VIDEO LIBRARY

Use our video library to understand decisions in different areas of the court

Stroke
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.
Stroke
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
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.Player in blue hits a shot that she doesn’t clear very well, the player in pink would have made a good return but also moves towards the opponent slightly. Therefore, a yes let is the correct decision.
No Let
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.
Stroke
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.
Yes Let
The swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowedThe ball was close to the striker and the opponent was just clearing enough.
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.
Stroke
This can be considered within two of the Rules.9.9.3 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 and 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.8.11.1 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, unless the striker had turned or was making a further attempt, in which case a let is allowed. It is important to consider that the player in maroon was ready to strike the ball in time.
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 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, 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.
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 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. 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.
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.
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.
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 the player in black encounters contact, it isn’t sufficient to warrant a let, and the player needs to continue and look to play 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.
There was minimal interference that did not prevent the striker from seeing and getting to the ball to make a good return.This is a close one as the player in peach stays on the line for a fraction longer than he should but the player in grey does not go towards the ball. No 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.Winning shot from the player in black.
The player in white hits a drive that catches the side wall and travels towards the middle of the court.The player in black is preparing to hit a shot on the backhand and has to change to the forehand side to be able to hit a shot.The ball is travelling away from the player in black who is not in a position to hit the ball.No let is the correct decision.There was neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let is allowed.
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.
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 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 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 strikerThe shot came back towards the non-striker, which put the player in the direct line of the striker
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 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 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.
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.Slightly scrappy from both players so a let is a fair decision.
The player in yellow hit a winning shot, even though there was some interference, the striker would not have been able to make a good return; no 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 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 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, no let is allowed.The front angle shows that the player in black was not ready to strike the ball in time.
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.
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 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 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
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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, so a no let is allowed
The shot went deep into the corner and the contact was minimal. The player needs to go and get 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 no let is allowed.
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 black moved to the side to provide a line to the ball. No 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.Ball lands shorter than both expect, non-striker is looking to step out of the way. Striker encounters sufficient interference, so a yes, let is the correct decision.
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.
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.
There was interference but the striker exaggerated the swing in attempting to earn a stroke, a let is allowed. The shoulders of the player in blue turn in an exaggerated way which indicate searching for the opponent. The ball is travelling away from the player in blue’s preparation.
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. 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. By the time the payer in dark red is ready to strike, the ball is slightly behind him, there is space to play the shot straight, and to cross-court the player in dark red would have to flick the ball. A flicked cross-court would not hit the opponent. Therefore a let is the correct decision.
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 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 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 but the player in black would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.
There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.The player in blue was a long way from the ball when the appeal for a let was made.