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.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.
Yes Let
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.
Yes Let
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.
Stroke
There has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent, but 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
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.
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.
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
No Let
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.
Yes Let
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.Slightly scrappy from both players so a let is a fair 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 allowedFeet of the striker trip on those of the non-striker.
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, so a no let is allowed
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 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.
The player in black/white needed to go behind the opponent as the ball was deep and the line was there. 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 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 neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let isallowed.The player in yellow was not ready to play the shot.
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 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, a stroke is awarded to the striker, even if the opponent was making every effort to avoid the interference.The player in pink hits a crosscourt lob that comes out towards the middle. The player in blue attempts to strike the ball but makes heavy contact with the opponent. Although the swing was not prevented, the trajectory and result of the shot was completely altered due to the contact of the swing. Therefore a stroke is the correct decision.
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.
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 let is allowedThe player in pink just does enough to provide some access for this to be a 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 but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no 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, 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
The player in yellow took the long way round and wouldn’t have recovered to make a good return. There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return; no let is the correct decision.
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.
The player in white hits a drive that catches the side wall and travels towards the middle of the court.The player in black is preparing to hit a shot on the backhand and has to change to the forehand side to be able to hit a shot.The ball is travelling away from the player in black who is not in a position to hit the ball.No let is the correct decision.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, 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.
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 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 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.There was sufficient interference but also a line behind the opponent. Yes 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
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
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, 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 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 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, 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 is almost no interference and a line behind the opponent to the ball.
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
The ball would first have hit the non-striker and then a side wall before reaching the front wall, a let is allowed
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 the striker did not make every effort to get to and play the ball, no let is allowed.The player in grey hits a good shot. The player in blue’s racket preparation and line to the ball is more towards the opponent than a genuine effort to play the shot. “No Let, I need you to go to the ball and not the opponent” is the correct decision and explanation.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
There was interference but the player in black would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.
The Striker had direct access but instead took an indirect path to the ball. The incoming striker’s initial movement went too far up the court and which then caused the interference. A no let is the correct decision.
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 player in green hits a high shot that travels all the way back to the middle of the court.The player in white hits a shot that bounces high and holds position which means that there is not access for the opponent.The player in green’s line was through the opponent and he would have made a good return.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.
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles