Squash Ezine wrote here on June 19 about a scandalous match at the Men's World Team Championships where Gregory Gaultier appeared here to be disqualified and was a few moments later allowed to continue the match against Nick Matthew.
On June 26, the World Referee Assessor on site wrote to Squash Ezine here to defend the decision.
Below is a letter from French referee Nicolas Barbeau offering a very different account of the happenings in France.
- - -
Dear Mrs Sinclair
I would like to thank you for giving an analysis of the World Team’s
Semi final match between Grégory Gaultier and Nick Mathew.
I would like to ask you a few questions about the match:
1. At 9-6 in the fifth, the referee decides not to proclaim England the
winners because you say “ Matthew , as a true sportsman, accepts to go
on with the match.” You agree with the referee’s decision since you
say ” when the players agree to go against the referee’s decision
concerning a ball which is called out , the players’ wish must be
respected”.
I don’t agree with you on this point because:
- when a ball is called out, errors are often made due to the distance
between the referee and the court. The players being in the heat of the
action, if they both agree, it seems common sense that the referee
should change his decision.
- However, the decision to
proclaim England the winners in case of cramp is in accordance with
rules concerning injury during a match. I don’t see why this rule was
not applied even if both players agree on the matter. In this case,
why not imagine that the player at fault would lose a game ( according
to behavior rules ) for having insulted the referee who consequently
overrules his decision because his opponent considers the sanction too
severe.
2/ I wouldn’t say , like you, that the match took
place in a wonderful atmosphere. Several spectators said that it was
really embarrassing to see a referee whistled at and continually
criticized like he was.
I think if the referee decided to overturn his decision and not proclaim England the winners , it’s due
A - to the fact that Matthew and the English coach agreed on this
B - due to the fact that the French delegation all stood up and contested the decision
C - and ultimately, because he didn’t want to have problems with the patriotic crowd.
3/ Thirdly, there were also moments during the match when the players took time for injury :
Between
the 3rd and 4th games, Matthew asked for time off court and got 3
minutes due to a foot injury. It was a legitimate request since he took
his sock off to be treated.
At 3-1 in the fifth, Matthew leaves
the court for treatment but the referee refuses the 3 minute-time
allowance because it was the same injury as before.
However,
according to information given by one of the English players sat at the
front of the court, Mattthew had cramp then. My question being how can
a referee judge whether a player has cramp or another injury ?
At 8-5 for Matthew in the fourth, the referee allows Gaultier to leave
the court for 3 minutes for a ‘foot injury”. But, from what we could
see, Gaultier had been showing signs of cramp from the beginning of the
fourth, at the end of a few long rallies. How can we be sure of the
type of injury the player is suffering from to be able to make the
correct decision?
At 9-6 in the fifth, Gaultier falls down on
the court obviously in pain due to cramp. Does the fact that he is
immediately treated by the French team’s physio mean that he loses the
game since he is not respecting the rules concerning recuperation time?
4/ Finally, on a larger scale, we were wondering that if a member of
the IOC was in the crowd, how would he have reacted to the fact that
the referee changed his mind after proclaiming England the winner !
In which other sport do you think we could come across the exact same situation?
Nicolas Barbeau
French referee
ps : i think we met in Honk-Kong a few years ago. I was refereeing at the PSA-WISPA Buller Open.
I would suggest that people read the rules on what constitutes an illness or disability in rule 16.2. An injury is usually something that is obvious like twisting and ankle or knee, getting hit with the racquet/ball or in simple terms, incidents that make people cringe when viewed.
ReplyDelete16.2 Illness or Disability: A player suffering illness or disability not involving bleeding has the following options:
16.2.1 resuming play without delay;
16.2.2 conceding the game in progress,accepting the 90 second interval, or
16.2.3 conceding the match.
Symptoms of tiredness, alleged illness, or disability not reasonably evident to the Referee, or recurrence of pre-existing ailments, including injuries sustained earlier in the match, shall be dealt with under this Rule 16.2. This includes cramps of any kind, actual or impending nausea and breathlessness, including asthma. The Referee shall inform the players of the decision and the requirements of the rules.
There is no point in speculating about what various people were thinking during the match: we just don't know. The Referee applies the Rules and makes decisions and play goes on.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the incident in game 5, the Referee decided that Gaultier had suffered a cramp. The Rules state that a cramp is not an injury: the player must play on immediately or concede the game. Gaultier did not play on immediately, so the Referee awarded the game (and thus the match) to Matthew. This was the correct decision.
At this point Matthew showed excellent sportsmanship and asked the Referee to permit Gaultier to continue: Matthew clearly did not wish to win the match on a technicality, but wanted a result based on a fair outcome through competitive play. This was very praiseworthy.
The Referee acceded to Matthew's request, and the match was played to its conclusion. In this case also, the Referee's decision was correct: it was in the best interest of squash and of sport in general. (If anyone from the IOC had, indeed, been present, they would no doubt have been impressed by such sportsmanship and common sense.)
The Senior Assessor observing the match, Chris Sinclair, agreed with the Referee's actions, and so do I. There is a very sound unwritten Rule of Squash:: Common Sense and Fairness. It was applied in this case.
Rod Symington
Director
WSF Referees' Committee
Director
WSF Rules Commission
Monsieur Symington, when a player has cramps, that means that his oponent is better physicaly or/and technically.
DeleteI don't see why winning a match using this cramp rule should be "unfair" or "unsportsmanship" !
Squash is one of the hardest sport physicaly speaking. To me "common sense" would be to apply the cramp rule in order for the outcome of a match to be fair.
The referees are there to promote safety and fairplay, period. If the player who could be adversely affected by a reversal in the Referee's ruling [in this case, Matthew] found nothing improper in Central Referee's action, that is proof that no injustice was committed.
ReplyDeleteDogmatically insisting that a minutia in the rules be enforced to uphold the sanctity of the rule book reminds me of this Groucho Marx quote:
"Remember men, you are fighting for this lady's honor; which is probably more than she ever did."