Let's Talk Squash - SUSPENDED

marko · Prolific Contributor Joined: 08 Jul 2007 Posts: 144

I've just watched the British Open Final after an overnight download and what a brilliant match that was - peter nicol is a true legend on the commentary - is there anything this man does badly ?

but my reason for posting is that willstrop has a stone walled stroke at 10-9 and the supposed infallable 3 ref system gave a let ??? Watch it yourself - its totally wrong

I'm amazed there isn't a thread on here discussing this or maybe i've missed it steve

stevecubs · Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:00 am Post subject:

I must admit I was a bit surprised that no mention of it was made, but no, you haven't missed it.

From my position (behind the front wall) it looked a cast-iron stroke, but the stroke that took James to 10/9 in the first time looked very very harsh ...

seshadri · Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:16 am Post subject:

A case of 2 wrongs making a right? Not having seen the points, I can't comment on the individual merits of the decisions.Why don't you try to post the rallies on youtube?
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

CT Yank · Newbie Joined: 13 May 2008 Posts: 4

Absolutely robbed! and the idea that the stroke call for James at 9-9 was a bad call is just ridiculous. Palmer's drive hit the inside line of the service box with James right behind him ready to play it. Palmer's subsequent display of disagreement afterward no doubt influenced the "make up call" on what surely was a stroke to James on the first match ball.

marko · Prolific Contributor Joined: 08 Jul 2007 Posts: 144

Right, I'm not going mad then - maybe if it had been the other way Palmer would have been going on about all the bad refereeing. Doesn't this show how good Willstrop is as an embassador for the sport whereas for palmer...

The point before was a stroke also ! So Willstrop won the British Open 08, can we get this changed.

I thought the 3 ref system was supposed to stop this sort of thing - Were the two refs who gave lets in the low positions so didn't have a good view ?

bendi36 · Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:22 am Post subject:

Why would you assume david would complain about it if he were in James' shoes?? Sounds like all the british ppl here are just being sore losers were the two players involved didn't make any comments about it. Good and bad decisions are a part of squash. Deal with it. Palmer won under the laws of squash. . .

I HAVE SPOKEN
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

Flash · Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:42 am Post subject:

Couldn't agree more Bendi. I don't think anyone should be trying to detract from from what was obviously a great match and a victory that puts Palmer into the realms of squash greatness (if he wasn't there already). Some days the calls go with you, some days against. I have a copy of the Palmer-Nicol semi from the 2003 TOC. Great match but Palmer gets absolutely pillaged by the ref. Does that mean that Nicol does not deserve to have won that title that year? Of course not.

Calsquasher · Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject:

Just saw the call on Youtube and it was absolutely terrible but one call or point does not a match make so I wouldn't gripe over it. There's also a Nicol David post match interview and you can't help but be impressed by how humble and nice she is. A true champ in every sense of the word.
_________________
"Drive for show, drop for dough."

Run-away-from-danger Boy · Prolific Contributor Joined: 29 Jun 2007 Posts: 140

Could you please post the link to that, Calsquasher?

Celeripes · Contributor Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Brazil

I can't see where the ball is!!!

Run-away-from-danger Boy · Prolific Contributor Joined: 29 Jun 2007 Posts: 140

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-iVYYSpdz8

I cannot see the ball either, but it appears Palmer hit a very loose return of serve, and did not clear for Willstrop's backhand - a clear stroke if that was the case.

I think we have all been victims of poor decisions on match-ball. But this was no ordinary match at no ordinary tournament. It was an unfortunate way to end the final.

GOB · Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject:

I watched it version last night, it was a stroke, no question, the refs bottled it. The stroke decision at 9-9 was correct, I don't think it was harsh. In the end Palmer was lucky to win it, although he should have wrapped it up in 3!

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

The reason one would assume Palmer would react if it were the other way around would be his past record. I saw the Palmer-Nicol match and a Palmer loss a few years ago with Mike Riley as the ref. Palmer constantly blocks the front left corner by backing straight to the T and Riley is astute enough to call the stroke. That's not pillaging.

seshadri · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 4:13 am Post subject:

The position of the ball is critical in this case. Unfortunately, the youtube video is of terrible quality in that respect. Referees are generally a bit more forgiving in cases of backswing as opposed to downswing interference. Overall, though, the situation does look bad for Palmer.
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

Calsquasher · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:49 am Post subject:

I think the fact that it was match ball may have had something to do with it. The refs subconsciously may have been afraid to end such a tough match on a stroke call. Its always much easier to have them replay the point than make a tough and often controversial decision. Thats why its so important to have refs who are assertive and don't get intimidated in my view.
_________________
"Drive for show, drop for dough."

bendi36 · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:00 am Post subject:

Flash · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:08 am Post subject:

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

I have to agree with Flash here since he is talking about the semi-final match of the 2003 TOC. That was one stupid piece of refereeing history and Jack Allen who was the referee at that time, should look into some other hobby quite honestly, cuz he was absolutely ridiculous in that particular match.

Regarding this BO's final, well I don't think that one call robbed James, since he also escaped a stroke call at 9-8, when the ball came back at James and David was standing right behind him, ready to play the ball. At that time, the crowd went 'ooo' as well acknowledging that it was pretty close and David didn't make too much fuss over it as well since he understands that at such close points, referees tend to go for a 'safer' decision, unless someone's really been assertive from the start of the match, in that case then players start questioning the consistency of the referees, but in this case I believe it balanced out and let's not let this discussion ruin the amazing final these guys produced. Considering their respective sizes, I feel they did a stupendous job of avoiding each other throughout the match and played the match with the minimum number of decisions possible. That final is a credit to the game of squash honestly, well played by both of them... they were both amazing, and though David won but I do feel that James didn't deserve to lose it either. All in all, a fond memory for the history of this tournament.

asdf · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject:

I have downloaded the match, and you can see the ball there.

The 9-9 decision was a stroke, but close enough, perhaps, to have been a 2-1 split.

The 10-9 decision was nothing but a 3-0 stroke.

"One call does not a match make" is true, but is this case it did change the winner.

I am a big believer in the three-referee-system. Even though it is clearly not perfect, it is still better than the alternative, and at least no one person has this solely on his shoulders.
_________________
Still keeping one principal object in view -
To preserve its symmetrical shape. -- Lewis Carroll

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

I agree that a few wrong decisions can affect the outcome of a match. I agree that Jack Allen is not a good referee. I hope that Palmer is a changed man. The test is when he loses a close important match on some questionable calls. The three ref system is without question a far superior method, but still no guarantee that they won't err.

gmandleydixon · Newbie Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 8

The 3 ref system has one advantage and many dissadvantages viz

Advantage:

It reduces arguments and discussion

2 of the dissadavantages:

It reduces consistency

It reduces control

Sooner or later peole will realise that it is not the solution to our refereeing difficulties

seshadri · Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:01 am Post subject:

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

It limits poor judgment. Does not affect control. Has minimal impact on consistency, which is overrated anyway. Consistently awful decisions can screw up a match.

Flash · Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:21 am Post subject:

seshadri · Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject:

Game 5:
9-9 Definitely a Stroke to Willstrop [Palmer is clearing directly into Willstrop's Downswing]
10-9 Definite backswing Interference. Stroke or Let depends on whether each Ref thought the Swing was prevented [Stroke] or affected[Let]
10-10 Palmer denied a certain Stroke [Willstrop between ball and Palmer's direct shot to front wall]. Palmer accepts decision without much fuss
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx