Two great sports events took place on 14/07/2019, where the Doctrine of Notice was the only legal principle which was used to trump the Idea of Fairness.
Let me deal with the more gentlemanly game of Tennis before I deal with Cricket. Roger did not lose his serve and concede a serve of his opponent Djokovic consecutively, which is a sure recipe for losing a set, in gentleman’s tennis. This principle of the advantage of a server should be broken for anyone to claim a set. This was modified and only in the fifth set in the Grand slam events, that this principle was made applicable. Therefore, in the first, second, third and fourth sets upon each player getting six games, tie breaker is set in motion, by which a diluted principle of having to break at least one serve was instituted instead of having to break two points of the server to win a game, and the first person to reach 7 points with a difference of 2 points is awarded the set.
Roger lost in two tie break sets but had comprehensively won the other two sets, thereby taking the finalists to the last set.
The new rules modified the old rule of awarding the set to a person who took six games or above only if it was with a difference of two games. To truncate the match, the rule was amended to the extent that if both the players were to reach 12 each, then it revived the old tiebreak mechanism of awarding the set to the player reaching 7 points with a difference of two points.
This is not fair and revolts against my sense of fairness. The safeguard in this principle is that, if one were to be a Roscoe Tanner type of server, he should not have the advantage of winning a tournament merely because he wouldn’t drop a set. He has to have the skill to break the other person’s serve to win each set. Okay, as the equipments and skills and endurance improved the matches became epics and had to be curtailed. Therefore, if in the first four sets if the players were 6 each tie break was instituted, which I think is ‘fair’.
But when some player has the strength of serve and had already taken two sets, and is equal in four sets, to allow the match to be won and lost in the fifth set by a margin of two, would be fair. It would be a rarest of rare occasion. We are not going to see this happen in another Wimbledon finals in which a loser took 36 games and still lost. Worse still is that the winner Novak Djokovic took only 32 games‼️
Just because it was notified even before – that in the fifth set, once both players reach 12 games each tiebreaker would kick in – the rule may not be fair, as the objective of Tennis as a game has not been to choose a winner with not only a strong serve but also an additional ability of having the skill to break the opponent’s serve. That guiding principle, has been buried deep without a trace in Wimbledon 2019. No doubt, sports should entertain also, but allowing the fundamentals of the game to be buried without a trace merely because the same rule applied to both the players and had been notified prior to the start of the tournament, it would not and I assert that it is not a fair principle. Extreme examples at the time of formulation of such rules would have been laughed at, but now, the winner of Wimbledon is one who never broke and held his own serve consecutively in the final set; the winner won the tournament only with three tiebreakers though the match went to five sets. All these facts would have sounded stranger than fiction if one had raised it at the time of formulating and accepting those rules, but now we have a Wimbledon winner who looks ludicrous.
World Cup- 2019 Cricket:
In the next issue of the World Cup at the Lord’s, strange facts happened which again showed the principles adopted in poor light.
Who made the decision and on what grounds that a winner is to be chosen based on the number of boundaries scored, if the scores were even at the end of the Super Over?
If a boundary included a six as well as a four, would they be equated?
If a team scored two sixes and the other team scored three boundaries what principle could be applied?
Now that technologically our facts have improved through our review mechanism, our sense of ‘fairness’ and ‘logic’ seem to have deteriorated. Is it because we cannot have JOINT WINNERS? Is it like not being able to keep two swords in one scabbard?
Time to move on – when countries have CO-CHAIRS in UN meetings, is it not a food idea to have two on the top. Why not Dvaidha?
Two great sports events took place on 14/07/2019, where the Doctrine of Notice was the only legal principle which was used to trump the Idea of Fairness.
Let me deal with the more gentlemanly game of Tennis before I deal with Cricket. Roger did not lose his serve and concede a serve of his opponent Djokovic consecutively, which is a sure recipe for losing a set, in gentleman’s tennis. This principle of the advantage of a server should be broken for anyone to claim a set. This was modified and only in the fifth set in the Grand slam events, that this principle was made applicable. Therefore, in the first, second, third and fourth sets upon each player getting six games, tie breaker is set in motion, by which a diluted principle of having to break at least one serve was instituted instead of having to break two points of the server to win a game, and the first person to reach 7 points with a difference of 2 points is awarded the set.
Roger lost in two tie break sets but had comprehensively won the other two sets, thereby taking the finalists to the last set.
The new rules modified the old rule of awarding the set to a person who took six games or above only if it was with a difference of two games. To truncate the match, the rule was amended to the extent that if both the players were to reach 12 each, then it revived the old tiebreak mechanism of awarding the set to the player reaching 7 points with a difference of two points.
This is not fair and revolts against my sense of fairness. The safeguard in this principle is that, if one were to be a Roscoe Tanner type of server, he should not have the advantage of winning a tournament merely because he wouldn’t drop a set. He has to have the skill to break the other person’s serve to win each set. Okay, as the equipments and skills and endurance improved the matches became epics and had to be curtailed. Therefore, if in the first four sets if the players were 6 each tie break was instituted, which I think is ‘fair’.
But when some player has the strength of serve and had already taken two sets, and is equal in four sets, to allow the match to be won and lost in the fifth set by a margin of two, would be fair. It would be a rarest of rare occasion. We are not going to see this happen in another Wimbledon finals in which a loser took 36 games and still lost. Worse still is that the winner Novak Djokovic took only 32 games‼️
Just because it was notified even before – that in the fifth set, once both players reach 12 games each tiebreaker would kick in – the rule may not be fair, as the objective of Tennis as a game has not been to choose a winner with not only a strong serve but also an additional ability of having the skill to break the opponent’s serve. That guiding principle, has been buried deep without a trace in Wimbledon 2019. No doubt, sports should entertain also, but allowing the fundamentals of the game to be buried without a trace merely because the same rule applied to both the players and had been notified prior to the start of the tournament, it would not and I assert that it is not a fair principle. Extreme examples at the time of formulation of such rules would have been laughed at, but now, the winner of Wimbledon is one who never broke and held his own serve consecutively in the final set; the winner won the tournament only with three tiebreakers though the match went to five sets. All these facts would have sounded stranger than fiction if one had raised it at the time of formulating and accepting those rules, but now we have a Wimbledon winner who looks ludicrous.
World Cup- 2019 Cricket:
In the next issue of the World Cup at the Lord’s, strange facts happened which again showed the principles adopted in poor light.
Who made the decision and on what grounds that a winner is to be chosen based on the number of boundaries scored, if the scores were even at the end of the Super Over?
If a boundary included a six as well as a four, would they be equated?
If a team scored two sixes and the other team scored three boundaries what principle could be applied?
Now that technologically our facts have improved through our review mechanism, our sense of ‘fairness’ and ‘logic’ seem to have deteriorated. Is it because we cannot have JOINT WINNERS? Is it like not being able to keep two swords in one scabbard?
Time to move on – when countries have CO-CHAIRS in UN meetings, is it not a food idea to have two on the top. Why not Dvaidha?
Movid's Weblog 