What is the difference between a let and a stroke in squash?
B · Beginner · Lets and strokes · 5 of 5A let replays the rally. A stroke gives the rally to the player who was obstructed. No let means the request is refused and the rally is lost. The referee asks three things: was there interference, could the striker have made a good return, and was the opponent making every effort to get out of the way?
How it works
- No interference: "no let is allowed", unless there was a reasonable fear of injury.
- Could not have reached it: interference, but the striker would not have made a good return: no let.
- Played on: the striker continued beyond the interference and then asked: no let.
- Minimal: the interference did not stop the striker seeing and getting to the ball: no let.
- Yes, let: real interference that the opponent was making every effort to avoid, and the striker would have made a good return.
- Stroke, for no effort: the striker would have made a good return and the opponent "was not making every effort to avoid the interference".
- Stroke, for a winner: there was interference and the striker "would have made a winning return".
- Own path: a striker who had access but took a path that caused the interference gets no let.
- Wrong-footed: a striker sent the wrong way who recovers and then meets interference gets a let, or a stroke if the return would have been a winner.
- Asked, then the shot fails: if the striker hits and the opponent then asks for a let, but the ball goes down or out, the opponent wins the rally.
- The marker repeats it: the marker repeats the referee's decision and calls the score.
The glossary has the let, the stroke, the no let entry, the yes let entry, interference and the winner.
Tricky cases
A player asks for a let on a ball that was dying in the front corner, far out of reach. What is the decision?
No let. There was interference but the striker would not have been able to make a good return.
There was slight contact but the striker could still see and reach the ball. Decision?
No let. That is minimal interference.
The opponent moved as fast as they could but was still in the way of an easy winner. Let or stroke?
Stroke. Where the striker would have made a winning return, a stroke is awarded even though the opponent tried to clear.
A player feels a bump, hits the ball anyway into the tin and then asks for a let. Decision?
No let. The striker continued play beyond the interference.
Why the rule exists
Three outcomes let the decision match the fault. Replaying the rally is fair when two players got in each other's way honestly. Awarding it is the remedy when one of them did not try to move, or cost the other a certain point. Refusing the request stops players from asking for lets on balls they could never have reached.
Where it differs
| Where | What changes | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Opponent tried to clear | Let | WSF Rule 8.6.6 |
| Opponent did not try | Stroke | WSF Rule 8.6.5 |
| A winning return was stopped | Stroke | WSF Rule 8.6.7 |
| Minimal or no interference, or no possible return | No let | WSF Rule 8.6.1 to 8.6.4 |
| With video review | A player may ask for a review of the decision | WSF Appendix 3, 3.1.1 |
From the rule book
World Squash Federation, Rules of Singles Squash (version 1.2.2, effective 1 September 2025), Rules 8.5, 8.6 and 8.8, and Appendix 1. Checked 14 October 2026. Official document: World Squash Singles Rules 2025 (PDF).