|
By Barry Faguy from The Squash Official On-line Newsletter
Having recently seen a number of misapplications of RFOI recently, I thought it was time to include a short review. RFOI is a topic that certainly has very frequent application during play – and all
too often, the expression is incorrectly used in some Referee’s rationales.
Let’s first address what the provisions relating to RFOI are not about
They are not about those situations where the opponent is actually causing interference (to the swing or path of the ball). Certainly, when the striker encounters such interference, play stops because continuing the action could possibly cause an injury - and at that point, any of the usual decisions of ‘Yes Let‘, ‘No Let‘, or ‘Stroke’ are then available to the referee. However, for true RFOI, only a ‘Yes Let’ can apply. Even though the fear of injury is certainly the reason for stopping the play in many situations, this classic Squash expression (RFOI) is not meant for those situations of actual interference.
The real meaning
The expression RFOI refers to circumstances where the referee judges that there is NO INTERFERENCE - in contrast to the above examples relating to ‘swing’ and ‘path of the ball’ situations where there is real interference. Although strictly speaking, Rule 12.7.1 would demand a ‘No Let’ when there is no interference (and therefore, there would not have been any injury), other provisions (13.1.2 & Guideline 7) are invoked to allow for a let if the referee feels that there was a risk of injury due to player positioning. This refers to situations where the non-striker is in proximity to the swing but clear, or is close to the danger zone (for the path of the ball to the front wall), yet clear. (Essentially, you may have noticed that there really isn’t much application of RFOI for ‘fair view’ since you can’t hurt someone by looking – nor, practically speaking, for access.)
These provisions above are colloquially referred to as ‘the safety rule’, and have been in the rules since at least 1977 in one form or another. Unfortunately, in my view, the 2001 revision leaves some ambiguity, so I’ll quote the guideline from the 1997 rules which I think properly reflects the way this issue has always been treated since way back:
Guideline 13
When an appeal for a let has been made and there has been no interference the Referee's decision is usually "No let". However, occasionally, although interference as defined in Rule 12.2 does not exist, there may be reasonable fear of injury to the opponent, in which case a let should be allowed under Rule 13.1.2. (Perhaps ‘occasionally’ should have been replaced with ‘frequently’
– since there’s no question that it would be more accurate.)
It’s quite clear that there has to be this understanding for the game to function safely – that even though there is no interference, there is a substantial percentage of situations where a let is still the correct call. The 2001 rules have removed Guideline 13, and reworded Rule 13.1.2 & Guideline 7 in an attempt to include everything it previously addressed. Unfortunately, the result is that it is no longer quite as clear that for the concept to apply, there must be no actual interference. However, on the positive side, we can say that the new rules have added a few words that can help a referee in making decisions in this regard - as we will see below.
The decision
When the rationale for a decision is given as ‘reasonable fear of injury’, that decision is always ‘Yes Let’, as prescribed in 13.1.2 & G7. It cannot be ‘Stroke because by definition, for the conventional understanding of RFOI, there is no interference. As well, it cannot be ‘No Let’, because by acknowledging that reasonable fear exists for the striker, and wanting to promote safe play, we discourage the striker from taking the risk of carrying on and endangering the opponent with the swing or with the ball. It stands to reason that, if a Referee makes a mistake by denying a let when the fear is indeed reasonable – then the danger factor in the game will naturally increase since the striker will be less likely to stop play the next time.But what is reasonable fear?
Regarding the fear
Now, to get picky, (we are referees, right?) one might conclude (incorrectly) that the referee’s job is to purely and solely judge that the striker does have such a fear (usually quite evident) – even though the opponent might be a mile away by the time the incident happens. The reasoning is that this evidence of fear is all that matters and a ’Yes Let’ should therefore be automatic. As well (not to be too cynical), a referee can generally tell whether the striker has something to gain by stopping play (for example, when fatiguing, being in a disadvantageous position, etc.).
However, this approach (automatic let for fear) could leave room for a lot of abuse of this privilege to stop play. Well, as of 2001, in bullet 4 of Guideline 7, we have been given new wording to help us make fair decisions. So now, even though the Referee sees that the player has a ‘bona fide’ fear because of having lost track of the opponent - if the opponent is "well clear", then the referee shall not allow a let. The same bullet then carries on and provides the rationale for denying the let, and that is: "…the striker has judged the opponent’s position incorrectly". This, for the first time in writing, introduces the concept of a ‘mistake in judgment’ – something generally taken as a given.
Thus we now have confirmation that simply having the fear is not enough. It must be reasonable, and it is not ‘reasonable‘ if the opponent is ‘well clear’. As well, the wording of ‘mistake in judgment’ vindicates the rationale we have always used, and helps in setting reasonable limits around which the striker is allowed to operate.
This squash article and many others can be found at The Squash Official
 |
