Minimal Interferance
DATE: November 2001 FROM: Barry Faguy, Officiating Committee SUBJECT: The Revised Rules
Notice to all players
The ‘World Squash Federation’ has created new wording for some of the rules that touch on many areas of the game. By reading the new rules and the guidelines that accompany them, you’ll be able to review for yourself the changes, too numerous to deal with here. However, there is one change whose proper application could have a significant effect in the years to come:
‘MINIMAL INTERFERENCE’
RULE 12.7.1 READS AS FOLLOWS: THE REFEREE SHALL NOT ALLOW A LET AND THE PLAYER SHALL LOSE THE RALLY IF THE REFEREE DECIDES THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE, OR THE INTERFERENCE WAS SO MINIMAL THAT THE PLAYER’S FAIR VIEW OF THE BALL, AND FREEDOM TO GET TO AND PLAY THE BALL WERE NOT AFFECTED.
THE PROBLEM: Over the past number of years, there has been a growing concern that there are too many lets in the game, particularly at the highest levels of play, when there has been only minimal interference. The striker still had plenty of time to play any shot, but instead chose to stop play and request a let. These interruptions are frustrating to players who routinely play in the true spirit of the game and accept some minor hindrances and play on. Unfortunately, others look for the chance to avoid playing a difficult shot, or are looking for a break while fatiguing. Many experienced referees were already denying lets in such situations because the striker was not making every effort to get to and play the ball (instead taking an easy let). Unfortunately, there were too many occasions when less experienced referees, especially at club level, were allowing lets for the most minor infraction.
THE SOLUTION: In an effort to encourage all referees at all levels to make the players play the ball when they should, the wording you see above has been added to the rules. As well, we have always had provisions in the rules that required the striker to make every effort to get to the ball. However, a shortcoming of effort is often a very difficult thing to judge, compared to whether an interference is minimal or not. Now referees can encourage play to become more continuous with additional wording that makes it clear that the player must:
- make every effort to get to the ball
- make every effort to play the ball
- accept minimal interference
Proper Interpretation
The effect more than the amount – Take notice of the last word (AFFECTED) of that rule quoted above. The wording demands a ‘No Let’ when the effect of the interference was minimal. In one case, a minor collision on the way to the ball might be insignificant and deserve a ‘No Let’, while at another time the same amount of collision might actually knock a player off stride and could at least merit a let. The ‘effect’ that the interference had is what matters. Just because ‘there was a contact’ is not enough!
Reasonable fear of injury – This provision is a constant consideration and justification for awarding a let, particularly when it comes to the swing or for hitting the ball to the front wall, so one should be very careful in saying ‘No Let’ for these two types of interferences. We don’t want to encourage dangerous play. The minimal interference provisions refer mostly to the striker’s movement to access the ball, as well as for the fair view of the ball, this latter usually a momentary impediment
Watch for faking - The obvious result of this new wording might incite some players to ‘take a dive’ or exaggerate the effect to make it look good. Don’t be fooled.
Watch for the flip side of this – Do not let this demand on the incoming striker (to play through some interferences) be an excuse for the opponent to make less effort to get out of the way. Continue to demand every effort to clear.
In conclusionThese minor interferences will certainly remain a difficult decision in many instances, but we can be sure that countless frivolous interruptions will now cease, especially if each one of us (as players and referees) do our part to change this often-ugly face of the game.