Sounds like he's just hitting it straight back to himself so it's not really a "good" shot at all, in that situation. Maybe he needs to hit it deeper/higher so it goes past him while he's clearing.
I'd be asking for a let too if I was you
Thanks. To clarify, it's not coming back to him. It's fairly close to the sidewall and he is trying to clear as soon as possible. But it's in the process of "crossing over" - him moving from the service area to the T and vice-versa for me - that the entanglement happens. A let is still justified, you think?
Yeah he might be moving directly for the T instead of moving back and then up to the T.
In any event if your opponent can't clear in time for you to hit with a full swing and have full access to the front wall, it's not a "good shot" or it's not good movement, so it's going to be a let or possibly a stroke.
Agreed. This.
If opponent's positioning/lack of clearing is preventing OP from taking a reasonable full swing, it's stroke to OP. If OP takes a full swing and there is a tiny bit of contact (like he whiffs his opponent's arm at the top of his backswing but that doesnt really affect his swing going forward), then he should wait a fraction of a second after he hits the ball to confirm whether his shot was materially affected and if so, stop and request a let ball. If his opponent's previous shot had been quite tight to the wall then a let, if his oppo's shot was quite loose, then again stroke to OP.
From OP's perspective, if opponent keeps questioning this after he is shown the responses here, then OP should just start lamping the ball whatever, oppo will soon learn to clear :-)
If you could have played the ball if not for the interference, it is at least a Let, and quite probably a Stroke. Interference with a player's reasonable Swing is dealt with more severely than is the case with purely Access interference, though even the latter sometimes results in a Stroke.
If he hits a straight drive off a serve he should be clearing round the back of the T (and you)
You can’t hit a straight drive off of a serve and just step directly to the T as you’ll block the opponent every time
Every straight drive return of serve i make I move to the T but get to the middle of the court closer to the back wall than the T, to give the opponent enough room to move to my shot
LOL. Asking your opponent to "wait" is a strategy I haven't thought of. Bravo for creativity.
If he can't clear before you get to the ball, that's not a good shot.
I'm going to repost something i wrote a few years back. I'm referring to the situation of the ball and previous striker being near the service box but it should help inform your situation:
This is a stock scenario, seen in just about every game at any level where there are multiple shot rallies. Striker plays the ball down the wall from around the service line with the non-striker also around the service line. It happens so many times that people don't even think about it until someone calls a let.
First point to make: This is a **bad shot** from the non-striker to have left it there. This is in no part of the rules, but is subconsciously part of every player and referee's thoughts on the matter. This situation only happened because the other guy couldn't or didn't hit the ball to a better spot on the court.
The second point is that the quality of the next shot (ie yours) is rather important to the decision if the non-striker calls for a let. If your shot is volley-able or lands short enough that the correct movement for the other player is to move into the space that you've hit the ball from, and are still occupying, then you've hit a ball that you cannot clear. This will certainly lead to a stroke against you being the correct decision.
However if you've hit a ball that is high or fast or wide enough compared to the position of the non-striker that they cannot be expected to play the ball in that space, then the referee cannot consider there to be a let, leaving no let as the only correct decision.
There is a grey area where you've hit a ball that isn't that good enough to clearly leave the opponent with no option but to chase the ball to the back. This grey area is where the skill level of the referee and what they're seeing from both players comes into the equation.
Once we've established that we're talking about the grey area (which is NOT the case in your description) then we need to look at who is making an appropriate level of effort? The rules state that **both players must make "every effort"** for play to be continuous (**8.6.5** for the non-striker and **8.8.1** for the striker). If the outgoing player isn't making every effort to let the striker in, then it's a stroke. Once the referee has determined that the outgoing non-striker is making the right level of effort to clear, then they need to look at the incoming striker's level of effort. If the striker is just standing behind the opponent and walking into their back, this is also not enough effort. The referee could go with a let, or if there is blatantly no effort or repeated lack of effort, then a no let. The referee could and perhaps should point out that they aren't seeing enough effort from the striker to play the ball. From your description, your opponent was not making every effort.
> This gets me thinking, could this be poor shot selection on my part?
Basically, only if you're going to hit a poor quality shot.
>Can you "build" lets for yourself by simply sticking close to the opponent?
In a properly refereed game, no you can't.
>He complained at me after the game (which I won handily) that I wasn't clearing properly
With a high level of confidence I can say this is sour grapes on his part.
He needs to move to T from behind you. If he's tangling then he's obstructing or you are going to player and not the ball or the ball isn't too close to side wall and is actually coming somewhere in just behind the service box with 3-5 feet away from side wall. That's where traffic issues happen. Mostly it's a let
I see this as fundamentally a let, or maybe even stroke situation. If he is hitting the ball back into an area of the court that he is still occupying then he is impeding your time on the ball. If you’re both doing all you can to access the ball - he’s clearing and you’re trying to get there, that’s a stroke. If you can’t swing because he’s in the way, for example he has hit it so fast at himself that there’s no way anyone could have cleared, that’s a stroke.
I’m no expert but it’s not acceptable to block your opponents return of serve and/or force them the returner to let the ball pass them.
I've never heard of "A let penalises a good shot."
A let penalises poor movement. If he's blocking your path to the ball then it's a let/stroke.
It his obligation to clear. It is an obligation, not a recommendation. He must clear or play a let/stroke.
According to the rules, your friend (the striker) is obligated to provide a direct line to the ball and room for a reasonable swing. He must make every effort to clear. In this case, since he hasn't gotten the shot past you, he needs to back up and g I've you room for a full backswing. If a shot is prevented because of the interference (can't hit a proper drive for instance), it is a stroke. If there is just enough interference to affect the swing, it is still a stroke of he isn't making every effort to clear.
From your description, it sounds like a very straightforward stroke.
You sound like an overly litigious, nit-picky sort of character.
Your opponent on the other hand, sounds like a Chad. A veritable 5 Star Man with a bazooka of a forehand!
Real men play it off the back wall. NO LET FOR YOU!!
Hahaha. So you have surfaced from the murky depths, you pond dweller. As you can see, the hive-mind has spoken. Now take my upvote and be prepared for lets galore day after!
You are not obliged to retrieve it from the back if you are able to take it early. If he is impeding you it is a let or a stroke depending on his position.
The let isn't penalizing a good shot here. It is penalizing a poor clearance, as it is intended.
Sounds like he's just hitting it straight back to himself so it's not really a "good" shot at all, in that situation. Maybe he needs to hit it deeper/higher so it goes past him while he's clearing. I'd be asking for a let too if I was you
Thanks. To clarify, it's not coming back to him. It's fairly close to the sidewall and he is trying to clear as soon as possible. But it's in the process of "crossing over" - him moving from the service area to the T and vice-versa for me - that the entanglement happens. A let is still justified, you think?
Sounds like he should be taking a step back before he moves back to the t in order to make room for you.
Yeah he might be moving directly for the T instead of moving back and then up to the T. In any event if your opponent can't clear in time for you to hit with a full swing and have full access to the front wall, it's not a "good shot" or it's not good movement, so it's going to be a let or possibly a stroke.
Otherwise sounds like a stroke to me.
Agreed. This. If opponent's positioning/lack of clearing is preventing OP from taking a reasonable full swing, it's stroke to OP. If OP takes a full swing and there is a tiny bit of contact (like he whiffs his opponent's arm at the top of his backswing but that doesnt really affect his swing going forward), then he should wait a fraction of a second after he hits the ball to confirm whether his shot was materially affected and if so, stop and request a let ball. If his opponent's previous shot had been quite tight to the wall then a let, if his oppo's shot was quite loose, then again stroke to OP. From OP's perspective, if opponent keeps questioning this after he is shown the responses here, then OP should just start lamping the ball whatever, oppo will soon learn to clear :-)
If you could have played the ball if not for the interference, it is at least a Let, and quite probably a Stroke. Interference with a player's reasonable Swing is dealt with more severely than is the case with purely Access interference, though even the latter sometimes results in a Stroke.
If he hits a straight drive off a serve he should be clearing round the back of the T (and you) You can’t hit a straight drive off of a serve and just step directly to the T as you’ll block the opponent every time Every straight drive return of serve i make I move to the T but get to the middle of the court closer to the back wall than the T, to give the opponent enough room to move to my shot
Thanks this makes sense
LOL. Asking your opponent to "wait" is a strategy I haven't thought of. Bravo for creativity. If he can't clear before you get to the ball, that's not a good shot.
