Addressing the Daryl Selby Refereeing Blog
by Bob Hanscom
April 10. 2013
Addressing Daryl Selby's Refereeing (problems) Blog, as a response to what the answers are... short answer: More money!
Long answer: IF...(not sure it's all the players) the professional squash-players feel extremely upset, or strongly enough over the quality of refereeing, then they should be willing to have a percentage of whatever prize-money (for the big events) is being put up dedicated to paying "qualified" professional referees.
Doing that (perhaps) would entice some of the (retired) pros to become referees. Let's face it, many of them (after retirement) don't have much choice but to become teaching pros, commentators, etc. However, there are only so many of "those" (good) jobs out there. Becoming a (well-paid) "professional" referee would (at least) give them another option.
It isn't widely known by those not involved with the sport, but in order to be a "judge" in the world of figure-skating (Olympics, World Championships, etc.) one must have actually competed at the level they are being assigned to officiate.
Figure skating judges with their electronic monitoring devices
In the sport of gymnastics, again at the Olympic and World Championship level, the "head" judge (there are four plus the head judge) must have also COMPETED at that level, i.e. Ludmilla Tourischeva, Nadia Comăneci, Muriel Grossfeld, Yukio Endo, Boris Shakhlin, Vladimir Artemov and Nellie Kim.
Gymnastic Judge Nellie Kim
Olympic Gold Medalist
And in diving, here's what those requirements are. "The Olympic diving organizers tap successful college diving coaches as Olympic diving judges. Former Olympic and competitive divers also make the grade." Having to make "subjective/interpretive" decisions, rather than "objective" ones as in figure skating, gymnastics and diving, it would seem that this protocol/policy is appropriate. Why not for squash!?
World Class Diving With Judges Having To Make Split-Second Decisions
That addresses the opinion of some that in order to referee at the professional squash level, one must have competed at that level. I know...there are many (Jonathon Power, for one, has stated so) who feel THEY are the ONLY ones who really understand the (pro) game well enough and are qualified to make the "right" decisions. Could you ever imagine players arguing with the likes of Nicol, Power, Parke, Heath, Walker, Ricketts, Lincou, J & J Khan, Devoy, Fitz-Gerald, Owens, Atkinson, Grainger, etc? I don't think so!
The (pro-tour) retired Thierry Lincou fulfilling his responsibility!
Once having "qualified" referees willing, able and available, the two major area's needing improvement would be: 1) A better view-point (location) for them to do the job, i.e. return to the platform behind and above the back wall. The argument that it "blocks" the view of the paying patrons, in my view, is not valid. Shouldn't the referees have the "best" view of the action!? 2) A "core" of (well paid) referees needs to be created and used whenever possible for the major events. This would result in more consistent calls being made!
Having the "best" view of the action!
Lot's to take into consideration, for sure! Regarding the system(s)...one referee with access to replay, three-referee's, referee/marker, etc. it still comes down to the one very basic attribute...(after having acquired the "book" knowledge), it's experience, experience and more experience!
Back To Main
