This post may contain affiliate links.
Squash is a fast-moving game that is played in a small space, so what are the chances you are blocking the other player? Quite a high chance, right? So what do the rules even say about blocking? Based on the squash rules I’ll address whether you are allowed to block your opponent.
Blocking your opponent is generally not allowed in squash and can be classified as a variant of interference. Based upon the specific scenario, the referee will reward a point to one of the players or the rally will be played again.
Strangely enough, blocking is not used in the squash rules as defined by the WSF
but exists as a form of interference. Knowing there are more scenarios where blocking may occur, let’s look at the specific forms of interference according to the squash rules and how this translates to our blocking question (no pun intended).
What is interference in squash?
Interference is classified as:
- not providing sufficient time for the opponent to watch the ball and prepare in order to hit it when it bounces off the front wall
- not providing the opponent the space to directly move towards the ball
- not providing the opponent the ability to hit the ball towards any part of the front wall
- not providing the opponent the possibility to swing their racket
Let’s say you try to hit the ball and think you are disadvantaged due to interference, what can you do? Normally the striking player stops and immediately requests a let. However, the non-striking player can also request a let (meaning to replay that rally) when he is not being able to reach the ball without obstruction. In this case, that player needs to request the let before the ball has reached the front wall.
How is the referee handling interference in squash?
The referee plays an important part in handling interference since they need to observe, assess, and judge quickly. First of all, the referee needs to be sure a player is actually requesting a let. If they are not sure why a let is requested, they will ask for clarification. To adhere to the basic principles in squash, the referee may stop the rally for safety reasons.
If the referee decides there was no interference or fear of injury, he won’t allow the let but will award the rally to the other player. The same holds when the hitting player would not properly return the ball even though there was interference through blocking for example. Other scenarios were no let is allowed, including when there is interference but the hitting player would still be able to return the ball or when the let is not immediately requested.
The referee plays an important part in handling interference since they need to observe, assess, and judge quickly.
Blocking the access to the front wall
The next scenario is one that can be classified as blocking, meaning the hitting player would be able to return the ball but the opponent is not trying to prevent any interference to occur. As a result, the hitting player will be winning that rally.
The striking player will be awarded the point when the opponent is blocking and he would be able to hit the ball. The reasoning behind this is to adhere to the safety principle. If the rules would not dictate the penalty to the opponent in this case, things would get worse. The striking players would need physical contact (such as pushing) to be able to get the ball, which makes it dangerous. And again, squash is played in such a small space, they can’t afford to play rough as well.
Of course, there is a fine line between avoiding dangerous situations and players not playing with full effort to get the ball. This is also reflected in the rules, imagine the striking player experiences interference and would be able to hit the ball. Despite the interference, the opponent is trying to avoid it and is therefore not at fault. When such a scenario occurs, a let is allowed and the players will play that rally again. This assumes the striking player makes an attempt to hit the ball, else no let will be awarded.
Although a player has the possibility to make the shot, it does not mean they will do it. Imagine the hitting player has the opportunity to directly move towards the ball without interference but did not proceed that route. As a result he will generally not be awarded a let and the opponent will win the rally.
If you want to avoid blocking your opponent, definitely check out this article where I discussed how to strategically position yourself after returning a serve.
Blocking the full swing of the racket
Another case where blocking can occur is when the striker tries to hit the ball, swings his racket, but the swing is impacted by light contact with the opponent. The precondition here is that the opponent tried to avoid interference and thus not block on purpose. As a result, the hitting player can be awarded a let and both players will replay that rally. If a player could not perform the swing due to contact with the opponent, the rally will be awarded to the hitting player, even though they made effort to avoid any interference.
Finally, when the hitting player was not performing the swing to prevent hitting the opponent, the referee will judge whether he agrees and rule in accordance with the previously mentioned scenarios.
So, did we just unblock our blocking question? I would argue we did!