VIDEO LIBRARY

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

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 player in blue prepares her swing and encounters interference with the player in pink who is recovering to a central position. There is a significant distance from the interference to where the ball is, the player in blue would have made a good return, therefore a yes let is the correct decision.
Stroke
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
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 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.
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.
Yes Let
The non-striker had no time to avoid the interference, a let is allowed.The player in blue allows the ball to roll round the wall and turns before requesting a let, if this was done on a number of occasions, a no let would be correct. On this occasion it is a let.
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 no let is allowed
Stroke
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.
No Let
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.
Yes Let
There has been no actual contact and the swing has been held by the striker for fear of hitting the opponent. There was also 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 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.
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 grey shapes to hit the ball. The opponent is in the way but the ball is moving away from both players. There is enough interference to warrant a 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.
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 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.
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, no let isallowed.The player in yellow was not ready to play the shot.
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 player in yellow took the long way round and wouldn’t have recovered to make a good return. There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return; no let is the correct decision.
If the striker caused the interference by using an excessive swing, no let is allowed. The striker in blue exaggerated the swing. Looking at the shoulders and how they turn is a great clue.
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.
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 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.Although there was space for the player in grey to hit the ball onto the front wall, the follow through would have hit the player in blue if the ball was hit.
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 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.
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 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.
Although you don’t want players running into the back of an opponent, in this instance, the player in black hits a drop and stands back square from the shot, this means that there is no access to either side possible. In this instance, the player in black is more at fault. The player in yellow pushed up high and anticipated the drop. The striker would have been able to make a good return but the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference, therefore 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 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 allowed.Slightly scrappy from both players so a let is a fair decision.
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 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
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
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.
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 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 swing was affected by slight contact with the opponent who was making every effort to avoid the interference a let is allowed.Safety let on the follow through, the ball was high and by the time the player in blue could hit, the opponent was clear.
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.
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.
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 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 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 was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, no 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 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 but the striker would not have been able to make a good return, 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 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 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.
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 white/black wants to step forward to hit the shot and cannot take it at the point she wishes to strike because of the opponents late movement across her path and position.
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 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 but the player in black would not have been able to make a good return, no let is allowed.
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 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.
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.
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