It's Your Call ... You Be The Official

Web Events

Here is your opportunity to comment, discuss, banter, dissect what the "proper" call should be in the following video clip. It is our hope that this feature will be an opportunity to be entertaining, informative and another means of bringing squashers together from all over the world. If we can obtain the clips and permissions, we would like to make this an ongoing feature.

We ask and look to the audience to please:
- show respect and courtesy to your fellow squash enthusiasts
- self-police and hold each other to account in ensuring appropriate conduct

So here we go:
   1. Check out the clip below.  What would be your call?
   2. Give us your opinion and ideas by:
          a) voting using the Poll box on the top right of this page
          b) clicking Comment below the video player on the right
   3. Check back and see what others have to say, add your comments, responses, reactions
   4. Help us spread the word about the site, by forwarding a link, sending an e-mail
   5. If possible, support the sponsors that support our site

VIDEO PROBLEMS?

Comments (11)

Blocking
written by Paul , June 04, 2008

Both players were deliberately slow to clear during rally. Palmer was crowding a little at end sequence and didn't seem to have had any conviction to prepare for the next shot on the backhand. Think no let is probably right. Maybe Palmer was anticipating a shot from Willstrop to the right.

...
written by ray , May 07, 2008

A clear stroke, his racquet was up,and he was behind Wilstrop ready to play a shot.

Let
written by Seshadri , April 04, 2008

No one has considered Fair View [the least known and adjudicated form of interference]. Palmer was so close behind Willstrop that the latter's shot was totally blocked from Palmer's view till the ball almost crossed Willstrop's body. At this late juncture, Palmer recovered enough only to play a boast. As he cannot hit Willstrop with a direct shot, it cannot be a Stroke. As he did not have Fair View, and as he has not committed in the wrong direction, I would rule 'Let'

NO LET
written by Z Shaan , March 25, 2008

Ball was past, good decision, close one though... it is one of those situations where it's either a stroke or a no let and I think they made the right decision. Palmer was off balance as well so that doesn't warrant a stroke, hence they chose the right option. Although I did see this match and the refereeing wasn't consistent at all so this ended up being a very harsh decision. As long as the refereeing is consistent, players know how to deal with the situation. I guarantee u Palmer would've played that even if he was off balance had he gotten similar decisions earlier on in the match. The refereeing is in poor condition unfortunately for our beloved sport...

no let
written by fl , March 12, 2008

Extremely difficult for the referee. Everything happens so fast that it is very hard to see whether Palmer was ready to hit before the ball went past him. However, the player is responsible for showing that he could have hit the ball. In these cases, it is customary to tap the ball, usually against the side wall. Had Palmer done this, there wouldn't be any doubts that it was a stroke. I don't find it surprising that the referee went for the no let in this case.

stroke
written by p , March 07, 2008

I think the issue here is the timing of the appeal. From the video it seems that Palmer was set up to play the ball almost immediately (pros have excellent reach when they need it), but he was slightly off balance (expecting a much better shot probably) and didn't stop moving until the ball was well past. If we consider the appeal to be at the time he stopped swinging it's a stroke, but by the time he stopped moving it's a no let. I'm guessing the ref misinterpreted when the appeal was made, since pros usually have such good balance they can stop immediately.

Let
written by Tero , March 03, 2008

Indeed a very difficult call. I think according to the rules this is a situation where it should either be a stroke or a no let. Palmer either was there on time to play the shot or he wasn't. I don't think Willstrop ever had time to clear properly. Having said that, I still feel this should probably be a let. The reasoning is that it all happened so fast that the referee couldn't possibly have been sure. I watched the video and I'm still not sure whether he was there on time.

Let
written by David , March 03, 2008

I think this is a very difficult call. Willstrop's shot was by no means tight to the wall and certainly there to be hit, it's a question as to whether Palmer was quick enough on the ball to warrant a stroke. I disagree with 1of42, I don't think Willstrop had cleared enough and his shot was quite loose. While Palmer would be quite sure he was all over it, I am not sure he was there fast enough to play a straight drive, but he definately could've got a racquet on that ball. I personally, would go for a let given the 50/50 nature of the decision. I'm sure they'd both be upset over that one, but that's why I'm glad I'm not a top level reff :D

...
written by 1of42 , February 25, 2008

No let. Palmer wasn't going to hit him unless he was going for a reverse boast or something similarly ridiculous, Willstrop had cleared enough, and in that situation it's either a no let or a stroke.

...
written by z , February 18, 2008

no let. play the ball.

...
written by Dallas , February 09, 2008

Stroke all the way!

Write comment

Name

Website

Comment smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

security image
Write the displayed characters