Refereeing

[NMC8]

I have really enjoyed the clips that Seshi has put on the site but was wondering whether we should have there own section or a section dedicated to this type of discussion thread.

Personally i have found them really educational and although i watch a lot of the pro's games funnily it is there movement, shot choice and striking that i generally focus on and have never studied the ref's decisions in detail.

Some of the clips i have watched time and again to understand the refs decisions or the thoughts of other contributors.

I think this type of thread will be good for stimulating more activity on site.

nmc8

[ianball]

That's why the Seshmeisterguru has been putting them up. Shame I cant view them at work and seem to always forget when I'm at home.

Open disccussion moving towards an explanation of both the process and the reason for refereeing decisions is really good.

Ian B.

[seshadri]

Thanks NMC8 and Ianball [though 'Sesh' will suffice, if my full name is a mouthfull]. My purpose in putting up these clips is to:
a] Show how amazingly athletic the players are, and why I feel that 'No-Let' should be used very,very rarely
b] Show how the players sometimes don't cover themselves with glory when they play certain types of shots or 'clear' in certain ways
c] Hopefully make both players and refs realise that both sides could be at fault, and therefore, should start discussing interference with mutual respect for the difficulty the other side faces
d] Stimulate discussion on what 'clearing' is, and maybe, suggest a clearing mechanism that will ensure continuity of play to the maximum extent possible. One of the main reasons why I like Ramy's game is the 100% effort that he puts into clearing away quickly after playing his shot.
e] Put the 3 ref system under a magnifying glass, and debate whether it has really made players happy with the change-over. This sytem definitely cuts down on arguments, but has the overall quality of the decision-making gone up?

[ianball]

I think that the 3 refs sytem is both a good and bad thing.
Good from the point that it gives little or less oppurtunity to argue a decision and make all borderline squash fans and juniors think that is the expected behaviour from squash players.
Bad from the point of view that it's deemed neccessary to have more referees than players. Where is the respect? I played Rugby Union as a teenager and one man with a couple of supporters or subs running the touch controlled a match of 30 players with more respect than squash refs get. Rugby League has started having more refs in Australia to protect the players at the ruck.
(I choose to ignore football as an example)
Rather than a 3 ref system I would prefer a single ref and a more disciplined approach from the players but hey ho, you're always going to get angry players and maybe the distance between un amplified players and the ref means they have to shout to be heard and that comes across as a bit aggressive?

[Hob Nob]

I think part of the problem is maybe not a lack of respect, but more a sheer reliance on them to make the correct decisions as it can affect the players in so many ways.

A run of bad calls can demotivate a player in a game, and (in one of the video examples, cost a player a match and tournament!).

I think if I had my livelyhood put in jeopardy with some suspect decisions, i'd probably get fairly angry about it too...

[seshadri]

Respect has to be commanded, not demanded. I doubt that any top level player will argue unless he is nursing a genuine grievance, The commonest reason for arguments , in my view, is the No-Let decision. Basically, the ref is saying that the player is not fast enough to reach the ball even if there had not been any interference. My honest opinion is that the majority of No-Lets that I've seen are just not tenable, and my sympathies are entirely with the aggrieved player.
Where I cannot stand argumentative behaviour is when the players are wrong on the rules, but still persist in mocking the ref. Such acts have to be penalised as they indicate disrespect for the rules, the ref as well as for the opponent's rights.
The major drawback with the 3 ref system is that no explanation is deemed necessary for the decision. Take the Shorbagy-Mathew collision for example--at first, it is Mathew who deserves an explanation why he is not entitled to a Let, and, later on, surely Shorbagy too is entitled to an explanation as to why the earlier decision was overturned. Squash is not a game for simpletons, and high-level players deserve an explanation when they ask for one. Anything less is an insult to their abilities as well as to their intelligence.

[crossdrop]

The 3 ref system stops arguing but not bad calls. The biggest problem i have is when the center ref says "it's a majority decision, play on!", with no explanation on why the decision was handed down. Please remember squash world that a LET is given when there is doubt. So regardless of a majority decision there still is doubt amongst the refs which should result in a let. Unless refs start getting more educated, younger and a decent playing level this will continue. I feel sorry for James and Greg who have been recently shafted by the 3 ref system.

[shearsquash]

Refereeing is a thankless job but necessary. These clips highlight some of the difficulties refs face. Even with video reruns we are having difficulty coming to 'the correct' decision. It comes down to refs interpretation in a split second and a bit of luck. As Bill Maclaren, that great rugby commentator once said, ' the referee is the sole arbiter of Fact'.
In other words, once he has made his decision , right or wrong, it becomes fact and the players just have to get on with it.
The best refs explain there decisions and word them so as to reduce confrontation. For example,'I saw that ball as down', is much easier for a player to accept than ,'THAT BALL WAS DOWN'.
One is an opinion, which still counts, the other, is either a fact or a lie. You can argue about the facts if they are wrong but there is less point in arguing with an opinion which is honestly given.