Refereeing in Nantes

Nantes has grown to be one of my favourite tournaments in the schedule. Its great seeing new players that I haven’t seen before and seeing some of my favourite developing players in amazing battles against others. However, in this tournament, I suddenly realised that somebody apart from the players has become almost more important in deciding the outcome of any match than before. That is the referee.

This hasn’t been a sudden thing, looking back on last year it seems to have developed over the course of last season especially after update 8. Update 8 was the update which gave more emphasis on making players go through collisions to get to the ball amongst other things, and when I first saw it occur I was all in favour of it. However, in Nantes this year I’ve found myself noticing that this update has been taken way too far in some areas and not explained well enough to players or the public.

I noticed in the final between Declan James and James Willstrop the referee was getting way too carried away with the idea that the players need to play through interference. You have two players who are over six foot tall on court with very large feet and yet the referee decided to implement the rules as if they were both shorter and nimble. There were points where both James and Willstrop were practically falling over the feet of each other and when they even dared to ask for a reasonable let, they were given a no let. Looking at some discussion of forums like squash stories, it doesn’t seem like I’m the only one who feels this way.

The situation that came to mind the most for me was the situations in the front to middle of the court where in the third game I believe, Willstrop was given a no let for a very bad ball due to, I’d guess, the ruling that he needs to go around the player. However after looking at the situation in the review where it was clear that Willstrop really couldn’t go around James without going through his legs, and they still gave a no let to make him play through the ball. Then practically a few points later in the same game, they gave a stroke for what I saw to be a very similar situation indeed.

Now don’t get me wrong, if I refereed half as well as these referees do on a regular basis then I’d be very smug with myself, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of their decisions on the whole, however I think common sense has been lost in the refereeing due to update 8. There seems to be such a focus on the requirement to move through interference that the idea of a simple let due to no player being at fault seems to have gone out the window. As a player of middling skill at best, but an avid fan of the sport as a whole, I would love to see squash in the Olympics and I think update 8 is the right way about getting the sport into the Olympics, but as much as a lack of free-flowing squash was hindering the sport, a lack of security in the expectations of what a decision should roughly be is also potentially going to hinder the sport just as much. People, including spectators who have never played the sport, need to know broadly what a decision is going to be, but I find myself sitting and watching Nantes and thinking that I clearly after 6 years have no idea what a decision could be.

Which brings me to my final point, in Nantes I also noticed the large amounts of, for lack of a better phrase, ‘back chatting’ from the players to the referees. Personally, I feel that you should be worried when Willstrop calls the referee out on decisions multiple times throughout the final. I haven’t seen Willstrop so consistently animated for many years. Update 8, in my opinion, needs to be explained more clearly to players whether that be during a match, or outside of the game, but I think there is a lack of understanding about what actions will lead to what decisions. For example, in the quarterfinals between Salem and Parker, I noticed considerable fishing for decisions, and whilst Parker did it as well, Salem noticeably did it more in my opinion, and yet I don’t think he was really called out for it by the referee. The referee continually gave no lets, yes lets and so on but never said why they cannot be strokes. I felt if the referee were to have simply said once, “Wrapping your racket around a player reduces your chances of getting a stroke,” then the game may have run a lot smoother. In the final Declan James even asked for the referee to give an explanation occasionally for why certain situations were no lets.

The job of the referee should be to facilitate the game to allow it to flow and have minimal decisions and I think that 95% of the time the referees do this amazingly. However, update 8 has been given so much focus in recent times that I think the traditional common sense rulings of squash have been lost slightly. Simply explaining to players clearly that they didn’t get a stroke because of fishing would help both the audience and the players understand that the referees won’t fall for the cheap tactics. This should not be taken as a dig at any referees, I have higher respect for them than the players and if I were in their shoes in those game balls then I would have completely bottled it to be honest, but as a huge fan of the sport I want the sport to reach the heights it deserves and I think just a small tweak in the refereeing is the right way to go about it.