The traditional refereeing position (rarely used now): On a tower behind the back wall. Photo © 2006, Stephen Line.

I CONSIDER the backward attitude of referees and their  refusal to make  fuller use of the four-wall glass court to be detrimental to the game.

After the US  Open in Boston this year I have become convinced that fundamental changes must be made in the way major squash tournaments should be officiated. In fact I am so enraged by the conservative – backward even – attitude of many of our leading referees that I have decided to devote the November and December Global Galleries to this subject.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF TRADITIONAL SYSTEM

Readers of this column know by now that I think the current marker/referee system to be not only be outdated but fundamentally flawed; it is ludicrous that the two officials should be seated  side by side, getting exactly the same view of the action of a sport that is probably the most difficult of all to referee.  In essence squash is all about angles. Should we not seat the two officials at different levels  or different locations?

If you speak to most referees they will answer the above questions with a resounding no.  These people, sadly, are stuck in the past, where a squash court was a solid structure of bricks and mortar with a balcony behind the back wall as the only viewing position. Almost every referee I have spoken/discussed/argued with has been adamant that this high/ backwall position is the only way to judge the action of a squash match.  They cannot look at the situation with new eyes.

I am not alone in this view.  Respected referee Rod Symington emailed  the following to me after reading my angry comments from Boston:

“I followed your daily reports from the US Open with great interest -- especially your comments about the refereeing and the position of the match referee. I fully agree with you that something has to be done -- and I have been arguing for change for years, but without success. I am Editor of the WSF Referees' Review which is distributed twice a year, and in an Editorial a year ago (still on-line on the WSF website) I expressed the same sentiments as you did from Boston -- but the silence was deafening. You are absolutely correct in stating that it is the unwillingness of the top referees to change the system that is hampering the sport. A couple of years ago I wrote another article on the subject but once again it was dismissed as the work of a crank." 

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE FRONT WALL?

The referees -buried a number of rows back in the audience. Photo © 2006, Ron Beck.

Ever since 1984 I have been watching major tournaments through the front wall and have always believed that this gives a better view of the action than sitting behind the backwall. It is fairly obvious that the view from the backwall nearly always has two players between the referee and the ball which can lead to some horrendously wrong decisions. The view from the front wall however puts the referee in a perfect position to see the ball unhindered by the bodies of the players. I also contend that when judging let calls on obstruction the view from the front wall is more informative. Furthermore during the US Open, because all ten seats behind the front wall were sold for vast sums of money, I was moved to a spot  by the side wall, close to the front left corner. Once again I saw far more than the referees who were seated at eye-level with the floor of the court. Absolutely disastrous. I have never seen so many transparently wrong decisions. The referees were not happy with their position either, but they had no alternative. (I shall come back to this point later).

Has the front wall position been considered seriously? Yes!  Rod Symington informed me that:

“You may not be aware of it, but the WSF established a Working Group about a year ago to study the optimum position of the Referee on a show-court, and in the Report that the Working Group submitted recently it recommended placing the Marker and Referee -- behind the front wall!! The reaction from all the top referees so far has been universally negative (surprise, surprise!).

Placing the referee (and marker) behind the front wall would not be a perfect solution. For example, how would the referee communicate with the players? (And good communication is essential for control of the match.) But it would be a start towards developing a more rational and satisfactory system.”

COMMUNICATION IS SIMPLY NOT NECESSARY

Allow me to debate that point concerning communication between player and referee.  I don’t think it is an important aspect of squash. Having seen the old American system of referee and two linesman using the appeal format, the communication was minimum.  When a player finds that two out of three officials have come to the same decision, argument usually stops  And those who have watched irate  players  try and communicate with a referee seated 20 feet or more behind the back wall will know how much mis-communication goes on. But more importantly, the exchanges between player and referee are usually bad tempered arguments, giving the match a sour taste. Dan Kneipp, brother of Joe, has seen squash in all its stages and is one of the more intelligent observers. My reports from Boston brought this response from Dan:

“With the new scoring system and how competitive the men's game is at the moment, a lot of matches come down to a few points. These points are often let or stroke decisions made by a referee whose position is a joke .

"The marker is completely superfluous; the main problem with refereeing is bad calls, yet one guy is just sitting there scribing. When was the last time there was a scoring mistake that the players didn't pick up? What a waste of an official!

