Rules Proposal:
"Squash Doubles Split: 2 Sets to 11"
rev A, 2008-11-18, by Rules Officer Hans Mullamaa
Original proposers: Svatopluk Rejthar (Czech rep), Håkan Granberg (Gothenburg Open Tournament Director)
_________________

Revision History:
rev A, 2008-11-18: First version.
_________________

1) Original Proposals

1.1) OPTION A: 2 sets to 11; 3 sets to 21 (from Svatopluk)

E-mail from Svatopluk 2008-11-12:
"We have only one problem on our tournaments again and again.
Squash - Doubles
Most czech Players prefer twice 11
It eliminat tactic of choosing first and second player
This system is more objective certainly.
We propose twice 11 (third time again)"

Svatopluk later confirmed the following:
Only squash should be affected by the split, meaning a total of five sets in a full Racketlon match out of which two are to 11 and three to 21.

1.2) OPTION B: 8 sets to 11 (from Håkan) 

Proposal:
2 sets to 11 in each of the four sports, meaning a total of 8 sets to 11.

Reason:
The main thing of this proposal is to split up the squash into two independent parts. The reason is to avoid that the second part of the squash totally dominate the result in the squash set. With the present rule a really good squash player can e.g. turn 0-11 into 21-11, which feels unreasonably unbalanced.

The reason why the split should be done in all four sports and not only in squash is just to make things symmetric. We should have equal formats in all four sports!


2) Amendment by Rules Officer

Detailed consequences for the rules document to be worked out in line with existing rules if proposal is approved (subject to approval by Council).

_________________________________

 

Attachment:
Comments by Rules Officer
rev C, 2009-01-01, by acting Rules Officer Hans Mullamaa
_________________

Revision History:
rev A, 2008-11-18: First version.
rev B, 2008-11-20: Changed wording of one confusing sentence (about symmetry) in the recommendation.
rev C, 2009-01-01: Added a record of the final AGM decision.
_________________

1) Aspects
TBD - meanwhile see relevant discussion from last year)

1.1) The Definition of Racketlon

The following is an excerpt from our statutes:

1.3 The following three principles need to be fulfilled in order for a game  
to qualify for the term racketlon:
 
• The game must include the following four sports: table tennis,  badminton , squash and tennis
• The game must be built on the concept of a racketlon match involving the same two individuals (pairs in doubles) playing each other in all  four sports - with equally formatted sets in each sport.
• Each rally must count, which means running score. The player (pair) who wins most rallies shall be the winner of the racketlon match.
 
This Definition shall not be changed except at a General  Meeting and by a proposal carried by a majority of four-fifths of the  votes cast.. 

As seen it contains a rule saying that a Racketlon match must contain "equally formatted sets in each sport".

Option A clearly does not comply with this rule since two sets to 11 and one set to 21 are not "equal formats". Therefore, an approval of option A would first require a change to our statutes (which in this particular case requires a four-fifths majority. And since there is no proposal about

 in conflict with

2) Amendment by Rules Officer

Detailed consequences for the rules document to be worked out in line with existing rules if proposal is approved (subject to approval by Council).

2) Proposed Voting Procedure
1. Simple majority vote between option A and B. (5 or 8 sets.)
2. Then "Yes" or "No" vote on proposal. (Two thirds majority required for approval - as usual.)

3) Recommendation by Rules Officer
1. Option B. If we are going to split the squash set we must split the other sets as well since there is a rule in our statutes that require "equally formatted
No (to both variants). Why look for perfect symmetry in the squash when none of the other three sports are symmetric anyway (in the sense that a really good player will dominate over a poor partner)? Especially when the price for it is high (complicated mathematics and lost simplicity). In addition, even though the present format is singles it does mean that the two players in a pair cooperates within the same set, which makes the format a bit closer to the idea of doubles than two independent sets would be.

4) AGM Decision (According to Lennart Eklundh, acting Rules Officer at the AGM)
Proposal REJECTED.

_________________________________