What’s the Point? #5

Hitting to ‘Any Part’ of the Front Wall, Side Wall and Reasonable Fear of Injury
The right to hit the ball to any part of the front wall is another of the fundamental freedoms. Further, it is implied that
the striker has a right to hit the ball to the front wall via any other wall (sides and back). Where these rights are
impeded, interference occurs. The related parts of the rules are not very complex to understand, but their application in
general is poor. As several rules are involved, I have listed them in point form, in order of the considerations to be
made.

The Principles
Where the striker hits the opponent with the ball, or refrains from hitting the ball for fear of hitting the opponent with
the ball, the referee must determine if
1. There was interference, and
2. Whether the ball would have hit the front wall, or another wall and then the front wall, or have been down had
there not been any interference.
The outcomes
1. If there was interference but the ball would have been down, no let will be awarded.
2. If there was interference and the ball would have hit the front wall but for the interference, then a stroke is
awarded to the striker, regardless of whether the opponent was making every effort to clear the ball.
3. If there was interference and the ball would have hit any other wall and then the front wall, a let is allowed,
unless the striker strikes the opponent with the ball and the shot would have been a winner, in which case a
stroke is awarded to the striker (occurs very seldom and is very difficult to judge).
4. If there was no interference but the striker does not strike the ball because there was a reasonable fear of
hitting the opponent, a let is allowed. It is important to note that a genuine fear is not necessarily a reasonable
fear and if the striker has badly misjudged the position of the opponent, then no let will be awarded.
When the striker turns
1. If the striker holds their shot, a let is awarded, unless the opponent is not making every effort to clear the ball,
in which case a stroke is awarded
2. If the striker strikes the opponent with the ball, a stroke is awarded to the opponent, unless the opponent
made a deliberate attempt to intercept the return, in which case a stroke is awarded to the striker (otherwise I
think some people would take the pain for the stroke at 10-9 up in the 5th!)
3. If a good return is not possible, or the striker turned unnecessarily to create an opportunity to appeal, no let is
awarded
Where the striker makes a further attempt to hit the ball
1. If the striker refrains from hitting the ball, a let is allowed unless the opponent is not making every effort to
clear the ball, in which case a stroke is awarded to the striker
2. If the striker hits the opponent, a let is allowed.
3. If a good return is not possible, no let is awarded
The Myths and the Challenges
Three particularly problematic myths are the following:
1. No stroke is awarded on the serve or if the ball has bounced off the back wall. Reality: there are no references
to these concepts in the rules. Interference is interference regardless of at what point in a rally or in what
position on the court it occurs.
2. A stroke cannot be awarded where the striker ‘could have played a shot down the wall.’ Reality: there are no
limitations on a player’s shot choices, only that the striker must be able to make a good return. Even if a shot
does not seem sensible, if the return would have been good and would have struck the front wall directly, a
stroke may be awarded.
3. On turning it is an ‘automatic let.’ Reality: it can be a stroke if the opponent does not make every effort to
clear. See Point 1. of “when the striker turns” above.
Although the rules are straightforward, judgement as ever, is difficult. The margins in playing the ball past the opponent
are fine, and make the difference between a let and a stroke. This requires practise to improve upon and when unsure
the referee must award a let. Also, although not specifically stated in the rules, it is not always the case that the entire
front wall is playable, for example when the ball is so far behind the striker that he is physically limited to only a portion of the front wall. In this case a stroke would not be awarded if the opponent was in the un-playable portion of the front wall. This is implied by the fact that making an attempt to hit the ball to that part of the front wall would not result in a good return.
The final consideration is the timing of appeal. Often it is the case that the striker appeals, but by the time the striker is actually able to play the ball, the opponent is clear. In this case a stroke cannot be awarded. If the striker could have made a good return, a let will be awarded if there was a reasonable fear of striking the opponent.
The next article will address player’s duties and the conduct rule. As always, I appreciate any feedback or suggestions regarding the content of future articles. You can reach me at squash.referee@gmail.com.

Cheers, Alex