General Questions

Displaying 1 - 20 of 2212

What happens at ten-all ?

In normal play, you need to win by two clear points, eg 12-10, 16-14, and the game continues until someone has that two point gap.

In doubles, it's sudden-death at ten-all, so the next point wins the game.

How long is allowed for the warmup ?

The warmup is 5 minutes, players usually change sides halfway through.

My opponent hits a loose two wall drop shot - does he have to move out of the way, and how ?

Full Question:

My opponent was in front of the "T". He was the outgoing player. I was behind him on the "T". He hit a loose two wall drop shot. The ball hit the right wall first then the front wall. How should the outgoing player move or not move to give me a direct path to the ball? Some people have said it's okay to stay on the "T". From what I've read the outgoing player must exit the "T". My thought is that the outgoing players only action would be to move forward and to the left. This would give me access to the ball and allow him to circle around.

Answer:,

There is no "right to the T", once you've played the ball you have to allow your opponent direct access to the ball. He can move anywhere he wants, but he has to move, otherwise it will be a stroke to you.  Of course, it's best not to play shots to the middle that force you to move out, giving your opponent positional advantage.

Cheers, Steve
(ps this page isn't supposed to be live yet, so well done on finding it, and I'm answering 'unnoficially' !

I’ve been watching a lot of PSA squash recently. One thing that intrigues me, is as I unsersatand it, that a player must make a reasonable attempt to clear the ball so their opponent can have a clear shot. So often I see the striker hold their ground not making any effort to clear the ball (I.e they simply stand their ground) and their opponent calls a let and that’s what they get, irrespective of a video review. Why is this? Often the rationale is the striker had a clean line to the ball. If however, the opponent had made a reasonable attempt to clear the ball the striker would have had a chance to play a much better shot. It seems to me that the rule is you can interfere with your opponent’s shot as long as they could return a shot which puts them at a disadvantage. You only have to listen to the commentators expert opinion and the video review to see how their interpretation of the rule differs. Could you please clarify the rule to me. Thank you.

I obviously cannot comment on the specific decisions or the commentators expressed opinions but there remains the duty of the striker to play a shot that he/she can clear to provide his/her opponent with a path to get to and play the ball. The referees are required to determine whether this was done sufficiently and especially at the PSA professional level players are required to continue play if they have a line to the ball even if it is not perfectly ideal...in the effort to keep play continuous with fewer stoppages for appeals and Lets and more entertaining for television.

Regarding the new rule 8.9.3 if the striker holds for fear of hitting an opponent and ask for a let then if there's no interference the referees decision will be no let? is this removing a safety let?

The application will remain the same in that the referee will need to determine whether there was a reasonable fear of hitting the opponent. If the opponent was well clear and the striker misjudged his position then it is a No Let as previously but there may well still be instances where "safety Lets" are appropriate if the opponent was possibly in danger of being hit.

Displaying 1 - 20 of 2212
Back to top button
Close