That was absolutely gross to watch. Gohar consistently causing interference, Hammamy consistently trying her absolute best to play through. At what point do referees punish the player actually responsible for interference and given Strokes or using Conduct, or AT THE VERY LEAST saying something like "You are not giving your opponent access, please make more effort to clear or it will be a Stroke next time" Like come on guys. If this is what the Olympic final looks like they will never invite squash back for 2032
Agree - a movement warning would have been appropriate on the second decision. This would probably have prevented that happening on the third incident, or would have paved the way for a stroke.
No way, it should have been a no let on the second call and a stroke for Gohan. Hammamy causes interference all the time. It is the end of a 5th game, they are exhausted of course they wont clear as well. Gohar is showing her passion there
The ref had been weak throughout the match, not being clear about what he expected. Hammamy learned she could ask whatever she wanted in this match. The ref just gave up at the end and sent everything to VR. That said, tough gig!
I like how John recognised the significance of the situation and allowed Hammamy to open the door and make her point. Sometimes players get conduct penalties for questioning!
You saw how much interference she was prepared to play through. But if your opponent stepped on your shoe to the point where it partially comes off, that can't be minimal interference. What a terrible decision.
@@watching99134 That's a ludicrous assertion. If you were standing 3 feet away watching only her foot, you wouldn't see the position of her shoe on her foot.
it was 100% minimal, and she was pretended to be affected ! nothing more ! the shoe didn’t come off and it can easily to see it from the slow motion reply
Ok, picking this to pieces. There are six incidents. @0:35 Gohar accidently treads on the back of El Hammamy's shoe. If you watch in slow-mo, you can see her foot came out of her shoe and then slipped back in when she planted her foot again. It is without doubt that her shoe was touched. It is clearly a let. This is hard to see in real time. Referees decision was "no let". Referee is WRONG. @3:38 El Hammamy is in trouble, but Gohar clearly backs into her. Clear let. Referee is CORRECT. @5:11 Gohar plays a potentially winning shot, but unfortunately backs straight into El Hammamy who has zero chance of reaching the ball then. Shot from above clearly proves this. Clear let. Referee is CORRECT. @6:50 El Hammamy plays a poor reflex volley, that goes directly back to her. Gohar is there to make the shot and clearly has her backswing restricted by El Hammamy, who tries to get out of the way, but cannot do it in time. Clear stroke. Referee says "Let". Referee is very WRONG. @6:54 Gohar kicks door in an exaggerated protest. Clearly a "code of conduct" violation. Way beyond what is an acceptable outburst. Referee, no action taken. Clearly WRONG. @9:20 El Hammamy is in trouble, Gohar plays a potential winning shot and crucially takes a step back to get out of the way. El Hammamy makes no effort to go around her, preferring to go through her and claim the let. The shot is not a winner. El Hammamy could've got there. The commentators make the correct evaluation, "was she expected to go up and around". This is a grey area and depends on how the umpire has conducted the rest of the match. Without this context, I would say, that the referee has the right to decide this call, one way or another. Referees call is "no let" and thats ok. Referees call is "OK". Overall 1 Very Wrong 2 Wrong 2 Correct 1 "Refs call". so OK. I guess after two hours of this sort of behaviour, anyone can tired and make such mistakes.
Those were some tricky calls. I think the commentators got them all right. The last two were pretty bad I thought, the first being a clear stroke and the last a clear let. The finish wasn’t rolling out, and you can see from where the second bounce was that H could easily have gotten it, and she didn’t have a line to the ball, so that’s a let.
@@FabIsFab7867 Having players referee was an idea of Jonathon Powers, as he felt the players understood a lot better what was going on than the refs. For example, players are always doing subtle things (or not so subtle), and a player (as ref) can spot these right away and tell the player to knock it off.
I disagree with your evaluation of the last call. I believe Gohar made the effort to get out of the way (you can see her going diagonally backwards out of the way) and El Hammamy intentionally ran into her to draw the let. She could've avoided that contact by going up and around and played the ball. I think it's within the refs margins to call "let" or "no let" on that, it depends how he conducted the rest of match.
Gohar is standing on El Hammamy and actually walking into her when it's not her shot, at some point the ref should be calling conduct warning/stroke against Gohar, you can't keep standing on your oppenent. It's only slight, but its there.
Gohar was leting her body in the way all the time! She is skinny, so the refs tends to consider minimum interfirence, but it happens all the time! Apart all the space she needs to swing! Its ridiculus!
At their level it's not slight contact. Every movement/ shot/ contact is calculated unless you're falling around like Rodriguez. You can see gohar's movement to create blockage is deliberate. This is why squash has not been in the olympics all these years!
I wonder if the decision had anything to do with Gohar kicking the court. Imo she should have been given a conduct warning/stroke for that. It's an appalling display and should be stamped out! Can't have players abusing the court or their rackets
@@Magiciantao it's only because of Mazzarella's outrageous decisions here. I think anyone would have the same reaction after a tie breaker at 2-2 all in a nervy game. Nonetheless, her actions here definitely should not have been accepted.
@viiali regardless of the decision, she is a professional and a face of our sport. By not acting on that blatant poor, potentially destructive behaviour, you are condoning it not condemning it.
@@Magiciantao yeah that's why I believe Mazzarella failed at so many aspects here. He seemed almost afraid to call anything because he thought he'd get hounded by the girls.
First of all, I would have given a conduct stroke to Gohar for constantly trying to influence the decisions (maybe El Hammamy deserved also one) and a conduct warning for constantly pulling back into the direct line of Hammamy. It might have calmed down the things.. 1. a no let seems correct to me, there is a clear interference but Hammamy decides to appeal too late. 2. stroke against Gohar because in her motion she pushes back to the direct line of Hammamy, with a poor shot quality. 3. nearly the same situation but better shot from Gohar and Hammamy chooses the wrong line she should have taken the way in Gohar's back, no let 4. stroke to Gohar, poor shot from Hamammy, Gohar chooses the correct line and has not enough space to play her shot 5. I can't say ! The issue is that it is hard to say whether or not she would have had this ball before the second bounce, as there is some interference from Gohar who plays back to herself. But with Hammamy's general recovering abilities and as she was already trying to extend with her forehand prepared, I definitely think she should have had that ball : stroke to her In my opinion a lot of interferences were caused by Gohar's shot selection, because she wants to play parallel and does her weigth transfer in direction of the T. It does not seem intentionnal blocking to me, more of a technique to gain time between two consecutive shots. It can be very efficient if you have a good shot quality or if you play towards the other side of the court. But as soon as your quality drops a little bit, you expose yourself to a lot of strokes and in my opinion that is what happened to her at the end. On the last situation if she plays a drive to the back right, there is no interference.
last point that ended in a no let?!?! haha look at the ball poor shot coming directly back to gohar. hammamy's motion and set up to play the shot.. definitely would've gotten to the ball easily. It's a fat stroke!!! Old John needs to get off the circuit as a ref! setting such bad decision making example to all the refs in the making to ruin players games! Here's a note to all you refs out there... if you are not playing at the level you're reffing..... DO NOT Ref the game!.. simple!
