Let's Talk Squash - SUSPENDED

squashclub · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: Do we need lets?

There is a good article by Rod Symmington in the recent US Squash Magazine on eliminating 'lets' from squash. I agree, if you can't clear your shot then it should be an automatic stroke. This will force players to play a much cleaner and tighter game. It will also make it more understandable for the public and safer for beginners.

Can someone think of a situation where not having lets would adversely affect the game?
_________________
My Squash Profile
" Squash racquet is like toothbrush, once you lend it to someone, you don't want it back" Hashim Khan

OsloSquash · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:04 am Post subject:

I do play from time to time condition games, where a let is no let and a Stroke is only a let. This forces the players to really play the shots instead of asking for a let all the time. In this case it forces the player who is going to make the shot, to go for the shut, instead of asking for a let all the time. But compare to your/Rod suggestion, it is opposite. In your suggestion it is the player who has made the shot, who is having the advantage.

But this is just something I have a bit experience with. But anyway, I think it have to be dome something with the let/stroke rule.
_________________
Oslo Squash

stevecubs · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:04 am Post subject:

I haven't seen the article, but gree with Oslo - as a way of reducing stoppages and making the players play the ball more, where only "obvious" strokes areawarded, good idea. If it means that any sort of interference results in a stroke, bad idea.

I use "no lets" when we play lightning tournaments, it certainly focuses the mind ...

off the wall · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject:

I posted on this a while back when asked what new rules we'd like.

The interference rule has to be the single biggest reason why our sport is hard to watch.

If onus was put on the player to clear the ball, and also the striker to play the ball, you'd
have a situation where both players were scared to ask and also get in the way.

You'd do this by giving stroke for interference where one person is stopped from getting to the ball, and no lets where people are just looking for cheap strokes and not playing playable balls.

This would lead to a far far cleaner game.

Imagine asking and knowing you could get stroke, or no stroke, but playing the rally again would not be an option.

You have to have lets for safety, perhaps more often at lower levels.

ashrafamer · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject:

i realy do not agree with that we can not cancel let balls because we will have mush more blocking players winning un deserved balls, i think the let stroke balls must have an electronic refree for accurity.

off the wall · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject:

Yes but if you gave strokes against the blocking players every time, this wouldn't happen.

seshadri · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject:

I don't think that the rules can be tinkered with beyond a point. Squash is too subtle a game to be simplified to a Yes or No answer on the subject of Lets/Strokes. The guiding principle behind awarding a Stroke is player safety, and that for a Let is fair-play. So long as the referee keeps this in mind, I don't think players will have much to complain about. The problem comes when the ref is inconsistent, or stretches the rationale for his decisions beyond a reasonable limit.
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

OsloSquash · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject:

Hi all.
Nice to se a good and mature discussion.
I have to correct my self. Obviously there can not be a rule where there are no strokes, but we can definitely have a rule where there is either a no let or a stroke.
All blocking is stroke to the player who is making an effort to play the shot, but the player has to make a serious effort to play the shot.
And there is a no let if a player doesn’t do any serious effort to play a shot.
This will also lead to that a player, who plays a bad shot, ex. a bad length will be rewarded a stroke against him, if the opponent is afraid of hitting him in the swing.
_________________
Oslo Squash

squashclub · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject:

Too many double negatives in the replies are confusing me Confused

If you are blocking someone's path to the ball, then it should be stroke. Seems very simple no?
_________________
My Squash Profile
" Squash racquet is like toothbrush, once you lend it to someone, you don't want it back" Hashim Khan

seshadri · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject:

ashrafamer · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject:

the blocker player can block from far a way from ball so that he garantee that the refree give his opponant
only let so he can have many opportunites to but nicks maybe one of thim could be a killer ones,that player
always is agood volly player the one who been accused of that was ahmed barada using the middle of body

squashclub · Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject:

squish · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 95

Fights and injuries. If I get a "no let" when my opponent is in my way, the next time there will be a HARD collision.

