Guideline 7 - INTERFERENCE WITH THE PLAYER'S SWING AND REASONABLE FEAR OF HITTING THE OPPONENT

Idea by Clive Pollard

Do you have any comments on the content or any suggestions ?

Please fill in our comments form

G7. INTERFERENCE WITH THE PLAYER'S SWING AND REASONABLE FEAR OF HITTING THE OPPONENT

Rule 12.2.3 allows the player "freedom to hit the ball with a reasonable swing". If the player stops play due to the opponent not granting this freedom and the player appeals, the Referee shall consider the following options:

1. If the opponent is too close and has prevented the player's reasonable swing and is hit or would have been hit with the racket, the Referee shall award a stroke to the player.

2. If the player stops play as a result of slight racket contact with the opponent, who is making every effort to clear, the Referee shall allow a let. This is different from the minimal interference described in Guideline 6. The amount of contact must be sufficient to affect the player's swing, but insufficient to prevent it.

3. If the player stops play for fear of hitting the opponent and the opponent, though close to, does not prevent the player's reasonable swing, the Referee shall allow a let under Rule 13.1.2 (reasonable fear of injury). As long as the opponent does not prevent a reasonable swing, a let is the appropriate decision.

4. If the player stops play for fear of hitting the opponent and the opponent is well clear of the reasonable swing, the Referee shall not allow a let as the player has judged the opponent's position incorrectly.

* 'Blocking' (the intentional delay of appropriate movement away from the ball after playing it) has become one of the biggest and most irritating problems in the modern game. It appears to be difficult for the older referees to see when an outgoing player is 'blocking' intentionally. However, it is also difficult for any referee to penalise the clever player who disguises the 'block' by subtle movements of the arms and/or legs and/or body.

One of the best proponents of the intentional 'block' was a certain member of the Khan family. When playing a good drop-shot, the player would move effectively and quickly off the ball. When the shot was not so good, that player would intentionally delay the movement off the ball. In almost all cases, the frustrated opponent would only be allowed a let, instead of the more effective stroke. Once, we observed a referee handling this player effectively and the match was quite excellent.

** This means that simply stopping when the player thinks that interference will prevent the player getting to the ball is not sufficient reason for the Referee to allow a let or award a stroke.

Barging

The degree of effort that is required by the incoming player, in order to demonstrate "making every effort," is for the Referee to decide. Players should note that this does not give them licence to abuse their opponents physically *, and unnecessary physical contact will be penalised under Rules 12 (on interference) and 17 (on conduct on court).

* The player 'barging' (pushing violently and unnecessarily) into an opponent (even if almost justified as 'making every effort') should be severely penalised using Rule 17 (on conduct on court). Once penalised in this way, the player will think twice before doing it again.

  Positive

A Referee, however, should not refuse lets in situations where the player was clearly making every effort (albeit short of physical contact with the opponent) to get to the ball and had demonstrated to the Referee the ability to reach the ball.

* Here again, this Guideline is written in the negative - it would be better to say "A Referee shall allow a let...."

Continue ?

Read on - Guideline 8

Return to Guidelines index