Yes Let
The ball would first have hit the non-striker and then a side wall before reaching the front wall, a let is allowed
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 black moved to the side to provide a line to the ball. No 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 interference
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 striker just clipped the non-striker preventing access at the point when he wanted to take the ball.
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
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.
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 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.
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 player in blue attempts to stay out of the way for as long as possible, especially as the ball comes round a long way. By the time the striker wants to play the ball, the cross court is a very difficult shot, so 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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 did not make every effort to get to and play the ball, no let is allowed.The player in black has some space to go and hit the ball, he must go through to play this.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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.
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed
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.
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.There was quite a bit of space between the players and the ball. There was also space for the player in maroon to go and get the ball behind the interference.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.There was sufficient interference but also a line behind the opponent. Yes let is the correct decision.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles