ALL THE ROB OWEN STORIES

Rob Owen

“We’re all very fortunate to be involved – coaching it, writing about it, refereeing it.

Maybe some referees don’t enjoy it as much as they should. I’ve spoken to a few when I was at the Worlds in Cairo, and said: “try to enjoy it. Don’t worry so much about all the criticism, because we all make mistakes”.

I tell referees not to listen to social media. And if they read certain sites, many of the people commenting don’t understand the game anyway, so why worry about it?

People say things about me without knowing me. I couldn’t care less. If somebody I respect says, ‘Rob, you got this wrong,’ I’ll listen.

I’ve got plenty of things wrong, and I’m the first to apologise; perhaps I was wrong, perhaps I didn’t say the right thing. But if people who don’t know me or the situation write things about me, I genuinely don’t care.

Not everybody is like that. Some people take criticism personally and need to create distance from those comments. Some comments are personal and simply wrong.

Let’s clarifying refereeing so the focus can return to squash

ROB OWEN
To improve the sport, we need to stop constantly talking about decisions and start focusing on squash.

In my day, there were fewer lets and strokes. People played on. If it was a let or a stroke, you didn’t argue much.

We need to make refereeing clearer. At the moment, the same situation can produce a let, a no let or a stroke. We need consistency and very clear parameters.

Make it CLEAR

In the old days, if you couldn’t get the ball back, it was a no let. Today, sometimes a player has no chance of retrieving the ball, but a stroke is still awarded because of the opponent’s first movement.

Those should be treated as two separate questions.

First ask whether the player could have got the ball back. If not, it’s a no let. Then, if necessary, penalise the opponent’s movement separately.

We’re looking for too many problems at once.

Refereeing should be a little like a cricket review: There are three or four clear steps leading to the decision. Where there is a defined sequence:

• was it a no-ball?
• Did it pitch outside leg?
• Would it hit the stumps?

Squash seems to lack that clear sequence. The referee should ask:

1. Was the opponent in the way?
2. Could the player have retrieved the ball? If not, no let.
3. Could the player only just have retrieved it? Let.
4. Was the interference preventing a likely winner? Stroke.

That’s a simple framework. There will always be variations and grey areas, but returning to the basic steps would help. Instead, people look first at where a foot or racket was without considering how tight the ball was or whether it was going to be a winner.

It’s sad that, when asked how to improve squash, we immediately talk about refereeing. In most sports, that wouldn’t be the first answer. Tennis players don’t start by saying the umpires and rules must change.

We should be talking about better television, better commentary, more players, more prize money, more media coverage, mainstream television and grassroots growth – not referees.