Sign up to Total Squash now and get access to all content, or learn more.
Sign up to Total Squash now and get access to all content, or learn more.
Here is an interesting refereeing situation about allowing direct access to hit the ball onto the front wall. Shelley (in blue) must give direct access to the front wall for Nicol's shot. At first glance it looks as if Nicol, should have a stroke, as Shelley has not done this.
However, the referee has ruled this situation as a LET. This is because in their judgement as the ball is so close to the backwall Nicol could not have hit the ball cross-court, in which case Shelley is not in the way. Nicol may have been able to get the ball straight, which was potentially dangerous so therefore a LET was awarded.
So in this situation Shelley is causing little or no interference to Nicol, but Nicol has stopped in case she might hit Shelley with the ball. If this ball came further off the back wall, and Nicol would have had a full choice of shots, then a stroke to Nicol would be the correct decision, as the path to the right hand side of the front wall is very much blocked.
It's worth noting that the urban myth of "no strokes given off the back wall" is completely incorrect. There is no reason why a stroke can't be awarded after the ball has hit the back wall.
Your Style of Play and your String Tension
A guide to help you choose the tension of your strings.
Ability And Effort To Reach The Ball
If there is interference but the player could not have reached the ball should he be entitled to a let? What if he could...
Did You Know?
Some interesting and bizarre facts about squash. As Michael Caine never said, "Not a lot of people know that!"