I think I wrote a stroke on the last point. By the way if we need to play at tthe same level to ref, it is simple, no one is going to ref !! Anyway, we need to have clearer guidelines to make a decision and also more turnover in the reffereing, it looks like there is only Masarella and Santa Maria (I pray everytime she has a decision to make🤣) @@crouchingchicken007
On 1, the interference happened as she was lifting the foot. She wouldn't realize there was meaningful interference until she landed on that foot again and knew her shoe wasn't on correctly, which is when she asked for a let.
All I have to say is Gohar's court movement and behavior is terrible in this match. Absolutely terrible. All good calls in the end, but there should have been a conduct stroke against Gohar for kicking the court wall and at least a conduct warning for not clearing/dangerous play. I know she was upset, but good grief, get a grip.
In my opinion El Hamami was ripped off at least twice! Gohar steps (accidentally) on her shoe taking it off her foot during the ralley and the video ref gives an absurd no let with the justification of "minimal interference". 🤦🏻♂️ Then, on the final review, Gohar makes a horrific dropshot which returns high and loose to the middle of the court and the two players, El Hamami is clearly ready to hit the ball but can't because Gogar doesn't clear but the video ref gives a scandalous No let instead of a Stroke. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ On top of all that, Gohar's disgraceful behaviour (she practically kicked the glass door!) doesn't get addressed even once. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Just terrible.
I can't believe comments are in favor of Hammamy! I've watched so many of her matches, she's got this habit of manipulating her opponents where she comes short in the fight. Just see how many times she tried to throw Gohar off of her game by not playing the ball! I feel like her looks is winning a lot of people over!
The incident at 6:50 is a very close call. Hammamy had made a terrible return, and Gohar was in prime position to play a winning shot (in fact I wonder why she didn't just play a drop to the front left). Hammamy is very close to being in Gohar's swing. But on close inspection of the replay, by the time the ball would be on Gohar's strings, Hammamy is sufficiently clear for Gohar to play her shot unimpeded. But it is very close indeed. The referee should have called out Gohar kicking the door. A conduct warning at least was warranted. While it is great to see such a high spirited game, when a player's intensity spills over into physical outbursts, that is a step too far.
The question is that if Gohar was not playing in Egypt, would she dare to have this kind of behaviour!!? Unfortunately playing in Egypt and with Egyptians players always has lots of tension, just their level is different. The only nice players are Ranim who retired and Nour El-Sherbini.
Hammamy asked (and received) far too much throughout this match. The shoe incident is 1 example. In Slow mo it is simply not true that her heel came out of her shoe, ie contact was minimal. Too many times she tried to go forward 'through' Gohar and then asked a let, when she could have just gone to the back, like 0.23 where she 'finally' got though (and the commentator noted how she was 'working hard to get past'. But then she went to the back of the court, where she should have gone directly! Same for the let call at 3.38. She tried to go forward, then 'fell' behind Gohar. She created the interference. A lot of people criticised Gohar's behaviour at the end of this match, but she kept her calm and nerve throughout - apart from the last 5 minutes when so many calls were given against her. She won the match 3 times in my opinion.
Hammamy was screwed here, do the refs expect her to play without a shoe? It was clear in the replay and a Let shoe have been given. From then on Gohar keeps stepping into Hammamy's path and not giving access to the ball -- a stroke everytime
If I’m ref…. Shoe - Disagree - Play a let Agree - Yes Let Agree - Yes Let Disagree - Stroke Agree - No Let Regarding the Flat Tire (American expression when someone steps on your heel, flattening the heel of the shoe) I didn’t see it at first but it does appear her shoe collapsed exposing her white sock…the shoe ‘self-corrected’ but she’d already stopped play. I didn’t see the entire match but Hamm is not one to routinely pull this… Replay the point.
I’ve been ref in matches like this where there was a significant amount of cash and a title involved. Most players are pretty good at not gaming the system, but ironically I have to agree with all the calls in this video. Gohar has this issue with clearing in some shots and I have to give Hammamy credit for fighting through the blocking. There’s a point where Hammamy had enough of the blocking and started asking for lets, which she got until the end. Gohar is clearly a really good player, but she’s got to tone down the drama nonsense.
The terminator did not get her nickname by accident, just saying. Cheers ladies, great squash, such drama, so exciting to watch. Hopefully they shared a pizza and a beer after all that athleticism.
Appalling decision. It was a simple let, nothing intentional, but interference was significant, as this is not about the shoe partially coming off but also she was not able to balance after that. The ball was not a winning ball. Appalling!
Three Wrong Decisions out of Five. Should be L L L S L (not NL L L L NL) *1st Decision: **0:35** Wrong decision.* Should be let for Hammamy. Officials gave No-let. Hammamy's heel was stood upon, and she stopped because of that. (Yes, she might have cheekily stopped because of an irrecoverable perfect length, but there's not sufficient evidence for that). In this rally there were also two notable instances of Gohar intentionally impeding the path to the ball, which Hamammy could not risk doing anything about other than to play through, because Hammamy was match ball down. These are at 0:21 in particular and to a lesser extent at 0:32. After this rally, the ref should have given Gohar a warning about these movements. *2nd Decision: **3:35** Correct decision.* Should be let for Hammamy. Officials gave let. True, Gohar should better have cleared backwards instead of forwards, but not bad enough for a stroke: Ref should have added a movement warning. *3rd Decision: **5:10** Correct Decision.* Should have been let. Officials gave let. This is actually the trickiest one, due in part to the lack of previous warnings. It is a potential stroke, because Gohar has again stepped forward into Hammamy's path instead of clearing backwards, which would have been the more suitable way to clear in this instance. If she had been given movement warnings on the preceding two rallies, then that would have have tipped the balance here and a stroke wold be appropriate. Under the circumstances however there were no previous warnings, so this must be treated as isolated and must be a Let ball, which is what the officials decided. It has been put to me that perhaps Hammamy went the wrong way - round the front instead of the back - but Hammamy was pretty well on the T or just to the right of it, and Gohar playing to length - especially short length - should clear backwards in this instance. Another question arising here: would Hamammy have reached the ball? - it is correct to consider how tired the players are in terms of what they can reach (especially here at the end of the longest official women's match in history), but Hammamy is still very fast and I think she would have have reached the ball if it were not for the obstruction. So again, Let ball is the right decision. As for Gohar throwing her racket (unaddressed by the official) , perhaps a warning for that would be appropriate, but of course being match ball it is arguable that the cast away racket was celebration rather than racket abuse. *4th Decision: **6:47** Wrong decision.* Should have been Stroke against Hamammy. Officials gave let. Gohar was completely onto Hammamy's miss-hit and was ready to play from a very advantageous position, but Hammamy was completely in Gohar's swing. It may be that the reason officials gave a let instead of a stroke was to penalize Gohar for subsequently kicking the back wall in anger (6:55), but if they wanted to do that they should separate out the two issues, and make two decisions/actions. (And yes, well done if you've spotted that it would be very weird: when awarding a stroke against one player and a conduct warning against the other at 11-10 match point, there are some fascinating high-consequence questions about which order the decisions are made in: but either way it is still better than giving a let when it should be a stroke) *5th Decision. **9:19** Wrong decision.