Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink #4

By Barry Faguy, WSF Referees and Rules Committee

Here’s the fourth (and last) in this short series dealing with what can be called ‘conventions’—used here in the sense of ‘under- standings’ where we don’t necessarily follow the letter of the law. You can read the full intro with the first of the series—but for now, let’s wrap it up with something you might never have heard stated aloud:

PUNISHING THE DISADVANTAGED STRIKER
Not exactly familiar words, but perhaps you might recognize it when you read further. Unlike the other conventions we’ve spoken about, where players & officials are aware of the rule that they are fudging, this one has people believing they are acting according to the rules. Seeing this convention used really gets to me; firstly because it smacks me as truly unfair; secondly because I’ve found myself guilty of doing it on several occasions.

Despite the loose ball hit by James Willstrop (in red) that left Nick Matthew not only in good position but also in the way, it is incorrect to "punish" Willstrop from requesting a let (assuming interference after Matthew plays the ball) solely because he put himself in the bad position. That is irrelevant.
Despite the loose ball hit by James Willstrop (in red) that left Nick Matthew not only in good position but also in the way, it is incorrect to “punish” Willstrop from requesting a let (assuming interference after Matthew plays the ball) solely because he put himself in the bad position. That is irrelevant.

The principle
The title refers to those situations where a Referee denies a let to the incoming striker principally based on the fact that that striker’s previous poor return has placed the opponent in a “position of advantage” from which to make their shot. Consequently, this has caused this incoming striker to be in a disadvantageous position—with the opponent now placed in the way of direct access to the ball. This denial of a let so often occurs in the face of a clearly reachable ball—or at the very least, in the presence of doubt. The Referee all-too-often fails to simply apply the relevant rule (Guideline 11, last paragraph), and consider whether, “but for the interference,” the incoming striker could have reached the ball. The natural tendency and primitive instinct is to want to punish that disadvantaged striker—habits that are difficult to shed.

You need but look at any number of online videos of access-interference decisions to see this principle in action. If you listen to the commentators input about those same decisions—you’ll see this confirmed with their unfortunately-erroneous comments.

Examples
A typical situation occurs when the incoming striker’s poor previous return has set the opponent up to make his or her shot right from the T, and now that incoming striker is stuck waiting behind the opponent who is now finishing a tough but gettable drop to the front. Being unable to push right through the opponent to go directly to the ball, the incoming striker now appeals—only to hear “No Let.” Another example occurs when again, the incoming striker has, let’s say, made a poor lob from the left front to the middle. The opponent then volleys it from the T with a good drive to the right rear—all the while typically standing their ground as the incoming striker makes a desperate bee-line towards the right rear to the T where a collision occurs. Again, if the return is difficult, the all-too-frequent result is a “No Let.”

Is justice served?
At first glance, it seems like a just decision, and it generally is rationalized with the explanation that the disadvantaged player has ‘created’ the problem with the poor previous return. (This is clearly NOT truely ‘created’ interference—the subject of another column). Most often, aware of this prejudice by Referees who might not appreciate the text or spirit of the rules, the incoming striker will play through or around, thus being forced into a compromised return. In turn, the advantaged player tends to view the obligation to make every effort to clear the way for the incoming striker as quite unimportant. From there the game degenerates, with the result that any advantaged player tends stand on their shot—with little fear of punishment for not clearing.

However, there is nothing in the rules about punishing a player for hitting a poor shot. In fact, the last paragraph of Guideline 11 specifies the opposite—that a let be awarded to the striker who demonstrates the ability to reach the ball after having put the opponent in a position of advantage. And, as Referee, you also have to consider the very real element of ‘uncertainty’ (Rule 13.2.3), which mandates a let as a fair decision.

Suggestions
There’s no question that this is a tough bit of instinct to overcome, often risking the wrath of the opponent and resounding ‘boos’ from the audience. You may not even like this rule. However, until someone makes a proposal that succeeds in changing the rules, this is what prevails, and this is what you must apply.

The easiest way for fairness to prevail is for you to use a simple trick; a metaphorical interpretation of the words “but for the interference.” Just mentally look at the situation with the opponent out of the picture, and then ask yourself if the striker would have made it. Forget the opponent’s or the crowd’s reaction. Do what’s right!

Finally, if you do indeed say “No Let” in these “position of advantage” situations, make sure that it’s because either, you’re certain that the striker could not make a good return, or because the striker was not making enough effort to do so (obviously considering the requirement about avoiding physical abuse). Any “No Let” that you decide should not be because of a consideration of the quality of that player’s previous shot. There is no allowance for that in the rules.