Q1. Should your opponent make an effort to get out of the way of the ball following his shot?

A1. Yes - your opponent is obliged by the rules to make every effort to provide you - the incoming striker - with direct access to the ball, a fair view of the ball, freedom (i.e. space) to make reasonable swing and the opportunity to return the ball to anywhere along the front wall.

Q2. During play a player walks off court as he has 'spat the dummy' etc etc. What are the rules? Also if he states he has had enough and walks off after a game has been completed, however, returns later to carry on does, the other player have a right to claim the match? I am sure this has happened somewhere!

A2. If the player walks off the court the referee must apply rule 17 dealing with conduct on court. Under this rule the referee can warn, allow a let award a stroke, a game or the match depending on the severity of the incident. Walking off the court would in my view warrant the award of the match. If he walks off the court between games that is fine and he could return to continue the match after the 90 sec break between games. If however he had made clear his intention not to continue with the match the referee can accept that and award the match to the opponent. The player could not then return to court. The match would be over. If you are not playing with a referee in attendance then you need to remonstrate with the opponent. He is not playing "in the spirit of the game" which is also referred to in rule 17.

Q3. What is the ruling on excessive (say greater that 5) ball bouncing by the server prior to serving when the receiver is in place to receive the ball?

A3. Ball bouncing, if excessive, can be regarded as time wasting. If the receiver is clearly uncomfortable with it the referee should apply rule 17 and start with a warning. Personally I believe it is an unfair practise, which can be used to upset (unfairly) an opponent.

Q4. My opponent frequently hits sidewall shots two-handed, much like an exaggerated baseball stroke. Since this shot is usually preceded by my return from the backcourt he claims I set him up for an easy winner and could have no answer for this shot. I try to explain that his big follow through and unwillingness to move make it impossible for me to get a return in. Since we are both relatively new to the sport my question is: Is it legal, rude unorthodox or normal to employ two-handed shots in squash?

A4. Two-handed shots are quite legal in squash. Generally it is felt there is no particular advantage, as it requires more time and effort. It is unorthodox but not rude or normal.

Q5. There are a couple of players in my club who persistently 'push off' their opponent. When picked up on this habit they tend to blame their opponent for being in the way or refuse to accept that it is in anyway against the rules. As I maybe marking a match with one of these players involved, what exactly is the rule and how should it be applied? This subject seems to be poorly understood. Does anyone have an opinion

A5. Yes, pushing off an opponent is contrary to the rules. In fact any physical contact is not allowed. See Rule 17. What action can a referee take? Again rule 17 allows anything from a warning to awarding the match. Just depends on the degree of the "physical abuse". Any physical contact can be called abuse. I would suggest you start with a warning and an explanation. The fact that the other player was not clearing is a separate issue. The player feeling himself obstructed must stop play and ask for a let. Taking matters into his own hand by manhandling the opponent is not allowed.

Q6. Is an opponent allowed to make stamping noises (to make me think he's running to the front of the court) when I'm preparing to drop his short ball in the hope that I will play back to him?

A6. If the opponent’s action is deliberate distraction which stomping certainly is, rule 15.6 (Duties of players) applies which states that rule 17 should apply. Rule 17 requires some penalty to be applied - from a warning to the award of a stroke, the game or the match. So no, your opponent is not allowed to stamp.

Q7. My opponent sometimes gets in my line of sight and makes it impossible for me to view the ball unless I run around the player. I only see the ball when it is too late. Is this in adherence to the fair view rule?

A7. Yes, the rules say that the striker is entitled to a "fair view" of the ball. It sounds as if your opponent is not providing this for you and so is causing interference. The opponent is expected to get out of the way so as not to cause such interference. If he does not try to get out of the way, the correct decision is a stroke to the striker. If he does try but is unable to completely clear then a let is the correct decision.

After eighteen months of intensive study by the select Rules Sub-Committee, and thousands of e-mails, the 2001 Rules were approved at the WSF AGM in November 2001.
The full text, with changes highlighted, was published in early 2001 ready for 1 May implementation, and appears in full on the WSF’s website. But if, like me, you are an average player (I wish), with a less than perfect knowledge of the Rules, here is an idiot’s guide to the major changes.

