SquashZAG

17 Comments

• 

  by Squash Mad 4 months ago

  STROKE but had to enlarge and replay the clip several times to reach a judgement on the trajectory of the ball off the front wall and if the ball was reachable (not too far in front) by Gemmell. She was ready, ball was hittable, but she didn't have full access to front wall, could have struck her opponent.
• 

  by The Squashist 4 months ago

  I agree, stroke, but just by a smidgen. The ref called No Let and that is certainly a mistake.
• 

  by Player 4 months ago

  I think "stroke" after seeing the picture taken.
  http://i42.tinypic.com/1e3myw.jpg
  The referee can say "let" but a "Nolet" is a hard decision for a player who stops while the ball was perfectly playable.
  The fear of injuring the other player is in any case legitimate.
• 

  by leeboy 4 months ago

  I agree with the ref! Play that ball down the right hand side as the player had 2/3 of the court to play and her opponent was not hampering her access, stroke or view. I know that in theory you are meant to be able to play the ball to any part of the front wall and on that basis you might be tempted to give a let but going on the current interpretation of the intereference rule she would not get a let here!
• 

  by Nix 4 months ago

  Stroke. Not only should a cross court shot to the left side be an option, it's a good option as her opponent is moving to the right.
• 

  by DaveX 4 months ago

  Close call but a stroke for mine. I think one aspect is that, judging by her feet position, the player (Gemmell ?) was set up to direct her next shot more towards the left of court. This would have put her opponent in the firing line to be hit.
  
  If she'd happened to be setup for more of a straight drive (right of court), with her opponent more in the clear, she may have decided to play on.
  
  But given that a ball hit to the left of the front wall may have her opponent in danger of being hit, I think stroke is a fair call in this one.
• 

  by JamesM 4 months ago

  Stroke, but only after a few viewings, and it was close. I think the winning shot would have been to play it up the right hand side of the court, but her feet wern't correct for that shot.
  No let in my opinion is the wrong call.
  Should have at least been a let due to how many viewings it took me to come up with the call of stroke, referees don't have the luxury of a youtube video to rewind.
• 

  by CounterDrop 4 months ago

  STROKE excellent comment JamesM. Just goes to show the challenges of reffing in squash. Lots of split second judgements required not just what happened, but what options are available and what could have happened and evaluations of the efforts, capabilities of the players. What a great game.
• 

  by Daan 4 months ago

  This is not a stroke, since the front wall is open to play and opponent is on left side of court. I can understand No Let, just play the ball. I would have given Let, but a small one:)
• 

  by Squash Head 4 months ago

  Let
• 

  by The Full Effect 4 months ago

  It doesn't look like a stroke to me, but I can't see the angle of the backhand crosscourt from the front. I might give a let. There was plenty of front wall, the obvious shot is the forehand length and the girl at the front had a nicer outfit!
• 

  by Will 4 months ago

  The rule is very clear striker (Harvard) must have complete access to the front wall to play any shot; her opponent (trinity) hit a slightly loose cross court out of the front and did not clear in time...if her (Trinity) cross was good and had pulled her opponent (Harvard) wide and deeper on the forehand side she (Trinity) would have had time to clear. Not even close, a Stroke.
• 

  by Nix 4 months ago

  Thanks Will. You said it better than I did. I'll concede, though, that in the actual playing things may have moved too quickly for a stroke call, but it seems to me that even at full speed a let should have been given.
• 

  by SuperNick 4 months ago

  Stroke! If ref wasn't sure, a let should have been called. I struggle with these calls myself.
  
  No Let? No way! Bad call.
• 

  by lazylama 4 months ago

  The rules say: "freedom to play the ball directly to any part of the front wall". If you would apply this rule literally then any time a player tries to hit the ball at the back of the court with his opponent ready on the T, you could give a stroke. Because if you would draw lines from the corners of the front wall to the player trying to hit the ball, if the opponent is located in the area that you create by drawing these lines, there is no full access to the front wall. Applying this rule literally would impede the game too much. Therefore according to the current interpretation of the intereference rule, judges will not give a stroke if the player trying to hit the ball has a straight corridor to the front wall. Which is the case in this video. So no stroke.
  So only let and no let remain. I agree with JamesM that based on the position of her feet it would be hard for her to play a straight drive down the right side of the court so for safety reasons I would have given a let.
• 

  by DaveX 4 months ago

  Hey lazylama, regarding strict application of the rule about freedom to play directly to the front wall - fair enough. But the only thing I'd add is that there is a difference between a tight and good length ball played to the back corners, and a drive played down the centre (more or less) of the court with your opponent somewhere behind you. If you choose to play that shot down the centre, then you need to be sure your positioning doesn't put you in line from your opponent's next shot. There is a lot less margin for error in that scenario.
  
  Tight length to the back of the court is a fundamental of the game and of course we don't penalise it by strict application of the rule, but a referee should have scope to penalise a much looser shot down the centre of the court. Safety is paramount, also.
• 

  by lazylama 4 months ago

  Hey DaveX, i aggree with you that the referee should have scope to penalise a looser shot. But it also work in two directions: If you would say stroke, then you penalise the Trinity player for playing a silly shot down the middle with her opponent behind her, but at the same time you award the Harvard player for trying to play a silly shot too, because the best shot in this case would be a tight drive to the back on the forehand side. If this is the shot she is trying to play, there can be no question of stroke. If however she is trying to play the bal to the front left of the court or maybe even a crosscourt shot to the left side then stroke would apply but these are also silly shots given the situation.