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
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.
是 让
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.
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。
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.Although there was interference, in this situation, the referee wants to see the player really look to get through and play the ball.
没有让
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。
中风
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。
没有让
There was neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let isallowed.The player in yellow was not ready to play the shot.
是 让
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。
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。
蓝衣球员持球时间较长,球第二次反弹是在两名球员面前。为了击球,蓝衣球员需要向前迈出一步,这意味着干扰较少,因此可以做出让球的决定。
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。
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowed
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。
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 yellows shot lands short which makes this a let. Even with the ball missing the target, there is a case to ask the player in black to show more willing to go and play the ball.
虽然有干扰,但黑衣棋手不可能很好地回击,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.
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.
虽然有干扰,但这并不妨碍前锋看清球,也不妨碍前锋回球,这只是最小的干扰,因此可以判无让球。
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。
有干扰,但前锋不可能很好地回传,不允许让球
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。
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。
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
虽然我们不希望棋手跑到对手的背后,但在本例中,黑方棋手击出了落点,并站在了射门的正后方,这就意味着两边都无法进入。在这种情况下,黑衣球员的过失更大。黄衣球员推得很高,预料到了落点。前锋本来可以打出很好的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,因此判前锋击球。
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 interferenceThe player in blue prevents the player in white from preparing the racket with her position and the follow through would have hit the opponent.
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
虽然有干扰,但这并不妨碍前锋看清球,也不妨碍前锋回传,这是最小的干扰,不允许让球。
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
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.
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。
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。
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
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。
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。
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
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。
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.
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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.
虽然没有接触,但由于对手的位置,黑方球员无法尝试击球。8.9.3 在没有实际接触而前锋因害怕击中对手而不挥杆的情况下有效,适用 8.6 的规定。
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 allowed.The striker should be told to make more effort to go directly to 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 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.
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
没有实际接触,前锋因害怕击中对手而没有挥拍。此外,还有对手竭力躲避的干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。
白衣棋手下了一个落点,并后退一步,在其左侧内侧留下一条轻微的通路。穿灰色衣服的棋手不知道该走哪条线,先向右移动,然后再向左移动。因为通道不够明显,而白衣球员提供了通道,灰衣球员本可以拿到球。是的,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 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.
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.
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。
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?
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。
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。
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。
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.
接收最新消息

订阅我们的时事通讯

获取新文章通知