Rules—Officiating
    Rules Links
    Turning Rule

COLLEGE USA
Schedules
Team previews

DEPARTMENTS
Latest news
Tournament Calendar
Bronstein Global Gallery
Player of the month
Videos
History
Pakistan Squash
School Squash
Camp Index
Features Index
Player Profiles
Worldwide Clubs
Worldwide Links
Rankings
Jobs

More Good stuff:
About Squash
   Just starting
Books
Juniors Squash
Women's Squash
Regional Reports

The Problem with the 2001 Turning Rules
By Bob Wakfer © 2002

The act of turning adds an element of danger to the game not present in other attempts to play the ball.

However, in the attempt to remove the danger from the act of turning the 2001 rules changes have violated the philosophical foundations of the squash rules. I believe that the turning rule suspends the basic principle of "fair outcome" in squash.

BASIS FOR THE SQUASH RULES
I contend and teach that the heart of the rules is based on two imperatives. These imperatives are: 1. The incoming striker or player must make every effort to get to and play the ball. 2. The player whose turn it is to play the ball is entitled to freedom from interference by the opponent and to this end the outgoing striker or opponent must provide: · Unobstructed access to the ball · Fair view of the ball · Freedom to swing at the ball · Freedom to play the ball to any place on the front wall

Lets examine how these two imperatives are the foundation of fair outcome.

Since Squash is an athletic contest between 2 players it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect that either player could gain an advantage by not trying. In the revised rules we have even seen fit to emphasize this tenet of the rules with new wording commonly referred to as the "minimal interference" rule.

The second imperative above is also obvious in its contribution to fair outcome. If a player must make every effort to get to and play the ball then it is only fair that he must be provided every opportunity to do so. This tenet is so important that there is more wording dedicated to explaining and defining interference than any other concept in the rules.

THE NEW TURNING RULE VIOLATES THE TWO BASIC TENETS
The new turning rule totally suspends and is in direct contravention to these two tenets of fair outcome.

The first and most obvious evidence of this reversal of the basic philosophy of the rules is that under the new turning rule the opponent can now win the exchange by denying the player "freedom to play the ball to any place on the front wall". Yes the rule says that the interference must not be deliberate, but the fact remains under the new rule the opponent can get a stroke by preventing the passage of the ball to the front wall. In all other applications of the rules - with the exception of subsequent attempt - the effort to clear the ball or the apparent deliberateness of the impeding action have no bearing on the outcome.

If the ball's passage to the front wall is impeded the player - striker - wins the exchange. The message is clear, if you can get your opponent to turn, then get in the way of the ball, the worst that is likely to happen is that you will have to replay the point and by interfering you may actually win the exchange.

Now what about the affect of the rule on the incoming striker? It has been publicly acknowledged that the intent of the new turning rules is to discourage players from hitting a ball after turning. The basic tenet is that the player must make every effort to get to and play the ball. But if the player turns he/she would be very foolish to play the ball.

So we have suspended the tenet that says "and play the ball". This is doubly troubling and contradictory when it is included in the same revision of the rules that saw fit to emphasize this basic tenet by including what is commonly called the "minimal interference" rule. In fact if the referee judges that the player turned solely in an effort to get a stoppage in play he/she may be denied even a let.

So now we have suspended, or at least redefined, the tenet that says, "make every effort". Every effort apparently does not include turning.

What about fair outcome? I contend that we have seriously conspired against the player whose turn it is to hit the ball. All fairness has been suspended. He cannot take any initiative or an attacking posture. The best he can hope for is an opportunity to replay the exchange.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
If my arguments above are correct then clearly there are only two things that can be done:

• 1. Declare turning an invalid way to hit the ball
• 2. Treat turning like any other shot.

If we are convinced that turning is so dangerous as to be afforded special treatment then we could declare it an invalid way to play the ball and rule the turning motion as an "not up". However I are certain that this suggestion would not work in practice and that the only real option is alternative two.

The second alternative is an interesting one because it seems now that we place the responsibility for turning on the incoming striker. In all other situations in the rules if a player hits a loose shot that results in interference it in no way exonerates him from his responsibility to provide the four "freedoms".

But in the case of the ball played so as to allow turning we seem to say that despite the fact that a ball has been played in a manner, which under any other circumstance would have been judged loose - the ball is essentially in the canter of the court - the responsibility for turning is entirely that of the incoming striker. If this perception was changed so that the responsibility was seen as that of the player playing the loose shot then we could simply say "if you hit a ball that can be turned on it is no different than any other loose shot and you as the out going striker must be prepared to suffer the consequences".

Why should it be possible to hit a shot that excuses one of the responsibility not to interfere? If we are going to respect and preserve the philosophical underpinning of the rules, and at the same time keep arbitrary provisions to a minimum, then this second alternate is the only viable solution.

Treat turning like any other shot. "Every effort" must include turning or it cannot be "every". The opponent must provide the four "freedoms" or he gains an unfair advantage by playing a shot that can be turned on. Squash by the nature of the game has some inherent dangers.

Turning is not inherently more dangerous than several other scenarios. We must not sacrifice the foundation of "fair outcome" just to try and remove the danger from this one isolated situation.

Contribute anytime: editor@squashtalk.com