Yes Let
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowed.
Yes Let
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. By the time the payer in dark red is ready to strike, the ball is slightly behind him, there is space to play the shot straight, and to cross-court the player in dark red would have to flick the ball. A flicked cross-court would not hit the opponent. Therefore a let is the correct decision.
No Let
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed
Stroke
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.
Stroke
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
Stroke
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.
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.
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.Player in blue hits a shot that she doesn’t clear very well, the player in pink would have made a good return but also moves towards the opponent slightly. Therefore, a yes let is the correct decision.
Stroke
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.
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.
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowed.The shot was not affected enough for this to be a stroke.
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.
The player in grey just gives enough room for there to be enough doubt whether a cross court would hit him or not for Rule 8.11.1 not to be applied. Therefore a Yes Let is the correct decision for safety.
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 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.
There was interference but the striker did not make every effort to get to and play the ball, no let is allowed.The player in pink was wrong footed and corrected, and then encountered the interference. There was space to get through to the ball and the striker really needed to show more urgency to go and play 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 no let is allowed
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.Although there was interference, in this situation, the referee wants to see the player really look to get through and play the ball.
If the striker caused the interference by using an excessive swing, no let is allowed. The striker in blue exaggerated the swing. Looking at the shoulders and how they turn is a great clue.
There was neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let is allowed.Need the player to be looking to hit this ball at the professional level. In a club match, it may be more of a let for safety depending on the level.
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.
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.Although there was space for the player in grey to hit the ball onto the front wall, the follow through would have hit the player in blue if the ball was hit.
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.
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the strikerJust enough interference to stop the player in blue from being able to hit the shot, Stroke is the correct decision.
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.
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 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 black moved to the side to provide a line to the ball. 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 blue was a long way from the ball when the appeal for a let was made.
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 strikerThe shot came back towards the non-striker, which put the player in the direct line of 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 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.
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, so a let is allowed. The player in blue could have made a good return but it was uncertain if a cross court was possible or if that cross court would have hit the opponent. For this reason a Let is awarded 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 let is allowed
There has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent, and 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 as there was no chance of a follow through.
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 blue hits a crosscourt that goes very wide and bounces off the back wall. The player in pink does not want to play the ball in case the follow through of the swing hits the opponent. The player in pink would have been able to make a good return and safety is a factor to consider. Therefore a Yes 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.
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.
The striker encountered interference while turning, and could have made a good return. The non-striker had no time to avoid the interference, so a let is allowed.The player in peach turns and is unsure of the opponents position, there is a risk of safety involved if the striker attempts to hit the ball.
There was contact as the player in yellow was about to play the shot. 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.
There was a small amount 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.
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowedThe player in blue prepares her swing and encounters interference with the player in pink who is recovering to a central position. There is a significant distance from the interference to where the ball is, the player in blue would have made a good return, therefore a yes let is the correct decision.
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. So, 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 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 referee had to judge how far the ball came off the back wall, could the striker in peach hit the ball straight or cross court and had the opponent stayed far enough to one side. In this situation there is enough doubt and a risk of safety. 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 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 neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, so a no let is allowed.The player in pink plays a drop and clears towards a central position. There is access for the player in blue, who is a long way from the ball. In this instance, the player in blue must go and play the ball. No 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, 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 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 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
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.Although the player in black encounters contact, it isn’t sufficient to warrant a let, and the player needs to continue and look to play the ball.
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 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 neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let is allowed.At this level in the professional game, a player needs to play the shot. At beginner or club level, you would want them to stop and ask for a let.
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.
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 white hits a drive to the back corner and could do more to clear better.The player in black could do more to move up and round but moves into the player in white and holds him in using the arm.Both players have not quite got the situation correct.Yes let 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 allowed.
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.
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?
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.
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles