@huntrichardson Without making a judgement about this particular situation, I would like to clarify that your statement about preventing v. affecting is correct in terms of the rules. However, the problem here is an understanding of what referee's define as preventing. Here, (lets assume the interference is due to racket contact) the interference is so significant that the player could not make a good return. Her shot has been prevented
@SquashReferee In this case, awarding a Stroke on the basis that she was prevented a "good return" would be wrong. The rule stated by Hunt refers only to the player's ability to swing on the ball, was it affected or prevented? It does not speak about prevention of a "good return", as many things can affect a that. In the scenario of contact, there is no prevention of swing, therefore: Let. Considering play-on-ball conditions outside of the swing is beyond the scope of the rule as it is worded.
@seacoastauto I understand the confusion, but no, a reasonable swing in that situation would have resulted in a good return. Since a good return was prevented, a reasonable swing clearly was prevented. Prevented means so significant that a reasonable return was not possible or that the return was not good.
The super slow mo is fantastic, great work Jim ! Would love to see select pro rallies in this slow motion method to evaluate such things as court movement, racket technique, positioning, ref calls, etc etc etc
@huntrichardson Without making a judgement about this particular situation, I would like to clarify that your statement about preventing v. affecting is correct in terms of the rules. However, the problem here is an understanding of what referee's define as preventing. Here, (lets assume the interference is due to racket contact) the interference is so significant that the player could not make a good return. Her shot has been prevented
SquashReferee 1 year ago
@SquashReferee In this case, awarding a Stroke on the basis that she was prevented a "good return" would be wrong. The rule stated by Hunt refers only to the player's ability to swing on the ball, was it affected or prevented? It does not speak about prevention of a "good return", as many things can affect a that. In the scenario of contact, there is no prevention of swing, therefore: Let. Considering play-on-ball conditions outside of the swing is beyond the scope of the rule as it is worded.
seacoastauto 3 months ago
@seacoastauto I understand the confusion, but no, a reasonable swing in that situation would have resulted in a good return. Since a good return was prevented, a reasonable swing clearly was prevented. Prevented means so significant that a reasonable return was not possible or that the return was not good.
SquashReferee 1 month ago
Comment removed
seacoastauto 3 months ago
tough call, id say at first think no let only because of slow mo, didnt see her actually hit her. but when in doubt a let is always the best call.
RacketlonSA 1 year ago
cheers
huntrichardson 1 year ago
Let. swing was affected, not prevented. Stroke only for prevention or if Lindsay did not make every effort to clear.
huntrichardson 1 year ago
Good call Ref. I am in Brooklyn right now webcasting the Carol Weymuller.
Stop by and see us.
goshensquash 1 year ago
The super slow mo is fantastic, great work Jim ! Would love to see select pro rallies in this slow motion method to evaluate such things as court movement, racket technique, positioning, ref calls, etc etc etc
SquashZAG 1 year ago