* Should have been a let for Hamammy. Official gave a no let. Gohar played a loose ball and, being unsure which way to clear, stood still in Hammammy's path. _(It is possible on this fifth decision - as some have suggested - that the officials, realising they had got the previous decision number 4 wrong, were tempted to make up for it here. We can't know for sure, but it certainly has the characteristics of that situation. This is well known temptation in refereeing of all kinds. To borrow a word of wisdom from football refereeing training manuals - and I hope it's found its way into Squash referee training materials too -_ "if you realise you have made a bad decision - do not under any circumstances try to make up for it in a subsequent decision") I advocate that decisions should be very much seen into two categories: Punitive and Non-Punitive. Punitive decisions are Stroke and No-let, and they should require clear evidence to make them. ie _culpable (blamable) failure to clear path_ = Stroke; _or intentional failure to clear_ = stroke; _intentionally seeking the player_ = No Let ; and _clearly would not have reached_ (aka "shot too good") = No Let. If there is no clear evidence to support a punitive decision, then the non-punitive decision of Let should be made. This is very close to what refs are supposed to do already, but the above is a clearer and more manageable way of stating it (refereeing is not easy and fast manageable evaluation criteria are key to improving it!) If this approach was adopted in this instance, the result would have been L L L S L. _Supplement: I have just been emailed by a referee who rightly points out that bad movement that is successfully played-through, is tricky to spot well enough to confidently warn the player about, because the ref of course, does not have the chance to review these movements as we do when watching and re-watching on the luxury of youtube. Perhaps there is scope for this to be improved upon in the division of attention between Ref and VR - whereby VR could be continuously monitoring for movement violations - I'm not sure.... That's one for cleverer minds that me to figure out..._
Finally for Gohar. Mazzarella lost his nerve, the video ref had complete brain blowouts forgetting the rules of squash, what a shambles. We didn't see the majority of the match and were told that there had been something like 55 decisions by the referees which is far too many. As for the Yes Let call at 6:50, that's a stroke all day long, Hammamy's in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I don't agree that a let at 5:12 should have been awarded. Hammamy had made a very poor shot right to the middle of the court. Gohar was entitled to play her shot and stand her ground on the T, which she did. Because Hammamy created her own interference by playing such a poor shot, it is up to her to get to the ball without asking for a let. In addition to this, the line Hammamy should have taken to the ball should have been behind Gohar; but she went directly sideways into Gohar.
There is no such thing in the rules that Hammamy playing a poor shot should make it up to her to get to the next ball despite interference from Gohar. You can only create your own interference by taking an indirect path to the ball which in no way happens on the last ball. It is merely Gohar making a poor shot from an advantageous position. IMO it is much closer to a stroke than a no let. Maybe - given the circumstances - I would have opted for a let. This string of decisions was generally horrible.
Gohar was an absolute disgrace to the sport that night. Appallingly embarrassing. If i were advertising squash to a friend, i would hide this video away and hope they never ever saw it.
What a disgrace? 06:56 Gohar lost all her sanity there. Kicking a door in a rage??!!! Thas a shame for a player. You need to be patient if you want to be a good sports person.
I can accept/understand all decisions except the last one. Maybe the referee considered the nick as a double bounce. (But I don’t understand physically how it could double bounce in the nick if the ball bounces up so much).
1. @1:07 (Incorrect) Heel clearly leaves the shoe, Let 2. @3:41 (Correct) Let and friendly warning to Gohar to allow better Access (Gohar consistently drives long but then steps directly to the T not allowing access, instead of moving forward and round) 3. @5:15 (Incorrect) Stroke, (I think H would have retrieved, Gohar steps directly into her line and does not make every attempt to clear, she is relying on blocking to win this point, and should have been warned. Ironically if she had not blocked and given H a fair chance at retrieving the resulting shot would have been likely very weak, and G would have been able to finish the match) 4. @6:50 No Let (G does not make every effort to play the ball, H has made every effort to clear, but G chases her with her racket to manufacture interference, Conduct Warning to G for kicking the door) 5. @9:22 (Incorrect) Stroke (G plays a poor shot and the ball squirts back, H would have reached and made a good shot, H making every effort and has read the shot, G makes no effort to clear - The reason JM says this is No Let is because H leapt on G, however considering the poor quality of the shot and G not making any effort to move there is no other line) Tough calls though, I can have sympathy for JM for the last one because he can't have been sure that H would reach the ball, but it was clear she jumped on G and in those circumstances the ref would expect they have manufactured interference because they can't get to the ball.
1... Hammamy stepped on Gohar's shoe, not the other way around. And it was minimal interference caused by Hammamy... No let for Hammamy. 2... Gohar got in the way of Hammamy... Clear let ball. 3... Gohar got in the way of Hamammy... Close to a stroke call for Hammamy as Gohar's movement was impeding Hammay's shot-making, lucky for a let call. 4... Hammamy interfered with Gohar's shot attempt... Close to a stroke call, but possible let if you think Gohar deliberated followed Hammamy to get a call, which it looks like she did. 5... Gohar backed into Hammay's approach to the ball, which Hammamy was in a position to reach, therefore Gohar interfered with Hammamy possibly making a winning shot (Gohar was out of position)... Stroke for Hammay. Overall, some poor reffing in a difficult set of circumstances... Which is somewhat typical of squash these days.
#1 The movement of Gohar's left foot as she tried to return to the T was the cause of the interference, intentional or not. Whether she slightly clipped Hammamy as she placed down her left foot, or the backward movement of Hammamy's heel pushed down onto her foot as she pushed off is hard to tell, but doesn't matter. There is no doubt that Hammamy could retrieve the ball (she demonstrated so) and the referee stipulated he accepted that Hammamy's foot came out of her shoe - that isn't minimal interference. #2 and #3 agreed, lets, but Gohar's movement is eyebrow raising and Asal would be punished for the same #4 stroke or let as you argued #5 let or even stroke more than no let So, congrats, you are a better ref than the PSA guys.
The penultimate point (4.) should have been a straightforward stroke to Gohar. The only reason I think it wasn't given was because Gohar overacted it. The final point should have been a stroke to Hammamy as Gohar's shot did not hit the nick and came back at her in central court. I can only guess that the referees realized that 4. was a mistake and this led to a deliberately incorrect call to 'correct' the error. The two wrong calls together did get the right winner of the match but made the sport look shambolic. Gohar needed a warning about her unsportsmanlike behaviour also. This kind of stuff is why squash hasn't been at the Olympics before and will need work before 2028 if it is get more than one inclusion. A few poorly behaved players and rash ref decisions will otherwise grab any headlines it makes.
If this is how squash looks like in the Olympics, the casual viewers would think these players should be Oscar-worthy actors rather than athletes. And squash's fate would be like karate's: an one-off inclusion. I am not even exaggerating because many casual viewers on the internet watching Asian Games squash here in Hong Kong had these feelings when they see players argue after every point and fish for strokes in the first match of the women team final.
