The referees do not interpret the rules as literally as you suggest - otherwise look where Asal would need to be to give access to the complete front wall…. On that basis there would be strokes all the time and the game would lose its flow. I believe the interpretation is that the striker needs “sufficient” access to the front wall to play straight or cross court. In this case the second arrow should be drawn much more towards the middle of the front wall, since this is a reasonable line for a cross court shot from where James is playing the ball. In my opinion, it would still be a stroke, but this could explain why it is a more marginal decision. A second factor would be whether James can actually play a cross court and therefore is genuinely obstructed by Asal’s position - again, in this case I would say yes he can, but if the ball was further behind James, then a cross court is “less possible” so there is no need for Asal to give room for a shot that can’t reasonable be played. Rules are rarely as simple as the words on the paper….
You raise good points. I went through the USSRA referee certification class many years ago and received my certification. At that time (perhaps things have changed), the striker must have access to the entire front wall (unlke racketball). I'll do some research on the current rules, thanks!
Adding to this: I don't think we can see the whole court in this shot. If the front wall is further down the angle gets narrower. Still a stroke, but it takes less to get out of the stroke zone.
In normal circumstances it'd be a stroke to James because he potentially would hit Asal with the ball if he crosscourts, presuming that Mostafa moves back towards the T.
The referees do not interpret the rules as literally as you suggest - otherwise look where Asal would need to be to give access to the complete front wall…. On that basis there would be strokes all the time and the game would lose its flow.
I believe the interpretation is that the striker needs “sufficient” access to the front wall to play straight or cross court. In this case the second arrow should be drawn much more towards the middle of the front wall, since this is a reasonable line for a cross court shot from where James is playing the ball. In my opinion, it would still be a stroke, but this could explain why it is a more marginal decision. A second factor would be whether James can actually play a cross court and therefore is genuinely obstructed by Asal’s position - again, in this case I would say yes he can, but if the ball was further behind James, then a cross court is “less possible” so there is no need for Asal to give room for a shot that can’t reasonable be played. Rules are rarely as simple as the words on the paper….
You raise good points. I went through the USSRA referee certification class many years ago and received my certification. At that time (perhaps things have changed), the striker must have access to the entire front wall (unlke racketball). I'll do some research on the current rules, thanks!
Adding to this: I don't think we can see the whole court in this shot. If the front wall is further down the angle gets narrower. Still a stroke, but it takes less to get out of the stroke zone.
In normal circumstances it'd be a stroke to James because he potentially would hit Asal with the ball if he crosscourts, presuming that Mostafa moves back towards the T.