interference on the serve

[New York Nick]

I play a tall guy who, when serving from the left side, likes to stretch out his swing so that his racquet crosses over the middle line and passes through my return box. If he were to hit me with his swing, who would be penalized? Would he get a stroke because I'd interfered with his swing?

[Crusher]

I tried to get a stroke once doing that. Not really to get the point it was mostly because the guy was basically standing on the T and it annoyed me for some reason. Anyways, the ref didn't know and neither did I either.

I guess its technically a stroke as the guy is in your swing but its also a created interference as I'm stepping across towards my opponent where as I could just serve from more inside the box. But then again, its my serve and I should be allowed to serve as I want to and normally do which is one foot in the box and stepping towards the T as almost everyone does.

I am quite interested in how other people interpret this situation. I'll bet its one of those grey areas left to the refs discretion.

[logers]

could easily be managed...serve a high lob:))...that should work:))

[New York Nick]

Just in case logers isn't the only one who doesn't understand what I'm asking, the question is: What's the ruling when the server hits the receiver with his racquet while in the act of serving?

It dawns on me that this circumstance may be limited to players like me who play on converted U.S. handball courts, which are one foot narrower than standard width. It's never bothered me playing on the narrower courts -- a foot isn't much, and I make the transition to standard courts without any problem. But this could be one instance where the difference is telling.

[seshadri]

Look at the situation from another angle. The server , while swinging at the ball, brushes you with the racquet, and his serve goes down. Is it fair that he should lose the point this way? So long as he has one foot firmly planted in his service box at the instant of contact with the ball, he can step as far across/behind/ahead as he wishes, and can toss the ball as close to the opposite wall as he wishes. In fact, for executing the corkscrew serve, quite often the swing path traverses some distance past the midline, in order to get the correct angle.
It's not really an advantage for the server to step across widely, as he can then get trapped in a Stroke situation if his serve is badly directed.

[Crusher]

Look at the situation from another angle. The server , while swinging at the ball, brushes you with the racquet, and his serve goes down. Is it fair that he should lose the point this way? So long as he has one foot firmly planted in his service box at the instant of contact with the ball, he can step as far across/behind/ahead as he wishes, and can toss the ball as close to the opposite wall as he wishes. In fact, for executing the corkscrew serve, quite often the swing path traverses some distance past the midline, in order to get the correct angle.
It's not really an advantage for the server to step across widely, as he can then get trapped in a Stroke situation if his serve is badly directed.

So stepping across widely and hitting your opponent with your racquet (well, asking for a let of course but clearly showing a ref that the opponent is clearly within your swing) is a clear stroke?

If your opponent was in your swing like this in a rally it would of course be a stroke. Does the fact that your serving change anything or should it? The serve is the first shot of play so it would make sense to award a stroke in this situation although it would be pretty cheap... of course play hasn't actually commenced but the server is making an attempt to play the ball and is hindered and prevented from playing by the opponents position on the T.

[seshadri]

So stepping across widely and hitting your opponent with your racquet (well, asking for a let of course but clearly showing a ref that the opponent is clearly within your swing) is a clear stroke?

Not necessarily. It's a Stroke only if the swing is reasonable. If the ball has been tossed wide, and the reasonable swing is prevented by the opponent, it's a Stroke. However, if the swing is unnecessarily exaggerated purely for the purpose of claiming a Stroke, it's only a Let, accompanied with a caution for needless stoppage of play.
Hopefully, these situations will never crop up in real play. It's difficult to imagine somebody wilfully placing himself in danger. In doubles, though, I've often found myself close to being injured by my own partner's swing during the serve due to his excessive backswing.

[Crusher]

Seshadri, this situation has already happened to me and to NY Nick against a very tall player.

Is there an actual official rule for this situation? Anyone know?

[seshadri]

Crusher, the official rule is that you are preventing his swing, and the fault is entirely yours if you persist in standing in an area of the court that is causing an interference.
He has the right to any reasonable swing so long as his foot is in the service box. You, on the other hand, have no right to stand in your service box, or around the T area, if it is causing an interference. As NewYorkNick said, he had the problem because his court was narrower, though even that is no excuse for getting in the way when you know that the opponent wants more space for his entirely legal service

[Crusher]

That`s why I think it should be a stroke for the server. But who is to judge what a reasonable swing is on the serve? How would someone excessively swing on the serve? In fact, I could swing with a tiny swing and still hit my opponent with my racquet in this situation as I am fairly tall and it would just take a step towards the middle.

If my opponent gets caught unaware of how close he is to my swing I feel it should be to my advantage and I should get the point just as I would if the rally was already in progress. And of course, one foot would have to be in the box as per a legal serve.

So there isn't something in the rules specifically stating this situation?

I think i remember an exhibition match on YouTube with maybe Nicol/White when this happened and White (maybe it was Nicol) did this exact thing, stepped over and asked for a stroke then argued why wasn't it a stroke? The ref didn't have an answer just said something like play on play. I'll try and find it... quite positive it was Nicol/White

[New York Nick]

Hopefully, these situations will never crop up in real play....

Well, Sesh, I guess you and I are living in different realities!

It stands to reason that, following the letter of the law, this situation would result in a stroke awarded to the server. But it's both unnerving and annoying that as the returner I have to adjust my position on the court to accommodate the server's swing. Instinctively I feel like, as long as I'm standing within the return box, I should be able to position myself wherever I want. I realize this isn't in the rules ... but maybe it should be.

[seshadri]

Instinctively I feel like, as long as I'm standing within the return box, I should be able to position myself wherever I want. I realize this isn't in the rules ... but maybe it should be.

NYN, what is the return box? I think the confusion you are facing stems from that term, which does not exist in reality. There are only right and left service boxes. What you call the return box is just another space within that quarter of the court where the ball must bounce after clearing the service and short-service lines. Other than that, it has zero significance. Standing in that area confers absolutely no special rights to the receiver.

[New York Nick]

NYN, what is the return box?

It seems pretty clear from your comments that you understand what I'm talking about.

I think the confusion you are facing stems from that term, which does not exist in reality. What you call the return box is just another space within that quarter of the court where the ball must bounce after clearing the service and short-service lines. Other than that, it has zero significance.

You're getting too philosphical for me, Sesh! You seem to dispute the reality of the term, rather than what the term describes. Fine by me -- I'm more concerned with the thing itself than its name. But if it truly has no proper name, then I'd propose "return box" as a candidate.

Standing in that area confers absolutely no special rights to the receiver.

That's precisely what I mean when I say in my previous post, "I realize this isn't in the rules ..." No lecture required, professor.

[Crusher]

Is the server even bound by the rules to be in that quarter of the court (the normal section that has the opposite serve box in it)? Could a joker stand behind the server in the same section he serves in for example? Just wondering what the official ruling is?

EDIT!!! Whoops?! I meant the receiver!!!

[fitch87]

Just a couple of questions from the original poster. 1) why would u want to stand so close ? what advantage would you gain? surely any half decent serve takes away the early volley and leaves you out of position for the return off the back wall. 2) as a tall player with a 195 cm arm span i have never even came remotely close to my opponent off a serve . As a junior i made the common mistake most players take of over stepping from my serve leaving me vulnerable to boasts fast cross courts and cross court lobs off the return of serve but still a long way away from my opponent.

In any case back on track, if i were marking the game i would probably call a let for a number of reasons , 1) you are not in any position to play a winning shot , 2) the player is not really interfering with you playing the shot it is merely a feeling of being cramped and therefore a let ball would be awarded.

I think this is just another example of a rare incident on a squash court that would require interpretation of one of the broad rules of the game.

Let ball all the way.

[seshadri]

You seem to dispute the reality of the term, rather than what the term describes. Fine by me -- I'm more concerned with the thing itself than its name

NYN, I'm being prosaic, not philosophical. It's you who are attributing a special status to an area of the court merely because it is marked, even though the marking is meant only as a guide for the server. The 'thing' that you call the return box is non-existent.
If I were the referee, I would, in the interests of fair-play, award a Let to the server the first time it happened, and inform the receiver that he should stand a bit back. The next time it happened, I would award a Stroke to the server.
I would be interested in getting Gmandleydixon's view.

[Crusher]

You seem to dispute the reality of the term, rather than what the term describes. Fine by me -- I'm more concerned with the thing itself than its name

NYN, I'm being prosaic, not philosophical. It's you who are attributing a special status to an area of the court merely because it is marked, even though the marking is meant only as a guide for the server. The 'thing' that you call the return box is non-existent.
If I were the referee, I would, in the interests of fair-play, award a Let to the server the first time it happened, and inform the receiver that he should stand a bit back. The next time it happened, I would award a Stroke to the server.
I would be interested in getting Gmandleydixon's view.

I too would probably award a let initally for fair-play/sportsmanship reasons but should we really?

But why would it be let for the first time it happened... ? You're penalizing the server for his opponents position on court upon which the server would normally receive a stroke if this happened during play ( a player being wrapped up in the hitter's swing).

[seshadri]

I too would probably award a let initally for fair-play/sportsmanship reasons but should we really?

Portia:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187

[nmc8]

Beautiful Seshi, sums it all up quite wonderfully.

nmc8

[Crusher]

I too would probably award a let initally for fair-play/sportsmanship reasons but should we really?

Portia:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187

Can someone dumb that down and translate it for me? Thanks

[trickleb]

Crusher, the official rule is that you are preventing his swing, and the fault is entirely yours if you persist in standing in an area of the court that is causing an interference.
He has the right to any reasonable swing so long as his foot is in the service box. You, on the other hand, have no right to stand in your service box, or around the T area, if it is causing an interference. As NewYorkNick said, he had the problem because his court was narrower, though even that is no excuse for getting in the way when you know that the opponent wants more space for his entirely legal service

After seeing this topic, I decided to check the rules to see if this scenario is covered. I believe it is not, so it would be up to the referees good judgment to make a decision.

The rules for interference (12 & 13) refer only to cases when the ball is already in play.

12.1 The player whose turn it is to play the ball is entitled to freedom from interference by the opponent.

According to rule 5, the ball is in play ONLY after a good service.

5. THE PLAY
After the server delivers a good service, the players return the ball alternately until one fails to make a good return, the ball otherwise ceases to be in play in accordance with the rules, a player appeals, or the Marker or Referee makes a call.

So, if the swing is prevented before a good service is made, the interference rules don't apply.

In my opinion, this is how one would handle this situation: the server should be able to hit the ball from anywhere he wants, provided he has a foot on the service box. The receiver should not be entitled to stand anywhere he wants, if this causes interference with the serve. If this happens one time, the referee should give a let and ask the receiver to give the server all the room he needs. If he keeps doing it, he should receive conduct strokes. Because of the above, you cannot give him actual strokes, since the ball is not in play until after the serve.

It would be great if an actual referee could share his/her opinion on the subject and how to deal with this situation.

[Crusher]

That's exactly how I would handle the situation too right now without a formal and official ruling.

Probably most times it would be a simple unintentional error by the receiver but if it seemed intentional to me I might even give a Conduct Warning right away. It would be similar to blocking during the rally.

[trickleb]

You appear to be conflating the term "The player whose turn it is to play the ball...." with the ball being or not being in play.

I understand that the terms are not exactly the same (technically, you could play a ball that is not already in play). However, when I read rule 12, it makes sense to me only under the assumption that the ball is in play. At least, it doesn't look to me that the people that wrote the rule had our scenario in mind. I could be wrong, of course. It's just my interpretation.

[seshadri]

4. THE SERVICE
4.1 Play commences with a service.....

Note that the wording is 'with' and not 'after'. The ball is in play once the server has tossed the ball and has started his swing at the ball. Until that point the server has the right to abort his serve, but after that he has to hit the ball correctly , or lose the point. Unless of course, interference occurs, in which case the usual interference rules will apply.
If the ball was not in play until a good service was served, that would give the server the right to keep on serving the ball out of court, as, technically, he cannot lose a point that has not yet started

[Crusher]

Hmmm, so it is technically a stroke then.

[trickleb]

If the ball was not in play until a good service was served, that would give the server the right to keep on serving the ball out of court, as, technically, he cannot lose a point that has not yet started

Well, you certainly lose the rally if you fail to deliver a good service (rule 8.1). I'm not sure I want to push this purely semantic discussion, but if you serve out, can you say that the ball was ever in play?

[seshadri]

The ball is in play from the moment the server starts his swing, and remains in play till the ball has gone out of play, or a pickup is illegal,or a player experiences interference or the referee stops play.
This topic is now getting a bit silly, I think it's been done to death. Thanks everyone.

[Crusher]

The ball is in play from the moment the server starts his swing, and remains in play till the ball has gone out of play, or a pickup is illegal,or a player experiences interference or the referee stops play.
This topic is now getting a bit silly, I think it's been done to death. Thanks everyone.

Yeah, glad to be of service, boss.

So we've established that if the receiver is dumb enough to be standing on the T and the server hits him with his swing (which naturally will occur before the ball is even hit...) then the server is awarded a stroke OFFICIALLY and JUSTLY according to the rules as stated by whoever makes the rules.

Hopefully this situation happens on matchball during a crucial league match so that the receiver will never forget what happened and never make such an idiotic mistake again.

[boastnick]

Personally I think the ball is in play the moment the racquet hits the ball. Until that point the server could abort and not incur a penalty, say if he sneezed or threw the ball up funny.