That first point was difficult to see. I can see why the referee said “no let” because he didn’t see it, but once she pointed out what happened it was obviously a let. This looks like the process needs to be fixed, like give the player an opportunity to make her point before the referee looks at the video so they know what to look for. Maybe others saw it, but speaking personally, I missed it until she pointed it out. Obviously if your shoe has come off because your opponent stepped on that’s not something you can play through. I suppose in retrospect she could have immediately called attention to the fact that her shoe had come off, but it’s hard to pin this on the player.
Hmm let’s forget about the calls themselves and talk about Gohar for a minute……… a female version of asal who clearly plays to block all reasonable direct access to the ball…. That is not the way to win matches with respect… and those little tanties she was throwing?? Wow what a spoilt brat….. never see El Sherbini play with that kind of disrespect 😤
I would have given a let on the shoe. While it didn't look like significant interference it is surprisingly off-putting. I would disagree with the refs that she should have done her shoelace up better lol
Hammamy is the less skilled player, there's a hair's breadth of difference between their moving around each other and blocking the shot. Gohar cleared her shots better while Hammamy was in the path of her own shot a couple of times yet got just a let, not a stroke. Throwing hereself on the corner floor was an obvious dramatic fiasco to try and gain sympathy from the ref, but I find that distasteful. The shoving was far more exaggerated from Hammamy more than once.
Shocking refereeing! ... If the opponent caused her shoe to dislodge, that's a let! Gohar should have received a stroke on the 2nd last rally. Hammany should have received at least a let & potentially a stroke on the last rally! Definitely blocked and the shot was not a definite winner! ... And conduct warnings should have been given to Gohar! .... Squash has got itself into a real pickle with its refereeing. By trying to make the game continuous in order to stop players phish for let's, they now encourage blocking and get confused as to whether an interference should be no let, let or stroke! Plus the game is now more dangerous to play as a result!
Sitting in the middle of a hostile crowd is probably not the best environment to work in. I've never seen squash spectators that rowdy. Was it a double ticket with WWE?
The time when Gohar became a sneaky cheater player... Never thought Gohar will do these rat sneaky movements. And moreover, kicking the door and such... This is a not a champion in the squash community and we definitely should not let this behaviour on the olympics.
For the 1st let at 0:36, her shoe did not come off. The foot contact looks like it did cause her heel to rise up in the back part of the shoe a bit, which might have felt uncomfortable. But her foot was still completely in her shoe. She could quite easily have continued to play her shot, then pushed her foot back into her shoe to make it 100%. It was very risky of her to ask for a let at such an important stage of the match. Maybe she really did feel that she would have been disadvantaged for the rest of the rally and was worth asking for a let. But even on frame-by-frame replay I cannot see her foot being out of her shoe even a little bit.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a let not given for that. When I first saw it, it looked like a no let to me, because I didn’t see what was going on, but from the replay it was clear there was interference, and especially when your foot is involved, I’ve never seen a ref not give a let for that (assuming it’s seen). It’s not like upper body interference, which is much easier to play through, but if your show is coming off, even if it’s only a bit, or even if you’re just tripped and the shoe isn’t impacted, that’s a let. (unless the impacted player was in the way of the striker).
All three, or was it four, calls were suspect, if you ask me. These players are good enough to go get any ball. I’d have been okay with no-let’s on the first three, and maybe, MAYBE, a let on the last one. Go get the ball!!
The title told us what we already knew was in store. I would term the state of affairs as egregious. The interference “yes let” call on El Hammamy’s behalf was the video referee being sympathetic to her for enduring all the previous interference. Beyond what nature has already imparted, I hope karma catches up with El Hammamy and she wins some crazy lottery or something.
The shoe thing was a Let, the one where Gohar wanted a stroke but got a let was actually a stroke, Gohar should have gotten a conduct strike around then for her ridiculous behavior and the final ball was a no let.
*Yes, the Fans Can Ref!* 👍👍🏿👍🏻👍🏾👍🏼Interesting that on several of the decisions there is actually a fairly *high degree of consensus* in the comments, which are opposite to the decisions of the officials. To answer the PSA question, Yes! fans do think they can referee, -- the fans are right overall-- and for sure (on this occasion at least,) they can do it better then the Officials did. So there has to be something that can be learned from this very good series of examples, and the answers that people have given.
I always liked playing squash but watching it on this level is no fun at all. Where is fair sportsmenship?? Ahh I see it's a wording problem. There simply is no sportwomenship.
Know the rules, know the game 👉 bit.ly/3s4o5gi
This link is useless. Please provide some real info without having to register.
how was there no conduct on gohar booting the door and squeeling at the ref?
That was absolutely gross to watch. Gohar consistently causing interference, Hammamy consistently trying her absolute best to play through. At what point do referees punish the player actually responsible for interference and given Strokes or using Conduct, or AT THE VERY LEAST saying something like "You are not giving your opponent access, please make more effort to clear or it will be a Stroke next time"
Like come on guys. If this is what the Olympic final looks like they will never invite squash back for 2032
Agree - a movement warning would have been appropriate on the second decision. This would probably have prevented that happening on the third incident, or would have paved the way for a stroke.
No way, it should have been a no let on the second call and a stroke for Gohan. Hammamy causes interference all the time. It is the end of a 5th game, they are exhausted of course they wont clear as well. Gohar is showing her passion there
The ref had been weak throughout the match, not being clear about what he expected. Hammamy learned she could ask whatever she wanted in this match. The ref just gave up at the end and sent everything to VR. That said, tough gig!
I like how John recognised the significance of the situation and allowed Hammamy to open the door and make her point. Sometimes players get conduct penalties for questioning!
But no penalty for kicking the door and shouting at the ref? 😂
You saw how much interference she was prepared to play through. But if your opponent stepped on your shoe to the point where it partially comes off, that can't be minimal interference. What a terrible decision.
Can you see it come off partially? (I can't.)
@@watching99134 That's a ludicrous assertion. If you were standing 3 feet away watching only her foot, you wouldn't see the position of her shoe on her foot.
it was 100% minimal, and she was pretended to be affected ! nothing more ! the shoe didn’t come off and it can easily to see it from the slow motion reply
Just tighten your shoelaces
Exactly. Contact was bar minimum. How about stop using excuses and ensure you’re shoe it tied well enough to your feet.
I won't be watching any more Gohar matches that's for sure.
Ok, picking this to pieces. There are six incidents.
@0:35 Gohar accidently treads on the back of El Hammamy's shoe. If you watch in slow-mo, you can see her foot came out of her shoe and then slipped back in when she planted her foot again. It is without doubt that her shoe was touched. It is clearly a let. This is hard to see in real time. Referees decision was "no let". Referee is WRONG.
@3:38 El Hammamy is in trouble, but Gohar clearly backs into her. Clear let. Referee is CORRECT.
@5:11 Gohar plays a potentially winning shot, but unfortunately backs straight into El Hammamy who has zero chance of reaching the ball then. Shot from above clearly proves this. Clear let. Referee is CORRECT.
@6:50 El Hammamy plays a poor reflex volley, that goes directly back to her. Gohar is there to make the shot and clearly has her backswing restricted by El Hammamy, who tries to get out of the way, but cannot do it in time. Clear stroke. Referee says "Let". Referee is very WRONG.
