The state of affairs
There are four forms of interference recognized in Squash, and stated colloquially, they are interference to the striker’s ability to see the ball, to get to the ball, to swing at the ball, and to hit the ball to the entire front wall. And, if you think about it, they’re just about the only possible forms of interference – unless of course we consider electronic interference, telekenetic transference, demonic possession, and the like. Imagine a player claiming that the opponent was emitting those troublesome double-vector meson sub–gamma waves to throw off the backswing - - - and the Referee believes it! Of course, this only demonstrates the value of having a ‘notwithstanding clause’ that a Referee could use to deal with it in the absence of a specific rule about paranormal influences. In any event, I digress.

Interference to a fair view is quite unique. Firstly, it is the antithesis of the most fundamental freedom that the striker has – the freedom to see the ball since not m u c h can happen until the ball can be seen. It’s also probably the most frequent form of interference (although unacknowledged and non-appealed) since the ball is pretty much always disappearing in front of the opponent after the return (cross court, length drive, drop, or boast) - and this to varying degrees of time. Finally, it’s unique because the usual decision-making parameters (the striker’s direction and speed, and the opponent’s effort to clear) are not of much use – as we shall see.

History
Since the 1977 version of the rules, little has been said about explaining fair view other than that it applies to when the ball has come off the front wall (i.e., not during its flight to the front wall). Nonetheless, it’s been recognized as a valid form of interference all that time, and today two rules and three guidelines make reference to it. That’s not to say that everybody likes it.

Over the years, many people have suggested that this form of interference should be dropped from the list of four – presumably to either simplify the rules, or cut down on wording, or maybe even to ensure that the issue of ‘
view’ no longer be family. The claim is that it’s always insignificant, having no effect on the striker’s ability to play the ball - or it’s always combined with another form that takes precedence. Others will say that it cannot be defined clearly. Some have actually claimed that there are situations where the striker is not entitled to fair view! However, there are those who’s opinion ( Referees are very opinionated people!) is that it needed to be kept. That view (pun intended) seems to have prevailed over time - presumably because the consensus was that it has some value. Since you have this article to read, you’ve likely guessed that I’m among this latter group.

Now. even though little of substance has been said about interpreting the fair view issue, some things can be inferred from what’s been written in Rules 12.2.2 & 12.7.1, and guidelines 5, 6, & 9. Let’s have a look.

MULTIPLE CONSIDERATIONS

Lack of a definition
It’s been said that fair view interference has no real clear definition, and therefore should be deleted from the rules. However, the same can be said about many common expressions of the game, such as ‘ prevented’, ‘ every’, ‘
reasonable’, ‘ deliberate’, ‘ significant’, and many more that I’ll pass on.

Somehow, with common sense and some help from the guidelines, we manage to establish usable standards for those words. So for fair view, it’s quite reasonable to describe it as an obstruction to the striker’s view of the ball that is measured in time – and can therefore be fleeting or prolonged. There’s no reason why the guidelines couldn’t elaborate on this and easily make the distinctions to help in decision making.

The frequency paradox
Even though visual obstruction is extremely frequent, it mostly goes unnoticed - and as a result, it’s actually the form of interference subject to the least number of appeals. There are three key reasons for this:

• Firstly, these interferences can, for the most part, be measured in fractions of a second (especially for hard returns) - and therefore have little significant effect on the striker’s ability to see the ball since nothing changes the direction of flight as it momentarily disappears;
• Secondly, they mostly occur in combination with the other forms of interference (access, sometimes swing, & front wall) – and so the view
  component is often •
• Thirdly, again due to the often fleeting nature of the interference, it’s
  very difficult for the striker to meet the requirement for an immediate appeal – failing which the ball is gone.

The issue of ‘significance’
It’s been claimed that interference to view never has any effect on the striker’s ability to play the ball and is not a valid interference. Let’s look more closely at that: The significance to the incoming striker – No doubt, if you play regularly, you’ll quite frequently run into situations where your view of the ball is blocked. The vast majority are fleeting and insignificant, as we implied in previous comments – but there are times where it disappears for up to one or two seconds. In Squash, one or two seconds can be very significant. For the most part, such prolonged blockages occur in the front part of the court while the opponent is making relatively slow moving drops and boasts in front of the body - but they can also occur with a fast drive in line with the opponent’s body from any location on the court. This interference now takes on a much greater importance because everything hinges on seeing the ball in that second or two. The striker now needs to select an approach to get to the ball, and short of guessing, that decision can’t be made unless the ball is seen. These are the situations, in my opinion, where fair view was meant to be considered as a valid interference.

The significance to the non-striker – The rules contain the usual admonitions about the non-striker needing to clear to allow a fair view – but curiously (or not) you’ll never see the opponent penalized for failing to clear solely for the striker’s view of the ball. That’s because in practical terms, one cannot clear (or make any significant effort to clear) since the ball is so fast when hit with any pace at all. Assessing a stroke for failing to make every effort to clear for fair view alone is just about unheard of. It’s quite simply a normal part of play for the ball to disappear momentarily from sight for almost all those circumstances where the striker is in front of the opponent. As well, trying to allow the striker to see the ball is the last thing on any opponent’s mind. In fact, that player is actually entitled to shield the ball in that brief period of time between racket contact and flight to the front wall.

So, I think it’s fair to say that fair view interference can sometimes be a significant consideration for the striker attempting to play the ball – but it’s certainly not among the opponent’s priorities in trying to clear for it.

