There are a lot of replies and discussion about lets.

You will see a tab called forum archives in the browser above.

Take some time to browse around what else is there for you.

Back to top

Back to top

The above answer has the problem of assuming certain conditions and then concluding based on them. So yes, if those conditions were fulfilled then the conclusion is OK. But i can see a lot of other scenarios after which the same question may be raised and a different conclusion be reached.

Anyway, i think the whole issue here is the hazy notion of "minimal interference". If it is concluded that there was minimal interference then the play cannot be stopped and you will not get a let. On the other hand, if the interference was enough to affect your play then it is a let. The REAL problem is, who decides in a regular friendly match without a referee? 

Now one might say, well that is true with every let/stroke decision in a friendly match. And yes it is. But you see, normal lets and strokes that are obvious are not contested and generally it is easy to reach a unanimous conclusion. If a player hits the ball and it comes back to his body, chances are low that he will contest a stroke. However, minimal interference comes in that zone where it is so easy for two players to have difference conclusions. And without a referee to judge for minimal intereference, i think it is proper to have a let.

I will also add that the best person to answer your particular question is you yourself. If you truly believe there was intereference then it was right of you to stop. However, if you stopped coz it was the easier thing to do then, well, you should be more careful next time.

Back to top

hi frenchstix

before i give you the answer, i will say that this is probably the answer. probably, because it could be possible (but not likely), depending on the chain of events and how closely they occured, that you may have been able to get a let.

each shot, that is the one that your mate played, and the one that you then had to play need to be separated.

you are correct in saying that you had the responsibility  of giving him clear access to the ball in the first place.

from what you said, it does not appear that he deliberately want out of his way to stand on your foot and get tangled up, which rules out awarding you a stroke for something like unsportsmanlike conduct.

unless you were still tangled when he hit the ball and he then caused you interference when it was your turn, then it would have to be no let to your call.

as soon as he has hit the ball, the responsibility of giving access swtiches, but seeing you were the one at fault in the first place, no blame can be placed on your opponent.

it was your fault that you were off balance or not ready or whatever, so news is all bad for you.

except that your opponent is enough of a gentleman to give you the let (even begrudgingly) which you appear to have taken advantage of.

the only problem now,  is that it might steel your opponent to be even more determined in the future.

looks like some more tough matches coming up.

cheers rs

ps, i have seen referees give a let in situations like that.

Back to top