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
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.
No Let
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.
No Let
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
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.
Yes Let
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.
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.
No Let
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.
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..
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 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.The striker should be told to make more effort to go directly to 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 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 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 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 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 but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no 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 black has some space to go and hit the ball, he must go through to play this.
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.
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.
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 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 shot came loose and the player was late to 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 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, so 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 in white/black wants to step forward to hit the shot and cannot take it at the point she wishes to strike because of the opponents late movement across her path and position.
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 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 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 but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, so 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 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.
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 player in white/black moved towards the opponent and not the ball.
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 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.
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 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 ball would first have hit the non-striker and then a side wall before reaching the front wall, 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 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, so a let is allowed.There is enough contact in the backswing to throw off the striker on the way to the ball.
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
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 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.
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 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 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 sufficient interference but also a line behind the opponent. 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 black was not ready in time to be able to hit 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.
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.
Although you don’t want players running into the back of an opponent, in this instance, the player in black hits a drop and stands back square from the shot, this means that there is no access to either side possible. In this instance, the player in black is more at fault. The player in yellow pushed up high and anticipated the drop. The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, therefore 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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