Referees' Review May 2007

WSF Referees’ Review May 2007 WORLD SQUASH FEDERATION decision – thereby giving the sport a poor image. (A properly trained referee could stop this abuse by invoking (or threatening to invoke) Rule 17; however, because of the lack of training very few did.) This issue of the WSF Referees’ Review contains several items that discuss different aspects of the 3- Referee System. I hope that this Since the last edition of the WSF material will give all its readers cause Referees’ Review two major develop- for thought and reflection: the issue is ments have taken place in the world of not at all settled, because much work international refereeing. The first of needs still to be done in respect of the these is the re-introduction of the 3- details. And the issue of the training of Referee System. While the system has referees in the proper use of this been used only in a handful of system has not yet been addressed. Let tournaments – and thus it is still too the debate continue! early to conclude that this is the final answer to all of squash’s officiating The second major development has problems – it does seem to be the way been the approval by the WSF of a forward at this time, as is noted in the comprehensive programme of training next article. and assessment for referees at all When the 3-Referee System was levels. The Working Group that tried in the mid-1990’s, it was fated to developed this programme began its be a short-lived experiment – for three work in January 2005, so the process major reasons: 1. There was an instin- has taken almost two and a half years. ctive resistance from many referees The programme sets explicit standards who were strongly attached to the for the achievement of the various Marker/Referee system (and the fact levels of referee certification, and that the 3-referee system was viewed outlines in considerable detail how by some as “American” – and those standards are to be assessed in therefore by definition “inferior” -- each individual case. The aim of this was another nail in its coffin). 2. The programme is to provide referees with referees who used it were, by and a clear idea of what knowledge and large, never trained how to use it: skills they require at each level, and to there was a tacit assumption that a give assessors the tools to assess each qualified referee could step in and use of those criteria. Since this programme the 3-referee system without any will now be in effect for WSF training. 3. The players exploited the appointments, all of us – referees and system, by appealing almost every assessors – are going to have to study PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com the new programme and familiarize to me that the 3-Referee System is the ourselves with its provisions. way forward, but there are still several challenges to overcome. You will also find in this issue articles reporting on all the major What needs to happen now is for the 3 tournaments of the past six months. governing bodies of squash to decide Once again the Editor thanks all the on the future of the 3-Referee System. contributors to this issue: the WSF Should it be formally adopted; at what referees have once again proven to be events and in what rounds is it realistic both cooperative and reliable. to use it; who must bear the cost of increasing the number of referees required to run this system at each event? The current timing provides us with a small window to reach a decision on The 3 Referee System – an Update this, as there are no major PSA or WISPA events on the calendar until by Graham Waters August. In July we have the Pan- American Games in Rio de Janeiro and My first report documented the the Junior Women’s World background to, and trial of, the 3 Championships in Hong Kong, but Referee System at the Windy City they will be using the traditional Open in Chicago in January. Since Marker/Referee System. that time, the system has been used at several Super Series events, sometimes It should be noted that players were with minor variations, but all with the used as one of the Side Referees in approval of the promoters and all with London and for one round only in generally the same positive results. Kuwait, but players were not used in The events at which the system has New York or Qatar. The following been used since Chicago have been: sections describe the results from each of the 4 subsequent events and · Tournament of Champions, reactions from participants. New York · ISS Canary Wharf Classic, New York London · Shaika Al Saad Kuwait Open, The system was used in an identical Kuwait City manner to the initial trial in Chicago, · Qatar Classic (06), Doha with similar results. Again, there were fewer confrontations between players The latter two events also had WISPA and referees, the final decisions were draws, so the top women players have better accepted, the referees felt less also had some experience with the stress, and the promoter was happier system. All but one of the WSF World with the overall caliber of refereeing. Referees have now used the system Comments received from New York: and several WSF International · At the ToC we sat in a line on Referees have also used it. I have had the aisle a fair distance apart. feedback from all of the referees, This made communication several of the promoters, and some awkward. players and administrators. It is clear PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com · At ToC we did not use any · A few of the player/refs players – but the use of lesser- admitted that they did not experienced referees did cause always know what decision to a lot of discomfort – and we give, either because they could just got through. not make the decision or they · At the ToC and Kuwait events were unsighted. we did get decisions wrong – · From discussions during and at even with 3 of us – but I the end of the event we all believe that the percentage of agreed that the new system wrong decisions was decreased worked. compared to the one-official system Kuwait · At both events – partly because of the inexperience of some of Here, the referees sat 15 feet back from the referees involved and partly the court on a 2-foot high purpose-built because of the view of the “referee area” platform just less than referees – blocking went the width of the court, in front of the without punishment because high main seating stand. This worked one or two of the officials quite well, but we sat apart with side failed to see a “block” and thus referees along both walls. The general did not penalise it appro- public was seated in the main stand priately. This placed extra above our platform. They could not see pressure on the central referee our hand signals. There was not any who wanted to deal with the side seating. Specific comments problem – but on occasions the received: decision of the central referee · Because of the scheduling we was not supported by the other used some players for the two. second round. I had a slight problem in recruiting players to referee - but the “players’ rep” Canary Wharf for the event quickly took over and all turned up on time. For The position of the referees was the quarterfinals and on we used same as in Chicago, and the results assigned WSF referees only. were the same. Specific comments · Where possible, I believe received: players should not referee – I · We liked the position of our spoke to numerous players at three referees. The central the event – all were uncom- referee high at the back with fortable with getting involved – his two side referees within his and many it seemed were being vision and in front of him pushed by the more senior (triangular formation). We players (those still in the think that this can only work on event!!) into helping out glass courts and it should be · Alex Gough, who left Kuwait noted that the players always immediately after losing, was wished to sit in the front row (I insistent that the players were guess this is where they willing to participate. I beg to normally watch matches from differ and so did Robert when coaching, etc). Edwards who was TD at the event PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com Qatar · the worst view cast the deciding vote. At least with In Doha, because they were running this system, the “correct” both a men’s and women’s draw, the decision was reached, and organizers were using four courts nobody knew that it was not simultaneously right through the unanimous. second round. This made the use of · The very serious issue for both the 3-Referee System impossible until players and referees coming the quarterfinals, when all matches out of this system is the were played on the glass court. There inability of the central referee were two slight differences this time: to set a standard line of · We employed a marker as well thinking and stick to it, as 3 Referees, further reducing especially when the players are the onus on the Central not playing totally within the Referee, and also eliminating spirit of the game. The system the need for the Left Referee to works quite well when both keep score.

Load more