Squash Rules Contradictory(as of May, 2004)by Uriel Wittenberg (uw@urielw.com)
The ProblemThe following two posts, sent to the Internet newsgroup, rec.sport.squash, explain the problem:
From: "Uriel Wittenberg"
The rules at http://www.worldsquash.org/rules/rule_12.html are
contradictory.
In a situation where "there was interference, which the opponent made
every effort to avoid, but the opponent's position prevented the player'
s reasonable swing and the player would have been able to make a good
return," rule 12.8.2 says the player gets a stroke, while 12.9 says he
gets a let.
The wording above is copied from rule 12.8.2. The conditions addressed
in 12.9 are: "if there was interference, which the opponent made every
effort to avoid, and the player would have made a good return."
Logically, 12.9's conditions are satisfied whenever 12.8.2's conditions
are satisfied. So the rules conflict.
(Note: I'm assuming that "the player would have been able to make a good
return" and "the player would have made a good return" are equivalent.)
From: "Uriel Wittenberg"
Maybe I should have been clearer. There are 3 conditions involved here:
A: there was interference, which the opponent made every effort to avoid
B: the opponent's position prevented the player's reasonable swing
C: the player would have been able to make a good return
Rule 12.8.2 says: If A and B and C hold, then the player gets a stroke.
Rule 12.9 says: If A and C hold, then the player gets a let.
That's just contradictory. If A, B, C are all true, then each of the two
rules applies -- and you get conflicting rulings.
--
12.8 The Referee shall award a stroke to the player if:
...
(G7) 12.8.2 there was interference, which the opponent made every effort to avoid, but the opponent's position prevented the player's reasonable swing and the player would have been able to make a good return;
...
12.9 The Referee shall allow a let if there was interference, which the opponent made every effort to avoid, and the player would have made a good return.
Rule 12.8.2 refers specifically to interference with a player's swing and
emphasises the need for the striker to be given space to play the ball.
Rule 12.9 tacitly assumes a swing was possible and therefore only a let is
allowed. There is an important difference between the two, though future
rewording may be useful. Thank you for your comments/suggestions.
Regards
|