中风
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. So, 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.
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
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。
是 让
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。
是 让
球是松散的,但球员和球之间也有空间。
中风
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,但击球手本可以很好地回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,则判击球手击球。
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。
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.
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 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.
虽然存在干扰,但击球员为了赢得一杆而夸张挥杆,允许让球。蓝衣球员的肩膀以夸张的方式转动,表示在寻找对手。球远离蓝衣球员的准备区。
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挥杆,而对手正竭力避免让杆的干扰。
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。
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。
当时对手正在竭力躲避干扰,而前锋本可以很好地回防,让球是允许的。球员和球之间有相当大的空间,穿栗色球衣的球员也有空间去干扰后方拿球。
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。
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.
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。
有干扰,但前锋不可能很好地回传,不允许让球
黑衣球员射门得手。
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 opponentwas not able to avoid the interference, so a stroke is awarded to the striker.Even though every effort was being made by the player in yellow, there was no chance for the player in black to hit the ball.
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。
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。
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。
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
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。
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。
对方球员竭力回避干扰,而前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。双方球员都略显拼抢,因此让球是一个公平的决定。
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。
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。
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。
前锋只是在非前锋想拿球的时候撞到了他,阻止了他的进攻。
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
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 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.
球在到达前墙之前首先击中非击球员,然后击中侧墙,允许让球
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。
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。
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.
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
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。
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 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.
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.
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 allowedFeet of the striker trip on those of the non-striker.
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。
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.
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。
There was neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let isallowed.The player in yellow was not ready to play the shot.
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 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,但黑衣棋手不可能很好地回击,不允许让球。
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。
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。
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。
接收最新消息

订阅我们的时事通讯

获取新文章通知