Thursday, February 2, 2023

Clearing, Lets, and No lets


All

 Now that I'm on the road to recovery and frequenting the Club more and more, I'm pleased and delighted to see the great strides that the Club is making.  Last week I attended a "Fireside Chat" with Sam McCullagh as its first honored speaker - a fabulous event. I'm also watching more squash - particularly doubles matches. Just last week I witnessed a match and afterwards I came away with some thoughts and observations that I want to comment on.

 I wrote the four players the following e-mail.

 John
******

 Gents

While watching the four of you playing a "friendly" game of doubles yesterday afternoon, a "Let" was called during a rally that interrupted play.  

Both players of the opposing team, anticipating that the ball was going to be struck from the MIDDLE alley of the court, immediately and properly cleared to the side walls leaving the striker of the ball an unobstructed front wall.  Even with this, the striker called a "Let" with the explanation that he didn't want to hit anyone - a laudable call.  From my vantage point as a spectator, the striker's position before striking the ball was set up to hit a shot to the SIDE wall, not the front wall.

Is it still a let? I wasn't absolutely sure.

So I called a doubles partner of mine from a few years back, Mike McGorry from Buffalo.  During his playing days, he was an odd bird who actually RELISHED refereeing matches and was qualified do so as he was US Squash certified.  He wrote back to me with this:

"It's a "LET" if the shot is a “reasonable” shot to hit and he’s not trying to get himself out of a defensive position. 

 For example, if you are on the right wall and I get a ball and I want to hit a three-wall, when my left wall opponent is in the BACK in the court behind the service line (a reasonable shot), and I am likely to hit you with my shot:: "Let"; conversely, if you clear to the side wall BEHIND the service line and I am taking a ball near the back door of the court in a clearly defensive position, I don’t get a "Let" saying I wanted to hit the ball to where you were standing.

Thanks, Mike. I think that clears it up.

 John
"John – thank you for the taking the time to clarify."

 "Well thought out and clearly reasoned and articulated! Excellent."

 "Thanks John. you solved a riddle for me"

 "Yes, thanks. At our standard, we rarely question any let called, unless it is clear that the player could not get to the ball, obstruction or not. We have all been hit enough times to concede a point or two in the interests of safety!!
******

 What is developing at the club in the course of play of which I have observed so frequently in the past few months, are players NOT clearing to the side wall when the ball is being struck from the back court while positioned in the MIDDLE alley.  The striker is ENTITLED to hit the ball to the ENTIRE front wall with a crosscourt as well as a rail; not just with a rail down a wall.  While guarding the court, the defending player should NEVER be positioned in front of the striker in the same alley. By doing so it is an abuse.

An ABUSE? YES!!

By not clearing properly and by remaining steadfastly in the middle alley, the striker of the ball is at a disadvantage and is compelled to avoid hitting the non-clearing player for every player's safety.  The striker has no other option but to try to hit the ball down the alley choosing a rail or into the SIDE wall thereby setting up the rally in the non-clearing team's favor.  Hitting a cross-court is not possible.
The unfortunate result of not clearing properly
Goodness gracious! I have seen this so frequently while observing matches over the course of the last few months that I was coming to the conclusion that this was a deliberate ploy by teams to set up winning opportunities for themselves!

HARSH?  You bet! Anything that is worth doing should be done well, with a modicum of fairness, and with good spirit. One should expect nothing less.

at

1 comment:

  1. LYNN BROMANFebruary 22, 2023 at 10:48 AM

    Good advice from Mike McGorry. John wondering if it was a let or not is telling. He has obviously seen situations where there was interference, and the decision was no let. Probably the most common situation is similar to the one described by John; wanting to play a boast when the front wall is available. Rule 5 says that players MUST clear the front 2/3rds of the side walls; yes both side walls. By inference if a player does clear to the back 1/3 of the side wall there is no interference, in particular for a boast played from the back 1/3. The pros generally play and are expected to play if a shot is available despite any interference. But that is not what the rules dictate. A player must not interfere with an intended boast that would have reached the front wall fairly, even if the entire front wall was available.

    ReplyDelete