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.
The warmup is 5 minutes, players usually change sides halfway through.
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.
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.
(ps this page isn't supposed to be live yet, so well done on finding it, and I'm answering 'unnoficially' !
Should a player do a 360 spin move? A player hit a drop shot. He was in front of the T. I was behind him. The shot was to the left. I moved in the direction of the ball, to the left. The outgoing player did a 360 spin move to the left and this resulted in a collision. Who's fault is this? Is this a stroke? How should this be avoided in the future.
Please fill in an answer
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.
Please fill in an answer