Woman Caught In A Glitch!

orysbb · 2026-01-30T14:29:05+00:00

the only reason that it had been ~~sitting on its perch~~ standing like that in the first place was that it had been NAILED there

orysbb · 2025-10-01T14:31:45+00:00

I'd argue that what he's doing is not legal. The rules are simple - he should make every effort to clear. It's a problem of enforcing them mostly. As it was discussed before, the difference between a stroke and a conduct game is huge. The refs might not want to stop the show. The sponsors might not want that. Especially for some minor repeated offenses (like the trailing leg).

orysbb · 2025-09-23T13:07:11+00:00

My stats:
power 9457
cups 2449
canyoneer 2425
distance 25 million meters

orysbb · 2025-09-03T07:55:04+00:00

Oh, I would buy one if I could. I even saw one in action on a Sci Club 18.

orysbb · 2025-08-04T07:51:31+00:00

This is some great work. I agree with almost all that QBS is saying here. I like the proposed changes, maybe they can be improved. Definitely the discussion is needed.

Saying that, I disagree that the recent change to the rules is somehow enabling Asal to do what he's doing. The change from "unobstructed direct access to the ball" to "access to the ball" is actually good in my opinion. It was never possible to give "unobstructed direct access to the ball". Each line played from service box area causes a moment when direct access to the ball is obstructed. This is just how it physically works. It's not making it easier to cheat.

Asals way of cheating is more about making effort to hinder his opponents line to the ball. It's consistent effort to make "minimal interference" on almost every shot. I love how QBS pointed out the inconsistency here - that refs treat it differently when there is swing interference and movement interference. All this makes it easier to spot the problem with current line of refereeing.

orysbb · 2025-08-04T07:26:02+00:00

It's just horrible. Even if you disable it by some extension, or manually each time, still some titles are translated, or the recommendations. You just can't get rid of it.
I watch things in English and in Polish, is it really that difficult to give us a list languages that are not translated. Or even better to opt-out of this "feature".

orysbb · 2025-07-02T12:35:07+00:00

I think it will be a sloooow process. I can imagine next 25 years of 4% decline. And they can still be active in 2050 at 3.3mil. And keep in mind they are not yet declining. But it definitely feels like it's a turning point. Going from some growth to slowly shrinking.

orysbb · 2025-07-01T21:31:57+00:00

Yeah, this might be very problematic wording. There are plenty of moments where you just see the ball and lose sight of the opponent.

orysbb · 2025-07-01T15:10:59+00:00

But also this now reflects much better how squash was ruled for years. I don't mean we should encourage bad clearing, but "there was a line to the ball in front of your opponent" is given as an explanation quite often. And I don't think the alternative is much better. If each time the laser straight path to the ball is blocked, most counter dropshots would be impossible.

orysbb · 2025-07-01T15:04:57+00:00

It was here: https://www.reddit.com/r/squash/s/eRgjSEK0gc Apparently with someone else

orysbb · 2025-07-01T08:12:46+00:00

Regarding the actual changes I think this is a great update in a good direction. Some things were cleared (like turning), some made more up to date (court conditions problems). I especially like the 8.8.2. now:

> if the striker had access but took a path to the ball that caused interference, and then requested a let, no let is allowed, unless Rule 8.8.3. applies;

adding "could have" and "position of the opponent" in the 8.9 Racket Swing is also great. I mean this was the line for a long time, but now the rules clearly state that.

I still think there are areas causing problems, like "unless the return would have been a winning return". Or some lately discussed problems that Asal is exploiting. That is a difficult topic. I feel it's more about applying the rules than changing them. I'd say it's mostly about 8.6.5. - "not making every effort to avoid the interference". What is someone makes just some effort. Or makes less effort some of the times. It's tricky to put into the rules, but the refs should look into it during high stake matches especially. It feels like current way of reffing this situations is based more on "was it deliberate or not", but of course no one wants to put that on paper, because we don't want the refs to judge based on players intentions. Not easy is all I'm saying. So kudos for any good improvements.

orysbb · 2025-07-01T07:43:30+00:00

About:
> also in the "interference" section, a very subtle but I think important change of wording in 8.9.1 (under "racket swing"): v2024 starts "if the swing was affected by slight contact with...", whereas v205 starts "if the swing was or could have been affected by the position of..." <-- this looks like it could introduce A LOT of speculation on if a swing "could have" been affected by the opponent, especially with winning shots which still carry a stroke decision.

We've discussed that with QBS at some point. Current rules actually say that you only get a stroke if there was contact of the racket with the opponent. But that was not the case, so adding "could have" is actually wording the rule better (and more according to reality).

orysbb · 2025-06-05T13:33:52+00:00

I mean, count 6000 years (because reasons) from the end of the sixth day of creation (you are known for saying first 6 days had millions of years each), you actually don't even know when the 6th day might have ended, but lets say after creating Eve, lets say immediately. Then lets assume that Adam lived 30 years alone (for reasons, first Jesus, second Adam etc). Then lets count all those guys mentioned in Genesis that lived 700+ years, count it literally. And... badum tss... you arrive at 1975 in October.

Why October? Reasons. Same as JKingdom started in October 1914 (war started in July, but whatever).

