是 让
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.
没有让
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.
没有让
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。
没有让
黑衣球员射门得手。
是 让
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。
中风
如果存在干扰,球会直接击中非前锋的前墙,则判前锋击球。
中风
桃色球手打出一记松球,灰色球手准备击球,但没有跨场选择。击球是正确的决定。
是 让
有干扰,而对手正在竭力回避,前锋本可以做出很好的回击,因此允许让球。是的,让球是正确的决定。
是 让
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
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.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 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。
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.
对方球员竭尽全力避开干扰,前锋本可以做出很好的回击,允许让球。穿粉色球衣的球员通过与臀部的接触遇到了足够的干扰,本可以做出很好的回击。是的,让球是正确的决定。
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。
虽然有干扰,但黑衣棋手不可能很好地回击,不允许让球。
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.
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。
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。
前锋本可直接触球,但却选择了间接触球的路径,然后要求因干扰而让球,这是不允许的。
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。
The player in black hits a kill that pops out from the side wall and comes back towards the service box. There is no access for the player in yellow. 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 to the striker is the correct decision.
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。
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。
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 player in yellow hit a shot that bounced around the service box, which meant the opponent in black could not get access to the shot to play the volley. 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.
前锋本可打出漂亮的回击,但对手没有尽力避开干扰,则判前锋击球。
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.
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。
黄衣球员打出了一记制胜球,尽管有一些干扰,但前锋不可能打出很好的回击;不让球是正确的决定。
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.
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。
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
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 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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
球是松散的,但球员和球之间也有空间。
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。
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 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.
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。
The swing was prevented by contact with the opponent, a stroke is awarded to the striker
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。
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。
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。
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.
射门直奔死角,接触面积极小。球员需要去拿球。干扰是有的,但这并不妨碍前锋看到球,也不妨碍他回传,这是最小的干扰,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.
既没有干扰,也没有受伤的合理担忧,就不允许让球。在俱乐部比赛中,根据水平不同,可能更多的是为了安全而让球。
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。
虽然有干扰,但这并不妨碍前锋看到球,也不妨碍他回球,这只是最小的干扰,不允许让球。
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。
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.
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。
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?
没有实际接触,前锋因害怕击中对方而没有挥拍,适用 8.6 条款。有干扰,而对方正在竭力避免,前锋本可以做出很好的回击,允许让球。当穿深红色球衣的球员准备击球时,球稍稍落后于他,有空间直接击球,而穿深红色球衣的球员必须轻击球才能过场。弹击过场球不会击中对手。因此,让球是正确的决定。

All WSO users with an active paid membership will be eligible for a 15% BO Ticket discount.

接收最新消息

订阅我们的时事通讯

获取新文章通知