By Rod Symington, WSF Referees and Rules Committee
Over the past 18 months the newly formulated Three Referee System has been employed all over the world, and everywhere it has been received with considerable enthusiasm. In 2007 it was used in the British Open, the World Open in Bermuda, and in professional (PSA and WISPA) events on several continents. For example, I was present at a PSA tournament in Kolkata (India) in February this year when it was used for the first time in Asia. The response from everyone who saw how successfully the system worked was amazement: “Why did we not adopt this system 20 years ago?” I witnessed the same reaction at the Kuala Lumpur Open in March.
Not only have both the PSA and WISPA officially approved the Three Referee System as the preferred method, but the PSA Board has now decreed that in all major PSA events the Three Referee System must be used. Their press release has also stated that the system will eventually become mandatory for smaller PSA events too. Since the number of PSA and WISPA events in the USA is increasing each year, the system will soon be used regularly throughout the squash season all over the country.
Americans can, of course, take pride in the fact that the Three Referee System originated in the USA and has been in use on American courts for decades. Over the past 20 years American players and referees asked me repeatedly: “Why don’t we use the Three Referee System?” I always gave the same answer: “Squash is a very conservative sport, and changing old habits is difficult.” But change has finally come, and the sport of squash will surely benefit.
Here are the major reasons why the Three Referee System should become universal:
- There is an enormous reduction in the stress-level experienced by the referees—up to 80% or more. This, in turn, leads to better decisions by the referees.
- The quality of the decision-making is far superior to what it is with one Referee. There is a much higher percentage of correct decisions. Totally incorrect decisions are few and far between.
- Referees gain self-confidence when they see that their individual decisions are shared by their two other colleagues.
- There is a great decrease in player dissent. When three Referees say “Stroke,” what can the player possibly say? (You cannot argue with a committee, and if you try to do so, you look silly.)
- Everyone is much happier—players, spectators, promoters, sponsors, and even the Referees!
- The image of the sport is greatly improved.
The success of any system, however, is dependent on the human beings using it. Thus we still need competent referees—and they also need to be trained in how to use the system properly. In addition, the objection is frequently raised that there won’t be enough competent referees: Tournaments have trouble finding even one Referee per match; how are they going to find three? (Promoters also often resist the extra expense of bringing in more referees.)
Such objections must always be secondary to the major consideration: Providing the best possible refereeing system and guaranteeing, as far as possible, a fair result.
In the heyday of the hardball game, there never seemed to be a problem finding enough referees. Why should there be a problem now? It may, indeed, not be possible to use three referees all the time (especially if several courts are in use), but certainly if you are running a tournament, three referees can be used from the Quarterfinals onwards—you need only five referees (as long as the matches are being played on one court).
The universal adoption of the Three Referee System will transform the game of squash—especially by eliminating all the dissent and bad conduct on court. Try it—you’ll like it!