Swing Interference: 12.8.2 & G7

This new rule (12.8.2) puts into writing what was common practice, and that is, to award a stroke to the striker whose swing has been prevented – regardless of the opponent’s clearing effort. The reason is the sensitivity of the swing to the least of disturbances. Remember those times when you’ve clipped a wall while swinging at the ball, and it goes nowhere. Well, that shows in a nutshell what we’re talking about.

We must acknowledge that any actual physical interference to the swing will affect the outcome.

·       However, for this rule to apply, the swing has to be ‘prevented’- basically a major interference. This results from either actual contact, or as a result of the opponent being so close that had the striker attempted to swing, physical contact or interference would have occurred.

·       When the interference is minor – a touch or brush of the racquet but not sufficient to prevent the stroke -- or has the potential to be minor, then consideration of the opponent’s clearing effort is crucial. In other words if the opponent was making no effort to clear then even minor interference may justify a ‘stroke’, whereas if the opponent is making every effort to clear and only minor interference occurs then the call should be ‘let’.

We all know that players commonly play around all sorts of interference; both interference to view and interference to access. Interference to the swing, although certain to cause an unintended return, has to be expected and a balance has to be struck before penalizing all swing interferences in order to make the game playable. The rules allow for this fair outcome of a ‘let’ when the swing is affected with a minor contact or the anticipation of minor contact.

Of course, if the striker refrains from swinging due to Reasonable Fear Of Injury (RFOI) and the referee agrees that there was RFOI, then a ‘let’ is allowed. There does not need to be the potential for any actual contact for RFOI to exist – only that there was an obvious and justifiable concern about injury with an opponent in close proximity.

However referees should be on the lookout for players who refrain from swinging in the hopes of being awarded strokes by lenient referees, even though it is clear that the opponent has cleared sufficiently. In this situation the proper call must always be ‘No Let’.

 

Swing Interference Graphical Representation:


Prevent Swing Area STROKE

Minor Interference Area YES LET

No Interference But RFOI YES LET

No Interference NO LET

 

 

G7.   INTERFERENCE WITH THE STRIKER’S SWING AND REASONABLE FEAR OF HITTING THE OPPONENT

 

Rule 12.2.3 allows the striker “freedom to hit the ball with a reasonable swing”. If the striker stops play because of the opponent not granting this freedom and appeals, the Referee shall consider following options: 

  1. If the opponent is too close and has prevented the striker’s reasonable swing and is hit or would have been hit with the racket, the Referee shall award a stroke to the striker
  1. If the striker 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 G6. The amount of contact must be sufficient to affect the Player’s swing, but insufficient to prevent it.
  1. If the striker stops play for fear of hitting the opponent and the opponent, though close to, does not prevent the striker’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.
  1. If the striker 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 striker has judged the opponent’s position incorrectly.