Play on
We all want to see top Squash with minimum lets. The new Rules encourage this. Not only do they revert to the previous wording demanding players ‘make every effort to get to and play the ball’, but in future ‘lets’ will not be awarded for minimal interference. If any interference or contact is so slight that it does not affect your sighting of the ball, or your freedom to get to and play it, then play on. Stop - and you will get a ‘No Let’. If Jonah Lomu can score tries with five players hanging from his shirt and 80,000 spectators roaring their heads off surely we can ignore a racket brushing our opponent’s clothing on the way through to the ball.
Another good new rule is the one which allows for a stroke to be given against you if you distract your opponent when he or she is about to make a winning return. There go another few points a game for me.

Safety is paramount
Dangerous play is still outlawed and in future, if your opponent is too close and has prevented (important word) your reasonable swing, or would have been hit by it if you had continued, you will get a stroke. If you stop the swing because of slight contact with an opponent who is trying to clear, or because the opponent is uncomfortably, but not too, close you will get a let. But, be warned, if you stop and your opponent is well clear - ‘No Let’ is the result. Also, a stroke will not be awarded to a player who causes interference with an excessive swing.
Another change that flows from the Pro Tour is in the turning rule. The new Rules dictate that if a player turns unnecessarily, to avoid playing a tricky ball rather than in an attempt to try to play it, ‘No Let’ is the decision. To reinforce this, if you turn and hit your opponent with the ball you lose the stroke, rather than getting a let as previously.
In the re-written eye protection appendix the WSF now recommends that all Squash players use purpose-made eye guards at all times. Not a popular change for some people (watch the SquashPlayer letters section), but eyes are important things and we idiots have a greater potential for damage than most.

Spectator control
Here’s a Rule, previously only a guideline, that definitely doesn’t affect me. If the behaviour of any spectator, official, manager or coach is disruptive or offensive the Referee can suspend play or tell the offending person to leave the court area. In my case, the rest of my team abuse me and then leave voluntarily. Not only the players, manager and coach, but the ref too.

Easier to read
If you want to go through the whole Rules, a recommended procedure, then you will find them much easier to follow. The Rules have now been reorganised in a much more logical fashion and are written in the active voice, rather than the passive as previously. The myriad notes in the past editions have now been absorbed into the main text as sub-rules. And best of all the Service Rule now defines what is a good serve, rather than the old rules which told us what was bad, in great detail. The Rules Sub-Committee’s sterling work has not been in vain; they have done a really good job.
But for idiots, the major change is that the whole Rule book now starts with a four page Abbreviated Guide to the Rules. This is simply written from a player’s viewpoint and gives the basics, with simple links to the detailed Rules later in the book. 

Rule 17 mandates that in the event of unacceptable behaviour on court the Referee ” shall penalise the player. However, the severity of the offence and the nature of the penalty are left to the discretion of the Referee. This has led over the years frequently to the imposition of different penalties (or none at all) for similar offences, depending on who is refereeing. On the one hand, a harsh (inappropriate) penalty might be assessed for a single or mild offence; while on the other hand, a serious offence is penalized lightly, or not at all. The players do not know in advance what standards will be applied, and the referees are left individually to set their own standards.

The development of these Guidelines is an attempt to bring some order to the existing chaos, and to offer both referees and players some guidance on the application of Rule 17. If referees follow these Guidelines fairly closely, then players will know in advance what the standards are in relation to Rule 17. This is, in effect, no different from the desirability of knowing what the standards are for the application of the rules concerning interference: a greater measure of consistency is the aim. The achievement of such consistency will greatly benefit the sport of squash.