Adrian19 · Prolific Contributor Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 230

Hahahahhahahaha Very Happy

Whatever.... Everybody should try playing the suggested way and see how it works out... it won't.

off the wall · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject:

Squish, if your opponent is in your way, then it would be a stroke to you, not a no let, so no need for your
dangerous play.

squish · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 95

Yes, I know he is in my way, and he may even know he is in my way, but the ref can't tell or doesn't realize how quick I am. So as not to be seen as fishing for strokes, my best play is to slam into my opponent hard.

squish · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 95

As with many laws and rules, once they become established everyone forgets why there was such a need for them in the first place. Then we get deregulation, and the old problems resurface.

adrian.murphy · Contributor Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Posts: 10

it's most likely that originally there were no such thing as lets and over time it became necessary to introduce lets to avoid the aforementioned violence. No point in going back through a learning curve.

Adrian19 · Prolific Contributor Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 230

No more lets... just full-contact equipment! Full-contact squash, yeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!!

Adrian19 · Prolific Contributor Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 230

Rod Symington is the typical 'ref'. Watch Power's DVD and you'll hear what he has to say about this... watching from outside the court is not enough. It definitely is true as Power says.... 'You need to have played pro squash to ref pro squash'. (Or something like that, LOL) Whatever, the point is that refs that have never played at that level can't relate. How many times has Shahier Razik got a 'no let' call when he most certainly could of got it... many times.

Whatever... I have highly certified Canadian refs on tape blowing the most basic of calls... most of them are female... just cos you were present during a course doesn't make you the KING ladies... ha ha... I have tape of well-known pros losing it over simple calls that the "ottawa ref ladies blew". Ex. Glover, Birch-Jones
_________________
Foster's... it's Australian for beer!

Adrian19 · Prolific Contributor Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 230

I have tape of Glover calling " matchball " in the second or third game when neither players could have had it!! It was Damien Mudge and Graham Rhyding! Glover called like 11-12... Matchball. Both players were like whaaattt??? Numerous bad calls were made... In fact, graham asked for a ref change, questioned her qualifications, etc.... but she stood her ground! She is is a highly certified ref! She has done all the courses! And yet she sucks as as ref!!! So, what are we supposed to do as players... Some of Canada's most highy certified refs aren't good at all! Example... Penny Glover, Jennifer Birch-Jones, Larry Jones! What can we do...! They come in saying I'm a level... (whatever)... but they're terrible!!

If i knew how to or had the equipmet i would post the tape of Glover calling "matchball" on Ryding and Damien Mudge. There faces were priceless.

Yes, the refs have the qualifications......... but they suck beyond belief!
_________________
Foster's... it's Australian for beer!

seshadri · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject:

A serious problem with some referees is in the way they interpret the rule on Created Interference. Many refs go by the thinking that once a player is on the T, and has just played a good shot, he no longer has any obligation to clear. Even if his opponent's path to the ball passes directly through the T, the player is allowed by the referee to stay put, and the opponent's request for a Let is denied. This type of decision goes directly against, both, the letter and spirit of the rules, but happens too often to be ignored. They are dismissing Guideline 11:
This is different from two situations in which a player, in attempting to recover from a position of disadvantage, does not have direct access to the ball. In the first situation the player is "wrong-footed" and anticipates the opponent hitting the ball one way, starts moving that way, but having guessed wrongly, changes direction to find the opponent in the way. In this situation the Referee shall allow the player a let on appeal if the recovery is sufficient to demonstrate the player would have made a good return. In fact, if the opponent prevents the incoming player from playing a winning return, the Referee shall award a stroke to that player.

Secondly, if a player plays a poor return that gives the opponent a position of advantage, the Referee shall allow the player a let only if, in taking the direct line to the ball for the next return, the Referee determines that, but for the interference, that player would have been able to get to and play the ball.
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

Adrian19 · Prolific Contributor Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 230

Seshadri is drunk... or he's been having to many "seshes" , too much pot . son.
_________________
Foster's... it's Australian for beer!

Lucas · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject:

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.

squish · Prolific Contributor Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 95

The scoring in gymnastics, figure skating and wrestling are extremely complicated.
I agree that most players feel they can stay on the T, which is wrong.