ‘prevented’ - meant to describe a major degree of interference to the swing. The ability to make a good return is, of course, simply inserted as a basic condition of play. We all know the this form of interference is extremely common. We also know that the swing is a very sensitive movement – basically tolerating no deflection. (Just remember those hundreds of times you’ve clipped the wall while swinging at the ball. It never goes where you intended).
Since it is so common, and sensitive, one could easily conclude that play would stop all the time – and the natural conclusion would be a stroke each time. The game would not be playable. It is because it is so common that players often momentarily delay or modify the swing, or take the ball off the back wall and keep playing – knowing that everyone is expected to put some water in their wine – to have a continuous game. The stroke should be reserved for deserved situations.
To add to this common practice, the rules have introduced some considerations to help us sort through the whole thing. Here’s an article (meant for Referees, so a bit long) that might help:
http://www.squash.ca/e/officiating/tso/october2003/swing_straight.htm
But if instead, you want a quick easy guide to sorting it all out, here is a rules-based conclusion from that article:
Bottom Line Suggestions
MAJOR CONTACT – almost always Stroke
MINOR CONTACT – consider the opponent’s effort - if acceptable – Yes Let
- if not acceptable - Stroke
Barry
Post a Comment