I could watch these So You Think You Can Ref videos all day

Nick at no point did you put up your hand and ask for a let.

@popsmoke092edits2

4 жыл бұрын

izmael44 exactly!!

Good use of the review system it was a clear no let

From the angles in the video review, it seems that Ramy barely touched Matthew's back, and Matthew's eyes were on the ball the whole way through. And only after Ramy made his return, did Matthew put his hands behind his back. It is also untrue that Matthew raised his hand and asked for a let because there was no signal given to the referees at all by Matthew. A no let for me, good decision by the video referee (:

@ewallt

2 жыл бұрын

No, he grabbed his back *before* he saw the shot. Which is what makes it weird. Usually they see the ball is tight and try to manufacture a let. Here he tried to manufacture the let before he even saw how good the shot was. Perhaps he had a premonition.

Hahahaha it is so funny how Ramy wants to let him play the ball, turns around and is like WTF? What? lol

A butterfly flutters its wings in Japan. Matthew clutches his face, "Let!"

Nick grabbed the wrong part of his back 😂😂 the part that was supposedly ‘hit’ was his right and he grabbed his left instead lol

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

No, he grabbed left with his open hand, then right with the racquet hand. When you get just the wrong force applied to your lower back the twist can injure either side.

@muneebi8273

2 жыл бұрын

@@opensourcecurrency stop defending the cheater. Thank you

Lost a lot of respect for Nick after this. Absolutely no contact. Clearly playing politics to put Ram off his stride in order to gain the advantage. Dirty tactics.

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

I don't see it. [see above]

@xpedisinusantara7758

Жыл бұрын

@@opensourcecurrency i mean if you do it then its okay for you. sad i mean he should use his squash skills more than that amateur act

@cookesam6

Жыл бұрын

It was VERY weak of nick. He did this sort of thing a lot as he got older

Nick Matthew is a legend - this wasn’t his finest moment ☹️

I lost the ball. Looks like I'll hold my back and say it hurts.

would love to see matthew's response to ramy doing the same thing to him. he would have gone absolutely crazy haha

No let. Even after three camera angles there is little evidence of necessary contact to infringe matthew. Play the ball!

I know this was 9 years ago and all but I think ramy was just putting his hand on his back when he was going by to make sure the Matthew didn't accidentally back up into him as he was going by so that he can get to the ball and yes ramy could've taken a step out/back slightly so it wouldn't be as tight when he was going for the ball.

No decision is the correct call. Why is the Ref offering up Lets unrequested? Nobody even asked for a Let. If NM were to ask for a Let, then No Let would be the correct call. He hit his shot and did not clear. Ramy played through the interference and made a good return. NM did not bother to continue with the point.

Even without video review I would had given a no let. No interference, only minimal contact.

@iokarii

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! Matthew maybe Exchanged sports, Football with squash.In Football are excelent "actors"..:-)

Continuing from my last post: 1. Ramy's error is in stating that only the Striker can ask for a Let. True under Rule 12 [Interference] , but untrue under Rule 13 2. Matthew makes the mistake of stretching the logic of Rule 13 to an absurd level which brings the incident under Rule 17 [excessive physical contact] 3. The CR made the error of involving the two Side Referees. He should have stated that this, being a case of Distraction, can only be ruled on by the CR , and his decision is final.

Who won this match?

that's just ridicolous. Ashour barely touches him and it is not even the part of the back that Matthew holds with an agonized expression on his face. He should be ashamed of his acting but i guess that's just the way he is....

No respect for Matthew after seeing this !

Who won this match

No let. Definitely. Nick Matthew should be ashamed watching this.

Contact was a LONG time after the shot had been played...Clear no let. Nick "the Fisher" Matthew would be a far more accurate nickname.

@cookesam6

5 жыл бұрын

the fisher or the twat haha

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

No. The length of time that contact occurs after Nick plays his shot is totally irrelevant. The amount of contact is the issue (and how long after it until Nick stopped play).

Good referral as small contact& army played the ball:)

Nick Matthew u r a great actor pharaoh ramy u r the best

Nick Mathews went my local squash club

No let

I don't understand why he asked for a let, did ramy hurt him or something

Good decision in the end....not sure what Matthew was up to but thank God for video reviews. So poor sportsmanship.

