So no lets = the players own fault for not getting to the ball?
Let = the player who is about to hit the ball gets blocked by the other player?
Don't know the rules in squash or anything about it to be honest, but I like to watch those clip on youtube about it because it looks like an amusing sport.
Can you explain, not the 7th decision, but the effect of it? Power calls for a let, then plays the ball... and because he called for a let and had it denied, he loses the point, even though he got the ball?
@musicalshadow Power loses the point. Even though he technically got the ball, play stops when a let is called. Bad decision, but Power still loses the point.
@musicalshadow Yes, basically, that is what is known as a bad call. Obvious Let. Only way it is a No Let is if Ref says "you played thru the interference." Which is fine, as long as they gave JP the point, because he did get to and return the ball to the front wall.
Decision 8: Yes, Let is the correct decision. Willstrop encountered significant interference from Palmer and made every effort to get to the ball. However he was prevented from reaching the ball by Palmer standing still after hitting his shot. Willstrop would have made it to the ball.
Decision 7: Yes, Let is the correct decision. Power asked for a let before playing the ball, and showed the referee he could make it to the ball. Power made every effort to play through some significant interference from Palmer.
Decision 6: Again, a judgement issue. It seems that Power would not be able to get to the ball, i.e. by the time Power would have reached the ball without interference, the ball would have bounced twice. No Let is thus the correct call.
Decision 5: In this case, Palmer is blocking Beachill's direct access to the ball. Palmer's drop has bounced right out and Palmer has not cleared the ball. Depending on how far forward the ball is, a stroke would seem to be indicated.
Decision 4: an incredibly good call by an insightful referee. By the time Shabana is close enough to the ball to play it, it has bounced twice. The most important consideration here is that he did not make every effort to get to and play the ball. At the time he appealed, Shabana was not in a position to play the ball. Effort is the determining factor here, one step forward and a stroke would have resulted. No matter how loose the ball is, players are still required to make every effort.
@hellohumans11 Other than the fact that I referee in international events, no I don't anything. Also bear in mind that modern psychology has found that aggression levels in chats are inversely related to IQ. Nice one :)
Decision 3: Clearly a No Let. The ball is not retrievable and dies in the back. This is a straightforward call. Also, look at Shabana's body language. He knows he is trying his luck.
Decision 2: This is a very tough call. Because of the depth of the ball, Lincou should not have moved forwards, but instead laterally to the ball. Thus he created the interference. Furthermore he does not make every effort to get to and play the ball and the No Let decision is correct.
Decision 1: There is a fine line here. It appears that the referee judged that Power would not make it to the ball. This is a judgement, as opposed to an interpretation of the rules. Based on the referee's assessment that Power would not make it to the ball, a No Let is the correct decision.
I dont agree all decisions of no let were correct ones. There were situations when it was let.
I did not understand Power/Powers one. Powers picked up the last shot, there is no let but still something was against Powers. Did Powers picked up clean?
@funlovingmonkey Decision 4: By the time Shabana is close enough to the ball to play it, it has bounced twice. The most important consideration here is that he did not make every effort to get to and play the ball. At the time he appealed, Shabana was not in a position to play the ball. Effort is the determining factor here, one step forward and a stroke would have resulted. No matter how loose the ball is, players are still required to make every effort.
2:50 a let is yours if you call it, why did they force a let on Jonathan? he didn't call because he got the ball. WTF!
zaiddagamseh 3 months ago
So no lets = the players own fault for not getting to the ball?
Let = the player who is about to hit the ball gets blocked by the other player?
Don't know the rules in squash or anything about it to be honest, but I like to watch those clip on youtube about it because it looks like an amusing sport.
xSupeRNoobeNx 7 months ago
Can you explain, not the 7th decision, but the effect of it? Power calls for a let, then plays the ball... and because he called for a let and had it denied, he loses the point, even though he got the ball?
musicalshadow 10 months ago
@musicalshadow Power loses the point. Even though he technically got the ball, play stops when a let is called. Bad decision, but Power still loses the point.
ogmlb57 9 months ago
@musicalshadow Yes, basically, that is what is known as a bad call. Obvious Let. Only way it is a No Let is if Ref says "you played thru the interference." Which is fine, as long as they gave JP the point, because he did get to and return the ball to the front wall.
nwlovell 2 months ago
what's let or no let mean's ?!
avidahan1 10 months ago
Decision 8: Yes, Let is the correct decision. Willstrop encountered significant interference from Palmer and made every effort to get to the ball. However he was prevented from reaching the ball by Palmer standing still after hitting his shot. Willstrop would have made it to the ball.
SquashReferee 11 months ago
Decision 7: Yes, Let is the correct decision. Power asked for a let before playing the ball, and showed the referee he could make it to the ball. Power made every effort to play through some significant interference from Palmer.
SquashReferee 11 months ago
Decision 6: Again, a judgement issue. It seems that Power would not be able to get to the ball, i.e. by the time Power would have reached the ball without interference, the ball would have bounced twice. No Let is thus the correct call.
SquashReferee 11 months ago
Decision 5: In this case, Palmer is blocking Beachill's direct access to the ball. Palmer's drop has bounced right out and Palmer has not cleared the ball. Depending on how far forward the ball is, a stroke would seem to be indicated.
SquashReferee 11 months ago
Decision 4: an incredibly good call by an insightful referee. By the time Shabana is close enough to the ball to play it, it has bounced twice. The most important consideration here is that he did not make every effort to get to and play the ball. At the time he appealed, Shabana was not in a position to play the ball. Effort is the determining factor here, one step forward and a stroke would have resulted. No matter how loose the ball is, players are still required to make every effort.
SquashReferee 11 months ago 2
@SquashReferee shut up bitch, you dont know anything
hellohumans11 2 months ago
@hellohumans11 Other than the fact that I referee in international events, no I don't anything. Also bear in mind that modern psychology has found that aggression levels in chats are inversely related to IQ. Nice one :)
SquashReferee 1 month ago
Decision 3: Clearly a No Let. The ball is not retrievable and dies in the back. This is a straightforward call. Also, look at Shabana's body language. He knows he is trying his luck.
SquashReferee 11 months ago
Decision 2: This is a very tough call. Because of the depth of the ball, Lincou should not have moved forwards, but instead laterally to the ball. Thus he created the interference. Furthermore he does not make every effort to get to and play the ball and the No Let decision is correct.
SquashReferee 11 months ago
Decision 1: There is a fine line here. It appears that the referee judged that Power would not make it to the ball. This is a judgement, as opposed to an interpretation of the rules. Based on the referee's assessment that Power would not make it to the ball, a No Let is the correct decision.
SquashReferee 11 months ago
I dont agree all decisions of no let were correct ones. There were situations when it was let.
I did not understand Power/Powers one. Powers picked up the last shot, there is no let but still something was against Powers. Did Powers picked up clean?
fazalabbas 1 year ago
Great videos. Thanks for posting!
The one with Power beginning at 2:41 is unreal. Terrible ruling!! Did Power even ask for a let?
ap191919 2 years ago
Yes it did look like a stroke
hashkenhabib 2 years ago
1:00 is a stroke in my opinion
funlovingmonkey 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@funlovingmonkey Decision 4: By the time Shabana is close enough to the ball to play it, it has bounced twice. The most important consideration here is that he did not make every effort to get to and play the ball. At the time he appealed, Shabana was not in a position to play the ball. Effort is the determining factor here, one step forward and a stroke would have resulted. No matter how loose the ball is, players are still required to make every effort.
SquashReferee 1 month ago