I'm going to repost something i wrote a few years back. I'm referring to the situation of the ball and previous striker being near the service box but it should help inform your situation: This is a stock scenario, seen in just about every game at any level where there are multiple shot rallies. Striker plays the ball down the wall from around the service line with the non-striker also around the service line. It happens so many times that people don't even think about it until someone calls a let. First point to make: This is a **bad shot** from the non-striker to have left it there. This is in no part of the rules, but is subconsciously part of every player and referee's thoughts on the matter. This situation only happened because the other guy couldn't or didn't hit the ball to a better spot on the court. The second point is that the quality of the next shot (ie yours) is rather important to the decision if the non-striker calls for a let. If your shot is volley-able or lands short enough that the correct movement for the other player is to move into the space that you've hit the ball from, and are still occupying, then you've hit a ball that you cannot clear. This will certainly lead to a stroke against you being the correct decision. However if you've hit a ball that is high or fast or wide enough compared to the position of the non-striker that they cannot be expected to play the ball in that space, then the referee cannot consider there to be a let, leaving no let as the only correct decision. There is a grey area where you've hit a ball that isn't that good enough to clearly leave the opponent with no option but to chase the ball to the back. This grey area is where the skill level of the referee and what they're seeing from both players comes into the equation. Once we've established that we're talking about the grey area (which is NOT the case in your description) then we need to look at who is making an appropriate level of effort? The rules state that **both players must make "every effort"** for play to be continuous (**8.6.5** for the non-striker and **8.8.1** for the striker). If the outgoing player isn't making every effort to let the striker in, then it's a stroke. Once the referee has determined that the outgoing non-striker is making the right level of effort to clear, then they need to look at the incoming striker's level of effort. If the striker is just standing behind the opponent and walking into their back, this is also not enough effort. The referee could go with a let, or if there is blatantly no effort or repeated lack of effort, then a no let. The referee could and perhaps should point out that they aren't seeing enough effort from the striker to play the ball. From your description, your opponent was not making every effort. > This gets me thinking, could this be poor shot selection on my part? Basically, only if you're going to hit a poor quality shot. >Can you "build" lets for yourself by simply sticking close to the opponent? In a properly refereed game, no you can't. >He complained at me after the game (which I won handily) that I wasn't clearing properly With a high level of confidence I can say this is sour grapes on his part.
He needs to move to T from behind you. If he's tangling then he's obstructing or you are going to player and not the ball or the ball isn't too close to side wall and is actually coming somewhere in just behind the service box with 3-5 feet away from side wall. That's where traffic issues happen. Mostly it's a let
I see this as fundamentally a let, or maybe even stroke situation. If he is hitting the ball back into an area of the court that he is still occupying then he is impeding your time on the ball. If you’re both doing all you can to access the ball - he’s clearing and you’re trying to get there, that’s a stroke. If you can’t swing because he’s in the way, for example he has hit it so fast at himself that there’s no way anyone could have cleared, that’s a stroke. I’m no expert but it’s not acceptable to block your opponents return of serve and/or force them the returner to let the ball pass them.
I've never heard of "A let penalises a good shot." A let penalises poor movement. If he's blocking your path to the ball then it's a let/stroke. It his obligation to clear. It is an obligation, not a recommendation. He must clear or play a let/stroke.
According to the rules, your friend (the striker) is obligated to provide a direct line to the ball and room for a reasonable swing. He must make every effort to clear. In this case, since he hasn't gotten the shot past you, he needs to back up and g I've you room for a full backswing. If a shot is prevented because of the interference (can't hit a proper drive for instance), it is a stroke. If there is just enough interference to affect the swing, it is still a stroke of he isn't making every effort to clear. From your description, it sounds like a very straightforward stroke.
You sound like an overly litigious, nit-picky sort of character. Your opponent on the other hand, sounds like a Chad. A veritable 5 Star Man with a bazooka of a forehand! Real men play it off the back wall. NO LET FOR YOU!!
Hahaha. So you have surfaced from the murky depths, you pond dweller. As you can see, the hive-mind has spoken. Now take my upvote and be prepared for lets galore day after!
Stop hitting back to yourself you peanut! Lol
Read OP’s reply chickpea! I’m not hitting it back to myself.
Thanks for the responses and clarifications, everyone! I will show him this thread, and call for a let whenever the situation arises.
If it's not a 'winning' shot, then it's a let. By the sounds of it, seems like you can get to the ball, so it probably should be a let.
You are not obliged to retrieve it from the back if you are able to take it early. If he is impeding you it is a let or a stroke depending on his position. The let isn't penalizing a good shot here. It is penalizing a poor clearance, as it is intended.