Refereeing Decisions:
Below are sample videos and the appropriate decision using PST Rules of Play.

Example 1: Poor Shot Selection




Rally: In this rally, David Palmer in the white shirt appeals for the point. Wael El Hindi in the dark shirt, at the time of his shot, was in a position of advantage at the T region.
Decision: Point to Palmer.
Rationale: Had Wael chosen to hit a drop or a drive to the back wall, David would have needed to go around Wael to retrieve the ball. However, Wael hits a drive in which the second bounce would land at the mid court line. Wael's position on court prevented David's ability to reach a playable ball.


Example 2: Unsighted Official




Rally: Here David Palmer (white shirt) stops play because he believes Wael El Hindi (dark shirt) didn't pick the ball up.
Decision: Replay rally due to unsighted official.
Rationale: Because of both players positioning, the referee is unsighted. In PST main draw matches, we have a referee seated at floor level on each wall. Here, a referee should ask the referee on the left wall if he saw the pick-up. If the challenge official is uncertain, the correct call is to replay the rally because the referees are unsighted.


Example 3: Loose Shot




Rally: In this rally, Wael El Hindi (dark shirt) appeals for the point after David Palmer (white shirt) hits a ball that squirts out from the side wall.
Decision: The correct decision is Point to Hindi.
Rationale: David Palmer (white shirt) hits a loose shot and his position behind Wael El Hindi (dark shirt) prevents Wael from being able to hit the ball.


Example 4: Preventing Shot to

Front Wall




Rally: In this rally, Wael El Hindi (dark shirt) hits a loose rail from the front right court. David Palmer (white shirt) holds his shot and appeals for the point.
Decision: Point to Palmer
Rationale: David Palmer (in the white shirt) appeals for the point. This should be a point to Palmer because Hindi's position on court prevented Palmer from hitting his shot to the front wall.
If Hindi's shot had been tight to the wall, the correct call would have been appeal denied -- resulting in the point to Hindi.



Example 5: Poor Shot Selection




Rally: In this rally, John White (solid shirt) appeals for the point as Bradley Ball (stripe on back) is in his path to the ball.
Decision: Point to White
Rationale: At 37 seconds, White moves to play the ball but Ball is now directly in his path. This shot, as evidenced from the prior two, is a ball that White can play. According to PST's Rules of Play, if the incoming striker's opponent prevents his shot to the front wall or movement to a playable ball, the referee should award the point to the incoming striker.

This rally highlights one difference between the old style of play and Pro Squash Tour's modern rules. Bradley is a top touring pro and is capable of hitting shots with great pace and precision. In this example, Bradley had time to play the ball and the entire court to play his shot. The shot he chose to hit is the only one that places his body in line with John's path to the ball. Bradley played his shot from the mid-court and the ball bounced a second time in the middle of the service box. John's only path to the ball was through Bradley.

This is a very common shot on other pro tours because it places the incoming striker under pressure to reach the ball while simultaneously having to contend with an opponent who is blocking his path. Under the old rules of play, this would almost certainly be called a let.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note:

The examples below are videos from YouTube, which are publicly listed by the PSA World Tour as difficult calls to make. We offer the correct call under PST Rules of Play with a note below each video.


:
Example 6/7: Room to Play & a

Loose Shot





There are two rallies here.

Rally 1: Shabana (white shirt) stops the rally at 0:15 to appeal for the point because Ashour (dark shirt) is in his swing.
Decision: Point to Ashour.
Rationale: Although Ramy Ashour (black shirt) hits a loose shot, Shabana (white shirt) had room to play the ball and should have.

Shabana then drops his racquet in protest and complains. Conduct warning to Shabana. The continued debate should result in a conduct point.

Rally 2: Ashour (white shirt) stops the rally at 0:58 and appeals for a let.
Decision: Point to Ashour.
Rationale: A loose shot from Shabana (white shirt) results in his body preventing Ashour's (white shirt) shot.

A conduct point against Shabana for dissent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 8: Loose Shot




Rally: Cameron Pilley (dark shirt) plays a loose to the middle of the court. Shawn Delierre (light shirt) does not play the ball.
Decision: Point to Delierre.
Rationale: Pilley (dark shirt) hit a ball to the middle of the court leaving Delierre (light shirt) no room to play the ball.

Note: There is a lack of clarity here about Delierre's appeal. Players should be reminded that if they want an appeal, they should clearly voice their appeal to the referee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Example 9: Room to Play




Rally: Daryl Selby (white shirt) plays a loose shot and Marwan El Shorbagy (dark shirt) asks for a let.
Decision: Appeal Denied. Point to Selby.
Rationale: Although Selby's shot was not great, he clears in time for Shorbagy to play the ball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Example 10: Unnecessary Turn




Rally: James Willstrop (dark shirt) and Nick Matthew (light shirt) are scrambling around the court. Willstrop hits a reasonable drive to length on the left back wall. Matthew reaches the ball, but a little late and turns to create the perception of interference.
Decision: Appeal denied. Point to Willstrop.
Rationale: Matthew did not need to turn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Example 11: Minimal Contact




Rally: Nick Matthew (darker shirt) stops the rally because he is touched from behind by Ramy Ashour (white shirt).
Decision: Appeal denied. Point to Ashour.
Rationale: There was minimal contact and certainly none that would have prevented Nick's movement to any ball.
Note: Nick does not make any clear signal for an appeal to the referee and should be cautioned to do so.
Both players are allowed to debate the referee's decision. This should not happen.
Ashour's scream is unacceptable and ought to receive a conduct warning for dissent.
Nick's comment beginning with "For future reference, . . ." is entirely inappropriate and should be penalized with a conduct point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 12: Position of Advantage




Rally: Tarek Momen (light shirt) hits a poor cross court lob. Gregory Gaultier (dark shirt) hits the ball to the back right. Momen while running back to retrieve the ball appeals for a let when he runs into Gaultier.
Decision: Appeal denied. Point to Gaultier.
Rationale: Although neither player hit a strong shot, Momen's was worse and allowed Gaultier to play the ball from the 'T' region. Therefore, Gaultier had established a position of advantage. Gaultier does step back after his shot. However, this is a natural movement to recover from his step to the ball. Momen must accept the consequences of his poor shot.

Note: Momen's banging on the glass is not acceptable behavior and should have received an immediate conduct point penalty.

Gaultier's debate with the referee after a decision is not acceptable and should receive a conduct warning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Example 13: No Interference




Rally: From the back left corner James Willstrop (white shirt) hits a ball that goes through the T region. Adrian Grant (dark shirt) appeals for a let.
Decision: Appeal denied. Point to Willstrop.
Rationale: There is no reason for Grant to stop play. Not exactly sure of his rationale.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------