Remember this? You wanted to sleep over at your best friend’s house, but you had to ask permission. You asked the first of your parents that you ran into, and after being turned down, you went to the other parent. This time, you got permission (spoiled little thing, weren’t you?).
If you were skillful, you even may have pulled this off a few times. But your parents learned quickly what you were doing; they realized that the first parent – whomever it was – was being completely undermined by the second, and they developed a different system. Let’s hope that the PSA and WSF are quick to learn a similar lesson about their current refereeing system.
The structure presently being deployed is a two-person hierarchy where one referee makes all calls and announces the score, while the other (called the “Appeal Referee”), either confirms or overrules the first referee’s call when it is appealed. Needless to say, the first referee’s authority is completely undermined in this nonsensical system. More importantly, it makes the sport less attractive to new spectators.
At the recent Tournament of Champions in New York’s Grand Central Station, for example, the two-referee system was in place, and the effect was predictable. The players looked spoiled as they made their appeals, and the first referee often was made to look foolish when repeatedly overruled.
The cachet of Grand Central Station brought to the Tournament of Champions a lot of corporate types who were unfamiliar with squash. But the lack of attention paid to them by the current refereeing system left many befuddled. In one corporate box, for example, a new spectator was overheard to ask his squash-playing friend, “Are the players being jerks or is the refereeing just really bad?”
Ironically, in the match the spectator asked about, the answer was neither. In fact, during the TOC, the refereeing was consistently strong, but the impression given to the casual spectator was that something had to be wrong as constant discussions among the referees and players ensued – and often ended with the first referee, after having given an explanation, being overruled by the second. Talk about confusion.
The same spectator asked an insightful question: if it ultimately doesn’t matter what the first referee says, why not just go to the über-referee in the first place?
The spectator was told that both players and spectators alike feel the need to have certain calls appealed. The spectator agreed that this made sense, but then asked if it wouldn’t be better for the referee to be overruled by a majority instead of simply by one person. “Aha,” replied his seatmate, “you are describing a system known as the American system, and it consists of a referee with two judges.”
The American system gives the referee full authority to make all calls, but allows the players to appeal these calls to two judges. If either one of the two judges agrees with the referee, the call is sustained, but if they both disagree with the referee, the call is overruled. But because the whole system is dependent on the referee and is a majority-rule system, when a call is overruled, the referee’s authority remains intact.
Brilliant, said the new spectator, and wouldn’t it be nice if the referee could explain what is going on to the fans?
Whatever system is used, the WSF and PSA need to be remember that half of the referee’s responsibility is toward the fans – not just the players. With this in mind, the two bodies should mandate that referees do three things that are not currently in vogue:
First, they should announce the name of the server and the side he is serving from before every point (“Power, five-one from the left”). Believe it or not, one fan at the TOC who had come expressly to see Jon Power play, thought that Power was on the verge of losing his round of 16 match because the fan mistakenly thought that Power’s opponent was Jon. Because the referee didn’t announce the players’ names, the fan didn’t realize his mistake until the third game of the match. Announcing the service side before each serve allows spectators to pick up quickly the service rule. When it is not announced, the choice of service side seems random, and the players’ hand signals to the ref to ask the side can be baffling.
Second, referees should describe the appeal to the fans (“Power is appealing for a let. No let is sustained.”). Since the players are not miked, spectators often don’t know what is going on. New spectators may not even know that the game has an appeal system. If the referee is skillful, an appeal is an opportunity for the crowd to learn what is going on.
Third, the referees should never enter into a conversation with the player about an appeal. It makes everyone look bad.
Note to the powers-that-be: watching spoiled children and arguing parents is not fun. Don’t let it happen to squash.
