Post by David Williams on Nov 13, 2013 14:21:51 GMT
This is a long post, but I'm writing it to try and get as much clarity on the subject as possible, for my own sake if nothing else!
I was asked for an opinion regarding the injury rules last night. The situation was that at 5-5 in the first game, the player was impeded in his route to the ball, and on attempting to get to the ball collided with the opponent 'knee to calf' causing a significant impact to the opponent's calf.
The opponent was unable to play on and forced to concede the match. The query was based on the reasoning that this seemed a rather harsh and unfortunate way to lose a match 3-0 at such an early stage when the other player was at least partially responsible.
The rules regarding injury appear at first glance to be fairly simple and is covered under rule 16. Rule 16 is rather long, so I won't quote the whole thing but it can be found here:
World Squash Singles Rules
There is a helpful presentation on the World Squash website which can be found here: Injury Presentation. I will refer to this later on.
I would summarise as follows:
The 3 categories of injury:
Bleeding:
Non-bleeding Injury:
So on the surface the situation as described would suggest that the injury was accidentally caused by the opponent as they tried to get to the ball - contributed injury, 1 hour recovery time. It wasn't clear whether this was given, but regardless, the player felt they would unable to recover sufficiently to play on, and so the match was forfeit.
However, I have problems with the definition of 'contributed', in particular its reliance on the word 'accidental'. I think we would all agree that some accidents are the result of blatant recklessness and thus avoidable. After all, even the speeding driver racing the wrong way down the motorway probably doesn't intentionally[/i] crash into oncoming traffic. But few would consider this a 'mere accident'.
Sadly, examples can be found on the squash court - albeit it much less extreme examples! For example, what if the ball came close to the injured player, say near their knee which is not uncommon. The uninjured player sees their opponent impeding their swing, but swings their racket anyway and smashes the other player on the knee displacing their kneecap and rendering them unable to continue? The rules suggest the injured player has 1h+ to recover or else forfeit the match. But surely that cannot be fair?
Or what if a player is impeded but takes a big run-up and barges straight through their opponent causing significant injury? I think most of us have seen this at some point - indeed, some players are renowned for this type of behaviour! I'm not saying this is what happened in the given scenario, but the force of impact suggests the injured player saw it as closer to this end of the spectrum than a slight nudge as the opponent brushed past.
Finally, what if the opponent is in front of the ball, which bounces nice and high in the middle of the court, and the player after a full second or two to consider the situation smashes it right at the opponent, causing significant bruising or even worse? This is something very common in less experienced players.
Bearing in mind players are encouraged to 'make every effort' to get to and play the ball, how should these situations be treated? There is a thin line between making every effort to get to and play the ball, and an action which might be deemed dangerous. Not all players have the experience or ability to judge the situation correctly every time.
I believe a clue as to how these situations can be fairly addressed is contained under Rule 17 i.e. 'Conduct':
"Offences with which the Referee shall deal under this rule include audible and visible obscenities, verbal and physical abuse, dissent to Marker or Referee, abuse of racket, ball or court and coaching, other than during the interval between games. Other offences include significant or deliberate physical contact (Rule 12.12.1), excessive racket swing (Rule 12.4), unfair warm-up (Rule 3.2), late back on court (Rule 7.4), dangerous play or action (Rule 16.3.1.3) and time-wasting (Rule 7.6)."
In particular note the reference to 'significant or deliberate physical contact', 'excessive racket swing' and 'dangerous play or action'. If the referee deems a player to have done any of the above, they may award Conduct Warnings, Conduct Points, Conduct Game and even Conduct Match.
Going back to our example, the question would be whether the opponent did anything which might fall under those categories. If so, then regardless of any injury caused the Referee does have the power to award points, games and even the match to the injured player.
Such a thing can only be judged based on a subjective evaluation of the situation, certainly not by anyone who didn't see it. Player experience (plus skill and awareness to a lesser extent) also come into play. Assuming there was nothing obviously out of the ordinary, the injured player losing the match is the correct course. But if the ref saw it and thought 'Crikey that looked brutal' then perhaps a conduct penalty was called for regardless of whether injury was actually caused. Being early in the match the ref may not have had chance to award conduct warnings for similar earlier acts so a Conduct Match would seem harsh for all but the most blatant disregard for safety. Perhaps a conduct game before considering the opponent's injury would be a fair course of action? Resulting in a 3-1 loss for the injured player.
Referees clearly have some responsibility to discourage dangerous play and conduct warnings should be given at the earliest opportunity if a player appears reckless regarding safety. If, after a warning, a player still shows a lack of safety awareness they have little excuse should the referee decide to penalise should they 'accidentally but recklessly' injure their opponent.
(Deep breath!)
Well... that's my admittedly long-winded take on the situation. In short - Referees are bound to follow the injury rules, but may in fact consider the Conduct rules before the injury even becomes relevant.
As always there is some interpretation here - what do you think?
I was asked for an opinion regarding the injury rules last night. The situation was that at 5-5 in the first game, the player was impeded in his route to the ball, and on attempting to get to the ball collided with the opponent 'knee to calf' causing a significant impact to the opponent's calf.
The opponent was unable to play on and forced to concede the match. The query was based on the reasoning that this seemed a rather harsh and unfortunate way to lose a match 3-0 at such an early stage when the other player was at least partially responsible.
The rules regarding injury appear at first glance to be fairly simple and is covered under rule 16. Rule 16 is rather long, so I won't quote the whole thing but it can be found here:
World Squash Singles Rules
There is a helpful presentation on the World Squash website which can be found here: Injury Presentation. I will refer to this later on.
I would summarise as follows:
The 3 categories of injury:
- Self-inflicted. In cases such as hitting oneself with the racket, colliding with walls etc this is obvious. It is less obvious that if a player is hit by the opponent's reasonable swing then this counts as self-inflicted also. This is stated as "The Referee shall not interpret the words "accidentally contributed to or accidentally caused by" to include the situation where a player is crowding the opponent". In other words if the player impedes the opponent's swing, who swings and injures the player, the opponent is not considered responsible or even to have 'accidentally contributed' under this rule. More on this later.
- "contributed, where the opponent accidentally contributed to or accidentally caused the injury.". This does not include a crowding player - see above. I think th critical word here is accidental - if it was accidental, then it is 'contributed'.
- "opponent-inflicted, where the opponent solely caused the injury". It appears, in comparison to the above, that this does not include anything which is condsidered 'accidental'.
Bleeding:
- If someone is bleeding, the ref must stop play. This is presumably for H&S reasons and to prevent blood contamination of the court. After all, nobody ants to get splattered by someone else's blood. A player cannot play on if they are visibly bleeding.
- Quote: "If the bleeding was caused solely by the opponent, the Referee shall immediately award the
match to the [bleeding] player". In other words if you solely cause your opponent's bleeding injury, you immediately lose the match. - Otherwise, the bleeding player has as much time as they need to stop the bleeding and dress the injury.
- Having stopped the bleeding and dressed the injury, if bleeding recurs the injured player forfeits the match.
Non-bleeding Injury:
- If self-inflicted - no recovery time is allowed! The player must play on or concede the game and use the 90 second recovery interval.
- Contributed - 1 hour recovery time to be given. More can be given if time permits and the player asks for it. If still unable to continue, the player forfeits the match.
- If solely opponent-inflicted then the opponent forfeits the match if the player requires any recovery time at all, even if they might be able to repair the injury in a relatively short time.
So on the surface the situation as described would suggest that the injury was accidentally caused by the opponent as they tried to get to the ball - contributed injury, 1 hour recovery time. It wasn't clear whether this was given, but regardless, the player felt they would unable to recover sufficiently to play on, and so the match was forfeit.
However, I have problems with the definition of 'contributed', in particular its reliance on the word 'accidental'. I think we would all agree that some accidents are the result of blatant recklessness and thus avoidable. After all, even the speeding driver racing the wrong way down the motorway probably doesn't intentionally[/i] crash into oncoming traffic. But few would consider this a 'mere accident'.
Sadly, examples can be found on the squash court - albeit it much less extreme examples! For example, what if the ball came close to the injured player, say near their knee which is not uncommon. The uninjured player sees their opponent impeding their swing, but swings their racket anyway and smashes the other player on the knee displacing their kneecap and rendering them unable to continue? The rules suggest the injured player has 1h+ to recover or else forfeit the match. But surely that cannot be fair?
Or what if a player is impeded but takes a big run-up and barges straight through their opponent causing significant injury? I think most of us have seen this at some point - indeed, some players are renowned for this type of behaviour! I'm not saying this is what happened in the given scenario, but the force of impact suggests the injured player saw it as closer to this end of the spectrum than a slight nudge as the opponent brushed past.
Finally, what if the opponent is in front of the ball, which bounces nice and high in the middle of the court, and the player after a full second or two to consider the situation smashes it right at the opponent, causing significant bruising or even worse? This is something very common in less experienced players.
Bearing in mind players are encouraged to 'make every effort' to get to and play the ball, how should these situations be treated? There is a thin line between making every effort to get to and play the ball, and an action which might be deemed dangerous. Not all players have the experience or ability to judge the situation correctly every time.
I believe a clue as to how these situations can be fairly addressed is contained under Rule 17 i.e. 'Conduct':
"Offences with which the Referee shall deal under this rule include audible and visible obscenities, verbal and physical abuse, dissent to Marker or Referee, abuse of racket, ball or court and coaching, other than during the interval between games. Other offences include significant or deliberate physical contact (Rule 12.12.1), excessive racket swing (Rule 12.4), unfair warm-up (Rule 3.2), late back on court (Rule 7.4), dangerous play or action (Rule 16.3.1.3) and time-wasting (Rule 7.6)."
In particular note the reference to 'significant or deliberate physical contact', 'excessive racket swing' and 'dangerous play or action'. If the referee deems a player to have done any of the above, they may award Conduct Warnings, Conduct Points, Conduct Game and even Conduct Match.
Going back to our example, the question would be whether the opponent did anything which might fall under those categories. If so, then regardless of any injury caused the Referee does have the power to award points, games and even the match to the injured player.
Such a thing can only be judged based on a subjective evaluation of the situation, certainly not by anyone who didn't see it. Player experience (plus skill and awareness to a lesser extent) also come into play. Assuming there was nothing obviously out of the ordinary, the injured player losing the match is the correct course. But if the ref saw it and thought 'Crikey that looked brutal' then perhaps a conduct penalty was called for regardless of whether injury was actually caused. Being early in the match the ref may not have had chance to award conduct warnings for similar earlier acts so a Conduct Match would seem harsh for all but the most blatant disregard for safety. Perhaps a conduct game before considering the opponent's injury would be a fair course of action? Resulting in a 3-1 loss for the injured player.
Referees clearly have some responsibility to discourage dangerous play and conduct warnings should be given at the earliest opportunity if a player appears reckless regarding safety. If, after a warning, a player still shows a lack of safety awareness they have little excuse should the referee decide to penalise should they 'accidentally but recklessly' injure their opponent.
(Deep breath!)
Well... that's my admittedly long-winded take on the situation. In short - Referees are bound to follow the injury rules, but may in fact consider the Conduct rules before the injury even becomes relevant.
As always there is some interpretation here - what do you think?