Super Series Finals 2005より。 ＨＤサイズなので画面右下の「ＨＱ」ボタンを押してください。全画面でもまあまあ見られます。 マシンスペックが足りない人は以下へどうぞ。 • when LETS look like ST... DVDはSquashLive.comで購入できます。 www.squashlive....
Decision 10: Incorrect. Willstrop (by not making every effort to clear the ball) has blocked Palmer's direct access to the ball which was loose. The second bounce of the ball was at Willstrop's feet. Palmer is also in a position to play a winning shot. Correct call is Stroke to Palmer.
Decision 3: Correct. The striker's reasonable backswing is not prevented, and the outgoing player is keeping clear i.e. making every effort. A let is allowed for reasonable fear of injury. Decision 4: Correct. It might appear that the outgoing player was causing interference. However, by the time the striker is in a position to play the ball, the outgoing player is just clear. The position of the striker's racket is minimal interference. A let is allowed for reasonable fear of injury.
Lets given at 1:43, 3:53, and 5:00 were strokes IMO, clearly in the guy's swing. Agree with all the others. Refs that don't award strokes at appropriate time are encouraging dangerous play.
Decision 1: Correct. By the time the striker is ready to play the ball the opponent is clear. A reasonable fear of injury exists, so a let is allowed. Decision 2: Video angle makes it a tough call. If the ball was too far behind the striker to play cross court, then let for reasonable fear of injury. If the striker could have played cross court, the correct decision is stroke.
Decision 7: Correct. Power has made no effort to get to the ball. A single step forward would likely have resulted in a stroke. The ball being loose does not exempt Power from the requirement to make every effort. However, there is still reasonable fear of injury - therefore Yes, Let.
@Cerberus256 Interference is defined by preventing one or more of the four freedoms allowed by the Rules. Interference is interference regardless of whether accidental or intentional. However, if the player intentionally caused interference for the opponent in moving to the ball, his opponent is likely to be awarded a stroke, unless the opponent is still some distance from the ball. Also, interference that is not intentional is still interference, and may well result in a stroke.
Decision 2 - Should be a Stroke because the ball was loose enough and Beachill was in position to hit it crosscourt to opposite corner and hit Lincou who was very much remaining in the Death Triangle after hitting his shot.
The quality of officiating in the previous generation was an absolute joke. It's the one thing I always notice when watching free game replays from the 00s on the PSA TV channel. Also just noticed this video is from 2009 haha, so I guess that explains it.
Decision 9: Incorrect. Palmer has blocked Power's direct access to the ball which was loose. Clear stroke. Power's explanation to the referee of Palmer's bad movement is correct.
i don't disagree with the access and movement. Power needs to keep his racquet in a natural position and not try and "wrap" it around Palmer in such an exaggerated manner as to (try to) influence the referee.
i don't get this video as people are argue it's a stroke vs let. 1-4 looks like let as the hitter was lazy to hit the ball, when it was playable condition. the rest of them looks like stroke as the opponent was in the way
Decision 5: Incorrect. The outgoing player has made no effort to clear the ball. The striker would easily have reached the ball. Stroke is the correct decision. In addition, The striker would have been able to play a winning shot to the back left corner. Decision 6: Incorrect. At the time Amr appeared to be about to play the ball, Nicol was clear. If he had stayed clear, a let would be correct. But, Amr holds his shot, which he is entitled to do and Nicol then moves directly into Amr's swing.
Ok, just need to get this clear in my mind: accidental obstruction of shot is a LET and deliberate obstruction is a STROKE? Then the stroke point is awarded to the player who was obstructed? Not sure on this one, clarification would be awesome.
Decision 1 is correct. This is a classic case of asking for the early Let....hoping for an erroneous Stroke decision. Matthew stopped moving forward and waited for the ball to come to him. By the time the ball came near enough to be played, Beachill had cleared. Still reasonable fear of injury if Matthew pulls it way crosscourt....so Let is correct decision.
0:20 - clear stroke. 0:44 - stroke. 1:08 - let. 1:35 - how is that not a stroke? Should be no doubt there. 2:05 is a let. 2:30 - he could've hit it earlier on, purposely phished for a stroke. It's just a let. 3:02 - clear stroke. 3:58 - clear stroke. 4:26 - let. 4:37 - LOL. 4:58 - clear stroke.
Bad calls in squash are not the reason to not make squash olympic sport! Bad refs are everywhere - football/soccer, basketball, ski jumping, figure skating, pole dancing, fishing, crochet - EVERYWHERE! But arguing with them and having a chance to persuade them to Your opinion - it's great! Look at JP - arguing, moaning, joking - it's very entertaining to a crowd ;)
@ilikepie520 Hahaha good insult man. Anyway haha, I guess you're right in a way, but seriously, it's a cheap stroke. But actually looking back on the video you're right, it is a stroke. But lmao no need to get so upset and call me a twat. At first when I saw the video it looked a bit like a second attempt to me, which actually is a let and not a stoke, but yeah looking again it's a stroke but a cheap one cause he could've played it if he wanted to.
Спорт
Thank God we have Joey Barrington and PJ today...this commentary would make one sleep in between the rally...
