Refereeing Clip No.9

[seshadri]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xXtgBap3g

Two wrongs make a right ???

[NMC8]

Watching that no wonder they are asking Palmer to help out the rugby team.

Did not get the commentators comments but so not sure what the decisions were but in my i would have given a no let on the first and if Gaultier had stop from playing the shot I would have been inclined to give him a stroke anyway, and secondly I would have awarded the stroke to Gaultier for what seemed like pre meditated blocking and interference.

Could be wrong but that sort of physical approach can not be rewarded and although Palmer is a fantastic player and I am one of his greatest fans those two clips do not show him at his best.

nmc8

[off the wall]

This is a classic case where the rules are not applied, and to be honest it's probably common sense that they are not.

In both, the person on the T is obliged to vacate the area to let the incoming player through.
This would not reward the good play by gaultier in the first instance, so no let is a good decision.
Palmer, in the view of the refs is obliged to go around Gaultier to get to the ball, but the rules say
different I believe.

The second case is almost identical, but Palmer has to do a bit of work to get in the way!

The smaller player, on average, will always lose out against a bigger player, simply because the
bigger player can push the smaller guy, as in clip 1, and make it look more of a let.
Gaultier has no chance of pushing Palmer around so he's unlikely to get anywhere with his appeal,
even though Palmer has subtley blocked him.

As a smaller player myself, there's not too much you can do, just try to stand your ground, and
accept that you are going to get "done" from time to time.

[ianball]

Palmer is a fantastic player and I am one of his greatest fans those two clips do not show him at his best.

nmc8

I agree! But I think this was the match where they had quite a few arguments over thngs and David was being exaggerational to make a point?

Is exaggerational a word? How about determined to illustrate his point?

Ian B.

[seshadri]

Watching that no wonder they are asking Palmer to help out the rugby team.

Did not get the commentators comments but so not sure what the decisions were .

nmc8

Both players got No-Lets.
The audio is slightly out of sync with the video, sorry about that, but even my original file is defective.

[gmandleydixon]

First decision of 'No let' is 100% correct. Palmer should have given more room for the shot. The 2nd decision is also clearly a no let, (for the same reasons), but not quite as obvious

[GoSquash]

Thanks Sesh for these clips I must agree they do create good discussion and lots of valid points,

The First 1 is a clear no let in my book, bad shot into the middle the putting himself in a bad position, The shot executed is then very tight.

I must have watched the second one seven or eight times now and out of all the clips is the only one that I'm still not sure what the correct call actually is.

I instinct is let, maybe a stoke depending on incident in the match previously to prevent further blocking.

Gaultier plays a bad shot but gives palmer enough room to play the ball. Palmer's shot although good I think is gettable so I believe that rules out the no let in this instance.
The whole key to this is Palmer's movement. He clealy moves forward but you could ague that is towards the T and he is intilted to do that not knowing which way round him Gaultier will go, but once Gaultier starts to go round the front of Palmer, he must stop moving forward and let Gaultier through, instead he carries on moving forward.

Having read what I've just written now I think it's a stroke. But this I think, is the main weakness of the three three system. It prevents the main ref giving a harsh but fair call to prevent further behaviour.

This could work many ways, e.g.

The main ref wants to give a stroke to prevent further blocking but the two side ref's give a let as it is probably the correct call.

The main ref wants to give no-let to ensure the player makes enough effort to get to the ball next time but again the two side ref's give a let as it is probably the correct call.

[seshadri]

First decision of 'No let' is 100% correct. Palmer should have given more room for the shot. The 2nd decision is also clearly a no let, (for the same reasons), but not quite as obvious

Technically, then, the decision should have been Stroke to Gaultier, and Stroke to Palmer, respectively.
By ruling No-Let, the refs are basically saying that neither Palmer nor Gaultier were good enough to reach their opponent's shot even in the absence of interference. I think that's what angered Palmer and provoked him to block Gaultier on the next point. Palmer definitely does not play the game this way, he's extremely clean, though a mite slow in clearing. His anger was not so much at Gaultier, but at the ref, for not picking up Gaultier's earlier heavy interference after completing the shot. In fact, Palmer immediately apologised to Gaultier after getting that next point, as he knew as well as Gaultier that the latter could have easily returned the ball.

[gmandleydixon]

In this instance, Seshadri, I disagree with you, although I understand where you are coming from and your views are always considered carefully. These situations should be covered by the ‘Created Interference Rule’, and I have only just noticed that the rule has been written in such a way that the original reason for introducing the rule has been lost. I can say this with confidence because I was a major mover in the introduction of the rule.

In these 2 situations (First Palmer & then Gaultier) played a shot into the middle of the court and then created their own interference by getting too close & not allowing the player to complete his shot. This is an easy option for players who have played a bad shot. They should stand off the player and then they are always entitled to a straight line to the ball, but not when they create the problem for themselves, (first by playing a bad shot & then getting too close). These two situations are classic examples of the type that first prompted debate on created interference at the World Championships in Malaysia in 1989.

It is a shame that the rules have become so complicated, (in an attempt to cover every eventuality) that some of the 'common sense' purpose has dissapeared.

[seshadri]

In this instance, Seshadri, I disagree with you, although I understand where you are coming from and your views are always considered carefully. These situations should be covered by the ‘Created Interference Rule’, and I have only just noticed that the rule has been written in such a way that the original reason for introducing the rule has been lost.

It is a shame that the rules have become so complicated, (in an attempt to cover every eventuality) that some of the 'common sense' purpose has dissapeared.

Sir, that is exactly my point, viz. the rules, as they are presently written, do not allow for the concept of created interference to be applied to Palmer and Gaultier, and therefore, a No-Let based on that concept cannot be offered as an explanation by today's referees. I fully agree with you that both players created their own interference to some degree by remaining too close to their opponent, but, as the rules stand, once the striker accepts that interference and plays his shot, the incoming striker starts with a 'clean slate', so to say, and he is immediately entitled to direct and unobstructed access to the ball.
That's why, in these incidents, neither player should have played his shot, and should have assumed that the refs would have seen the crowding and awarded a 'Stroke' to him. However, if he has chosen to take his chances and played the ball, he no longer has the right to actively interfere with his opponent's path to the ball, which both players were guilty of, Palmer blatantly, and Gaultier a bit more subtly. As the rules stand today, both players were entitled to a Let, as they could most certainly reach the ball. Being denied a Let in these cases requires an explanation to the players rather than a mere bland announcement of No-Let by the 3 ref system. I, for one, can certainly understand Palmer's and Gaultier's disgust, because the refs obviously turned a Nelson's eye to the blocking that went on in both instances.
I agree with you that 'commonsense' is somewhat lacking in the wording of the rules, probably that's why 13.2.3 was inserted as a lifeline for refs .

[seshadri]

Thanks Sesh for these clips I must agree they do create good discussion and lots of valid points,......

Hi , Go squash, I hadn't seen this post earlier. I think your posts have to be vetted by a moderator before they can be seen by everyone else. I'm sure you find this bothersome, so I suggest you quickly make a series of posts on mutiple topics, so that you enter into the 'approved' list of members who can post without any delay.
Anyway, thanks for taking interest in refereeing matters, your views on this clip are well thought-out.

[shearsquash]

My view is the first decision is correct , a no let, as Palmer plays a loose shot and has no rights to any centre court area. He therefore cannot reach the good return from Gautier. The second incident should have been a Let as, although Gautier plays a poor shot to the middle, Palmers return is not so good and he runs a deliberate block to prevent fair return. Neither case is a stroke as neither chasing player was even close to a position from which they could have played a winner and both striking players chose to take on the shot and were able to do this successfully.