But at match point for El Hindi in the PST final, at 10-9 in the fourth, El HIndi was awarded the point (and match) by the referee after he called a let.
This was a classic Let-only situation, but under PST rules the referee had no choice but to rule "Point" for one player or the other.
So Palmer would have lost the match on a ridiculous call, except that one of the appeal judges made the even more bizarre decision that there had been a safety issue and therefore ruled "Replay".
The other appeal judge apparently ruled "Point Palmer", so without a majority decision, the point was replayed.
The end result was that the PST got it right, but not without breaking its own rules.
My suggestion:
Go with the current No-Let rule adaptation until the the first player reaches nine in a game.
After one player has reached nine, play the rest of the game under traditional rules.
-TG
Mmmm, no, I don't think so - if it's a wrong decision for the end of the game, it's the wrong decision for the first point too. This would just formalise the natural disinclination some refs have to give strokes on game or match ball.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't just that one of these arbitrary/harsh decisions would spoil the end of a game, the problem is that these arbitrary/harsh decisions exist at all.
Far better to just accept that occasionally rallies will results in a let/replay as the only fair outcome and build that into the wording of the rules.
Then, the only difference between PST and everyone else is that their refs are stricter on interpretation/application of the interference rule and everyone's happy.
In my mind, I still have trouble seeing these as more than exhibition events with a bit of competitive trimming, which makes the PSA ban seem even more silly, but that's another story ...
Ted,
ReplyDeleteI believe this point was called as such because the official on the left wall was unsighted. The question related to whether or not Palmer's ball was down or up on the front wall. When the players questioned the referees, the main referee and the challenge official said they were unsighted because of the players bodies. So, the decision was made to replay the rally. I think we are discussing the same point. If not, I apologize for discussing another.
Separately, I understand it is easy to focus on the few decisions that appear harsh if you are accustomed to the old rules. I do, however, want people to focus on what should be obvious. The endless replaying of rallies that has been the case in the modern era makes the game uninteresting for fans. Our rules create more exciting rallies and a freer flowing game which highlights the players' athleticism. And it makes the sport enjoyable for fans to watch.
Best,
Joe McManus
Pro Squash Tour
Joe,
ReplyDeleteYou are discussing a different rally.
-TG
It is beyond me why the PSA and now the PST have not adopted the simplest solution to the entire refereeing problem: have two judges and a referee. The referee's decision may be appealed by either player, resulting in the decision either overruled or sustained. There is no need for arguments, posturing or other expressions as the decision has been made. Any further delay by a player results in a point penalty for delay of game.
ReplyDeleteThis system has been used successfully for years in North American doubles.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Last season, we copied exactly the doubles tour process, except for one modification. They allow unlimited challenges of the referee's decision. We limit players to three unsuccessful challenges per match.
It is a good system, so we copied it. And I am happy to give the ISDA credit for doing it first.
Best,
Joe McManus
Pro Squash Tour
Just got a note from a friend letting me know the former WPSA Hardball tour originally developed this challenge system.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for the incorrect statement above.
Thank you to the leadership of the WPSA for originating this challenge system and to the ISDA for perpetuating it. They both got there before we did.
Joe McManus
Pro Squash Tour