Back to top

• the whole idea of the new rule is to prevent players from turning as a matter of choice as used to happen with some players.
  
• if a player has attempted to hit the ball, failed, then turned in a second attempt, there would usually be no problem as it may well have been the only option - in other words there was no real choice in order to return the ball.
  
• If a player is genuinely beaten by a serve (not necessarily making a first attempt), turning  would normally be ok if there were little other options
• if a player simply made the choice to turn on the ball when other options were readily available - stroke to the opponent

• In the case of interference, my reading of it would be that there would only be cause for interference if the striker "pulled" or restricted the shot and call let immediately.
  
• If the shot was played fully, there should be no let as contact as made after the ball was hit - the trajectory of the ball will not have been altered.
  
• It might be different if contact was made before striking. in any case, let would have to be called immediately contact occurred.

Back to top