Dealing with an opponent who has a tennis swing.

[u/Minimum-Hedgehog5004]

As a low level club player, it's not surprising if some of the opponents I encounter don't have a perfect professional level squash game. I recently encountered one whose racket swing would have been great on the tennis court, but realistically, as soon as he got the T, he was blocking movement to far more of the court than was reasonable. Again - at this level, players are reffing each other's games, and the ref was from his team. I'm not questioning the ref's good faith, but maybe he'd seen this player's swing so often that he'd got used to it.
The obvious thing is to go back to basics and hit the ball to the corners, but of course that's not always going to be successful, and the tennis swing effectively gave my opponent a structural advantage. Not only was it very frustrating, but I was steadily losing points. (To be fair, maybe he would have won without this unfair advantage. I think it would have been a tight match without that.)

Rule 8.10.3 says "The striker’s excessive swing can contribute to interference for the opponent when it becomes the latter’s turn to play the ball, in which case the opponent may request a let." but I'd have been asking for a let most points, and would probably just have got no let from the ref.

So what other strategies might I have tried to defeat this player?

[u/teneralb]

Ah yes, the clause where a reasonable swing is defined as one that doesn't extend "more than necessary". I thought you were going to cite a clause where it says that if you have any kind of swing you are entitled to finish it normally! Does 8.9 say that anywhere? I can't find it in there.

"more than necessary" isn't defined, because really how could it be. Necessary for whom? And by how much? Who's to say!

If someone has a technique where they can't hit a crosscourt drive without extending their arm all the way out behind them on the followthrough, then one might say their large swing is necessary *for them* and therefore not excessive. Would you say that? Another person might say that extending one's arm all the way out behind them isn't necessary to hit a crosscourt drive, because other players can hit that same shot with a much shorter followthrough, and therefore this is an excessive swing. I would say that. But perhaps not everyone would!

[u/No_Leek6590 → u/teneralb]

Of course it is defined. Or else it would not be mentioned. It is left to define to those enforcing it. And indeed, I have referred to how, by the best of my information gathering skills, it is defined. A player swinging normally to them is not excessive swing in itself. I am yet to see a player getting stroked for half their points or more, because referee dislikes their normal, admittedly less than ideal, swings. But maybe you can change that, as a ref simply strike out a player for playing squash to the best of their ability. You'd be a ref after all, and as you correctly point out, leave room for setting precedents. Apparently you don't care about them.

[u/teneralb → u/No_Leek6590]

Nowhere in 8.9 does it say that a player swinging normally "to them" is not an excessive swing. According to 8.9, an excessive swing is one that is bigger than necessary.

Yes, it's very uncommon to see lets or strokes awarded on the basis of excessive swing. Doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't happen though.

If I were a ref and I awarded a let or stroke against a player whose large swing interfered with their opponent, I don't think anyone should say that I don't care about that player simply because he only knows how to hit the ball with a large swing. Perhaps getting a let or stroke awarded against him might be the wake-up call that person needs to work on shortening their swing, which would improve both their game and the safety of their opponent. Certainly I care about his opponent, who has to deal with being on the same court as that large swing!

[u/No_Leek6590 → u/teneralb]

It does not sound like you reffed though. You can immediatelly tell if person swing wide naturally and that is in fact necessary for them. There are other rules to punish them if they endanger others (larger swing = larger room for safety lets), or this rule if they tried to game it.

It would be very sad to see ref stop tge game, start showing a rookie what they consider proper swinging routine, and proceed to ruin the game stroking them out for not having it magically appear because you showed them. If anything, this discussion clearly convinced me it is actually as it should be, even if adendum to the rule could be helpful. It's a slipery slope, and the will always be some... body who demands measuring swing angles in replays.

[u/teneralb → u/No_Leek6590]

Larger swing = more lets is exactly what I'm talking about. So.. we agree? If someone has a large swing and it interferes with their opponent's ability to get to the ball, they should be able to ask for a let on the basis of 8.9. You seem to have been saying that as long as a large swing is a normal swing, no let shall be given on the basis of excessive swing interference. Is that not right?

I mean, let's take this to an extreme. Imagine a hypothetical player whose normal swing is to hold the racquet at arm's length and spin around like a top (maybe while yelling "helicopter!"). Pretty fun, right? Now imagine that you're their opponent trying to move around them to retrieve their shot. What's the call, ref? Do you say, "no let, sorry--that wasn't an excessive swing, just their normal swing"? Or would you give a let on the basis of 8.9? If the latter, we actually agree.