Call of the Week

Watch the rally and make the call with the US Squash Call of the Week officiating series. Enter your votes below to test your knowledge of the rules. Tune into @USSquash on twitter every Friday to vote on the newest clip before the decision is revealed on Saturday.

Call of the Week 8.06.20

What is your call?
2 votes
Call of the Week 8.06.20 Answer & Explanation
Contact does not equal a let.  Abouelghar makes a shot that does not end up where he intended. This forces him to clear far away from his shot in the middle of the court. He anticipates where the shot is going, but takes a pass more towards Willstrop then to where the ball is. The ball ends up in the back corner another is enough space for him to go directly to the ball without incurring significant interference. So the decision is no let.


Call of the Week 7.30.20

What is your call?
7 votes
Call of the Week 7.30.20 Answer & Explanation
Watch how Blatchford anticipates Sobhy’s shot and the quick reactions of both players. You can see here that Blatchford demonstrates the definition of making every possible effort to get out go the way. So it comes down to can Sobhy reach the ball and make a good return? Sobhy was caught off guard and by the time she draws her racquet back the ball is well past her with no interference. So the decision is no let.



Call of the Week 7.24.20

What is your call?
93 votes
Call of the Week 7.24.20 Answer & Explanation
Momen makes a good shot but when Au moves to play it, he knocks Momen’s racquet out of his hand. Momen is one of the great characters of the game as he moves to play the ball with his hand. The rules say, if a non- striker drops the racquet because of contact during the strikers effort to reach the ball a player may request a let. So the decision is a let and this let occurs the moment Momen drops his racquet.


Call of the Week 7.17.20

What is your call?
58 votes
Call of the Week 7.17.20 Answer & Explanation
In this situation Sherbini is attempting to hit a straight drive down the forehand side. Unfortunately her shot hits the side wall first and comes to the middle of the court. Both players are moving but David can not pull her racquet back because Sherbini is not out of the way. Because it’s Sherbini’s shot and inability to get adequately out of the way when David is ready to play, she is penalized with a stroke.



Call of the Week 7.10.20

What is your call?
24 votes
Call of the Week 7.10.20 Answer & Explanation
When you have two players moving at a high rate of speed in a tight area there can just be a little bit of traffic. In this case Coll hits a good first shot but it’s not a clear winner. Elshorbagy anticipates it early and that shortens the time and opportunity Coll has to  get out of the way. With both players moving correctly and the ball still staying away from Coll and yet some distance from ElShorbagy, the decision is a Let.


Call of the Week 7.03.20

What is your call?
131 votes
Call of the Week 7.03.20 Answer & Explanation

In this example look at two movements as two shots occur in succession. Firstly, watch as Perry  hits the ball and moves directly to the center and provides enough access. The next time she moves in she’s a little more off balance and after she strikes the ball she moves directly into the path of Elaraby. Because of her shot selection, execution and movement off the ball she is solely responsible for the stoppage of play and is therefore penalized with a stroke.


Call of the Week 6.26.20

What is your call?
137 votes
Call of the Week 6.18.20 Answer & Explanation

Sometimes officials can overthink what they see which can lead to an incorrect outcome. We are going to break down this point to better understand how a difficult decision can be made easier by just understanding the order and the way things happen. This is how to fairly apply the rules. First understand that a let stops play. It is evident Gawad was under pressure and he anticipates a shot down the forehand side. Unfortunately he guesses wrong and the ball goes quickly past him on the backhand side, and it is well past him before he is able to play it. This is where the play stops. There is some discussion about whether Gawad could have moved to play the ball in the back of the court but there is no interference and he makes no attempt to do so. If you listen clearly and closely to Gawad’s reasoning for asking for a let, his intention was to volley it. This again identifies when play stops. Simply put, at the time Gawad asked for a let, he is not able to make a good return and there is no interference to the ball, so the decision is no let.


Call of the Week 6.18.20

What is your call?
180 votes
Call of the Week 6.18.20 Answer & Explanation


Call of the Week 6.12.20

What is your call?
164 votes
Call of the Week 6.12.20 Answer & Explanation
In this instance we ask ourselves a few questions. Was Gawad making every effort to get out of the way, is Rosner able to strike the ball and make a good return, does he have access to the whole front wall, and is there a reasonable fear of injury? As play progresses we see Gawad moving towards the side wall, and as the ball comes back Rosner is late on the ball and so his only option would be to hit the ball into the sidewall. If the ball hits the sidewall or any other wall before the front wall a let is allowed. There may be a question as to if it was a winning shot, but given Gawad’s position and his ability to move to the ball it was determined that would be incorrect so the decision in this case is a let.



Call of the Week 6.5.20

What is your call?
224 votes
Call of the Week 6.5.20 Answer & Explanation

We are often asked questions about incidents that involve the ball hitting the front / side-wall nick and second attampts to hit the ball. In this instance King positions herself on the backhand however the ball hits the side-wall nick and moves to the opposite side. Because she makes no effort to hit the ball she is entitled to her space t hit it and make a good return. In this case King’s swing is prevented when she draws her racket back and she makes contact with her opponent. Because of that the decision is a Stroke.