@6:54 Gohar kicks door in an exaggerated protest. Clearly a "code of conduct" violation. Way beyond what is an acceptable outburst. Referee, no action taken. Clearly WRONG.
@9:20 El Hammamy is in trouble, Gohar plays a potential winning shot and crucially takes a step back to get out of the way. El Hammamy makes no effort to go around her, preferring to go through her and claim the let. The shot is not a winner. El Hammamy could've got there. The commentators make the correct evaluation, "was she expected to go up and around". This is a grey area and depends on how the umpire has conducted the rest of the match. Without this context, I would say, that the referee has the right to decide this call, one way or another. Referees call is "no let" and thats ok. Referees call is "OK".
Overall
1 Very Wrong
2 Wrong
2 Correct
1 "Refs call". so OK.
I guess after two hours of this sort of behaviour, anyone can tired and make such mistakes.
Those were some tricky calls. I think the commentators got them all right. The last two were pretty bad I thought, the first being a clear stroke and the last a clear let. The finish wasn’t rolling out, and you can see from where the second bounce was that H could easily have gotten it, and she didn’t have a line to the ball, so that’s a let.
Totally agree.
this is perfectly commented. the referee and the video referee need to get back to the board
Commentators are very knowledgeable : they should comment AND referee
@@FabIsFab7867 Having players referee was an idea of Jonathon Powers, as he felt the players understood a lot better what was going on than the refs. For example, players are always doing subtle things (or not so subtle), and a player (as ref) can spot these right away and tell the player to knock it off.
I disagree with your evaluation of the last call. I believe Gohar made the effort to get out of the way (you can see her going diagonally backwards out of the way) and El Hammamy intentionally ran into her to draw the let. She could've avoided that contact by going up and around and played the ball. I think it's within the refs margins to call "let" or "no let" on that, it depends how he conducted the rest of match.
Gohar needs to go on an anger management course 🤔
I thought the last one was a let/stroke.. think the video ref felt the pressure of giving *another* let I reckon
Gohar is standing on El Hammamy and actually walking into her when it's not her shot, at some point the ref should be calling conduct warning/stroke against Gohar, you can't keep standing on your oppenent. It's only slight, but its there.
Gohar was leting her body in the way all the time! She is skinny, so the refs tends to consider minimum interfirence, but it happens all the time! Apart all the space she needs to swing! Its ridiculus!
At their level it's not slight contact. Every movement/ shot/ contact is calculated unless you're falling around like Rodriguez. You can see gohar's movement to create blockage is deliberate. This is why squash has not been in the olympics all these years!
Gohar has become a brick wall lately, not playing in the spirit of the game. I've gone off her.
It's very painfull to see so many decisions... That's really the worst part of this fantastic sport.
Should've been an obvious stroke to end the game when Hammamy whiffed it to the middle of the court and obstructed Gohar's swing.
Yup, that decision seemed crazy to me especially given that it's a decision with the benefit of vr.
I wonder if the decision had anything to do with Gohar kicking the court. Imo she should have been given a conduct warning/stroke for that. It's an appalling display and should be stamped out! Can't have players abusing the court or their rackets
@@Magiciantao it's only because of Mazzarella's outrageous decisions here. I think anyone would have the same reaction after a tie breaker at 2-2 all in a nervy game. Nonetheless, her actions here definitely should not have been accepted.
@viiali regardless of the decision, she is a professional and a face of our sport. By not acting on that blatant poor, potentially destructive behaviour, you are condoning it not condemning it.
@@Magiciantao yeah that's why I believe Mazzarella failed at so many aspects here. He seemed almost afraid to call anything because he thought he'd get hounded by the girls.
First of all, I would have given a conduct stroke to Gohar for constantly trying to influence the decisions (maybe El Hammamy deserved also one) and a conduct warning for constantly pulling back into the direct line of Hammamy. It might have calmed down the things..
1. a no let seems correct to me, there is a clear interference but Hammamy decides to appeal too late.
2. stroke against Gohar because in her motion she pushes back to the direct line of Hammamy, with a poor shot quality.
3. nearly the same situation but better shot from Gohar and Hammamy chooses the wrong line she should have taken the way in Gohar's back, no let
4. stroke to Gohar, poor shot from Hamammy, Gohar chooses the correct line and has not enough space to play her shot
5. I can't say ! The issue is that it is hard to say whether or not she would have had this ball before the second bounce, as there is some interference from Gohar who plays back to herself. But with Hammamy's general recovering abilities and as she was already trying to extend with her forehand prepared, I definitely think she should have had that ball : stroke to her
In my opinion a lot of interferences were caused by Gohar's shot selection, because she wants to play parallel and does her weigth transfer in direction of the T. It does not seem intentionnal blocking to me, more of a technique to gain time between two consecutive shots. It can be very efficient if you have a good shot quality or if you play towards the other side of the court. But as soon as your quality drops a little bit, you expose yourself to a lot of strokes and in my opinion that is what happened to her at the end. On the last situation if she plays a drive to the back right, there is no interference.
last point that ended in a no let?!?! haha look at the ball poor shot coming directly back to gohar. hammamy's motion and set up to play the shot.. definitely would've gotten to the ball easily. It's a fat stroke!!! Old John needs to get off the circuit as a ref! setting such bad decision making example to all the refs in the making to ruin players games! Here's a note to all you refs out there... if you are not playing at the level you're reffing..... DO NOT Ref the game!.. simple!
I think I wrote a stroke on the last point. By the way if we need to play at tthe same level to ref, it is simple, no one is going to ref !! Anyway, we need to have clearer guidelines to make a decision and also more turnover in the reffereing, it looks like there is only Masarella and Santa Maria (I pray everytime she has a decision to make🤣) @@crouchingchicken007
On 1, the interference happened as she was lifting the foot. She wouldn't realize there was meaningful interference until she landed on that foot again and knew her shoe wasn't on correctly, which is when she asked for a let.
my hair went grey watching that
All I have to say is Gohar's court movement and behavior is terrible in this match. Absolutely terrible. All good calls in the end, but there should have been a conduct stroke against Gohar for kicking the court wall and at least a conduct warning for not clearing/dangerous play. I know she was upset, but good grief, get a grip.
In my opinion El Hamami was ripped off at least twice!
Gohar steps (accidentally) on her shoe taking it off her foot during the ralley and the video ref gives an absurd no let with the justification of "minimal interference". 🤦🏻♂️
Then, on the final review, Gohar makes a horrific dropshot which returns high and loose to the middle of the court and the two players, El Hamami is clearly ready to hit the ball but can't because Gogar doesn't clear but the video ref gives a scandalous No let instead of a Stroke. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
On top of all that, Gohar's disgraceful behaviour (she practically kicked the glass door!) doesn't get addressed even once. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Just terrible.
I can't believe comments are in favor of Hammamy! I've watched so many of her matches, she's got this habit of manipulating her opponents where she comes short in the fight. Just see how many times she tried to throw Gohar off of her game by not playing the ball!
I feel like her looks is winning a lot of people over!
Both have performed brilliantly.
