THE INTERFERENCE LINE
OF THINKING
based on the 2001 rules, effective 30-Apr 2001
based on the 2001 rules, effective 30-Apr 2001
|
Refereeing is a thankless but
necessary task. Knowing the Rules and using the correct calls is expected of
referees, but the really difficult part is making decisions when one of the
players appeals for a let. Below is a summary of the thought process a
referee should go through when asked ‘Let Please‘…
|
|
The Question …
|
The Answer …
|
||||
|
1. Did interference occur ?
  |
The striker has four basic rights,
and interference has occurred if the opponent fails to provide him with any
of these, even if he has made every effort to do so:
If no interference has occurred,
or the interference was so minimal that the player’s view of and freedom to
get to and play the ball were not effected, then it’s NO LET, otherwise move
on to no.2
|
||||
|
2. Could the obstructed player have reached the ball and
made a good return ? And was he making every effort to do so ?
|
If either answer is NO, then it’s
NO LET,
otherwise move on to no.3 |
||||
|
3. Did the obstructed player move
past the point of interference and play on? Or create the interference in
moving to the ball?
|
If the answer to either question
is YES, then it’s NO LET, otherwise move on to no. 4
|
||||
|
4. Did the obstructing player make
every effort avoid the interference ?
|
If he didn’t, then it’s a STROKE,
otherwise move on to no.5
|
||||
|
5. Did the interference prevent the player’s reasonable
swing?
|
If YES, then it’s a STROKE to the
player, otherwise move on to no. 6
|
||||
|
6. Could the obstructed player play a winning return?
|
If YES, then it’s a STROKE,
otherwise it’s just a LET unless no.7 applies. |
||||
|
7. Would the obstructed player have
struck the opponent with the ball going directly to the front wall or, if
going to a side wall, would it have been a winning return?
|
If either answer is YES, then it’s
a STROKE to the player.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment