Link to videos - main video here - support video - here
Rule(s) that apply:
After completing a reasonable follow-through, a player must make every effort to clear, so that when the ball rebounds from the front wall the opponent has:
8.1.2. unobstructed direct access to the ball;
My Thinking
Houston – we have a problem as of August 2024
Rule 8.1.2 needs to be changed urgently to prevent the ridiculously crass decisions which the modern PSA and WSF referees are being directed towards making by the present "woke" powers that be, for reasons that I simply cannot understand other than players must find a way to continue a rally (a) at any cost to themselves and (b) contrary to many of the presently written Rules.
Rule 8.1.2. presently says that non-strikers MUST PROVIDE strikers with "unobstructed direct access to the ball".
That used to be really simple to interpret but now needs an extra line added to it because "woke" referees deliberately misinterpreting the rule in order to suit the earlier directives mentioned relating to "keeping play going".
Rule 8.1.2 needs this extra line: "unobstructed direct access to the ball where and when the striker wishes to play it".
Otherwise, the present "woke" referees will be able to, as they are presently doing, give "No Lets" to ANY obstruction on the grounds that, at some point, if the striker had WAITED, there would've been a moment In the path of the ball to which he could've had direct access.
This is another example of "woke" referees wanting strikers to move as they want them to move and to hit the ball when and where they want them to hit the ball and regardless of the strikers' personal advantageous choices particularly in "attacking" the ball.
Player in White has played a loose backhand semi lob (so not high enough as to be unvolleyable amd nowhere near the sidewall) back towards himself with his opponent more or less right behind him. His opponent has immediately latched onto this and moved forward directly towards the ball in order to volley it at some point directly in front of him. In other words, he IS taking a direct line ot the ball where he wants to hit it.
He cannot do this as his "unobstructed direct access to where he wants to hit the ball" is blocked by his opponent's position.
That, for me, is a straightforward simple stroke for failing to provide "unattracted direct access to the ball where the player wants to play it" resulting from a poor loose semi lob.
The "woke" referee gives a "no let" as does the "woke video referee"!
The explanation given is absolutely clear. Both referees wanted the striker to not attack the ball as he did but WAIT for the ball to come a little further and move to the left towards where the ball is going to drop into the clear by which time, the non-striker would have cleared.
In other words, move to where the referees want the striker to hit the ball and ignore where and when the striker wants to hit the ball.
To add insult to injury, the "No let" and loss of point punishment is given for "deliberately" taking the wrong line. This is incredibly harsh and will naturally make players think twice about attacking the ball which can only mean slower and less exciting play.
CAVEAT: In this example, I would agree with the ‘no let’ decision ONLY IF the line taken by the striker would have resulted in him being unable to play the ball – For example, that the ball might have been too high. I absolutely do not believe this to be the case in this example and that, had he been allowed to continue with his direct forward movement towards the ball, he would have been able to make a powerful attacking volley of some sort. His desire to attack and take advantage of a weak shot has been blocked which is unfair.
SUMMARY
RULE 8.1.2 Needs to have this line added to it so that woke referees cannot give these ridiculously crass "no lets", -"where and when the striker wishes to play it" otherwise, at some later point in time, there will always be "unobstructed direct access".
So rule 8.1.2 should read:
"unobstructed direct access to the ball where and when the striker wishes to play it". (Not where the referee wants you to play it just to keep the rally going and let the obstructing player off the hook!)
My Call (applying Rules 8.1.2 above) – Stroke for failing to clear and give direct access to the ball.
Words you can say to the players:
You played a weak shot back to yourself which your opponent was in a position to attack and you were unable to clear his direct access to the ball, so stroke for failing to clear and give unobstructed direct access to the ball.
Match Referee Decision
No Let – woke refereeing with the referees wanting the striker to wait and not attack the ball.
Thought Process Flowchart Graphic – Click here https://jalbum.net/a/2119146