I'm glad commentating isn't today what it was then... My goodness, I would die of boredom.
Decision 10: Incorrect. Willstrop (by not making every effort to clear the ball) has blocked Palmer's direct access to the ball which was loose. The second bounce of the ball was at Willstrop's feet. Palmer is also in a position to play a winning shot. Correct call is Stroke to Palmer.
Decision 3: Correct. The striker's reasonable backswing is not prevented, and the outgoing player is keeping clear i.e. making every effort. A let is allowed for reasonable fear of injury.
Decision 4: Correct. It might appear that the outgoing player was causing interference. However, by the time the striker is in a position to play the ball, the outgoing player is just clear. The position of the striker's racket is minimal interference. A let is allowed for reasonable fear of injury.
great quality
Lets given at 1:43, 3:53, and 5:00 were strokes IMO, clearly in the guy's swing. Agree with all the others. Refs that don't award strokes at appropriate time are encouraging dangerous play.
Decision 1: Correct. By the time the striker is ready to play the ball the opponent is clear. A reasonable fear of injury exists, so a let is allowed.
Decision 2: Video angle makes it a tough call. If the ball was too far behind the striker to play cross court, then let for reasonable fear of injury. If the striker could have played cross court, the correct decision is stroke.
Decision 7: Correct. Power has made no effort to get to the ball. A single step forward would likely have resulted in a stroke. The ball being loose does not exempt Power from the requirement to make every effort. However, there is still reasonable fear of injury - therefore Yes, Let.
@Cerberus256 Interference is defined by preventing one or more of the four freedoms allowed by the Rules. Interference is interference regardless of whether accidental or intentional. However, if the player intentionally caused interference for the opponent in moving to the ball, his opponent is likely to be awarded a stroke, unless the opponent is still some distance from the ball. Also, interference that is not intentional is still interference, and may well result in a stroke.
Decision 2 - Should be a Stroke because the ball was loose enough and Beachill was in position to hit it crosscourt to opposite corner and hit Lincou who was very much remaining in the Death Triangle after hitting his shot.
The quality of officiating in the previous generation was an absolute joke. It's the one thing I always notice when watching free game replays from the 00s on the PSA TV channel. Also just noticed this video is from 2009 haha, so I guess that explains it.
Decision 9: Incorrect. Palmer has blocked Power's direct access to the ball which was loose. Clear stroke. Power's explanation to the referee of Palmer's bad movement is correct.
i don't disagree with the access and movement. Power needs to keep his racquet in a natural position and not try and "wrap" it around Palmer in such an exaggerated manner as to (try to) influence the referee.
i don't get this video as people are argue it's a stroke vs let. 1-4 looks like let as the hitter was lazy to hit the ball, when it was playable condition. the rest of them looks like stroke as the opponent was in the way
Decision 5: Incorrect. The outgoing player has made no effort to clear the ball. The striker would easily have reached the ball. Stroke is the correct decision. In addition, The striker would have been able to play a winning shot to the back left corner.
Decision 6: Incorrect. At the time Amr appeared to be about to play the ball, Nicol was clear. If he had stayed clear, a let would be correct. But, Amr holds his shot, which he is entitled to do and Nicol then moves directly into Amr's swing.
Ok, just need to get this clear in my mind: accidental obstruction of shot is a LET and deliberate obstruction is a STROKE? Then the stroke point is awarded to the player who was obstructed? Not sure on this one, clarification would be awesome.
Is the title suggesting the calls are correct??
Decision 1 is correct. This is a classic case of asking for the early Let....hoping for an erroneous Stroke decision. Matthew stopped moving forward and waited for the ball to come to him. By the time the ball came near enough to be played, Beachill had cleared. Still reasonable fear of injury if Matthew pulls it way crosscourt....so Let is correct decision.
@SquashReferee let only wasnt there to hit a winner!
@SquashReferee let only wasnt there to hit a winner! decision 9 that is
0:20 - clear stroke.
0:44 - stroke.
1:08 - let.
1:35 - how is that not a stroke? Should be no doubt there.
2:05 is a let.
2:30 - he could've hit it earlier on, purposely phished for a stroke. It's just a let.
3:02 - clear stroke.
3:58 - clear stroke.
4:26 - let.
4:37 - LOL.
4:58 - clear stroke.
all strokes
xddddddddddd
Bad calls in squash are not the reason to not make squash olympic sport!
Bad refs are everywhere - football/soccer, basketball, ski jumping, figure skating, pole dancing, fishing, crochet - EVERYWHERE!
But arguing with them and having a chance to persuade them to Your opinion - it's great!
Look at JP - arguing, moaning, joking - it's very entertaining to a crowd ;)
@ilikepie520 Hahaha good insult man. Anyway haha, I guess you're right in a way, but seriously, it's a cheap stroke. But actually looking back on the video you're right, it is a stroke. But lmao no need to get so upset and call me a twat.
At first when I saw the video it looked a bit like a second attempt to me, which actually is a let and not a stoke, but yeah looking again it's a stroke but a cheap one cause he could've played it if he wanted to.