|
Let's Talk Squash - SUSPENDED
suspended due to poor server performance
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adrian19
Prolific Contributor
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 230
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes, we need lets. But, they shouldn't be called "lets", it sounds stupid. As does "love all" or saying zero as "love". The name of this sport is stupid enough already.
_________________
Foster's... it's Australian for beer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leviathan
Contributor
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lucas wrote: | | I read the article also and Rod S. is making a case for why Squash isn't included in the Olympics. he claims that IOC members that watched a few tournaments made negative comments regarding players dissent towards referees and also toward the complexity of the Let/Stroke rules. I really disagree that this is the main reason Squash isn't allowed in the Olympics. We have sports like Soccer, Basketball, Tennis and others in which you witness much worse referee abuse than Squash. The other point I disagree is the complexity of the rules, the scoring in Tennis is complex enough that most people don't understand it, soccer's offside rule is difficult to comprehend for many and other sports such as fencing are far more complex to understand. I also don't believe that eliminating lets would solve the problem of arguments with Referee's, somebody posted that it would just encourage dangerous play and I tend to agree. I believe we need to try and get more consistent calls and that would be a better solution than messing around with the rules. |
Although the behaviour of the players towards referees may have something to do with it, I think a lot of the difficulties spectators have in comprehending the 'let' rules have to do with the consistency - or lack of - of the calls. Players argue with referees because of inconsistent decision making. If a referee were to be wrong, so long as he is consistently wrong for the same situation for the whole match, the players can adjust. Quality of refereeing has been an issue in almost every single tourmament I have watched - and I have watched quite a few - I cannot think of one single event where at least one argument didn't occur between player and ref. The 3 ref system has improved the quality ten-fold, arguments are virtually non-existant. They have not been eliminated completely, but you cannot have 100% success in anything. Somebody, sometime will argue regardless.
Official referees should be paid. They should be trained, they should have the minimum requirement of having played at the pro-level. They should be ex-pros that no longer can play but can earn a living travelling to the major events and refeeing. How much money does the WSF and the PSA make? I bet there is enough money in the budget to pay some qualified refs 'x' wage a year, including traveling expenses as a full-time wage/career. I bet if that was an option for pros at the end of their careers to get into, more pros would be interested, the more pros interested, the higher quality of refereeing, the better the consistency. Send 5-6 top class qualified ex-pros to an major event and have them referee all the matches on a rotating basis rather than have the current crop of "officials" who do it part-time, have never played top-class squash and do not get paid for their time.
_________________
Squash is to die for |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bendi36
Prolific Contributor
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 616
Location: Queensland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leviathan wrote: | | Official referees should be paid. They should be trained, they should have the minimum requirement of having played at the pro-level. They should be ex-pros that no longer can play but can earn a living travelling to the major events and refeeing. How much money does the WSF and the PSA make? I bet there is enough money in the budget to pay some qualified refs 'x' wage a year, including traveling expenses as a full-time wage/career. I bet if that was an option for pros at the end of their careers to get into, more pros would be interested, the more pros interested, the higher quality of refereeing, the better the consistency. Send 5-6 top class qualified ex-pros to an major event and have them referee all the matches on a rotating basis rather than have the current crop of "officials" who do it part-time, have never played top-class squash and do not get paid for their time. |
So once I pay the PSA joining fee then retire I get to become a ref?? Or should you make it a cut off only top 200 players, most of whom are probably sick of traveling and want to settle down. Noone is gonna want to do it so why not just educate the current refs better if everyone is unsatisfied with the job there doing?
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucas
Prolific Contributor
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 67
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure all ex-players are dying to get into refeering but I do agree that ref's should get payed to do the job. All other major sports do this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whitty
Heavy Contributor
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: no lets |
|
|
i played a left handed guy recently. i was serving tight into his backahand. the serve was too good for him to volley so every single time he let the ball come off the back wall turned on it and asked for a let. by the middle of the third game i had just had enough. he had no intention of playing the ball because it was far too tight so played his get out of jail card and turned on it.
i actually asked three top referees about this and none of them really had a firm answer as to what the descion should have been. the guy i played was on the verge of cheating, and he admitted it. but said it winds players up, puts them off their game and means he dosnt have to play the ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Calsquasher
Prolific Contributor
Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Posts: 203
Location: California, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll tell you why we need lets. Because without them, THE FITNESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE GAME ARE GREATLY REDUCED. Replaying points is part of what makes squash so physically demanding and good players must train for this eventuality. Removing lets will greatly reduce the physical demands of the game which, coupled with PAR 11 scoring and a lower tin, will damage the foundation of the sport which is fitness.
_________________
"Drive for show, drop for dough." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucas
Prolific Contributor
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 67
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whitty,
that is a good example of why you need lets, I don't agree with what your opponent was doing, but this turning scenario happens often in squash and if you where to force players to play, it would be dangerous play which we should not encourage. There are many other scenarios where let's are legitamete. Regarding your situation I would hope that in actual match play a decent ref would award no lets for unnecessary turning and penalise anybody for dangerous play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GOB
Prolific Contributor
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 134
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: no lets |
|
|
| whitty wrote: | i played a left handed guy recently. i was serving tight into his backahand. the serve was too good for him to volley so every single time he let the ball come off the back wall turned on it and asked for a let. by the middle of the third game i had just had enough. he had no intention of playing the ball because it was far too tight so played his get out of jail card and turned on it.
i actually asked three top referees about this and none of them really had a firm answer as to what the descion should have been. the guy i played was on the verge of cheating, and he admitted it. but said it winds players up, puts them off their game and means he dosnt have to play the ball. |
I played a match where a member of the opposition did exactly what your opponent was doing. I think round about the third or fourth time the (neutral) umpire gave a no let based on the following
9.2.3 The Referee shall not allow a let if deciding that the act of turning was to create the opportunity to appeal rather than an attempt to return the ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