Referees will apply the following Guidelines in the appropriate circumstances. While the Referee under Rule 17 retains discretion in deciding whether or not there has been an offence under that Rule, once the Referee has decided that an offence has occurred, the following actions must be taken:

Abuse of equipment (racket or ball or other equipment):
Minor offence (e.g. throwing the racket onto to floor after losing a game, hitting the ball hard after the rally is over): Conduct Warning
Major offence (e.g. deliberately breaking the racket; smashing the racket against the wall; hitting the ball or throwing the racket out of the court): Conduct Stroke

Audible or Visible Obscenity:
Minor offence (e.g. muttered expletive; blaspheming): Conduct Warning
Major offence (e.g. audible obscenity): Conduct Stroke
Time-wasting:
Minor offence (e.g. a few seconds late back on court; taking excessive time to serve): Conduct Warning
Major offence (e.g. very late back on court; prolonged discussion with Referee): Conduct Stroke
Dissent:
Minor offence (e.g. questioning a decision): Conduct Warning
Major offence (e.g. prolonged or repeated questioning of or disagreement with decisions):
Conduct Stroke
Abuse of Official:
Minor offence (e.g. unflattering comments about official or decisions): Conduct Warning
Major offence (e.g. pejorative comments about official or decisions): Conduct Stroke
Severe offence (e.g. hitting ball at official or into spectators; throwing racket at official or into
spectators): Conduct Game or Match (depending on the severity of the offence and the danger caused)

Excessive physical contact:
Minor offence (e.g. running into the opponent): Conduct warning
Major offence (e.g. physical abuse of the opponent): Conduct Stroke
Severe offence (e.g. deliberately injuring the opponent; dangerous play that injures the opponent):
Conduct Game or Match (depending on the severity of the offence and the extent of the injury caused)
Unsporting conduct:
Minor offence (e.g. making negative comments to the opponent): Conduct Warning
Major offence (e.g. repeated negative or pejorative comments to the opponent; any attempt at intimidation of the opponent): Conduct Stroke
Severe offence (e.g. extreme behaviour that brings the game into disrepute): Conduct Game or
Match (depending on the severity of the offence)
Coaching:
First occurrence: Conduct Warning
Second occurrence: Conduct Stroke and expulsion of offending person
Repeated and excessive bad conduct:

When, in the Referee’s opinion, the player is guilty of repeated acts of unacceptable conduct on court following the imposition of the penalties outlined above, the Referee may impose for the next occurrence of the offence either the same penalty for the second offence or a more severe penalty than the one already imposed. However, if a Conduct Warning has been given for both the first and the second offences, for the third offence of a similar nature a Conduct Stroke must be applied. (Example: If a player has received a Conduct Warning for Dissent, on the next occurrence of this offence, either a Conduct Warning or a Conduct Stroke may be imposed. On the third occurrence, however, a Conduct Stroke is mandatory.)

Below is a summary of the thought process a referee should go through when asked 'Let Please'...

1. Did interference occur?
The striker has four basic rights, and interference has occurred if the opponent fails to provide him with any of these, even if he has made every effort to do so:

Unobstructed direct access to the ball after completion of a reasonable follow-through
A fair view of the ball on its rebound from the front wall
Freedom to hit the ball with a reasonable swing
Freedom to play the ball directly to the front wall

If no interference has occurred, or the interference was so minimal that the player's view of and freedom to get to and play the ball were not effected, then it's NO LET, otherwise move on to no.2

2. Could the obstructed player have reached the ball and made a good return? And was he making every effort to do so?
If either answer is NO, then it's NO LET, otherwise move on to no.3

3. Did the obstructed player move past the point of interference and play on? Or create the interference in moving to the ball?
If the answer to either question is YES, then it's NO LET, otherwise move on to no. 4

4. Did the obstructing player make every effort avoid the interference?

If he didn't, then it's a STROKE, otherwise move on to no.5

5. Did the interference prevent the player's reasonable swing?

If YES, then it's a STROKE to the player, otherwise move on to no. 6

6. Could the obstructed player play a winning return?
If YES, then it's a STROKE, otherwise it's just a LET unless no.7 applies.

7. Would the obstructed player have struck the opponent with the ball going directly to the front wall or, if going to a sidewall, would it have been a winning return?
If either answer is YES, then it's a STROKE to the player.

Remember that this is a simplification - read the rules thoroughly.

The over-riding principle of the rules is to ensure a fair result for both players.