No Let
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, 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, 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.
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 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?
No Let
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.
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 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
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 interferenceThe player in blue prevents the player in white from preparing the racket with her position and the follow through would have hit the opponent.
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 allowedThe player in pink just does enough to provide some access for this to be a let.
Yes Let
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.
Stroke
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 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 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.
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 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 also 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.
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 neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let is allowed.
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.
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 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.
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 the player in black would not have been able to make a good return, no 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 interferenceThe striker could not swing as the follow through would have hit the non-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 blue plays a shot and does not clear.
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 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 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 peach hits a loose shot and the player in grey is ready to hit the ball but doesn’t not have a cross court option. Stroke is the correct decision.
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.
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
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 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 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 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.
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 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 affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowed.
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.
This can be considered within two of the Rules.9.9.3 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 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.8.11.1 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, unless the striker had turned or was making a further attempt, in which case a let is allowed. It is important to consider that the player in maroon was ready to strike the ball in time.
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 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 ball was loose but there was also space between the players and the ball.
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 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 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.
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, 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 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 allowedThe striker just clipped the non-striker preventing access at the point when he wanted to take the ball.
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 affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference 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, the provisions of 8.6 apply, and, the striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponentwas not able to avoid the interference, so a stroke is awarded to the striker.Even though every effort was being made by the player in yellow, there was no chance for the player in black to hit the ball.
There has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent 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 ball is in a position where a professional player can hit straight or cross court. It is on the backhand side which makes it harder for the player in grey to get the ball cross court as the ball is quite far back in the swing. There is a risk of the follow through involved for the opponent. 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.There is an element of safety involved.
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 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 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 swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowed.Safety let on the follow through, the ball was high and by the time the player in blue could hit, the opponent was clear.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles