I arrived at New York Athletic Club at ten before noon Friday, as instructed, after an early start from Atlanta. The first match of the final round qualifiers was at noon - Stephen Meads vs. Kareem Darwish. At noon, Richard Tucker (US Squash Regional Referee from Minnesota) arrived, unaware of my arrival, but willing under the circumstances to allow me to take control of the match on my own, after proffering the advice that it "could get ugly". I remember young Darwish from the World Juniors at Princeton and couldn't believe that this charming young man had turned into a sinner, but forewarned is forearmed!
The match lasted almost two hours, Darwish winning in five, coming back from an improbable two-game deficit against a higher ranked opponent. Mr. Tucker's concern was well-founded, as there was a certain degree of what might have been viewed by some as intimidating behavior on the part of the more experienced player, especially as life began to become more difficult. The rules were applied and all was well. Fair outcome to a well-contested match. One down, thirteen to go...although, had I known that at that time, I would have doubted my ability to survive the course!
Richard and I shared duties, one of us serving as both referee and marker, while the other rested - the walk in adjacent Central Park was bracing indeed! Actually Richard didn't quite survive the course on Friday, as he ran into a rather truculent young Italian by the name of Bianchetti, who took a dislike to the officiating and to the official and made a complete buffoon of himself. Richard, not surprisingly, decided enough was enough for the night and one of the players did the last match. I did two other matches that night - another long match with some scrappy play and therefore difficult decisions, as the tall, strong Aussie Anthony Ricketts disposed of Ahmed Faizy in four grueling games, two with tie breaks. The last match was an easy win for Mark Cairns over Mikkel Korsbjerg. Apart from Darwish, I had not seen any of the other players before, so it was indeed a pleasure to witness squash at this level. It was only going to get better!
The tournament proper started on Saturday at noon. Barry Faguy (WSF International Referee from Canada) and Mike Riley (US Squash National Referee from Rhode Island) were on hand and Richard Tucker and I started our marathon partnership with the first game, qualifier Lee Beechill, playing experienced Del Harris, both from England. Considering that Richard and I were born about five miles apart in the East Riding of Yorkshire, it was a very English event! After a lengthy search for a broom to sweep the dusty court, all went well and Harris showed enough of his skills to dispose of a gallant Beechill, who won the second game. Maj Madan (US Squash National Referee from Maryland) and Hunt Richardson (US Squash Regional Referee from DC) joined the referee fray, ably assisted by Barry and Mike and Steve Polli for one game. The Two-Referee system was used with the more experienced official acting as Appeals Referee. The more I worked with the system, the more I liked it. The outright bad decisions were immediately reversed in almost all cases, avoiding a potential World War Three situation. My dislike of the system still is that the referees are seen to disagree occasionally and this causes confusion for spectators and potential sponsors of the game.
The more games I refereed the better I became at making tough calls quickly and the speed of the call and the authority of tone with which it is delivered had a significant influence on the level of dissension shown by the aggrieved player. This was the one part of my refereeing which I believe improved the most over the weekend and the only real criticism of some of the less experienced officials. We all know the rules, but delays in applying them and a less than authoritative tone in delivering the decision often results in players losing confidence in your ability and trying to influence decisions by less than sportsmanlike means.
The other important reminder was not to deliver more than a few words of explanation of a decision. Simple statements: "You must make every effort to reach the BALL", when you suspect that they played the man, or "You would not have made a good return", when justifying a no let call, are adequate and do not give a player too much ammunition to involve you in further conversation. "Please play on" works very well, if that happens.
Another three matches in all on Monday, all as Appeals Referee to Richard and we finished about 11 p.m. No problems and even Power vs. Hill went by without any real disruption. Power beat his friend and training partner in three comfortable games.
Sunday was a grueling day. Another four matches in first round play, this time with Maj and Hunt. Maj is very quick and decisive in his initial calls. I didn't agree with all of them, but had become much more confident in my own ability after the first day, when I was getting too caught up in trying to determine whether the referee's decision was still acceptable, even if I would have called it differently. I believe we were a good team and had one of the best matches of the tournament so far - Marshall vs. White. White squeaked by in five after a series of brilliant rallies finally sapped Marshall's stamina.
Hunt showed his quick wit - a dog wailed in the public area on Day 1 and Hunt announced to the crowd: "Who let the Dogs Out". Unfortunately, he has a tendency to make his witty and perceptive asides occasionally to his colleague during rallies, which can be a little disconcerting. There is nothing else I do which requires this level of concentration for up to two hours, with a couple of minutes break every twenty minutes or so and any disruption to that concentration can be devastating. These talented athletes deserve our 100% attention. It is their livelihood and our decisions can be decisive in the course of a match. I think also it was the fact that the two matches with Hunt were the last of the day and after three or four hours of officiating, I was getting tired. Any distraction in these circumstances is likely to lead to indecision, and the inevitable consequences! However, we actually survived, although both games were tough battles.
