PST: We Got The Call Wrong from DailySquashReport.com
April 20, 2012- The Pro Squash Tour has released a
slow-motion video of what is purportedly the controversial final point
of Sunday's Albany Open final between John White and Bradley Ball.
The PST issued the following statement:
This is Joe McManus from the Pro Squash
Tour. You’re about to watch the final rally of the 2012 Albany Open
Championship match, which ended in some controversy. First, this was a
brilliant match, played by two of our toughest competitors, John White
and Bradley Ball. I am speaking today to address how this match ended
so that fans can hear my thoughts as well as see the rally for
themselves.
I’d like to thank Floris Jansen for
providing the video, who recorded it as a fan sitting in the front row.
Please click the link above to start the video.
Here we see the end of John White’s serve.
At the 16 second mark, John stretches from center court to retrieve a
ball that is tight to the wall. He then does the exact same thing on
his backhand at the 26 second mark.
At 37 seconds, he moves to play the ball
but his opponent is now directly in his path. This shot, as evidenced
from the prior two, is a ball that John can play.
According to PST’s Rules of Play, if the
incoming striker’s opponent prevents his shot to the front wall or
movement to a playable ball, the referee should award the point to the
incoming striker.
This rally highlights one difference
between the old style of play and Pro Squash Tour’s modern rules.
Bradley is a top touring pro and is capable of hitting shots with great
pace and precision. In this example, Bradley had time to play the ball
and the entire court to play his shot.
The shot he chose to hit is the only one
that places his body in line with John’s path to the ball. Bradley
played his shot from the mid-court and the ball bounced a second time
in the middle of the service box. John’s only path to the ball was
through Bradley.
This is a very common shot on other pro
tours because it places the incoming striker under pressure to reach
the ball while simultaneously having to contend with an opponent who is
blocking his path. Under the old rules of play, this would
almost certainly be called a let. In fact, increasingly a large number
of lets at the pro level are being called under similar circumstances.
In PST tournaments, the referee should, as he did here, award the point to White.
But Bradley chose to challenge the call,
which is entirely his right to do so. Had John been awarded the point,
he would have won the fourth game 14-12 and the match would have
proceeded to a deciding fifth game.
Bradley took an extended period of time to
voice his challenge. Because squash’s rules require continuous play,
players will typically challenge a call quickly because of the time
constraints of an impending serve.
As this was the last point of the game,
there was no such time constraint specified in our rules. It is also
fair to assume that by the time the challenge was made, the challenge
officials did not have a clear recollection of the rally. This may have
contributed to their incorrect decision to overturn the call.
Like many sports, there is a human element
involved with officiating a squash match. In many ways, this enhances
the fan experience. But on occasion, it results in an incorrect call
being made. My role is to acknowledge these moments, so that players
and fans have a clear understanding of the circumstances, and to create
a system which makes these moments rare. I issued a statement earlier
this week acknowledging the issue and will be sending a memo to our
referees and players to close this loophole.
Thank you for your interest in squash and
the Pro Squash Tour. And thank you to our fans in Albany for hosting
such a magnificent tournament.
I am aware that because we eliminated the
traditional let in 2010, and our tour was unique in doing so, there is
still great interest in discussing Pro Squash Tour’s rules of play. As
such, I will distribute this transcript, video and audio to squash
fans, writers, and other interested parties.