SquashReferee's channel

@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 i...

@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...

Wow this girl has talent, who is she?

@marcopolo359 That pushing is abuse. I stated that self-defense is not relevant. It is understandable but not acceptable.

@Cybergasmic brett martin would have been unstoppable!

@fhussain44 Yes, Let

@rony1949 The interference was severe enough to prevent a shot being playable. The outcome was not that the shot was affected - the shot was prevented

@Monkey200728 This is a match where the decision is either appeal denied (no let) or stroke. There are no lets. It is a WSF experiment to improve the continuity of squash.

Decision is correct. Blocking. Observe where the second bounce is - ball is well within reach.

This is not turning as the ball has not passed behind the player.

@huntrichardson at the time when Golan held his shot, there was no interference and the fear of injury was not reasonable as the striker judged the opponents position incorrectly. Whether or not it is the middle of the court is not relevant, it is a matter of fact around the strikers judgement. P...

If Power had left the court without the referee's permission a Conduct Game is to be awarded.

Freedom to play the ball was prevented. Stroke to Power

@SuperSquashguy a fear of injury may still result in a No Let if the striker badly misjudged his opponents position - i.e. if the striker's fear of injuring the opponent was unreasonable.

In this case Palmer is moving laterally and is attempting to clear the ball. However, that effort is insufficient and Power is prevented from playing the shot from the winning position he was in. Correct decision is Stroke to Power.

Decision 10: Incorrect. Willstrop (by not making every effort to clear the ball) has blocked Palmer's direct access to the ball which was loose. The second bounce of the ball was at Willstrop's feet. Palmer is also in a position to play a winning shot. Correct call is Stroke to Palmer.

Excellent call. Power would have been able to retrieve the ball but that is only one consideration. Observe how he intentionally places his racket behind Nicol and does not make every effort to get to the ball. There is interference in that Nicol has not cleared the ball perfectly, however the de...

Incident is required to be reported by the referee to the relevant governing bodies who then sanction the offending player.

The referee is now required to issue a Conduct Stroke: Racket abuse. The new WSF guidelines standardize treatment of conduct situations.

Decision 7: Unclear. The video does not show if the ball died. If it bounced instead of rolled, then it is likely that Palmer would have got there based on how fast he was covering the court - Yes, Let. If the ball died, obviously No Let is the correct decision.