Stand alone interference?
It’s clear to me that there are quite a few times where significant obstruction to the view occurs – but we just don’t acknowledge it as that because it’s most often combined with a more obvious form of interference (mostly access) - and that latter interference is what takes precedence in the referee’s mind - mostly unconsciously. Typically, this would be those situations with those slow moving drops and boasts made from the front part of the court where the striker needs to move through the position of the opponent to reach the ball that could be still a step or two away. The opponent is often trapped while trying to move away at the time the let is called. The Referee then usually makes a decision based on the typical criteria for such access situations – considering if the attempt to clear (if any) was in the correct direction, and whether the striker was ready to hit it there or still needed a step or more to go.

However, if you watch a match (or video replay) quite carefully, you’ll see many lets awarded where the striker crosses behind and close to the opponent where there is clearly no contact and apparently no interference. These are often decisions that are instinctively made by the Referee realizing that there is a prolonged loss of view. Others occur when the striker delays in going forward and, knowing that the shot is a drop or boast, cannot commit to a direction and quickly (we hope) calls for a let before seeing its outcome. And finally, there are
times (discussed below) where, due to the opponent’s proximity, the obvious issue is simply that the ball cannot be seen, and yet, considering where it is, the striker would simply need to take a direction where access or swing are not a contributing issue but cannot choose because the striker has no idea where the ball is.

In any case, stand alone or not, interference to view is at the very least, a significant contributing factor in the spectrum of interference, and must seriously be considered since the striker must be allowed every freedom to play the ball.

Minimal Interference
In attempting to discredit fair view as a valid form of interference, the claim is often made that it’s always a case for the application of the ‘minimal interference’ rule (12.7.1) – and thus a ‘No Let’. We must remember however, that for the proper application of that rule, the key principle is that the ‘effect’ of any interference must be insignificant – in contrast to the amount. Sometimes one or more feet of interference in accessing the ball can be quite insignificant - but a one inch stubbing of the toe can lead to a major effect like stumbling or falling. Now, in contrast to the application of the minimal interference provision for access, when it comes solely to fair view interference, I’d suggest that the amount of interference ( measured in time) always correlates well with the significance it has. Therefore, for the most part, with fleeting disappearance of the ball, minimal interference can quite correctly be applied here. However, when the loss of sight is in the order of one or two seconds, we are now dealing with a significant effect and the minimal interference principle should not be applied and the interference viewed as worthy of consideration.

Field of vision
Another worthwhile consideration is that, for these visual blockage situations, the striker is often close to the opponent. If you hold your hand up about 3 inches from your eyes, a significantly greater range of view is blocked than if you hold it out at arms length. The same principle applies to player proximity – where much more is being shielded from view when the opponent is close to the striker. It’s here that fair view can take on more importance because the striker might now simply need to take a direction that is unfettered ( where access or swing are not a contributing issue), but that a decision can’t be made, simply because the striker can’t see where the ball is going. Now, in case you’re thinking it, even if the striker’s position is too close to the opponent by choice or wrong direction, there is no allowance in the rules for denial of a let just on that basis – in fact the rules preclude it. If the interference exists and it is significant, then it must be acknowledged and not dismissed - even if the striker contributed to it by poor positioning. This applies no matter where on the court it is happening. Interference can exist regardless of the location –and location should not be a consideration in attributing
any blame. It is not a criterion.

Timing of the request
Timing is another consideration with two applications:

• Firstly, as previously suggested, the appeal itself will inevitably need to be made extremely quickly because situations of loss of sight are over very fast, and if the appeal is made after the fact, then the ball is usually out of reach and the appeal is denied. The striker has to make the appeal “ immediately the interference occurs” – which means for this kind of interference that it must be made while ignorant of the ball’s location. That is not the instinctive way that most interference appeals are made. Usually, the striker sees all the elementsof an interference and decides whether to appeal or not. Fair view interference is unique in that the Referee cannot use the usual parameters of striker speed and direction because there usually are none when it’s the sole interference. It’s likely that the Referee cannot see that the striker cannot see – nor whether the striker is making every effort or not to see. The Referee can only hear the call – and it has to be fast. Of course, where there is doubt as to the speed of the appeal, in an attempt to achieve some fairness, there is always Referee uncertainty (13.2.3) to fall back on to allow a let.

• Secondly, particularly for ‘ crossing the flight’ situations where the ball is still some distance away when sight of it is lost, the timing is such that even though the call is made quickly, Guideline 9 quite fairly requires that the Referee’s decision be made from the point where the ball would have been hit. This is then another reason as to why interference to view has a lessor role in the grand scheme of things – since other than often being very momentary, it often quite removed from the immediate place where the hitting would occur, even if the ball is coming directly to the striker. Other than cases where the view is continuously blocked because the return was hit in line with the opponent’s body, these situations are pretty much judged on the issue of ‘ path of the ball to the front wall’ type of interference - whether or not the ball would have hit the opponent while being returned towards the front wall.

Conclusion
If as a Referee, you dismiss fair view outright as having no value, no application, deserving of no consideration, then I’m suggesting that you might want to give it a second thought. It does make life a bit more difficult as
an additional and subtle consideration – but fairness demands it. It’s time for this interference to come out of the closet and be recognized as a valid – not to provide yet another reason to grant a stroke – but rather to allow it to take its true place in the family of interferences – no longer the black sheep.

Comments (0)