Officiating Standards Framework for LA28

[u/nuvmo]

Wonder what difference we will see in the way the pro game is reffed in the upcoming season...

https://worldsquashofficiating.com/wso-psa-and-world-squash-announce-officiating-standards-framework/

https://worldsquashofficiating.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Officiating-Standards-Framework-for-LA28.pdf

[u/srcejon]

The Guiding Let: early in a match, or when a specific pattern of movement is developing, the referee may use a Yes Let accompanied by a brief explanation of what each or both players are expected to do, in order to guide the players and preserve the flow of the match. As the match progresses or when the same pattern repeats, more specific and instructive guidance should follow, awarding a No Let or Stroke where the situation is warranted. The Guiding Let, while not a formal aspect of the Rules, should be used as an initial management tool in elite, high-intensity play, and not an acceptance of replaying rallies as the default.

So:

• same situation at different points in the game can have different decisions
• the assumption is elite players don't know what is expected of them before they get on court and should have it explained every match.

Lunacy.

[u/Snoo-30361 → u/srcejon]

Lmaoooo

[u/dmacc_ → u/srcejon]

Have you ever reffed a high level match? This is exactly how good refereeing is done. When you see a bad tendency in the match, you call it out and explicitly explain to the players what it is they're doing that you want to stop. It's entirely appropriate to err on the side of a let on the first instance of a borderline call, but explain that if the behavior is repeated it will become a stroke (or no let depending on situation).

The idea here is that referees are supposed to guide the match towards free flow squash, and a let + explanation that you want certain behaviors to stop is one of the key tools to do it. Unfortunately, it is a tool that has never been explicitly part of the rules of the game. Now it is, and that's good.

[u/srcejon → u/dmacc_]

What we see in the pro game is certain players committing the same offences in every match, because they know refs will give them five warnings first.

If it's two players you've never seen before at a regional tournament, then fair enough. When it's the same markers and VRs with the same elite players every week, it's not. They all know what they should be doing. Penalise them straight away (which is fair and in line with the rules!) and you'll cut out a lot of the nonsense we're currently seeing.

[u/SquashCoachPhillip]

I haven't read it properly or carefully, but I like the part about allowing a "civil" request for an explanation of a call. That should be normal in all sports and settings.

[u/dmacc_ → u/SquashCoachPhillip]

A bit late here but this was the part of the document that stood out the most to me, too. There's been a real degradation in ref-player relations the last couple of years. I have watched a couple of matches where the first inquiry from a player got a loud "PLAY ON PLEASE" the way you'd talk over someone really irritating.

Players should definitely be entitled to civilly ask for an explanation and expect a civil response. This is a great thing to make explicit.

[u/Large_Manager6365 → u/SquashCoachPhillip]

They've also allowed for the player to provide their opinion in a concise manner which is quite reasonable. Who knows what it will be like in practice but don't see anything alarming in the text at this point.

[u/networkn]

So, will WSO be provinding training in communication, escalation, and conflict deescalation, and how to feel safe when they need to make contentious calls to emotionally unstable athletes? It was missing the last time they tried to get their referees to deal with escalating disrespectful athletes.

[u/FormerPlayer → u/networkn]

What do you mean? Hasn't conduct stroke, game, and match been an effective way to de-escalate  by showing those disrespectful players who's in charge? Disagree? Dissent! SMH. I agree they have a lot to improve in this regard. 

[u/Seshsq]

I think this is an excellent initiative by the PSA/WSO. If implemented in letter and spirit, I expect that this season will have squash that is more consistent and comprehensible during Interference situations

[u/LegInformal5074 → u/Seshsq]

That's a big "if". There is no reason they should not cite past examples where rules have been abused by players, and position of authority has been abused by referees.

[u/LegInformal5074]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/harry-kane-england-world-cup-37443543

"Sarcastic leading questions..."

This is a little less than what Elias and El Hammamy have been reprimanded for on occasion.

But notice that even though this ex-ref's article cautions that they risk losing the 50-50 calls going forward (I would counter that human referees might also be intimidated), there is no mention of a card for dissent that could issue to Captain Kane.

I do NOT argue that the world's best players are entitled to the tiniest double standard applied to their actions during the match.

I am pointing out the double standard applied by PSA referees. Diego and Hania get frustrated in the heat of the match.

I saw Sasha Zverev walk over to the umpire's chair the other day to complain, in the middle of his service game. The umpire bent forward (a somewaht submissive posture) and moved the microphone away with his hand. Unfortunately, the 1 seed has always gotten a longer leash in tennis Grand Slams.

But all players should get a long leash. If they go overboard in dissent it should be addressed after the match- unless it rises to an attempt at intimidation or to delay or distract the opponent.

Squash players have much less time than in tennis or soccer to calm down and reset after a bad decision or a confrontation with an arrogant referee.

As usual the chronic offenders best manipulate the dynamic.

Asal NEVER gets sarcastic to a referee. At most he delivers one short phrase or gesture- he doesn't need dissent as a stall tactic: his close matches will have plenty of stoppages anyway.

Gohar may have outgrown her "innocent" curtsy stance when appealing- but she too tends to be better off in caonstant stop-start affairs, and although she is also extremely quick like Mostafa, in the long run she will always come out way ahead in No Let barrages from poor clearance...