By Will Carlin
Earlier this year, James Willstrop and Gregory Gaultier met in the semi-finals of the Tournament of Champions in New York City. Most of the points in the match were short. Though the match had potential to be a hard fought contest between two of the top five players in the world, it wasn’t really close.
Willstrop was moving well and Gaultier was playing erratically (he may have been hurt). After about a game and a half, the conclusion seemed foregone, and the match was proceeding along its inevitable path.
What happened next perplexed both of the players and many of the spectators as well. At the end of one of the longer points of the match, Willstrop hit a good ball down the left wall, and Gaultier was late getting started. Gaultier bumped into Willstrop and stopped. If he asked for a let, he didn’t do it loudly, but what he wanted was clear. Both he and Willstrop turned to the referee and waited for the call.
And they waited. And waited.
About a year and a half ago, the World Squash Federation Rules & Referee Committee decided to experiment with something they call the “three-referee system.” In this methodology, the central referee acts as both marker and referee, and the right-side referee keeps score as a backup. Each time a player requests a let or appeals the initial call or non-call, all three referees render a decision simultaneously, and the overall decision is announced by the central referee. After the three have ruled, there is no further appeal.
The system is getting a fairly decent reception both from players and from referees. The system takes away most of the egregiously bad calls, and having “majority rules” decisions gives peace of mind to the players.
Graham Waters, the Director of the Rules & Referee Committee, and his team deserve a lot of credit both for trying this methodology and for systematically analyzing what works and what doesn’t; they have been trying a number of different variations on things like the positioning of the two side referees and whether the simultaneous calls should be done anonymously either through the use of paddles which the players can’t see or an electronic system that would register the three votes and then reveal it.
Much of this, of course, has been worked out before; this is the second incarnation of using three officials. A similar system was used in hardball singles and still is used today for hardball doubles. In hardball, the referee was the person who kept score and made all initial calls. If a player appealed a call, the ref would ask the side judges, one at a time, for their rulings. If the first judge sustained the initial call, play resumed; if not, the final decision went to the second judge.
In the 1990’s, the WSF experimented with the system and rejected it, noting some drawbacks:
- The side referee with the “worst” view often gave the deciding vote;
- Too many appeals from the players;
- Players not liking the “roller coaster” of emotions that sometimes occurred (unfavorable call followed by favorable call followed by unfavorable);
- Delays in play as inexperienced referees hadn’t been trained properly on its mechanics.
The first of these complaints is silly: if two are going to overrule one, then both systems will utilize the third official, regardless of how good is his view.
The next two are interesting. While longtime watchers of both systems are skeptical that any of the three systems promotes more appeals than another (most would say that the marker/referee system led to more player tirades), it is interesting to see how tennis has handled this with the advent of the “Hawkeye” technology that shows instant replays of line calls. Players are allowed two incorrect appeals per set. If they appeal and are sustained, they don’t use any up. When they appeal, the replay is shown on the court monitors and the crowd finds it unusually entertaining.
Which brings us to the “roller coaster” for the players comment. While it is true that it is, at times, upsetting for the players, the crowd loves these moments, and the suspense can be palpable. A good referee would announce what was going on, and the crowd both understood and relished these moments. In other words, good theater.
The last of these complaints was a source of much frustration for top hardball officials, many of whom hoped to be consulted on how to run the system effectively. Perhaps, the biggest factor that helps decide whether a referee is doing a good job is the speed and decisiveness of the initial call. The hardball system relied on that, and top referees handled the entire process extraordinarily quickly, while also managing to clue in the spectators and the players to exactly what was going on.
Graham Waters and crew are to be congratulated for adopting a version of what most Americans have long thought was the best squash officiating practice, but they should consider taking advantage of the insight that some of the top hardball officials still could offer. Graham, give Larry Sconzo call.
After waiting for an eternity, Gaultier said in a sing-song voice, “Helllooo? Is there a call?”
The problem had been that the referee was waiting to understand the calls from the two side judges before announcing anything. Those moments of delay increased the doubt of the officiating competence by both players, but their good humor and sportsmanship prevailed, and, after some shaking of the heads, the match continued (if Jon Power were playing it might have been a whole other story). Many of the spectators, however, still were baffled. Say what you want about hardball, but the officiating system was fair, entertaining…and understandable.
