|
|
|
SOME PROPOSALS ABOUT
ZERO TOLERANCE
Part ONE
by Barry Faguy |
Part TWO
|
|
INTRODUCTION
There are a couple of areas in the rules that I perceive to be
troublesome. OK, OK, more than a couple, but maybe for now I can
address a restricted few - as one group. Maybe if enough people see
any sense in all this, someday we might see some fine-tuning of the
rules?
Unlike ‘interference’ for example, what I’m talking about
here are areas that we don’t usually spend a lot of time fretting
over. I’m referring to those occasions when we would just as soon
ignore a rule – or if there isn’t one – then make one up – or at the
very least, wish that the one that is there was different.
Sound
interesting? Keep reading. |
|
THE PROBLEMS
I think it’s safe to say that some rules of the game are entirely
arbitrary. For example, someone decided way back that the lines
should be ‘out’, and violating that rule will result in the loss of
a rally.
However, contrary to the arbitrary rules, other rules
(most?) generally require Referee judgment. These rules have evolved
from the need to reflect the overriding principle of fairness. We
only need to look at the provisions surrounding interference to see
examples. Here too, failure to abide by them generally earns the
loss of a rally.
But there is another group of rules that only remotely reflect the
principle of fairness – perhaps belonging closer to the ‘arbitrary’
category - but whose transgression almost unbelievably demands the
loss of a game, possibly the match!
A good example of such a rule is re-bleeding during a game. Such rules are generally intolerant and
have little latitude in their application (thus the zero tolerance
moniker above), and so they are the principle problem that this
essay addresses.
Closely related to the above, but less of a problem, are those
situations where there is in fact no rule to deal with a
given problem. There is nothing for the referee to fall back on, so there
is a state of suspended confusion – sometimes during actual play,
and sometimes simply just being common knowledge in the officiating
community.
For example, what to do with unruly player behaviour when
the match is over, what to do when a deliberately dangerous shot
wins the match, etc.
As a matter of fact, I’m sure we’ve all noticed
that Squash referees often get a kick out of making up and
discussing unusual scenarios not specifically dealt with in the
rules.
The past 20 years of rules revisions are a testament to the
ever-increasing number of provisions that in good part, have been
added to cover things that weren’t covered before – closing the
loopholes, as it were. |
THE CONSEQUENCES
OF HAVING THINGS AS THEY ARE
The consequences are most easily seen when certain relatively minor
misdemeanours demand that the entire match must be forfeited - rather
than suffer the simple loss of a rally.
The result is a conflict for
all involved between the strict text of the rules and the very
natural impulse to want the match to continue. This leads to an
uncomfortable situation for many of the key parties – the tournament
organizer, the sponsors, the audience, the referees, media, and so
on.
For example, a decision (clearly contrary to the rules) rendered
to allow the match to proceed might allow (and in fact has allowed)
the media (or some spectators) to have a field day at the expense of
organizers or referees.
At other times, an opponent might insist (in
fact, actually has in a major event) on the strict application of
provisions (likely arbitrary at their origin) that would normally
end the match (far too prematurely) in his favour. Alternatively,
sometimes the opponent, who although advantaged by rigid application
of the rules, would prefer sportsmanship to reign and have the match
have its natural outcome through play.
I’m suggesting that if we do nothing to address these issues, we
will continue to have some very uncomfortable, embarrassing and
pressure filled moments – situations which have indeed happened, and
you can be sure, will happen again. The general perception of the
rules then suffers because they are viewed as out of touch,
inflexible, or lacking – an imperfect product.
None of this does the
sport any good. |
A FEW PERSONAL EXAMPLES OF UNSUITABLE RULES
Hundreds of people would have gone home early - certainly with a
poor impression of the game, if the rules would have been formally
applied during the final of the Tournament of Champions a few years
ago. Jonathon Power tore his shoe, and then searched for long over
the permitted time for replacements. He finally showed up with shoes
offered by Ahmed Barada – a size and a half too small, but he
nonetheless went on to win. Proper application of the rules would
have demanded forfeiture of the match very early – and the entire
incident would somehow have missed the point about what Squash is
about – playing the game.
Another example occurred two years ago at 8 all in the opening game
of a ¼ Final match between Paul Price and Graham Ryding at the TOC,
again with hundreds in attendance. Price, at the end of a rally,
complained to the Referee about his 'bad back' with absolutely no
evidence of an incident that would have sprained it. The referee
awarded time for a self-inflicted injury.
I was Appeals Referee, but
his opponent, who either didn't know the rule or simply let it go,
made no appeal. The referee explained to me that he knew Price had a
history of back problems. He certainly needed the recovery time and
had a trainer apply some treatments for a total of about 9 minutes
before he said he was able to continue. By the time they got back to
court and warmed up the ball, it was about a 15-minute break. Price
went on to win.
At the Canadian Nationals two years ago, Sahier Razik stops suddenly
in his match against Graham Ryding and comes off the court limping,
then lies down as his coach starts to treat him. I asked what the
problem was and the coach said it was a cramp. This is of course,
the wrong answer, requiring that Razik get right up and continue or
forfeit the game.
I paused then asked Razik himself if this was
indeed his problem. Suspecting that something was up I guess, Razik
then answered that he had a muscle sprain. This time it was the
correct answer. I then announced that he had three minutes to
recover. He did, but nonetheless eventually lost. A semantic
difference could have ended his match much earlier. Is a cramp
really that much different from a sprain? Can an athlete really know
what’s happening physiologically?
At the 2002 TOC, Joe Kneipp got a cut from David Palmer’s racquet in
the second game of their match. Kneipp, having been warned about the
provisions for re-bleeding, and while constantly testing the wound
with his towel, refused to resume play since he couldn’t be sure the
wound wouldn’t re-bleed.
Seeing no end to the delay, after 10
minutes, I finally brokered an agreement with Palmer such that he
would forego application of the game forfeiture for re-bleeding
should Kneipp’s wound start up again. Luckily, we never got to test
the deal because it didn‘t re-bleed. This was not exactly kosher as
far as the rules go, was it?
|
|
WHAT THE RULES
DON'T SAY
A few examples of the lack of a rule - we have all seen and/or discussed quite a few. Among others, we have
wondered what to do if:
-
The match winning shot was deliberately hit into the opponent.
What then takes priority?
-
A post-rally shot hit in frustration but safely towards the tin,
accidentally hit the edge of the tin and flies out of court and is
lost, delaying the game for several minutes. Penalty for causing the
delay?
-
A player wants a let for ‘a change in court conditions’ – that he
caused by falling & wetting the floor?
-
A player appeals reflexively after hitting the ball - but has just
hit a winner. Does the winner stand?
-
A receiver is not ready and says ‘let’ after the ball is served –
and it then goes out. Is it out?
-
Can the loser make a generic appeal of ‘All balls good?’ and let
the referee choose any doubtful ones?
-
Can a racquet knocked out of the non-striker’s hand be considered
for ‘distraction’?
-
Since Rule 17 can be applied to a player being coached during play
– can the same be done for behaviour of the coach, parents, or
friends?
-
It’s discovered at the end of the rally that the wrong player
served. Does the rally count?
-
A player wears sunglasses and a hat, but the tournament rules
don’t address this. The opponent complains, so what can you do?
Of course, at one point this list could have included many of the
past revisions that were added to plug loopholes – especially in
areas regarding interference and ‘player hit by ball’. I’m sure you
could add a number of your own as well.
There‘s little doubt that
there are lots more – and that there will be lots more. |
Part TWO
Two proposals for two challenges |
|
