Permitted, Entitled, and Viable Shots.

Three important words help to understand hardball doubles squash rules.

Rule 5 Right to Play the Ball is the cornerstone of hardball doubles squash. If the cornerstone has flaws and cracks, they should be fixed.

Permitted, entitled, and viable shots are three important words to help understand hardball doubles squash rules.

Permitted: to give an opportunity or allow.

Entitled: having a right to certain benefits or privileges.

Viable: having a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Viable is not commonly used in squash documents but is a useful term. The phrase “for the ball to then reach the front wall fairly” is a good description of viable. All shots directly to the front wall are deemed viable, whereas only some boasts are viable.

As used here, permitted is not interchangeable with entitled. A player is permitted or allowed to play their choice of shot, however, all choices are not entitled. For a shot to be entitled it must be included in the shots that the opponents must clear for as stated in Rule 5 a iii.

Entitled is only used once in the rules. “On the play of the point the server is entitled to two serves.”

However, there are important uses in A complete explanation and interpretation of squash doubles rules. ACE as an acronym. Note: ACE is the last section of the WSF Hardball Squash Doubles Rules 2022 (PDF document).

Rule 5 a ii states; “Give his opponents a fair opportunity to get to and strike at the ball in and from any position on the court elected by an opponent.” The striker is entitled to a fair opportunity to get to the ball. The striker is entitled to a fair opportunity to strike at the ball. This does not state the striker is entitled to every shot they may choose.
The concept of entitled shots has a long history in squash. This is not a new idea. Judicious and consistent use of entitled would be helpful.

Entitled is used in A complete explanation and interpretation of squash doubles rules. (ACE as an acronym.)

“On a normal return, the striker is entitled to play the ball to any part of the side wall or back wall in order for the ball to then reach the front wall.”

“Normal return” is not found anywhere else in these documents. So, what is a normal return compared to some other return?

“the striker is entitled to play the ball to any part of the side wall”. Should it say, “the front two-thirds of either sidewall”? That would correspond to the intent of Rule 5 a iii. Or as stated in ACE above, “for the ball to then reach the front wall.”

Notice that there is no mention of the front wall.

Inconsistencies such as “the striker is entitled to play the ball to any part of the side wall” lead to misunderstanding and variability by officials. Rule 5 a iii states “the front two-thirds of either sidewall”.

Rule 5 a iii does not include the important phrase “for the ball to then reach the front wall fairly.”

But ACE goes on to say, “However, in a winning situation, the striker is entitled to hit the ball to any part of the front wall and the sidewalls near the front wall (reverse corner).” What is this implying? If it were not a winning situation the striker would not be entitled to hit the ball to any part of the front wall?

Is it not clear from Rule 5 a iii that the entire front wall, back wall, and either side wall in front of the short line are entitled targets for boasts and shots directly to the front wall? As it stands, can it be assumed that when a shot is not viable it is not entitled, as stated in ACE above but not in the rules.

By Rule 5 a iii, the striker is entitled to hit the ball to the entire front wall and not just the reverse corners, but the entire front two-thirds of either side wall. But rule 5 a iii omits the very important phrase “in order for the ball to then reach the front wall” expressed in ACE.

When “in order for the ball to then reach the front wall” is added to the meaning of Rule 5 a iii, the entitled areas of each side wall and backwall may be diminished depending on the strike point.

The term “viable” could replace the phrase “in order for the ball to then reach the front wall.”

By Rule 5 a iii, the back third of each side wall is not entitled, but it is permitted to boast off those areas. Some intended boasts onto the back third are viable, others are not, but none are entitled as Rule 5 a iii currently states.

The concept is simple. Lets and points are awarded when opponents interfere with the right to play entitled shots. Lets and points are not awarded when opponents interfere with permitted but unentitled shots.

An unstated condition of an entitled shot is that it is viable. Also, it is assumed that the striker is in position to strike the ball or could have been had there not been interference.

ACE also states, “However, in a winning situation, the striker is entitled to hit the ball to any part of the front wall and the sidewalls near the front wall (reverse corner).” How does “in a winning situation” influence entitlement? Rule 5 a iii could not be clearer; the entire front wall is entitled. The front two-thirds of both side walls are entitled for viable boasts. Of course, a corner boast is entitled. If the intention is to describe a winning situation caused by ball flight interference, that is not clear. There is certainly the need to carefully describe a “winning situation”.

As it stands, it is assumed that when a shot is not viable it is not entitled. That leads to the situation that when a let is requested for an unviable boast, the let is should be denied.

The back third of each side wall is not mentioned in Rule 5 a iii. The assumption must be that the back third of each side wall is not entitled. While boasts to any part of either side wall is permitted, the back third is not entitled space. This leads to the situation that when a let is requested for a boast to an unentitled area, the let is should be denied.

When “in order for the ball to then reach the front wall” is added to the intent of Rule 5 a iii, the entitled areas of each side wall and backwall may be diminished depending on the strike point.

Some intended boasts onto the back third are viable, others are not, but none are entitled as Rule 5 a iii currently states.

The concept is simple. Lets and points are awarded when opponents interfere with the right to play entitled viable shots. Lets and points are not awarded when opponents interfere with permitted but unentitled shots. Lets and points are not awarded when the intended shot is unviable not viable.

Also, it is assumed that the striker is in a reasonable position to strike the ball or could have been had there not been interference for lets and points to be awarded.

“Winning shot” and “winning situation” are both used particularly when discussing awarding lets and points. Winning shot in these cases is in reference to a withheld shot, not a roll out that has happened. A winning situation is deemed as such because of the particular interference that prompted the request for let. Without interference the winning situation is no longer a winning situation. It is a challenge to describe a withheld shot that is a “winning shot” in the absence of interference.

Resources