"The players have no respect for the referees and it shows in the manner in which they discuss decisions. This conversation usually occurs over the top of the sponsors, which is bad for everyone. When someone tells me the banter is enjoyable and shows the players' personalities I wonder if they see some of the more hostile and aggressive players and ask when was the last time Federer said a word at Wimbledon during the match . Tennis (or football, or golf, or whatever sport) doesn't suffer from no 'personality exchanges’.”

BRING ON THE TEAM OF OFFICIALS

The present system is ripe for a player  imagining that the referee is prejudiced and the two then get into a heated  one-on-one argument.

From the preceding, it is apparent that one part of the solution is to do away with a single referee and get into a  team system. (Think for a moment how many officials it takes to  run a tennis or badminton match.)

Rod Symington makes the same point:

“I believe that -- in line with all the major sports in the world -- for the top professional events squash should be using a team of officials. One official on each side wall, perhaps 10 feet from the front, could see and call the downs and the not-ups (this was used in Toulouse in 1987!). One official at the side of each back-wall could call the interference (crossing the flight lets and strokes), -- and so on. There is absolutely no reason why squash should not place however many officials might be needed in the right place for important matches.”

Beautifully put Rod.  Dan Kneipp agrees:

“We need a solution that puts the referee in a better position, maximises the officials, gains the respect of the players, discourages dissent and ensures a smooth flowing match."

Dan’s answer:

"Squash is too fast and there are too many subjective situation for the let and stroke decisions to be placed upon one person. It doesn't matter if the referee is in the crow tower position, or sitting on the front wall. The decision shouldn't fall on one person; there should be 3 referees with each call decided by majority decision.

"Referees should be placed as close to the court as possible. One behind the back wall. One on the left wall (front of the court where possible), one on the right wall (front or back of the glass). This only takes one extra official, making better use of the current 2 official system, and ensures that all decisions have been arrived at by at least two referees sitting close to the action. This will dramatically improve the standard of the decisions, and the respect players have for them. “

Dan has arrived at the same sort of solution as I did after a long conversation with Dave Carr. Although Dave is known as the McWil Court man, he has been around squash for a long time in many different capacities.  The system I proposed is similar to Dan Kneipp’s but aiming for each official to have an entirely different angle.

I would go for four referees.  The referee behind the back wall would also be marker/spokesman. He would be at ground level (no choice).

The second referee would be on the left wall two yards from the front wall.   More action takes place at the front left than front right and he/she would be in the perfect position to see double bounces, nicks, not ups etc.

The third referee would be on the right wall around the service box.  A referee assured me that most obstruction takes place in that area of the court, so  he would have a perfect view.

The fourth referee would be on a high chair in the middle of the front wall. He would have the best overall view.

All referees would have an electronic pad connected to the first referee and the scoreboard. They would give their decisions using three buttons:

blue for no let, yellow for let and red for stroke. If the decision concerns whether a ball was up or down, or hit the tin, then a green light indicates that the ball/get was good and a red light indicates an illegal shot.

The spectators would see the decisions and the first referee would announce the verdict.

If the verdict is split 2/2 then a let shall be played, which harks back to the oldest rule – if there is doubt, a let shall be played.

Dave Carr, who also provides scoreboards, said this technology would present  no problems. It would speed up decision-making, avoid arguments and keep the game flowing.

[NOTE: Where there is  just a glass backwall, there would be three  officials, one in the seats behind the back wall centrally located, one in a high chair by the right back corner, (blocking nobody’s view) and one at ground level on the left back corner. In the absence of electronics, three coloured table tennis bats would do the trick.]

WHO WILL MAKE THE CHANGE?

The referees won’t opt for change and WSF, PSA and WISPA  have not seen fit to give this grave situation any serious thought. When the WSF did get a front wall suggestion, they allowed the  luddite referees to bury it.

Rod Symington says:

“I am mystified why the players don't demand it. Why do they continue to depend on the WSF to supply them with referees? Why don't they appoint their own referees and invent their own refereeing system? After all, they changed the Rules in other respects already.

"I have no hope that a change in the present system will come from the top referees themselves: I do have some hope, however, that you might use your considerable influence to pressure for change -- and if the PSA supports you, something good might come of it.”

The answer is that it is the promoter who will make change. It is the promoter who tells the referee where to sit. As much as they hate sitting among the spectators, 30 feet from the court, they do it.  So it is up to a brave promoter to tell them that there will be four refs for each match and where they have to sit. If they don’t like it, let them go home and watch football on telly.