On to my final day and Round Two of the Tournament. Another four-match marathon, all with my old sparring partner, Mr. Tucker. I think my experiences with Maj and Hunt and just the extra day of top-quality play gave me a good deal of confidence going into the day. We had a tough start - Heath vs. Boswell, with Boswell stretching the favored Heath to a very tight five, before succumbing. Lots of decisions and no real problems. We did well. Next was Evans and Ong Ben Hee, another young pretender from the 1998 Princeton Junior Mens - Ong won the individual championship that year. He also won the first game against a sluggish Evans, who woke up and won convincingly in four. The match was notable for its rather defensive play, compared to others we'd seen, and also for the rather dour expression on Evans' face throughout the match, even when winning easily at the end. It's pretty serious stuff out there, but I'd rather like to think they're having some fun!
Next up Gough vs. Ryding. Another hour and 45 minutes. Ryding in five. By the time this one finished, Richard and I decided perhaps the English officials were having a disheartening effect on the world's top Welshmen, as Mr. Gough was never very happy at work either! Meanwhile Hunt continued to do sterling work, with Mike and Barry acting as his Appeals Ref. And so to the climax of our day, the mercurial Power against Chaloner. Chaloner remained cool and composed throughout the match, a model of professionalism and sportsmanship. Power lived up to his reputation, as if he believes he has to. I'm not sure whether he really believes his acting as the anti-hero is good for the game. Perhaps some people do watch squash for his emotional outbursts and rantings and ravings. Most of the folks I talk to can't abide this behavior and actually prefer not to watch his games. We were ready for the disputes and the histrionics. We were also tired and unwilling to suffer any unnecessary time-wasting. I have tremendous respect for Power's squash ability and rarely see him play, so the game was a treat for me. Power is so quick to the ball that he is able to request lets legitimately where other players could not. He also prevents his opponent from clearing because of his speed to the ball and I can understand why he may appear aggrieved at receiving let calls when he thinks he deserves a stroke. I thoroughly enjoyed the match - I thought both players were on form and playing very tight squash at a fast pace, going for amazing winners when they were presented with an opportunity. There were lots of decisions, as always, as Power does not like a series of long rallies. Richard was also sharp, although I surmised that he was not enjoying the ebb and flow of the match as much as I was. I did reverse some of Richard's decisions that favored Power, as I believed Chaloner was making every effort to clear and no winning shot was prevented.
Chaloner won the first game 15-14 on a no let decision by Richard, sustained. He continued to play well, but Power gradually wrested control and won in four. Richard asked both players to "play squash" towards the end of the game. Although I would not have blamed Chaloner for any of the unnecessary lets, the comment had a beneficial effect on the game. I think Power realized by this time that he was wasting his energy on vehement appeals and decided to win the match on his squash ability alone, which he proceeded to do. Again a successful outing from an officiating standpoint, as we had an open game with many lets, but very few outbursts and consequential time-wasting comments/discussions.
And so to the bar, to discuss Barry's opinions on the proposed new rules, coming out in May and wish Mike and Barry all the best for the remaining matches, during the week.
Final thoughts - a great event in a magnificent building. A real showcase for the game. I spent a good deal of time with the public at the front wall and there were many positive comments about the game - its speed, fitness and agility requirements. It was indeed a pleasure to witness such incredibly gifted athletes at work and I hope they recognized that the officials had also trained hard to qualify for the tasks we performed to the very best of our ability. I received very positive comments from informed spectators who confirmed that the officiating was better than last year and made a difference to the enjoyment of the spectators. I really believe we are making rapid progress at improving the depth of qualified officials and the quality of performance.
I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss some aspects of officiating with Neil Harvey, a former England international player, who coaches some of the younger players. We must always be ready to listen to informed criticism and comment from the players and their coaches. I still live in hope that some forum can be achieved whereby referees can receive comments from players on such subjects as created interference and subtle blocking. The more you referee, the better you get at picking up the "professional" fouls and gamesmanship, but we should not assume that we see it all and should be open to listen to the experts, when they are not still in the heat of the battle, or smarting from defeat.
My biggest disappointment is not feeling comfortable talking to the players at the tournament, partly because you don't want to be seen to be favoring any particular player and also because many of them appear to be less than respectful after a game. Most do thank you for doing the job, which was always something I was brought up to do from schooldays. Some forget or appear to do so only grudgingly. Most of my squash has been played purely for fun and I must remember that this is their livelihood and that a player may believe that my decisions may have caused him to lose a significant match, with all the consequences of lost prize money and ranking points.
I have so much respect for the players as professional athletes and I would love to find out more about their backgrounds and what motivates them. Perhaps players will begin to respect us more as we improve as officials. I really think it would be helpful to have the players appoint a representative (perhaps someone like Neil Harvey or Rodney Martin) who can review certain matches and attend a post match briefing of officials and act as a liaison with players. We can all benefit from such feedback and players are more likely to provide it to someone they respect as a former player at a world level, who can tell them why decisions were made and support the rationale. Eventually, we may be able to communicate directly with them and still maintain our professional integrity and impartiality.