The incident at 6:50 is a very close call. Hammamy had made a terrible return, and Gohar was in prime position to play a winning shot (in fact I wonder why she didn't just play a drop to the front left). Hammamy is very close to being in Gohar's swing. But on close inspection of the replay, by the time the ball would be on Gohar's strings, Hammamy is sufficiently clear for Gohar to play her shot unimpeded. But it is very close indeed.
The referee should have called out Gohar kicking the door. A conduct warning at least was warranted. While it is great to see such a high spirited game, when a player's intensity spills over into physical outbursts, that is a step too far.
She couldn’t play a drop shot because Hammamy was in her swing.
Not by the time she could play the ball. The problem was she had already thrown her racquet away, which didn't help her case.@@ewallt
@@Orion3T 6:50. She’s very clearly in the way. It’s not a close call.
Right, which is why the professional video referees who's job relies on them making correct decisions completely agree with you. Oh, wait... @@ewallt
Didn't realise Asal moved across to the womens game
Poor Hammamy
Gohar needs to learn how to behave.
Very glad I didn't see this live. A new found disrespect for Gohar.
Seems like that last decision should have been a stroke.
I agree but I thought the decision before that should have been a stroke for Gohar so maybe it was a makeup call.
Why would that be a stroke? Gohar didn’t do anything unusual. That sort of stuff happens all the time.
A stroke for me as well : Hammamy could play the ball and Gohar is on her swing.
The question is that if Gohar was not playing in Egypt, would she dare to have this kind of behaviour!!? Unfortunately playing in Egypt and with Egyptians players always has lots of tension, just their level is different. The only nice players are Ranim who retired and Nour El-Sherbini.
John, oh John...
Hammamy asked (and received) far too much throughout this match. The shoe incident is 1 example. In Slow mo it is simply not true that her heel came out of her shoe, ie contact was minimal. Too many times she tried to go forward 'through' Gohar and then asked a let, when she could have just gone to the back, like 0.23 where she 'finally' got though (and the commentator noted how she was 'working hard to get past'. But then she went to the back of the court, where she should have gone directly! Same for the let call at 3.38. She tried to go forward, then 'fell' behind Gohar. She created the interference. A lot of people criticised Gohar's behaviour at the end of this match, but she kept her calm and nerve throughout - apart from the last 5 minutes when so many calls were given against her. She won the match 3 times in my opinion.
The asal of female squash
Shocking decisions throughout.
Gohar is up there with Asal. Disgusting.
Gohar is arguably worse
Asal has improved much better if you see his past games.
and min 9:00 foot fault! 😅
Player review!!!!
Beyond obvious interference on Gohar's part on multiple occassions and a shame that the ref allowed it.
Gohar could have gotten a conduct warning for kicking the wall, and maybe continuing to pound the ball while Hammamy was trying to talk to Mozzarella.
how do you talk to a cheese?
Hammamy was screwed here, do the refs expect her to play without a shoe? It was clear in the replay and a Let shoe have been given. From then on Gohar keeps stepping into Hammamy's path and not giving access to the ball -- a stroke everytime
If I’m ref….
Shoe - Disagree - Play a let
Agree - Yes Let
Agree - Yes Let
Disagree - Stroke
Agree - No Let
Regarding the Flat Tire (American expression when someone steps on your heel, flattening the heel of the shoe) I didn’t see it at first but it does appear her shoe collapsed exposing her white sock…the shoe ‘self-corrected’ but she’d already stopped play. I didn’t see the entire match but Hamm is not one to routinely pull this… Replay the point.
Agree except for last one, it was at least a let but maybe they made a makeup call for not giving a stroke the point before.
@@watching99134 Agree x 5. (+ astute observation as to the possible cause of the last one!) Get yourself over to PSA and sign up as a ref !
I’ve been ref in matches like this where there was a significant amount of cash and a title involved. Most players are pretty good at not gaming the system, but ironically I have to agree with all the calls in this video. Gohar has this issue with clearing in some shots and I have to give Hammamy credit for fighting through the blocking. There’s a point where Hammamy had enough of the blocking and started asking for lets, which she got until the end. Gohar is clearly a really good player, but she’s got to tone down the drama nonsense.
Then you should not play squash or ref squash... every call and video ref decision in this video has been WRONG!!!
The terminator did not get her nickname by accident, just saying. Cheers ladies, great squash, such drama, so exciting to watch. Hopefully they shared a pizza and a beer after all that athleticism.
I love Gohar but that girl needs anger management training.
Conduct point against Gohar @ 6:54
Appalling decision. It was a simple let, nothing intentional, but interference was significant, as this is not about the shoe partially coming off but also she was not able to balance after that. The ball was not a winning ball.
Appalling!
Three Wrong Decisions out of Five. Should be L L L S L (not NL L L L NL)
*1st Decision: **0:35** Wrong decision.* Should be let for Hammamy. Officials gave No-let. Hammamy's heel was stood upon, and she stopped because of that. (Yes, she might have cheekily stopped because of an irrecoverable perfect length, but there's not sufficient evidence for that). In this rally there were also two notable instances of Gohar intentionally impeding the path to the ball, which Hamammy could not risk doing anything about other than to play through, because Hammamy was match ball down. These are at 0:21 in particular and to a lesser extent at 0:32. After this rally, the ref should have given Gohar a warning about these movements.
*2nd Decision: **3:35** Correct decision.* Should be let for Hammamy. Officials gave let. True, Gohar should better have cleared backwards instead of forwards, but not bad enough for a stroke: Ref should have added a movement warning.
*3rd Decision: **5:10** Correct Decision.* Should have been let. Officials gave let. This is actually the trickiest one, due in part to the lack of previous warnings. It is a potential stroke, because Gohar has again stepped forward into Hammamy's path instead of clearing backwards, which would have been the more suitable way to clear in this instance. If she had been given movement warnings on the preceding two rallies, then that would have have tipped the balance here and a stroke wold be appropriate. Under the circumstances however there were no previous warnings, so this must be treated as isolated and must be a Let ball, which is what the officials decided. It has been put to me that perhaps Hammamy went the wrong way - round the front instead of the back - but Hammamy was pretty well on the T or just to the right of it, and Gohar playing to length - especially short length - should clear backwards in this instance. Another question arising here: would Hamammy have reached the ball? - it is correct to consider how tired the players are in terms of what they can reach (especially here at the end of the longest official women's match in history), but Hammamy is still very fast and I think she would have have reached the ball if it were not for the obstruction. So again, Let ball is the right decision. As for Gohar throwing her racket (unaddressed by the official) , perhaps a warning for that would be appropriate, but of course being match ball it is arguable that the cast away racket was celebration rather than racket abuse.