Call of the Week 5.29.20

What is your call?
214 votes
Call of the Week 5.29.20 Answer & Explanation

This example gives us some specific things to look for when interference occurs. Watch as El Torky hits a good shot, it goes down the right hand wall and she moves immediately to her left as opposed to going towards the T. Then watch Gohar move forward towards her opponent instead of towards the ball when there is ample space for her to go through and play the shot. The rule we are looking at is that if the striker has direct access but instead took an indirect line to the ball and then requested a let for interference a no let is allowed. The decision here is No Let.



Call of the Week 5.21.20

What is your call?
255 votes
Call of the Week 5.21.20 Answer & Explanation

This call is important as it comes late in the match at 9-6 in the 5thgame although that should not impact any decisions. In this example, we need to determine why play stopped and if a penalty should be applied. From the back it appears that El Shorbagy has cleared out of the way and that there is enough space for Dessouky to hit the ball. However, the overhead angle gives another view that helps us to make the decision. El Shorbagy is hitting the ball towards the middle of the court and Dessouky is impeded in his ability to move forward. Because of El Shorbagy’s movement Dessouky is unable to hit the ball and therefore a Stroke decision is given.




Call of the Week 5.15.20

What is your call?
247 votes
Call of the Week 5.15.20 Answer & Explanation

At the professional level a lot of emphasis is put on minimizing stoppages allowing play to be continuous. Sometimes decisions are made to encourage players to play through interference. According to the rules minimal interference is such that it does not prevent the striker from seeing or getting to the ball to make a good return and a no let is allowed. When we look at the overhead here we are going to see two things. There is slight contact but there is ample space to hit the ball. Therefore, we want to encourage El Sherbini to go through and continue the rally. Hence a No Let is the decision.



Doubles Call of the Week 5.11.20

What is your call?
153 votes
Doubles Call of the Week 5.11.20 Answer & Explanation

Clearing in hardball doubles can be challenging. The ball is faster than singles and a player has to worry about two opponents instead of one. In this example, Nathan Dugan on the right wall in black plays a shot back towards himself. Although he has cleared to the side wall enough to for a ball to be played to the front wall, he has not done so quickly enough to all his opponent Mark Price to take a safe swing. Therefore, the call is point for the team in white.



Call of the Week 5.8.20

What is your call?
255 votes
Call of the Week 5.8.20 Answer & Explanation

This clip highlights two principles on which the rules are based – safety and fair play. As an official sometimes things happen that are out of the ordinary on the court. In this case we must deal with both players positions on the court at the end of the rally but we must also account for the state of Gaultier’s racket and the condition that it is in. Listen to the sound of the strings breaking and to the reaction of the commentators of SquashTV.
In the end the question becomes – which is more important, the application of the rules or the foundation in which they are based? In this case the decision is a Let as it represents a fair outcome of the rally and is in the spirit in which the game is played.


Call of the Week 5.1.20

What is your call?
326 votes
Call of the Week 5.1.20 Answer & Explanation
This point shows the importance of the video referee in the professional game, especially when the game is on the line. As play develops Golan (in black) is stretching his opponent from corner to corner. The rule being reviewed is that even though there is interference, Soliman (in yellow) must still be able to make a good return. Look carefully at where the ball bounces both on the first and second bounce. Soliman would not have been able to make a good return and therefore the decision is no let.


Call of the Week 4.24.20

What is your call?
378 votes
Call of the Week 4.24.20 Answer & Explanation
This point focuses on the outgoing player after they strike the ball. After a player hits the ball, they must provide access to their opponent. In this clip, El Shorbagy hits the ball to the front and Farag moves to the side of him to return. El Shorbagy then moves to the center and he hits the ball and holds his position firmly – setting his right foot in the path of Farag –  and does not attempt to clear. This causes contact with his opponent who is trying to get to the ball on what would have been a difficult shot to return. This interference is difficult to see from the usual camera angle but the overhead camera shows it more clearly. Therefore, the decision is yes let.


Call of the Week 4.17.20

What is your call?
291 votes
Call of the Week 4.17.20 Answer & Explanation
This decision focuses on player movement both on and off the ball. Sherbini hits a good shot to the front court along the wall. Tayeb is stretched trying to reach it. The issue is that as Sherbini is moving away from the ball after she strikes it, she moves directly to the center of the court and does not turn her body to allow access to her opponent. Therefore the decision is a let.


Call of the Week 4.10.20

What is your call?
301 votes
Call of the Week 4.10.20 Answer & Explanation


Referees look at 3 things when making a decision; the incoming player, the outgoing player and the ball. This decision involves all three.

Coll hits a cross court shot but leaves it loose in the middle of the court. Dessouky is in a position to volley and takes a step forward to do so. He drives the ball to the back of the court where the first bounce is just beyond the back of the service box. The second bounce is at the back glass. Once Dessouky makes contact he makes every effort to clear. To retrieve the ball, Coll chooses a path that is in front of his opponent, but the ball is going to the back. By the time Coll would have been able to hit the ball, it is past him and then bounces twice towards the back of the court. Coll would therefore not have been able to retrieve the ball and the decision is No Let.