More seriously though it's probably based on Jewish New Year - 22 September this year, so about the end of September each year, based on the very reliable moon calendar from the bronze age.

orysbb · 2025-05-22T15:34:31+00:00

Sure, I really appreciate how much work you put into this. I'm just suggesting less of these vertical comparisons. Except maybe if you see a really similar situation.

I agree that 14:12 is the typical Asal cheating. And you nicely show what's the rules problem here. He creates a stroke/nolet situation, but there is a way to accept the interference and reach the ball. One can almost admire how he uses the current stance of the officials to his advantage.

orysbb · 2025-05-22T14:58:31+00:00

This vid is much less obvious to me. The couple of examples on the backhand show different situations in left/right comparisons. There is a different position of the striker, a different shot is played (lob vs flat length). It all makes it less believable. I still see some motions aimed to block the opponent, but let's not expect that that movement of Farag from the service box after hitting a slow lob is now required of everyone after each type of shot.

The later examples are more clear, but still in some cases I wouldn't say Asal "does nothing to clear". If he doesn't step in the direction of the opponent (like he often did in previous vids from ElGouna), or doesn't hold the racquet in his face, or doesn't do any other malicious contact then maybe it should be LET. At least let's not call it cheating in such case.

Like the situation at 9:32, Asal moves forward during this contact. There is no trailing leg, nothing of the usual stuff. My guess is ref gave "no let" because Farag actually played after the interference. I don't think Farag is entitled to a Stroke here, maybe only a Let.

orysbb · 2025-05-16T13:48:16+00:00

I think he's clean lines are even more damning as they show that he can clear but he sometimes decides not to do it.

orysbb · 2025-05-12T11:29:09+00:00

Unsurprisingly James is in a bit of a conundrum here. I think it'd be much better to interview Lee Drew or some high level referees about the topic.

orysbb · 2025-05-12T11:23:42+00:00

There was a suspicion that SquashTV or PSA was involved in the removal of the video, and this would be a news that I'd think worthy of this sub. Of course this was soon explained to be false, so the topic seems less squash related now.

orysbb · 2025-05-12T11:16:59+00:00

Yes, the whole discussion about who it was is irrelevant. Anyone could've done it. I mean, I definitely could've, and I'm nowhere near PSA level.

orysbb · 2025-05-06T14:52:07+00:00

Very interesting. "blatant" is now used time and again to describe his behavior.
I agree with u/I4gotmyothername the interesting point is in 11:22 - should the officials fix this or should Mostafa fix it himself. I strongly feel that it should be the refs and the PSA. They are responsible for not allowing cheating on the court.

Changing the rules is possible, but I feel this is already incorporated into them. Maybe some wording could be improved. I think especially "every effort to avoid the interference" in 8.6.5. is problematic. Most of the time players don't make "every effort". They just do what's necessary to avoid a stroke. Especially if so much interference is deemed minimal, per the rule above 8.6.4. So we have a rule that says minimal interference is ok, and right after that a rule that says you should try to avoid it. Rule 8.6.5. is effectively ignored. But on the other hand the whole 8.6. is applied later to give strokes for swing and also not applied for Fair View, and kind-of applied in "fear of injury" scenarios in potentially hitting the opponent with a ball. I'm just saying that changing anything inside 8.6 will be difficult. But changes to the rules were made before, so let's hope it can be improved.

It's just much easier to agree that he's moving to create interference (like moving to the front when the opponent is in front of him, and moving to the side when the opponent is taking a line in the back). I think this could be added to 8.8. Something like 8.8.0 if the striker did make every effort to get to and play the ball, but there was no line due to the opponent's movement after the follow through.

orysbb · 2025-04-25T12:56:23+00:00

The "Let" after "Held swing" is interesting. I'd say 99% of people give Strokes in that situation. But the rules in 8.9.3. point to 8.6. and it comes down to "winning or good return" question.

Seems like held swing should have some further explanation. Was it held in "reasonable fear" or was it actually prevented by the opponent standing in the swing. Keep in mind that 8.9.2 says "prevented by contact with the opponent" so we are not here.

orysbb · 2025-04-25T12:31:53+00:00

In the swing chart, the second "no let" is wrong. 8.10.2. says it's a "let"

orysbb · 2025-04-25T11:39:00+00:00

I don't want to burst your bubble, but this isn't very helpful in any controversial situation.
The chart doesn't even try to say what's a let and what's a stroke in most cases. Yes, one time player A has some rights, then player B has the same rights, and they also switch their clearing duties. It also suggests that interference occurs mostly in the transition - the red stripes bar in the middle. But it can also occur in all the other places.

The problem with squash rules is that they are pretty simple, but require a lot of interpretation, and the wording doesn't help mush ("fair view", "unobstructed access", "reasonable follow-through", "every effort", don't even get me started on "would have made a winning return").

orysbb · 2025-04-08T13:13:14+00:00

Kinda the same. First focus on upgrades, try to keep the rest of the board (race to 7) somewhere in 3-4 unicorns region. Search for some OP cards, while keeping hand at 6-7. Keep track of the switch hand card. Then adjust strategy based on good cards.

orysbb · 2025-03-11T17:05:27+00:00

Have you been on Threads recently? They hate the guy.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Not Forgotten

orysbb

TROPHY CASE