*4th Decision: **6:47** Wrong decision.* Should have been Stroke against Hamammy. Officials gave let. Gohar was completely onto Hammamy's miss-hit and was ready to play from a very advantageous position, but Hammamy was completely in Gohar's swing. It may be that the reason officials gave a let instead of a stroke was to penalize Gohar for subsequently kicking the back wall in anger (6:55), but if they wanted to do that they should separate out the two issues, and make two decisions/actions. (And yes, well done if you've spotted that it would be very weird: when awarding a stroke against one player and a conduct warning against the other at 11-10 match point, there are some fascinating high-consequence questions about which order the decisions are made in: but either way it is still better than giving a let when it should be a stroke)
*5th Decision. **9:19** Wrong decision.* Should have been a let for Hamammy. Official gave a no let. Gohar played a loose ball and, being unsure which way to clear, stood still in Hammammy's path. _(It is possible on this fifth decision - as some have suggested - that the officials, realising they had got the previous decision number 4 wrong, were tempted to make up for it here. We can't know for sure, but it certainly has the characteristics of that situation. This is well known temptation in refereeing of all kinds. To borrow a word of wisdom from football refereeing training manuals - and I hope it's found its way into Squash referee training materials too -_ "if you realise you have made a bad decision - do not under any circumstances try to make up for it in a subsequent decision")
I advocate that decisions should be very much seen into two categories: Punitive and Non-Punitive. Punitive decisions are Stroke and No-let, and they should require clear evidence to make them. ie _culpable (blamable) failure to clear path_ = Stroke; _or intentional failure to clear_ = stroke; _intentionally seeking the player_ = No Let ; and _clearly would not have reached_ (aka "shot too good") = No Let. If there is no clear evidence to support a punitive decision, then the non-punitive decision of Let should be made. This is very close to what refs are supposed to do already, but the above is a clearer and more manageable way of stating it (refereeing is not easy and fast manageable evaluation criteria are key to improving it!) If this approach was adopted in this instance, the result would have been L L L S L.
_Supplement: I have just been emailed by a referee who rightly points out that bad movement that is successfully played-through, is tricky to spot well enough to confidently warn the player about, because the ref of course, does not have the chance to review these movements as we do when watching and re-watching on the luxury of youtube. Perhaps there is scope for this to be improved upon in the division of attention between Ref and VR - whereby VR could be continuously monitoring for movement violations - I'm not sure.... That's one for cleverer minds that me to figure out..._
Let,Let,Let,Stroke,looks more stroke to me than Let. Crazy match with unstable judging without influence on the final result.
Goha脾氣太火爆，雖然誤判三次
thought i was watching football match for a moment. see too many diving. LOL
glad gohar still win. hahahaha
Finally for Gohar. Mazzarella lost his nerve, the video ref had complete brain blowouts forgetting the rules of squash, what a shambles. We didn't see the majority of the match and were told that there had been something like 55 decisions by the referees which is far too many. As for the Yes Let call at 6:50, that's a stroke all day long, Hammamy's in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Absolutly : I can’t understand this is not a stroke
I don't agree that a let at 5:12 should have been awarded. Hammamy had made a very poor shot right to the middle of the court. Gohar was entitled to play her shot and stand her ground on the T, which she did. Because Hammamy created her own interference by playing such a poor shot, it is up to her to get to the ball without asking for a let. In addition to this, the line Hammamy should have taken to the ball should have been behind Gohar; but she went directly sideways into Gohar.
There is no such thing in the rules that Hammamy playing a poor shot should make it up to her to get to the next ball despite interference from Gohar. You can only create your own interference by taking an indirect path to the ball which in no way happens on the last ball. It is merely Gohar making a poor shot from an advantageous position. IMO it is much closer to a stroke than a no let. Maybe - given the circumstances - I would have opted for a let.
This string of decisions was generally horrible.
1) SHOEtoSHOE touched...LET, 2) Fall down = LET, 3) course LET 4) STROKE 5) STROKE ... refree is low quality
It was a stroke all day long- shame that a ref has to go to video refs at match ball so often nowadays
Its disgusting to see how Gohar's react for instance: Throwing the racket and kicking the door
Bad sportsmanship
I wouldn't want to be the referee as the Terminator could twist your head? 😝😝🤪🤪
Gohar was an absolute disgrace to the sport that night. Appallingly embarrassing.
If i were advertising squash to a friend, i would hide this video away and hope they never ever saw it.
I only watched the last situation. Looks like a stroke to me.
Gahar could easily got conduct stroke
How was that not a stroke when Hammamy hit it straight back to herself down the middle - Gohar hard done to here.
What a disgrace? 06:56 Gohar lost all her sanity there. Kicking a door in a rage??!!! Thas a shame for a player. You need to be patient if you want to be a good sports person.
I can accept/understand all decisions except the last one.
Maybe the referee considered the nick as a double bounce.
(But I don’t understand physically how it could double bounce in the nick if the ball bounces up so much).
5:44 that Gohar movement is illegal
Let all day long
1. @1:07 (Incorrect) Heel clearly leaves the shoe, Let
2. @3:41 (Correct) Let and friendly warning to Gohar to allow better Access (Gohar consistently drives long but then steps directly to the T not allowing access, instead of moving forward and round)
3. @5:15 (Incorrect) Stroke, (I think H would have retrieved, Gohar steps directly into her line and does not make every attempt to clear, she is relying on blocking to win this point, and should have been warned. Ironically if she had not blocked and given H a fair chance at retrieving the resulting shot would have been likely very weak, and G would have been able to finish the match)
4. @6:50 No Let (G does not make every effort to play the ball, H has made every effort to clear, but G chases her with her racket to manufacture interference, Conduct Warning to G for kicking the door)
5. @9:22 (Incorrect) Stroke (G plays a poor shot and the ball squirts back, H would have reached and made a good shot, H making every effort and has read the shot, G makes no effort to clear - The reason JM says this is No Let is because H leapt on G, however considering the poor quality of the shot and G not making any effort to move there is no other line)
Tough calls though, I can have sympathy for JM for the last one because he can't have been sure that H would reach the ball, but it was clear she jumped on G and in those circumstances the ref would expect they have manufactured interference because they can't get to the ball.
She lost to the referee😢
Let, Let, Let (because Gohar moved forward into her opponents path), Stroke, Stroke. Think that makes it 11 all.
So kicking he door like this is acceptable now in squash? 😂 How come people don’t show respect to the sporty or decisions anymore? 😢😢😢
1... Hammamy stepped on Gohar's shoe, not the other way around. And it was minimal interference caused by Hammamy... No let for Hammamy.
2... Gohar got in the way of Hammamy... Clear let ball.
3... Gohar got in the way of Hamammy... Close to a stroke call for Hammamy as Gohar's movement was impeding Hammay's shot-making, lucky for a let call.
4... Hammamy interfered with Gohar's shot attempt... Close to a stroke call, but possible let if you think Gohar deliberated followed Hammamy to get a call, which it looks like she did.
5... Gohar backed into Hammay's approach to the ball, which Hammamy was in a position to reach, therefore Gohar interfered with Hammamy possibly making a winning shot (Gohar was out of position)... Stroke for Hammay.
Overall, some poor reffing in a difficult set of circumstances... Which is somewhat typical of squash these days.
#1 The movement of Gohar's left foot as she tried to return to the T was the cause of the interference, intentional or not. Whether she slightly clipped Hammamy as she placed down her left foot, or the backward movement of Hammamy's heel pushed down onto her foot as she pushed off is hard to tell, but doesn't matter. There is no doubt that Hammamy could retrieve the ball (she demonstrated so) and the referee stipulated he accepted that Hammamy's foot came out of her shoe - that isn't minimal interference.