"i put my hand up right away"... umm... no you didnt.. ramy lightly brushed up against his right side... he holds his left side as if ramy punched him in the back... this is what happens to these poor english peeps when they are subjected too much soccer (football) when growing up...

I say no let but not because, as Ramy argues, Matthew as the non-striker was not entitled to ask for one. Matthew would be correct that if Ramy had shoved him out of the way on the way to the ball, he could have asked for a let. In this case, however, the interference was minimal.

Hoooooow

No let is the correct decision. The referee shud award Nick a conduct warning for suggesting that he will push his opponent in future situations like this.

Expecting nick to see in hollywood.

But Ramy had still played the ball. When he (NM) had call the let Ramy was clearing the ball. Contact was minimal.

And what was the referee thinking

Matthew actually is mentally good he never gives up, and think it was a let but to be honest Matthew didn't make any gesture to ask for one.

Was no let even without video review. Come on Nick, Ramy and audience would have known had it been a hard push

1:00 hoooooWwWw

No let,ofcourse.

YEs he is (Y)

Yes I think I can ref. No let, all day long

Nick don't cry 😢 was no let be professional and shame on referee who gives let ball hahahahaha

Absolutely typical Nick under pressure diversion tactics ! Not Asal Tactics of course but typical Nick under pressure ..

Im not sure how he survived that Brutal contact 🤦‍♂️ He should play Soccer

This is why i like willstrop above all, he never bitches, acts or argues about anything, he just plays the game and does it like a boss :) nuf said

Good luck to Nick's massage therapists...He can't even handle a pat on the back from Ramy.

bang on... lets play squash

It’s called gamesmanship

It was minimal mate. Suprised ramy didnt call the let nm was in the way

That was weird. In real time, I would have awarded a let because I wouldn’t have expected plat acting. From the video, it’s obviously a no let and looks like a conduct warning was warranted. He was barely touched and grabbed his back in a spot where he wasn’t touched at all. I suppose there’s some very small chance he really did feel some pain there, but it seems quite unlikely. The weird thing is after the fact that Ramy hit his return, it was clearly tight, but at the time Matthew hit his shot, Ramy hadn’t hit the ball yet. Maybe Matthew thought “Oh crap, I didn’t hit a good volley! I’ll ask for a let if he touches me.” Apart from that, it’s hard to make sense of Matthews’s reaction.

Loool

Good initial decision by the ref , cause he couldn't be sure. Then a good decision by the video ref 👌

no let, easiest decision of my life

That is bizarre

Never thought Nick knew how to dive, I guess he is a typical English athlete

No let :)

No let. I agree with Nick Matthew though, that it could lead to pushing the player out of the way and then playing a shot. But in reality, that didn't happen here, and on the surface of it, it looks as if he over reacted. I feel the correct decision was reached.

I think when someone is pushing off someone else's waist like that the only person who can tell how minimal the contact was is the person getting jabbed in the kidney. Matthews had clearly stopped playing before Ramy's shot hits the high on the front wall service line - why would he make it up? Any reasonable ref should give him the benefit of the doubt that however minimal it looked to us, Ramy caused him some pain, sufficient to distract Matthews and therefore give a let under 13.1.3.

@cookesam6

5 жыл бұрын

It's pathetic to call a let based on such minimal contact. If ramy's hand brushing against nick's right hip is enough to distract nick and put him off his game (due to pain in his left hip?), Nick would not be a pro player as he would be "distracted" for 95% of the rallies. Theoretically by that logic you could use rule 13.1.3 for every single rally; there has to be SOME level of tolerance/standard...

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly; however "no let" after seeing the video angles is also reasonable. It doesn't look like much of a push off, and Ramy is taking a fair line to the ball. In fact, Ramy has a duty to play through "minimal interference" but is not required to run around the outgoing striker.

Why did nick even do that !? Ramys return from his drop was terrible and he probably could have hit a winner !!

No Let - Over Reaction and contact was minimal.

