Requested let not heard by referee email

An incident at a recent tournament (Evergreen Championships Open Mixed semi) is related to the concept of Scenario 6: When continueation of ball flight applies.  The rule of thumb or guideline is that the moment a let is requested, the rally ends.  What happens after the request does not matter.  There are exceptions, as discussed in the continuation of the ball flight article.

The teams were Jenna Dhanani (RW) and Kiyan Dhanani vs Cathy Covernton (LW) and Jeff Smithson.

Cathy played the ball, which was down.  The referee awarded to point accordingly.  Jeff appealed because he had requested a let, which the referee did not hear.

The referee accepted Jeff’s appeal but then had to judge the merit of the requested let.

KD’s crosscourt was high-paced.  Cathy’s reflex response was down.

KD’s cross-court was high-paced.

Probably as a reflex, CC played the ball.  It may be that she had no choice to avoid being hit by the ball.

Cathy’s ball was down.

Point to KD and JD.  But JS appealed saying he requested a let.

There are many if’s and but’s to this scenario.

If Jeff’s request was after CC played the ball, the down ball would stand.  Point to KD and JD.

JD was interfering with vision and access to ball.

The timing of the let must be considered along with what CC could and would have done had she heard the let.

A requested let does not influence the flight of the ball.

A let may influence a player's movement.  A referee may judge if a requested let unduly influenced their play.

Looking at the first diagram, KD’s cross-court shot is not altered regardless of a let being requested.

However, Cathy’s action and movement could be influenced by a requested let.  It seemed that Cathy was unaware of Jeff’s request.

The rules are very clear that requested lets must be properly timed and audible.   Squash venues do not have ideal accoustics.  Referees may take that into consideration.