Yes Let
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed.This is a let for safety but the player in black could have hit the ball at a professional level. In the amateur game, this is more likely to be a stroke.
Yes Let
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowedThe ball was close to the striker and the opponent was just clearing enough.
Yes Let
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed.The striker should be told to make more effort to go directly to the ball.
Stroke
The player in black hits a kill that pops out from the side wall and comes back towards the service box. There is no access for the player in yellow. The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference; a stroke is to the striker is the correct decision.
No Let
The striker had direct access but instead took an indirect path to the ball and then requested a let for interference; not let is the correct decision.
Yes Let
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed.
No Let
The first step of the player in blue was up the court and the drop went deeper which meant the player was out of position to get the shot. The striker had direct access but instead took an indirect path to the ball and then requested a let for interference, no let is allowed
Yes Let
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed
No Let
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.Winning shot from the player in black.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed.
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference; a let is allowed. The player in peach isn’t quite sure where the opponent is and makes slight contact in the preparation. A stroke would be too easy in this situation.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a yes let is allowed.The shot was not good enough for a no let and the contact between the players was enough to throw the player in black off the shot.
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference, so a yes let is allowed.
There was interference but the striker exaggerated the swing in attempting to earn a stroke, a let is allowed. The shoulders of the player in blue turn in an exaggerated way which indicate searching for the opponent. The ball is travelling away from the player in blue’s preparation.
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference, so a let is allowed.There is enough contact in the backswing to throw off the striker on the way to the ball.
The striker had direct access but instead took an indirect path to the ball and then requested a let for interference, no let is allowed.The player in white/black moved towards the opponent and not the ball.
The player in black needs to go and play that ball, as there was interference, but it did not prevent the striker from seeing and getting to the ball to make a good return. The player in yellow had provided access to the ball, this is minimal interference and no let is the correct decision.
The player in yellow was off balance from the previous shot and went for the opponent more than going to play the ball.Because the striker had direct access but instead took an indirect path to the ball and then requested a let for interference, no let is allowed.
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.The player in black was not ready in time to be able to hit the ball.
There was interference, but it did not prevent the striker from seeing and getting to the ball to make a good return, this is minimal interference and a no let is allowed.
There was neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let is allowed.
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the striker
The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
The player in red hits a cross court quickly and the ball travels towards the middle.The player in black hits an attacking drive on the volley but the ball lands in front of the short line and you have to consider where the striking point is.The player in red moves early into the opponent.The player in black takes a wide base and does not let the opponent through.Stroke is the correct decision as the player in black is making it too difficult to get past.The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the striker, even if the opponent was making every effort to avoid the interference
There was interference and the ball would have hit the non-striker on a direct path to the front wall, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
The player in yellow hits a volley that he cannot clear because of where it lands. The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference; a stroke to the striker is the correct decision.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowedThe player in white plays a drop and steps back leaving a slight line of access on the inside, to the left of her. The player in grey is uncertain of which line to take and first moves right before moving left. Because access wasn’t obvious enough and the player in white provided access and the player in grey could have got the ball. Yes Let is the correct decision.
The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, a stroke is awarded to the striker.The player in blue plays a shot and does not clear.
The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, a stroke is awarded to the striker.The player played a shot that came back towards her and didn’t clear. The player in white would have made a good return and had no access.
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.The player in blue was a long way from the ball when the appeal for a let was made.
The player in black hits a drop that catches the side wall.The player in grey moves towards the ball but has her access and position on the next shot obstructed by the opponent.Stroke is the correct decision.The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
There has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent, the provisions of 8.6 apply and there was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed.The player in black shaped and was not sure of the opponents position after a loose shot. Yes let is the correct decision
There was interference and the ball would have hit the non-striker on a direct path to the front wall, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
There was interference and the ball would have hit the non-striker on a direct path to the front wall, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the striker. The player in blue wants to hit the shot, but as he is going to play, the player in grey makes a movement towards the ball which creates enough interference for a stroke to be awarded. If the player in grey had held the position, it would have been a let.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a yes let is allowed.The player in blue holds for a long time, the balls second bounce is in front of both players. In order to hit the shot, the player in blue needs to take a step forward which would mean there is less interference which warrants the yes let decision.
There was interference and the ball would have hit the non-striker on a direct path to the front wall, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
There was interference and the striker would have been able to make a good return. The opponent was making every effort to clear, a let is a allowed. When the striker can hit the ball there is room to play. The opponent holds position and stays out of the way. The strikers swing would not have come round enough to prevent the swing. Let is the correct decision.
There was neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, therefore a no let is allowed.The player in white has to run the diagonal length of the court. The player in burgundy plays a volley from a central position. There is distance between the players and the ball. There is also access to the ball. No Let is the correct decision.
Although there was no contact, the player in black was unable to attempt a shot because of the opponents position. 8.9.3 is valid where there has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent, the provisions of 8.6 apply.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed.
There has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent. There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, so a yes let is allowed.
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the striker, even if the opponent was making every effort to avoid the interference
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, so a stroke is awarded to the striker, even if the opponent was making every effort to avoid the interference.
There was interference and the ball would have hit the non-striker on a direct path to the front wall, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, a stroke is awarded to the striker.
The non-striker had no time to avoid the interference, a let is allowed.The player in blue allows the ball to roll round the wall and turns before requesting a let, if this was done on a number of occasions, a no let would be correct. On this occasion it is a let.
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the striker, even if the opponent was making every effort to avoid the interference.
There was interference but the striker did not make every effort to get to and play the ball, no let is allowed.The was interference but the player in blue doesn’t move anywhere and there is distance to the shot. No let is the correct call.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed
The player in yellow hit a winning shot, even though there was some interference, the striker would not have been able to make a good return; no let is the correct decision.
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.The front angle shows that the player in black was not ready to strike the ball in time.
The front view shows that the striker went the wrong way and never corrected her balance to be able to change direction and get the ball. The situation was solely created by the striker. No let is the correct decision.
There was interference, but it did not prevent the striker from seeing and getting to the ball to make a good return, this is minimal interference and no let is allowed.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowed.
There was minimal interference that did not prevent the striker from seeing and getting to the ball to make a good return.This is a close one as the player in peach stays on the line for a fraction longer than he should but the player in grey does not go towards the ball. No let is the correct decision.
This falls into 8.9.3, where there has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent, the provisions of 8.6 apply. The player in yellow held for some time and by the time the player in black was preventing the swing, there was doubt as to which shot the striker could play. Therefore, the swing was affected by the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference, so a let is allowed.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return; a let is the correct decision.Very close to a stroke though as there may have been a line behind. If a stroke is awarded here, does it encourage players to dive across even when they cannot volley?
The striker had direct access but instead took an indirect path to the ball and then requested a let for interference, no let is allowed.The initial step is the important one, the player in white took the first step towards the opponent. No Let is a good strong decision, with good explanation given.
There was interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid and the striker would have been able to make a good return, a let is allowedThere player in blue plays a drop and makes every effort to clear. The player in pink encounters enough interference through contact with the hip and would have made a good return. Yes let is the correct decision.
There was interference but the player in black would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles