没有让
在这个级别的职业比赛中,球员需要完成击球。在初学者或俱乐部级别,你会希望他们停下来请求让球。
没有让
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.
是 让
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.
是 让
对手正在竭力避免干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。
中风
如果挥杆因与对手接触而受阻,则判击球方得一杆,即使对手已尽力避免干扰。
是 让
对手正在尽力避免干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。蓝衣球员本可以做出很好的回击,但不确定是否有可能打出交叉球,也不确定交叉球是否会击中对手。因此,在这种情况下判罚让球。
中风
前锋本来可以打出很好的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,则判前锋击球。
没有让
白衣球员击出一记发球,球击中边墙后向球场中央飞去。黑衣球员正准备反手击球,不得不换到正手侧才能击球。球飞离黑衣球员,而黑衣球员不在击球位置上。
没有让
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.
没有实际接触,前锋因害怕击中对手而没有挥杆,适用 8.6 条款,而且对手正在尽力避免干扰,前锋本可以很好地回击,允许让球。是的,让球是正确的决定
前锋只是在非前锋想拿球的时候撞到了他,阻止了他的进攻。
蓝色球手击出一记横扫球,球飞得很远,从后墙弹出。穿粉色球衣的球员不想打球,以防挥拍的后冲击中对手。穿粉色球衣的选手本可以打出很好的回球,而安全是一个需要考虑的因素。因此,"是 "让球是正确的决定。
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?
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
对方球员正在竭力回避干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。
黑衣球员射门得手。
射门直奔死角,接触面积极小。球员需要去拿球。干扰是有的,但这并不妨碍前锋看到球,也不妨碍他回传,这是最小的干扰,不允许让球。
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.
从正面角度看,黑衣球员没有及时做好击球准备。
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.
虽然有干扰,但前锋不可能做出很好的回传,因此可以不判点球。
前锋本来可以打出很好的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,则判前锋击球。
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
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.
前锋本来可以打出很好的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,则判前锋击球。
在没有实际接触的情况下,击球手因害怕击中对手而没有挥杆,而击球手本可以很好地回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,由于击球手没有机会回击,因此判击球手击球。
穿黄色球衣的球员打出一记排球,但由于落点问题,他无法解围。前锋本来可以很好地回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰;判前锋击球是正确的决定。
对方球员竭尽全力避开干扰,前锋本可以做出很好的回击,允许让球。穿粉色球衣的球员通过与臀部的接触遇到了足够的干扰,本可以做出很好的回击。是的,让球是正确的决定。
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.
对手正在竭力避免干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。
The player in yellow played a shot and didn’t clear.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
虽然有干扰,但前锋不可能做出很好的回传,因此不允许让球。在呼吁让球时,蓝衣球员距离球很远。
黄衣球员打出了一记制胜球,尽管有一些干扰,但前锋不可能打出很好的回击;不让球是正确的决定。
挥杆因与对手接触而受阻,即使对手竭力避免干扰,也应判击球方得一杆
挥杆时与对手的轻微接触影响了挥杆,而对手正竭力避免让杆的干扰。
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.
球靠近前击球手,而对手的距离刚刚好。
穿灰色球衣的球员只是让出了足够的空间,让人有足够的理由怀疑横传是否会击中他,从而不适用规则 8.11.1。因此,为了安全起见,让球是正确的决定。
如果挥杆因与对手接触而受阻,则判击球方得一杆,即使对手已尽力避免干扰。
前锋本来可以打出很好的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,则判前锋击球。
挥杆时与对手的轻微接触影响了击球,而对手正竭力避免让球的干扰。安全让球的后续动作,球很高,当蓝衣球员击球时,对手已经安全了。
对手竭力回避干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。
如果前锋因过度挥杆而造成干扰,则不允许让球。蓝衣前锋的挥拍动作夸张。观察肩膀以及肩膀如何转动是一个很好的线索。
从正面图可以看出,前锋走错了方向,而且一直没有纠正自己的平衡,以至于无法改变方向并拿到球。这种情况完全是前锋造成的。不让球是正确的决定。
白方棋手将球打到了后角,他可以做得更多,以更好地清理。黑方棋手可以做得更多,以向上移动并绕过对方,但他向白方棋手移动,并用手臂挡住了对方。
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.
如果挥杆因与对手接触而受阻,则判击球方得一杆,即使对手已尽力避免干扰。
挥杆时与对手的轻微接触影响了击球,而对手正竭尽全力避免让杆的干扰。
有干扰,但前锋不可能很好地回传,不允许让球
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.
挥杆受到与对手轻微接触的影响,而对手正在尽力避免干扰,允许让球。对手挡住了球,但球正在远离双方球员。有足够的干扰,可以判罚让球。
挥杆因与对手接触而受阻,判前锋击球。蓝衣球员想击球,但当他要打球时,灰衣球员向球做了一个动作,造成了足够的干扰,因此判给击球员一杆。如果穿灰色衣服的球员保持住位置,就会被判让球。
对手竭力回避干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。
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.
前锋本可打出漂亮的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,则判前锋击球。
对手正在竭力避免干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。
有干扰,而对手正在竭力回避,前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。是的,让球是正确的决定。
前锋本可直接触球,但却选择了间接触球。来球的前锋最初的移动距离球场太远,从而造成了干扰。不允许进球是正确的判罚。
这是一个很接近的判罚,因为穿桃色衣服的球员在边线上停留的时间比他应该停留的时间要长一些,但穿灰色衣服的球员并没有走向球。不让球是正确的决定。
前锋本可直接触球,但却选择了间接触球,然后要求因干扰而让球;不让球是正确的判罚。
前锋本来可以很好地回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,因此判给前锋一杆。白衣球员本可以打出漂亮的回球,但却没有机会。
绿衣球员打出一记高球,一直回到球场中央。白衣球员打出一记高弹球,并保持住位置,这意味着对手没有进入的机会。绿衣球员的线路穿过对手,他本可以打出一记漂亮的回球。
前锋本可直接出球,但却选择了间接出球,然后请求干扰让球,不允许让球。最初的一步很重要,白衣球员向对手迈出了第一步。没有让球是一个很好的强有力的决定,并给出了很好的解释。
接收最新消息

订阅我们的时事通讯

获取新文章通知