After watching Sunday's Albany Open final between John White and Bradley Ball (via the well-produced UBSports stream), I am convinced that the PST's No-Let approach doesn't work.
The final point of the match, which led to White being defaulted for misconduct, highlighted the problem.
White held his swing in what appeared to be a textbook Stroke situation and was awarded the point (and thus the game) by the center referee. Ball appealed, and the two side judges overtuned the call, which gave the point to Ball.
The referee and judges were presented with the awkward task of determining not which player rationally deserved the point, but who was least at fault in the exchange.
The strange overrule implied the judges felt it was less bad for Ball to have been in the way than for White not to have played on.
Sorry, the rule doesn't hold up.
What the PST should consider is changing the scoring system. This would maintain the tour's upstart identity, while improving the spectator experience by adding more critical-point situations to each match.
Proposed PST Scoring:
Each game is played to four points, with sudden death at three-all.
The winner of three-out-of-five games wins the set.
The winner of three-out-of-five sets wins the match.
...Much better!
-TG
Much to PST's consternation, I've always just repeated a simple mantra: "there will always be some situations where a let is the only fair outcome".
ReplyDeleteI guess the above scenario is one of those!
Like many before me have said, you don't need to change the rules to reduce the number of replayed points, you just need to make sure the refs have stricter guidelines.
Now, as for changing the scoring system, I'm all for more, shorter games with more crisis points, and this tennis-style system is definitely worth a try.
How ironic, I guess, since White is (and now maybe was) a staunch supporter for the No Let rule. Ted, you are absolutely right, do away with it, it is a bad rule (no rule) and does absolutely nothing for the game. I have never supported it and there is no evidence that is has any positive affect on the game. I don't agree with the scoring change suggested, it's sounds more gimmicky than anything. Accept the fact that this game will never appeal to a broad TV audience the way tennis does, stop trying to copy tennis. It's an incredible sport, if you need to create "crisis" points you probably don't really enjoy watching the matches. There are many matches I can't sit through more than 10 minutes, including the recent Ball vs. White PST match, it was a horrible match with many errors, etc. and I'm a big fan of Ball's game having seen him play live numerous times. My point, why is it necessary to try and appeal to broader audience and change the game? It's a sport to be played more than be watched. Just look at the attendence of the live crowd? The attendence has nothing to do with trying to make the sport more appealing, interesting, faster or glamorous -- 99% of those watching play squash and unlike tennis aren't the types to sit in an easy chair, drink some beers and down a bowl of chips or marvel at players simply because they make gazillions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching every Albany Open match I believe the “point every rally” system PST uses improves the fluidity of the game which benefits players and spectators alike.
ReplyDeleteEvery player playing PST knows full well it is incumbent on the player to play the ball – if they don’t they risk losing the point.
The stroke situation in final point of the White v. Ball match was only textbook under WSF rules not PST point every rally. White held his swing but he should not have. As a result he left it to the referee/challenge officials to decide and the referee’s decision was overturned. This was surprising but not strange and an outcome White knew was possible when he chose not to play the ball.
The real problem regardless of rule system is a lack of consistent high level refereeing. Players and spectators alike deserve a real solution.
Changing the scoring system is an interesting idea but will not solve the thorny front court interference problems the sport of squash is dealing with right now.
What's so bad about lets? Isn't that just more squash people get to watch?
ReplyDeleteGood point, the matches don't last that long, I don't mind the lets.
ReplyDeleteSo, in about 30 events, one call went sour now you call for the game to be changed again. Sorry TG, but PST is on the right track. Sorry for White too as I feel the call should of gone his way.
ReplyDeleteThis is squash and to make squash a spectator friendly sport for non-squash playing people, PST rules are the future.
The next 2 events I've been told will feature the nr. 1 PST referee again.
Could someone please provide a link to a video of the rally?
ReplyDelete-hr