#2 and #3 agreed, lets, but Gohar's movement is eyebrow raising and Asal would be punished for the same
#4 stroke or let as you argued
#5 let or even stroke more than no let
So, congrats, you are a better ref than the PSA guys.
The penultimate point (4.) should have been a straightforward stroke to Gohar. The only reason I think it wasn't given was because Gohar overacted it. The final point should have been a stroke to Hammamy as Gohar's shot did not hit the nick and came back at her in central court. I can only guess that the referees realized that 4. was a mistake and this led to a deliberately incorrect call to 'correct' the error. The two wrong calls together did get the right winner of the match but made the sport look shambolic. Gohar needed a warning about her unsportsmanlike behaviour also. This kind of stuff is why squash hasn't been at the Olympics before and will need work before 2028 if it is get more than one inclusion. A few poorly behaved players and rash ref decisions will otherwise grab any headlines it makes.
Olympic games worthy!!
squash on the Olimpic XD good joke. 1st and last time...
If this is how squash looks like in the Olympics, the casual viewers would think these players should be Oscar-worthy actors rather than athletes. And squash's fate would be like karate's: an one-off inclusion.
I am not even exaggerating because many casual viewers on the internet watching Asian Games squash here in Hong Kong had these feelings when they see players argue after every point and fish for strokes in the first match of the women team final.
That first point was difficult to see. I can see why the referee said “no let” because he didn’t see it, but once she pointed out what happened it was obviously a let. This looks like the process needs to be fixed, like give the player an opportunity to make her point before the referee looks at the video so they know what to look for. Maybe others saw it, but speaking personally, I missed it until she pointed it out. Obviously if your shoe has come off because your opponent stepped on that’s not something you can play through. I suppose in retrospect she could have immediately called attention to the fact that her shoe had come off, but it’s hard to pin this on the player.
indecent crowd, very bad behavior
Hmm let’s forget about the calls themselves and talk about Gohar for a minute……… a female version of asal who clearly plays to block all reasonable direct access to the ball…. That is not the way to win matches with respect… and those little tanties she was throwing?? Wow what a spoilt brat….. never see El Sherbini play with that kind of disrespect 😤
Conduct stroke.. ciao
I would have given a let on the shoe. While it didn't look like significant interference it is surprisingly off-putting. I would disagree with the refs that she should have done her shoelace up better lol
Female FT ASAL
Hammamy is the less skilled player, there's a hair's breadth of difference between their moving around each other and blocking the shot. Gohar cleared her shots better while Hammamy was in the path of her own shot a couple of times yet got just a let, not a stroke. Throwing hereself on the corner floor was an obvious dramatic fiasco to try and gain sympathy from the ref, but I find that distasteful. The shoving was far more exaggerated from Hammamy more than once.
The quality of pay got very sloppy... no wonder there is so many decisions.
Hammamy is a dirty player and she knows it…
Shocking refereeing! ... If the opponent caused her shoe to dislodge, that's a let!
Gohar should have received a stroke on the 2nd last rally.
Hammany should have received at least a let & potentially a stroke on the last rally! Definitely blocked and the shot was not a definite winner!
... And conduct warnings should have been given to Gohar!
.... Squash has got itself into a real pickle with its refereeing. By trying to make the game continuous in order to stop players phish for let's, they now encourage blocking and get confused as to whether an interference should be no let, let or stroke! Plus the game is now more dangerous to play as a result!
Strongly disagree with the first “No Let”! When you have had your Achilles stepped on, it’s not a minimal interference.
That was fun 😂👏👏
It is a well-deserved win at the end. Well done @Gohar
This is why squash won't be popular. 😂
the crowd ❤❤🎉🎉
판정여부를 떠나 관중이랑 선수 태도에 대해 엄격할 필요가 있다
Utter joke ,has to rely on the video ref last 4 decisions, the central refs is 73/74 yrs old time to give some other referees chance.....
Sitting in the middle of a hostile crowd is probably not the best environment to work in. I've never seen squash spectators that rowdy. Was it a double ticket with WWE?
@@kennyg1358 If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
The time when Gohar became a sneaky cheater player... Never thought Gohar will do these rat sneaky movements. And moreover, kicking the door and such... This is a not a champion in the squash community and we definitely should not let this behaviour on the olympics.
For the 1st let at 0:36, her shoe did not come off. The foot contact looks like it did cause her heel to rise up in the back part of the shoe a bit, which might have felt uncomfortable. But her foot was still completely in her shoe. She could quite easily have continued to play her shot, then pushed her foot back into her shoe to make it 100%. It was very risky of her to ask for a let at such an important stage of the match. Maybe she really did feel that she would have been disadvantaged for the rest of the rally and was worth asking for a let. But even on frame-by-frame replay I cannot see her foot being out of her shoe even a little bit.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a let not given for that. When I first saw it, it looked like a no let to me, because I didn’t see what was going on, but from the replay it was clear there was interference, and especially when your foot is involved, I’ve never seen a ref not give a let for that (assuming it’s seen). It’s not like upper body interference, which is much easier to play through, but if your show is coming off, even if it’s only a bit, or even if you’re just tripped and the shoe isn’t impacted, that’s a let. (unless the impacted player was in the way of the striker).
You see this all the time at club level. Someone will play all the time to the referee. It ruins the game of squash. Tennis is alot better in that way
😂😂😂🤣😂🤣
Correct call. That was the very definition of minimal interference.
All three, or was it four, calls were suspect, if you ask me. These players are good enough to go get any ball. I’d have been okay with no-let’s on the first three, and maybe, MAYBE, a let on the last one. Go get the ball!!
Pretty average to watch and listen to. Hopefully we don’t see this at the Olympics!
The title told us what we already knew was in store. I would term the state of affairs as egregious.
The interference “yes let” call on El Hammamy’s behalf was the video referee being sympathetic to her for enduring all the previous interference.
Beyond what nature has already imparted, I hope karma catches up with El Hammamy and she wins some crazy lottery or something.
The shoe thing was a Let, the one where Gohar wanted a stroke but got a let was actually a stroke, Gohar should have gotten a conduct strike around then for her ridiculous behavior and the final ball was a no let.
*Yes, the Fans Can Ref!* 👍👍🏿👍🏻👍🏾👍🏼Interesting that on several of the decisions there is actually a fairly *high degree of consensus* in the comments, which are opposite to the decisions of the officials. To answer the PSA question, Yes! fans do think they can referee, -- the fans are right overall-- and for sure (on this occasion at least,) they can do it better then the Officials did. So there has to be something that can be learned from this very good series of examples, and the answers that people have given.
LOL~~
심판참...ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 깝깝
ese viejo no puede ser mas arbrito! van a arruinar el squash!
😂
This is why I quit squash. It is no fun when you are playing an opponent that is playing to the referee.
Wait, which one do you think was playing to the referee?
I always liked playing squash but watching it on this level is no fun at all. Where is fair sportsmenship?? Ahh I see it's a wording problem. There simply is no sportwomenship.