Here is a photo from Squash Australia's site showing what must have been deception, as Rachael's follow through was definitely excessive, but there is the opponent with the racket down by their knees (not in a ready position to get a "stroke") yet standing right behind Rachael.

A perfect example of how blocking can occur, yet the opponent is not in a postion to take full advantage of it - definitely not while the racket is in that position anyway. .

Back to top

ham - there are a heap of associated posts listed for you to read under "Relevant Content" on the lefthand column.   Take a good read.

Other problems in the case you describe (as we cannot see the split second decisions):

• You must call "let" immediately the interference occurs and play stops.  If you do not call a "let" at this point. and continue to play on, then realise this interference was subsequently a problem (the opponent may have moved out of the way and it is too late to take the ball, or your have misjudged, etc) it could then be at that point of you asking for a "let" there was no real interferecne, so a "let" not a "stroke" may be applicable.
• Make up your mind early.  If you do then hit the ball in spite of the interference you may regret it, since it could be deemed you played on in spite of the interference, made an error, and then wanted to reverse the decision to hit the ball.  Whereas if you had made a winning shot, you would have gladly taken the point.......this situation may result in a "let" or even  "no let".

It is a bummer when you feel you could have hit a really good shot and the opponent is still hanging around (don't want to call a let), and delay a fraction only to muck up your timing, and change your mind etc...often done well and to the advantage by top players, but not so easy for the beginner or average player. 

Back to top

hi hamburglar

i am with adz on this one except i would be more certain of the stroke call. when a player makes little or no attempt to clear the ball (even when they do not expect to cause interference) it is almost certainly a stroke.

it gets far more complicated when a player is making every effort to clear the ball.

i am not sure the "created interference" scenario actually could apply in this case. i believe that it is for when a player moves in a certain direction (which is not in a direct line to the ball) and interference occurs, even though the second player has cleared the ball. in the this scenario there is usually no let as the player who is about to hit the ball has created their own interfernce by going in the wrong direction.

Back to top

It's up to the point of view of the referee.

Rules state that B can play the ball whenever he/she chooses, and that A should clear out of the way. But at the same time, B could be accused of playing for the interference and thus creating the problem themselves!

In this event I'd have to make the call at the time of seeing it, but would usually give a stroke to B as the description suggests that A made little or no effort to move out of the way.

Tough one to call without seeing it for myself.

Cheers

Adz

Back to top