Let, stroke or no let
The squash interference decision, taken clause by clause
Every interference decision in squash answers two questions in order. Could the striker have made a good return? And was the opponent making every effort to avoid the interference? If the striker could not have made a good return, it is no let. If they could have, and the opponent was trying to clear, it is a let. If they could have, and the opponent was not trying, it is a stroke to the striker. And if the striker would have made a winning return, it is a stroke regardless of how hard the opponent tried.
The interference decision in four lines
- No good return possible → no let (WSF 8.6.2).
- Good return possible, opponent making every effort → let (8.6.6).
- Good return possible, opponent not making every effort → stroke to the striker (8.6.5).
- Winning return prevented → stroke to the striker, however hard the opponent tried (8.6.7).
- Minimal interference, or play continued past it → no let (8.6.4, 8.6.3).
What a striker is entitled to — the four things
Interference is not a feeling. It is defined by what the opponent owes the striker, and Rule 8.1 lists exactly four things. After completing a reasonable follow-through, a player must make every effort to clear, so that when the ball rebounds from the front wall the opponent has:
| Clause | Entitlement |
|---|---|
| 8.1.1 | a fair view of the ball |
| 8.1.2 | access to the ball |
| 8.1.3 | the space for a reasonable swing at the ball |
| 8.1.4 | the freedom to strike the ball to any part of the front wall |
And then the definition: interference occurs when the player does not provide the opponent making every effort to play the ball with all of these requirements.
Two things follow that decide most arguments before they start. First, the striker also has a duty — the entitlement only applies to a striker who is themselves making every effort to play the ball. Second, denying any one of the four is interference; the opponent does not get to argue that they left three of them intact.
Who may ask, and when it is too late
8.2: a striker who believes that interference has occurred may stop and request a let, preferably by saying "Let, please." The request must be made without undue delay, and the rule notes three things worth knowing:
- The referee must be satisfied that the player is actually requesting a let, not just complaining.
- A request for a let includes a request for a stroke. You do not ask for a stroke; you ask for a let and the referee decides which it is.
- Normally only the striker may ask. The exception: if the non-striker requests a let for lack of access before the ball has reached the front wall, that request may be considered, even though they are not yet the striker.
8.4 lets the referee allow a let or award a stroke without any request, stopping play if necessary, and the rule singles out safety as the reason to do so. A referee who sees a swing about to catch someone in the face does not wait to be asked.
And the clause that catches players who try to have it both ways — 8.5: if the striker strikes the ball and the opponent then requests a let, but the ball goes down or out, the opponent wins the rally. You cannot play the shot, watch it fail, and then ask for a let.
Free live scoreboard.
Score and clock on the big screen, controlled from your phone.
Rule 8.6 — the seven general provisions, in a table
These apply to all forms of interference. Read them as a decision tree taken in order.
| Clause | Situation | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| 8.6.1 | No interference and no reasonable fear of injury | No let |
| 8.6.2 | Interference, but the striker could not have made a good return | No let |
| 8.6.3 | The striker continued play beyond the interference, then asked | No let |
| 8.6.4 | Interference that did not prevent the striker seeing and getting to the ball — minimal interference | No let |
| 8.6.5 | The striker could have made a good return, and the opponent was not making every effort to avoid the interference | Stroke to the striker |
| 8.6.6 | Interference the opponent was making every effort to avoid, and the striker could have made a good return | Let |
| 8.6.7 | Interference, and the striker would have made a winning return | Stroke to the striker |
Four of the seven are no let. That proportion is not an accident: the rule is written to keep the ball in play, and a referee whose let rate is high is usually rewarding players who stop rather than play.
The two questions that produce every answer in this table are could the striker have made a good return and was the opponent making every effort. Ask them in that order. The first is about the striker and disposes of 8.6.2 immediately; the second is about the opponent and separates a let from a stroke.
8.6.7 is the one that overrides everything else. A winning return prevented is a stroke even if the opponent did everything right, because the striker has lost a certain point through no fault of their own.
The three specific situations
On top of 8.6, the rule adds provisions for each of the entitlements.
Fair view (8.7). Fair view means enough time to view the ball and prepare to strike it as it returns from the front wall. If the striker requests a let for lack of fair view, the provisions of 8.6 apply unchanged. There is no special rule here — it is the general tree.
Access (8.8). Three additions, and they mostly cut against the striker:
| Clause | Situation | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| 8.8.1 | Interference, but the striker did not make every effort to play the ball | No let |
| 8.8.2 | The striker had access but took a path that caused the interference | No let (unless 8.8.3) |
| 8.8.3 | The striker was wrong-footed but could recover to make a good return, then met interference | Let, or stroke if the return would have been winning |
The note under 8.8.1 matters as much as the clause: every effort to play the ball should not include contact with the opponent. If avoidable contact occurs, the referee must apply Rule 14 (Conduct). Barging through is not effort; it is a conduct offence.
Racket swing (8.9). A reasonable swing is a reasonable backswing, a strike at the ball and a reasonable follow-through, and backswing and follow-through are reasonable as long as they do not extend more than is necessary. If the swing was or could have been affected by an opponent who was making every effort to avoid it, that is a let — unless the striker would have made a winning return, in which case it is a stroke.
When the ball hits a player (Rule 9)
This is a separate rule and it is the one most club players get wrong, because the answer depends on where the ball was going and whether the striker had turned.
On the way to the front wall (9.1), the ball hits the non-striker:
| Clause | Situation | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| 9.1.1 | The return would not have been good | Non-striker wins the rally |
| 9.1.2 | Going directly to the front wall, striker on a first attempt, had not turned | Stroke to the striker |
| 9.1.3 | Would have hit another wall first, striker had not turned | Let, or stroke if it would have been a winning return |
| 9.1.4 | Striker had not turned but was on a further attempt | Let |
| 9.1.5 | Striker had turned | Stroke to the non-striker, unless the non-striker deliberately moved to intercept, in which case stroke to the striker |
On the return from the front wall (9.2), before the ball has bounced twice:
| Clause | Situation | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| 9.2.1 | Hits the non-striker before the striker attempted the ball, no interference | Striker wins the rally — unless the striker's position caused it, then let |
| 9.2.2 | Hits the non-striker after the striker made an attempt | Let if the striker could have made a good return, otherwise non-striker wins |
| 9.2.3 | Hits the striker with no interference | Non-striker wins the rally |
And the safety backstop, 9.3: if the striker hits the non-striker with the ball, the referee must consider whether the action was deliberate or dangerous and rule accordingly. That is a conduct question, not an interference question.
The conduct ladder, and where a conduct stroke lands
Interference decisions and conduct penalties look similar on the scoreboard and are completely different in the rules. 14.7: a player guilty of an offence may be given a Conduct Warning or penalised with a Conduct Stroke, a Conduct Game, or a Conduct Match, depending on the severity of the offence.
| Penalty | Effect |
|---|---|
| Conduct Warning | Recorded, no score change. If play was stopped to issue it, a let is allowed (14.10.1) |
| Conduct Stroke | One point to the opponent |
| Conduct Game | The game in progress, or the next one if none is in progress (14.10.4) |
| Conduct Match | The match |
Two details decide how the point is applied. 14.10.2: if the referee stops play to award a Conduct Stroke, that Conduct Stroke becomes the result of the rally. 14.10.3: if the Conduct Stroke is awarded after a rally has finished, the result of the rally stands and the Conduct Stroke is added to the score with no change of service box. The service box not changing is the part club referees miss.
14.8 governs repeats: the referee may impose more than one warning, stroke or game for a subsequent similar offence, and no penalty may be less severe than the previous penalty for the same offence. The ladder only goes up.
And 14.10.5: a player awarded a Conduct Game or Conduct Match against them keeps all points and games already won. The penalty takes the game, not the scoreline.
What counts as unacceptable is listed in 14.6 and includes the ones that come up at club level: dissent, abuse of equipment or court, deliberate distraction, delaying play, unfair warm-up, and unnecessary physical contact including pushing off the opponent.
Five decisions from one match, each traced to its clause
1. The striker stops in the back corner and asks. The opponent is standing in front of the ball, still recovering from their own shot and moving out of the way. The striker was in position and would have made a good return.
Opponent making every effort, good return available → let (8.6.6).
2. Same corner, but the opponent has stopped moving. They played their drop, watched it, and stood still on the T. The striker was in position.
Good return available, opponent not making every effort → stroke to the striker (8.6.5).
3. The striker is stranded at the back, three metres from a perfect drop, and asks for a let because the opponent is near the ball. They were never going to reach it.
Could not have made a good return → no let (8.6.2).
4. The striker has an open front court, the opponent is behind them and slightly in the way of the backswing, and the striker had a clear winner into the nick. The opponent was doing everything they could to clear.
Winning return prevented → stroke to the striker (8.6.7), and the opponent's effort does not change it.
5. The striker plays the shot, it comes off the frame and goes down, and then they ask for a let because they were crowded.
Struck the ball, then asked, and the ball went down → the opponent wins the rally (8.5).
Every one of those took two questions: could they have made a good return, and was the opponent trying. Once a referee asks them in that order, the calls stop being a matter of opinion.
Free live scoreboard — control it from your phone.
Show the score and clock on the big screen. Control it from your phone and share the link with fans. No sign-up, no install.
Frequently asked questions about lets and strokes in squash
Primary Sources
- World Squash Rules of Singles Squash 2025 V1.2 (effective 1 September 2025) — World Squash Federation
- Rules of Squash — World Squash — World Squash Federation
Related Guides
Ready to run your event?
Create a free event and let the scoring take care of itself.