As a follow-up on the August 16 posting “The Rarely Needed Pyramid”, Rick Kochanski provided isometric illustrations. Rick later provided side by side images. The image shows an isometric view of an overhead shot. Next to it, he also shows the identical situation but as a 2-D side view. (This will be the only image style used in the post.)

The valuable image of triangles to define entitled areas for strikers is 2-D. Our world is 3-D.

Players may avoid ball flight interference by being below the ball flight.

Hard ball doubles squash is a North American invention. The original rules used English Engineering Units. We will stick with the English system.

Pyramid Example 1.

The ball is 8.5 feet high, at the short line, and 8 feet from the left side wall. This would be a typical overhead shot.

The coloured triangular plane shows the lower limit of fair shots just above the tin.

The green pillar represents a 6 foot 1 inch opponent positioned 6 feet from the side wall and 9 feet in front of the short line. So well out from the side wall and about mid court.

The triangular plane is about 3 inches above the player.

Very close to interference. Could a referee be expected to tell the difference? Like some other decisions referees must make, some are close calls. Even calls like not up or out can be difficult to judge. What should be important here is that it is not an automatic stoke.

Rick has provided side by side images. The isometric view and a 2-D side image.

The opponent shown is 9 feet in front of the striker.

At 3 feet in front of the striker, that the opponent would be clear of the stroke motion and also clear of the ball flight.

Let’s try moving the striking point back.

Pyramid Example 2.

Rick has kept the ball at 8.5 feet high. The striking position is 10 feet behind the short line.

The triangular plane now cuts through the opponent. To be clear, the opponent would have to duck below about 5’2”.

The side by side image shows the opponent’s head is in the way (red lines & curves).

Okay, let’s go back to the earlier location and lower the ball height by a foot.

Pyramid Example 3.

Nothing has changed from example 1 except the ball is a foot lower at 7.5 feet.

Lowering the strike point will lower the triangular plane. In example 1 interference was borderline, now the ball is at 5’8” at the position of the opponent and his head is in the way.

How about squatting?

Nothing has changed except the opponent is ducking. This should be enough to not be interference.

Pyramid Example 4.

Nothing has changed except the ball height is dramatically lower. The only way to be clear would be flat on the floor.

It is important to recognize that being in the 2-D front wall triangle, does not necessarily mean there is ball flight interference. If the opponent is below the triangular plane, there is no front wall interference. Is this difficult to judge? Yes, but it must be part of the decision making process.

One thing that is clear is that if an opponent is flat on the floor, they are not interfering with any front wall shot.

Particular attention should be given to high overhead shots. The referee should take into account if the triangular plane is above the opponent or cutting through them.

Bit of a Footnote: Pyramid Simplified to Triangular Plane

The simple front wall triangle is easy to illustrate and adequately shows most situations. When the height of the shot is important the 3-D isometric pyramid is valuable. But a triangular plane serves the same purpose and is a little simpler visualization.

The triangular plane is defined by the top edge of the tin and a line from each front corner to the ball.

Adding a 2-D side view is very helpful to see when a player is interfering with a shot or able to duck below the triangular plane.

It is important to acknowledge that a player that is in the no go zone defined by the front wall triangle, may avoid interference by ducking. If the triangular plane cuts through the body of an opponent, then they are interfering. If they are below the triangular plane, they are not interfering.

The situation of ducking below the triangular plane is not a frequent occurrence. It should now be noted clear that an opponent flat on the floor is never interfering with a shot to the front wall. A shot taken below shoulder height may be difficult to avoid by ducking. A full stretch overhead is far easier to duck under.

It is worthwhile to check 2-D side view situations to get the feel of when ducking is adequate to be clear of fair shots, particularly overhead shots.

What About Boasts You Say

The focus of this post has been with shots directly to the front wall. The triangular plane replaces the 2-D front wall triangle to take into account a player ducking. Similarly the side wall triangle discussed in previous articles could be replaced by a triangular plane. But the geometry is complex. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that a player ducking well below a viable boast trajectory should not be penalized for interference.