Post by David Williams on Sept 26, 2013 23:45:16 GMT
An interesting, and not uncommon, situation arose in a match tonight which I believe brought to light a couple of common misconceptions regarding the rules when a player appeals for a let on the ground of interference. Specifically, the situations in which a referee should call 'No Let'. The relevant rule is:
Firstly, nowhere in this rule, or any other, is 'The T' mentioned with regards to interference or lets. Being on the T does not mean the opponent is not obliged to clear a direct path to the ball, even if the striker's previous shot was a loose shot down the centre of the court. In other words, if you choose to play a shot which places you between the ball and your opponent, and they could have made a good return were you not in the way, they are still entitled to Yes Let provided the other criteria are met.
Secondly - contrary to popular belief, the created interference rule is not quite as simple as Rule 12.7.4 implies - Guidance G11 must be taken into consideration.
Specifically, No Let on grounds of 'Created interference' is clarified under guidance G11:
Notice there is no caveat that players on the T do not need to move out of the way - if they chose to play a shot which places themselves between ball and striker, that is their choice and they must still provide direct access.
In other words, provided there is a genuine reason for the indirect route, the No Let on grounds of 'created interference' does not apply.
But what about the opponent having a 'position of advantage'? Guidance G11 continues:
In other words, the usual rules apply, and the player can still be given a let if they could have made a good return were it not for the interference.
To sum up:
With the added clarification that being wrong-footed, and the opponent choosing to play a shot which placed themselves between ball and player, are both considered to be genuine reasons for 'created' interference.
Essentially, this rule is apparently there to solely prevent players from deliberately taking an indirect route purely to avoid running to the ball.
Of course all rules are open to interpretation - and this is just mine. None of this is to say that this is the only interpretation - perhaps I have missed something? If so, what have I missed? Is there another rules that needs to be applied?
Thoughts? Opinions?
Discuss.
From the World Singles Rules
12.7 The Referee shall not allow a let and the player shall lose the rally if the Referee decides:
(G6) 12.7.1 there was no interference or the interference was so minimal that the player’s fair
view of the ball and freedom to get to and play the ball were not affected;
(G6) 12.7.2 interference occurred but either the player would not have made a good return or the
player has not made every effort to get to and play the ball;
12.7.3 the player moved past the point of interference and played on;
(G11) 12.7.4 the player created the interference in moving to the ball.
(G6) 12.7.1 there was no interference or the interference was so minimal that the player’s fair
view of the ball and freedom to get to and play the ball were not affected;
(G6) 12.7.2 interference occurred but either the player would not have made a good return or the
player has not made every effort to get to and play the ball;
12.7.3 the player moved past the point of interference and played on;
(G11) 12.7.4 the player created the interference in moving to the ball.
Firstly, nowhere in this rule, or any other, is 'The T' mentioned with regards to interference or lets. Being on the T does not mean the opponent is not obliged to clear a direct path to the ball, even if the striker's previous shot was a loose shot down the centre of the court. In other words, if you choose to play a shot which places you between the ball and your opponent, and they could have made a good return were you not in the way, they are still entitled to Yes Let provided the other criteria are met.
Secondly - contrary to popular belief, the created interference rule is not quite as simple as Rule 12.7.4 implies - Guidance G11 must be taken into consideration.
Specifically, No Let on grounds of 'Created interference' is clarified under guidance G11:
G11. CREATED INTERFERENCE
At all times an opponent must allow the player unobstructed direct access to play the ball.
At all times an opponent must allow the player unobstructed direct access to play the ball.
Notice there is no caveat that players on the T do not need to move out of the way - if they chose to play a shot which places themselves between ball and striker, that is their choice and they must still provide direct access.
However, sometimes the situation arises in which the opponent has caused no interference (i.e. the
opponent has clearly provided the required direct access) but the player takes an indirect route to the
ball which takes the player towards, or very close to, the opponent's position. The player then appeals
for a let because of being "obstructed" in access to the ball.
If there is no genuine reason for this indirect route, the player has created the interference where none
otherwise existed and, if the player appeals, the Referee shall not allow a let. Whether the player could
make a good return is not a consideration - in order to remain in the rally the player must get to and
play the ball.
This is different from two situations in which a player, in attempting to recover from a position of
disadvantage, does not have direct access to the ball.
In the first situation the player is "wrong-footed"
and anticipates the opponent hitting the ball one way, starts moving that way, but having guessed
wrongly, changes direction to find the opponent in the way. In this situation the Referee shall allow the
player a let on appeal if the recovery is sufficient to demonstrate the player would have made a good
return. In fact, if the opponent prevents the incoming player from playing a winning return, the Referee
shall award a stroke to that player.
opponent has clearly provided the required direct access) but the player takes an indirect route to the
ball which takes the player towards, or very close to, the opponent's position. The player then appeals
for a let because of being "obstructed" in access to the ball.
If there is no genuine reason for this indirect route, the player has created the interference where none
otherwise existed and, if the player appeals, the Referee shall not allow a let. Whether the player could
make a good return is not a consideration - in order to remain in the rally the player must get to and
play the ball.
This is different from two situations in which a player, in attempting to recover from a position of
disadvantage, does not have direct access to the ball.
In the first situation the player is "wrong-footed"
and anticipates the opponent hitting the ball one way, starts moving that way, but having guessed
wrongly, changes direction to find the opponent in the way. In this situation the Referee shall allow the
player a let on appeal if the recovery is sufficient to demonstrate the player would have made a good
return. In fact, if the opponent prevents the incoming player from playing a winning return, the Referee
shall award a stroke to that player.
In other words, provided there is a genuine reason for the indirect route, the No Let on grounds of 'created interference' does not apply.
But what about the opponent having a 'position of advantage'? Guidance G11 continues:
Secondly, if a player plays a poor return that gives the opponent a position of advantage, the Referee
shall allow the player a let only if, in taking the direct line to the ball for the next return, the Referee
determines that, but for the interference, that player would have been able to get to and play the ball.
shall allow the player a let only if, in taking the direct line to the ball for the next return, the Referee
determines that, but for the interference, that player would have been able to get to and play the ball.
In other words, the usual rules apply, and the player can still be given a let if they could have made a good return were it not for the interference.
To sum up:
If there is no genuine reason for this indirect route, the player has created the interference where none
otherwise existed and, if the player appeals, the Referee shall not allow a let.
otherwise existed and, if the player appeals, the Referee shall not allow a let.
With the added clarification that being wrong-footed, and the opponent choosing to play a shot which placed themselves between ball and player, are both considered to be genuine reasons for 'created' interference.
Essentially, this rule is apparently there to solely prevent players from deliberately taking an indirect route purely to avoid running to the ball.
Of course all rules are open to interpretation - and this is just mine. None of this is to say that this is the only interpretation - perhaps I have missed something? If so, what have I missed? Is there another rules that needs to be applied?
Thoughts? Opinions?
Discuss.
From the World Singles Rules