Wanna Change Some Rules?!

Several years ago, the rules were changed in an attempt to stop players from "turning" on the ball. Doing so now will result in a stroke against the striker if he/she hits his/her opponent. But stopping will be an automatic let. The question is whether to ban turning altogether, reinstate the option of doing so without penalty, or leave the rule as it is.
Several years ago, the rules were changed in an attempt to stop players from “turning” on the ball. Doing so now will result in a stroke against the striker if he/she hits his/her opponent. But stopping will be an automatic let. The question is whether to ban turning altogether, reinstate the option of doing so without penalty, or leave the rule as it is.

By Barry Faguy, WSF Referees and Rules Committee

How about allowing two bounces?! OK—not a good idea; but surely there are some things you would like to see different in the game? What’s been bugging you about the rules? Do you have suggestions that might solve some of the typical problem areas?

As you read this, the WSF Rules sub-committee has been at work for the past several years on re-wording and re-thinking the foundational document of our sport. Ultimately, its draft will be submitted to WSF member nations for consultation—the US being one of them. Here’s a chance to advance your own ideas for debate. I’m sure some of you are already typing—but for others, it might take some examples to get the old wheels spinning and have you send us some suggestions here at Squash Magazine. Put any commentary into an email and send it along and we’ll see if we can put together an article discussing the contributions.

To get things started, let’s list a few things across different categories. We’ll kick things off with the Interference category, and then continue by focusing on General, Behavioral and Injury/Illness categories.

Interference category

Ban turning?
This is an old one. Innovators believe that, given the danger involved with turning, players should not be allowed to do it. Traditionalists will claim that no method of returning the ball should ever be precluded. Compromisers make the suggestion to allow the act of turning (to demonstrate the ability to make the return), but to forbid the actual hitting of the ball. Ideas?

Every effort?
Another old one. There’s no doubt that the amount of effort by the non-striker to clear, and the amount of effort by the striker to play the ball, are crucial considerations for you when you’re deciding an interference situation. However, the current word used to characterize that effort needs some work— given that ‘every’ is clearly unrealistic. Got any suggestions—maybe like ‘reasonable’, ‘adequate’, ‘any’, or ‘necessary’?

Fair view?
Yup—also old! Over the years, there have been several proposals to delete ‘fair view’ from among the four legitimate forms of interference. Some believe it never occurs in isolation and is pretty much insignificant, while others believe that it can indeed be a crucial impediment for the striker and needs to be considered. Would you miss it if it were gone?

Eliminate winning boast?
In cases where the non-striker is clear of the striker’s direct return to the front wall, the rules still allow for a stroke if the non-striker is hit (or would have been hit) by a return that was headed for a side wall—if it’s judged that it would have been a winning boast. This was included years ago, possibly out of the feeling that it is somehow fair. However, other than adding to the complexity of the rules, it’s also easy to see it as unfair since the non-striker has, by definition, provided what the rules demand—a clear path for the ball to the front wall. Why should another contrivance be considered?

Presentation of interference
Currently, the rules use what is known as a decision-based’ format, meaning that the provisions deal with those situations which should be ‘No Lets’, then state those which should be ‘Strokes’, and finally conclude that whatever is left over should be ‘Lets’. The reader then applies the rules across all forms of interference to arrive at a conclusion. An innovative way to do it is to adopt an ‘interference-based’ format—which lists all the possible decisions under each of the four forms of interference. Thus, for example, a reader would find every pertinent decision relating to swing interference in one section. Whaddya think?

General category

Adopt a universal call of ‘Fault’ on the serve?
The current lexicon for the various ‘not good’ occurrences during the serve uses a number of different ‘calls’ (out, down, not up, fault, foot-fault). What do you think of the idea of having that one word describe them all?

Serve – choose to receive?
With ‘point-a-rally’ scoring now the standard, should the winner of the racket spin be allowed to choose to receive – since the opportunities for a winner are much greater with the return of serve?

All’ or ‘Each’?
When the score is tied, would you rather see this latter word used?

Eliminate or expand guidelines?
There is a proposal afoot to totally eliminate the 19 guidelines. Do you think the rules can be rewritten to be more comprehensible by removal of all the guidelines– or do you think in fact that the guidelines need to be expanded upon?

Behavioural category

Conduct game – part or all?
When a player’s behaviour is bad enough to merit a Conduct Game, the current rules mandate the simple loss of the rest of the game in progress. This could sometimes occur when only one point remains in the game– thus the equivalent of a Conduct Stroke. Do you think that fairness demands that the player lose an entire game – with the next game starting at the same score?

Multiple strokes?
Since there is quite a gap in the allowable Conduct penalties from a Conduct Stroke to a Conduct Game (potentially representing 11 points) – should the rules be changed to allow the assessment of multiple strokes (i.e., two or more) to reflect varying levels of poor behaviour for a given incident?

Injury / illness category

Should Illness equal Injury?
The current rules allow 3 minutes for an occurrence deemed to be a self-inflicted injury – but no time out for an occurrence deemed to be illness (nausea, asthma, cramps). Since they can all can be debilitating, should they all be made equal?

Re-bleeding & forfeiting a game?
If (after stopping the original bleeding) a player re-bleeds from the same wound later in a match, then the game in progress must be forfeited – even if it’s 1–all in the 5th game of the World Open. Do you consider this fair – or do you think any re-bleeding should be treated as an original bleeding – or alternatively, simply having the Conduct Rule applied to it?

Mitigating the opponent–inflicted provision?
Currently, an opponent-inflicted injury pretty much mandates the award of the match to the injured player if that player “requires time”. Some consider this pretty drastic for what could be an accidental event and risk ending a match prematurely. Do you think this provision should be softened?

So, that was just a few ideas to get the ball rolling. Don’t say you didn’t get a chance to sound off on this.

Meanwhile, if you want information on just about any officiating topic, go to (http://www.squash.ca/e/officiating/tso/) – and click on the ‘Library’ link to the left to find your subject.