Oscar for Mathews

During Matthew's first round match against Miguel Rodriguez, there was an incident where Rodriguez accidentally and painfully bumped into Matthew's back exactly around the spot that he clutches in this incident. I don't think there is any doubt that the contact in the present clip is painful for Matthew, however minimal it may look. Also, Matthew immediately raises his hand to signal that he is temporarily unable to continue the rally, and not after seeing Ramy's return. Matthew deserves a Let

@martincollins6632

2 жыл бұрын

Really interesting context. I thought there must be more to the story. But it still *seems* really bad form from NM.

well, i think that should be no let , need to make sure nick didn't do it again on that game

1:00 hahaha

Matthew raises his left hand to feel his back even before Ramy' s return reaches the front wall. It is clear that Matthew is in pain and temporarily unable to play.Even Ramy does not contest the fact that there was contact--he is arguing a technicality that the non-Striker cannot ask for a Let. Ramy's point is valid insofar as the CR has treated this situation as Interference. The CR should have just said that Matthew was significantly distracted by the contact--Rule 13--which is unappealable

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

Correct, except that these things happen really fast. If, for instance, Ramy had taken the wrong line or elbowed Matthew, (not the case here) but the CR had not seen it- the CR benefits from video review. (True, you would expect Matthew to be the appealer in such case.) The rule allowing interference appeals but not distraction appeals is also a "technicality", especially here where the real issue is the extent of the contact, and player safety is ultimately affected. If the video had shown some misconduct by Ramy, but still resulted in "no let" on interference (a technicality), the referee could remedy that situation. I suspect Ramy had a gripe about some prior decisions, and the CR saw no harm in looking at some video.

shoving would be unacceptable, but this contact was minimal.. looked like a bit of a soccer fall to me :)

nah, gaultier MIGHT... on second thought, maybe not.

Ramy is right, it's his ball to play, not Nick's, Ramy accepted the interference, up to Nick to play the ball

no let. nick never asked for a let and the contact was minimal

No Let is the correct call.........over done by Nick is the synopsis..........Matthew would learn from that.

Squash is a great sport but the referee part is a big flaw of the game. Players should not call lets, the ref is the one who should make the calls and perhaps implement a challenge system similar the one that is used by the ATP. I don't recall any sport in which the players call foul or penalty or off side and the game stops, that is why all the sports have refs.

Mathew's an angry little twirp isn't he

@cookesam6

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, he is

Nick chose the wrong sport. He would do so much better on football!!

Easy one - no let. Unless Ramy shoves Nick in such a way as to endanger him, there is no basis for a let. Some degree of contact on the way to the ball is a part of the sport - indeed, much rougher contact occurred without complaint in this same match. It's only when we get to a level of contact that endangers the opponent, that a conduct warning/penalty may be warranted.

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

The idea is to avoid ever getting to that level. The "roughness" of the contact is situational: for example, it takes extremely minimal contact with a moving racquet frame to break a tooth or scratch a cornea. The player backing to the T is in more danger because he can't see the contact coming. His momentum toward the back is added to the force of the forward-rushing striker- in this case from the service box all the way to the opposite front corner. Yes, he "assumes the risk" when he plays a shot which forces the retriever to scramble through him to get to a drop. But this is not an easy call at all. Unless you believe Nick is faking, why not err on the side of safety and play let? Obviously Nick feels his back is in danger from this pattern of movement.

Nick said if this is NO LET so I can push any player out of my way to get the ball! Actually he didn't push you Nick he TOUCHED you with his left arm!

Let! he stopped way before he could get the ball easy.

Let was a satisfactory call; no one had a particular ascendancy in that rally

No let. Ramy touched nicks right lower back and nick put his hand straight on the left side of the lower back. It's known as gamesmanship so nick got found out. Still he was world champion 3 times so every cloud and that.

nick is desperate for anything against ramy! dirty player!

@8972420

10 жыл бұрын

100% agree

No let. What possible reason is this a Let? dunno what Nick is talking about but a tap is much different to a shove. I hope this doesn't turn into football dives sorry I means "tackles".

Nick caught red handed

No let, but an injury for sure

should play a friendly let, it's good for the game the rules need to be looked over as well

lol

This is nothing but a no let, im really confused by this.

no one on the tour except mathew would make such a big deal over this. what a baby

Nick should go play football!!

Matthew always thinks its his right to own the T after playing his shots n nobody in squash has the right to own the T , U control it n move out after playing your shot n not stay there...

