VIDEO LIBRARY

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

No Let
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.
Stroke
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.
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
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
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.The player in black doesn’t do enough to clear sufficiently.
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, so a let is allowed.The ball was loose but there was also space between the players and the ball.
No Let
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.
No Let
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.
Yes Let
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 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.
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.
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.There is an element of safety involved.
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.
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 allowedThe striker just clipped the non-striker preventing access at the point when he wanted to take the ball.
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 allowedThe player in white plays a drop and steps back leaving a slight line of access on the inside, to the left of her. The player in grey is uncertain of which line to take and first moves right before moving left. Because access wasn’t obvious enough and the player in white provided access and the player in grey could have got the ball. 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; not 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.
The player in black/white needed to go behind the opponent as the ball was deep and the line was there. 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.
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.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.
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 and the ball would have hit the non-striker on a direct path to the front wall, 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, but 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 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
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.
The player in yellow hits a volley that he cannot clear because of where it lands. 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 to the striker is the correct decision.
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.
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 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 allowedThe player in pink just does enough to provide some access for this to be a let.
The player in black hits a drop that catches the side wall.The player in grey moves towards the ball but has her access and position on the next shot obstructed by the opponent.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.
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 interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed
There was interference and the striker would have been able to make a good return. The opponent was making every effort to clear, a let is a allowed. When the striker can hit the ball there is room to play. The opponent holds position and stays out of the way. The strikers swing would not have come round enough to prevent the swing. 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, 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 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 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
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 allowedFeet of the striker trip on those of the non-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.
There was neither interference nor reasonable fear of injury, no let isallowed.The player in yellow was not ready to play the shot.
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.The shot came loose and the player was late to clear.
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 yes let is allowed.The player in blue holds for a long time, the balls second bounce is in front of both players. In order to hit the shot, the player in blue needs to take a step forward which would mean there is less interference which warrants the yes let 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.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.
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
Although there was no contact, the player in black was unable to attempt a shot because of the opponents position. 8.9.3 is valid 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 ball would first have hit the non-striker and then a side wall before reaching the front wall, a let is allowed
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 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.
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.
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.There was quite a bit of space between the players and the ball. There was also space for the player in maroon to go and get the ball behind 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 yes let is allowed.The shot was not good enough for a no let and the contact between the players was enough to throw the player in black off the shot.
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.
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the strikerJust enough interference to stop the player in blue from being able to hit the shot, Stroke 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 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 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.
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 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 player played a shot that came back towards her and didn’t clear. The player in white would have made a good return and had no access.
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 player in white hits a drive to the back corner and could do more to clear better.The player in black could do more to move up and round but moves into the player in white and holds him in using the arm.Both players have not quite got the situation correct.Yes 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.
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.
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get notified about new articles