let or no let?
Published: 04 Jun 2010 - 07:14 by acw10016
Updated: 08 Jun 2010 - 07:14
Subscribers: Log in to subscribe to this post.
Was playing a match yesterday and got into a disagreement with my partner.
He was near the front of the court and under pressure hit a wide rail on the forehand side, which I quickly volleyed down the forehand rail in return. The ball got far behind him, but because he is quick, made a run for it anyway and headed squarely to the back wall. The only way he could possibly hit it would be by lunging and hitting it off the back. Problem was that I was a few steps behind the T and he ran into me while he was heading to the back of the court.
So basically, if I hadn't been in his way he had a chance of lunging to the ball and hitting it off the back wall, but the ball was clearly well behind him when he ran into me and there was no chance of him hitting any other shot (boast or rail). He called it a let because I obstructed his path to the ball, and I called it no let because he did not have a chance of getting to the ball (unless taking a desperate lunge and hitting the ball off the back is considered a fair shot).
How should this be ruled?
-Andy
How to add images to Members' Forum posts and replies here...
Replies...
Please Note: The most recent replies are now at the top!
From rippa rit - 08 Jun 2010 - 07:14
From hamburglar - 05 Jun 2010 - 21:52
From mike - 05 Jun 2010 - 00:08
Good question acw. As you have described it I would be inclined to give a Yes-Let. If the player could have made a good return (but not a winning return) if not for the interference, and was making every effort to do so, then they are entitled to a let, even off the back wall.
If I saw it happen though it sounds as though it may have looked like your shot to the back was a winner in which case I'd give a No-Let. Similarly if the player ran into you instead of taking a direct route to the ball I'd think No-Let. Hard to say from a description, could go either way depending on how it looked at the time.
I'm not sure if Position of Advantage (POA) applies here, I find that aspect tricky. I don't know if it's in the letter of the rules, but generally if one player hits a weak, open shot, and their opponent puts it away it puts extra onus on the player to make every effort to go around to return.
Sorry, only members can post replies on this and all other Members` Forum items.
Support Squashgame
Support us here at Squashgame.info! If you think we helped you, please consider our Squash Shop when purchasing or make a small contribution.
Products Now Available
US Squash Shop
Testimonials
There is a correct technique section on this site in the squash library, with detailed explanation of the important issues.
Sorry, logins temporarily disabled
We hope to see you back soon when we launch our updated site.
With respect to getting a let, as well as what hamburgler ruled, was the player able to hit the ball in spite of the interference? That is why this rule is so tricky and often got wrong.
Funnily at the Masters at the weekend there was a situation a bit similar, except the player choose to try to hit the ball to the front wall, as he was running back, as the ball had actually gone over his head (and at that point interference would have occurred EXCEPT he could not reach the ball overhead at this point, and by the time he then got to it it had bounced, the striker had cleared the ball (unbeknown to him as he was by then almost facing the back wall), and insisted that he should have been given a stroke; he then proceeded to go basistic as he insisted a stroke was the correct decision. No way, a let was the correct call, because at this time the opponent had taken a look out of the corner of his eye realised the guy was going to get to the ball, and quickly took two steps backwards towards the T. This is why it is so important to watch the ball at all times, and move according to the position of the opponent, and the on-the-spot decision is made according to what is actually happening "at the point of interference" not earlier or later that means of course.
Back to top