You're wrong and Sesh is right. Matthews only right of appeal was for physical contact by the striker (Ramy) causing pain and therefore a distraction under Rule 13.1.3. They do need to decide who can appeal for video and under what circumstances - I don't really see why, given they have only 1 each per game, they cannot be used for any call be it line calls, pickups, interference or anything else. I would give Yes Let on grounds of distraction - NM had played a good shot, no reason to fake it.

This is a difficult decision to get right especially under match conditions. The only person who is faultless here is the Video referee, as he can only rule on Interference situations, and correctly [from his perspective] over-ruled the Yes-Let . Ramy, Matthew and the CR are all partly in error In my view, the correct decision is YES-LET under Rule 13.1.3 13.1 The Referee may allow a let if: 13.1.3 the Referee determines that an occurrence on or off the court distracted either player.....

So you think Matthew stopped play before Ramy had scraped Nicks tight shot off the wall? Why would he? It was clearly advantage Matthew at that point. To say it was minimal is basically to accuse him of pretending to be hurt despite being in a position of advantage. Rule 13.1.3 makes no reference to minimal contact anyway - the only question is whether it was sufficient to cause distraction. You're right Ramy could also have stopped and asked, and would have had Yes Let. Irrelevant though.

Stroke to ashour due to Nick’s shirt. Horrendous.

Aww diddums

This was sarcastic…🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂

yes let, something was wrong during that rally. Sportmanship

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

Without seeing the whole match to that point, it's hard to pass judgment. But yes, I'd rather see Ramy accept the let call here. I would guess that there had been traffic issues leading up to this call. Maybe Ramy had gotten some no lets at the front and felt Nick was subtly blocking. The "minimal interference" rule and resulting rise in "no let" calls forces more barging by the retriever- pick your poison... With all his own career injury problems- and outrageous racquet skills- I think you can assume Ramy is not looking to sneak in a kidney jab here. He deserves the benefit of the doubt also.

As if he threatened to push ramy out of the way i to play balls after the review... what a pos.

Nick Matthew is such a girl

@naominohar9251

5 жыл бұрын

inghell is being a girl a bad thing?

@cookesam6

5 жыл бұрын

@@naominohar9251 I'm sire he meant drama queen lol... hyper-sensitive...

@berenscott9347

4 жыл бұрын

@@cookesam6 don't be such a man, calling girls hyper-sensitive for sticking up for them. Sheesh.

Sorry but your logic here is fatally flawed - If the video referree can only rule on interference situations- and this was ruled by the video referee, that would make it a case of interference, and not a distraction. Even without that it's clear to see that its a case of interference and not distraction, where Matthew has no right to ask for a let.

@opensourcecurrency

5 жыл бұрын

No. The distraction (if any) is the interference (contact) FROM the incoming striker. If the video referee could at the time only rule on interference WITH the incoming striker, not from, then the referral was wrong and the original "yes, let" should have stood, as a distraction. But this situation could clearly benefit from multiple angle video review to see whether, and how hard, Ramy might have pushed Nick in the back, or taken the wrong line. Whatever the technical rules about what is subject to review were, or are, the referee was smart to refer it since the sequence implicates player safety.

1. Nick never put his hand up for a let - lied. 2. Minimal interference and minimal contact - insufficient to cause pain, looks highly exaggerated but let’s give nick benefit of the doubt on this. 3. Nicks argument that it’s equivalent to purposefully pushing someone to win point - just garbage and irrelevant to this particular decision. 4. Nick showed poor sportsmanship and bad acting plus disrespect to opponent who has the best reputation on tour for playing fair - very bad call by Nick, you can hear the audible laughter in the audience on the replay and it’s not coming from the small Egyptian contingent. 5. Nick was clearly desperate as he was already 1 nil down in games and being outclassed that day. Trying to make excuse for losing by implying ramy injured him is the ultimate low.

Totally illegal "Let". It reminds us of the football "techniques" of diving every time it's possible, sometimes even without physical contact. For a player of Nick Matthews stature... forging a physical contact that never was there just to fish for the "Let", it's crossing the line to very bad sports behaviour, and a very embarrassing use of rules of conduct on squash. (very common on older players or players that are struggling physically against a more efficient opponent)...