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.
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。
中风
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
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 neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, therefore a no let is allowed.The player in white has to run the diagonal length of the court. The player in burgundy plays a volley from a central position. There is distance between the players and the ball. There is also access to the ball. No Let is the correct decision.
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。
是 让
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。
中风
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
中风
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。
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。
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.
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。
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。
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..
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。
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.There is almost no interference and a line behind the opponent to the ball.
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。
既没有干扰,也没有受伤的合理担忧,就不允许让球。在俱乐部比赛中,根据水平不同,可能更多的是为了安全而让球。
虽然有干扰,但并不妨碍前锋看到球,也不妨碍他回球,这是最小的干扰,不允许让球。虽然黑衣球员遇到了接触,但这不足以成为让球的理由,该球员需要继续,并寻求踢球。
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。
穿白/黑衣的球员想上前击球,但由于对手迟迟不移动,越过了她的路径和位置,因此无法在她希望击球的位置上击球。
前锋本可以打出漂亮的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,因此判前锋击球。
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。
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。
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
有干扰,但前锋不可能很好地回传,不允许让球
前锋本可直接触球,但却选择了间接触球的路径,然后要求因干扰而让球,这是不允许的。
黑衣球员击出的落点接住了侧壁。灰衣球员向球移动,但她下一击的通道和位置受到了对手的阻挠。击球是正确的决定。前锋本可以打出一个很好的回球,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,因此判前锋击球。
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。
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
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。
前锋在转身时遇到干扰,本可以很好地回击。非前锋没有时间避开干扰,因此允许让球。桃色方球员转身时不确定对手的位置,如果前锋试图击球,会有安全风险。
有干扰,球会直接打在非前锋的前墙上,判前锋击球。
非前锋球员没有时间避开干扰,允许让球。蓝衣球员允许球绕墙滚动并在请求让球前转身,如果多次这样做,不让球是正确的。这次则是让球。
9.9.3 如果沒有實際接觸,而前鋒因害怕打到對手而暫停揮杆,則適用8.6的 規定,前鋒本來可以打出很好的回球,但對手沒有盡一切努力避開干 擾,則判給前鋒擊球。.11.1有干擾,球會直接打到非前鋒的前牆,判給前鋒一桿,除非前鋒轉 向或在做進一步嘗試,在這種情況下允許讓球。重要的是要考虑到穿栗色球衣的球员已经准备好及时击球。
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.
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。
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。
蓝衣球员打出一球,但她没有很好地解围,粉衣球员本来可以很好地回击,但也稍微向对手移动了一下。因此,让球是正确的决定。
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。
虽然有少量干扰,但这并不妨碍前锋看到球并接近球,从而完成漂亮的回传。
蓝衣球员准备挥杆时遇到了粉衣球员的干扰,后者正在恢复到中心位置。从干扰处到球所在位置有很远的距离,蓝方球员本可以做出很好的回击,因此让球是正确的决定。
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。
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。
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。
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.
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。
既没有干扰,也没有合理的伤害恐惧,不允许让球。
既没有干扰,也没有合理的伤害恐惧,不允许让球。
穿黑/白色球衣的球员需要走到对手身后,因为球很深,线路也在那里。前锋本来可以直接拿到球,但他选择了间接路径,然后以干扰为由要求让球,这是不允许的。
The player in yellow hit a shot that bounced around the service box, which meant the opponent in black could not get access to the shot to play the volley. 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.
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。
穿黄衣的球员绕了很远的路,不可能回追做出很好的回传。虽然有干扰,但前锋不可能完成很好的回传,因此不让球是正确的判罚。
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。
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 there was interference, in this situation, the referee wants to see the player really look to get through and play the ball.
红色球手快速横击,球飞向中路。黑色球手打出一记进攻性的发球,但球落在短线前方,你必须考虑击球点的位置。黑衣球员的基础很宽,没有让对手通过。击球是正确的决定,因为黑衣球员让对手很难通过。前锋本来可以打出很好的回球,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,因此判前锋击球。
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。
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.
这属于 8.9.3 的情况,即没有实际接触,前锋因害怕击中对手而暂停挥杆,则适用 8.6 的规定。黄衣队员保持了一段时间,当黑衣队员阻止挥杆时,前锋已经对能打哪一球产生了怀疑。因此,挥杆受到了对手的影响,而对手正竭尽全力避免干扰,因此允许让球。
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。
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。
接收最新消息

订阅我们的时事通讯

获取新文章通知