<p>Soon after Novak Djokovic was sensationally ejected from the US Open for unsportsmanlike behaviour, forcing the World No 1 to forfeit his fourth-round match, thousands of miles away in Australia, a certain Nick Kyrgios had a field day on social media. Coming from someone who has been penalised almost as often as he has won titles, his sanctimonious rants appeared a bit rich, but they did raise an important point. Only half in jest, the temperamental Australian ran a twitter poll asking for how many years he would have been banned had he committed the same offence as Djokovic. The options -- five years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years.</p>.<p>The point Kyrgios is trying to drive home shouldn’t be lost in the dramatics of his tweets, especially with people questioning if the Serbian’s disqualification was in the “spirit of the game.” That’s the fundamental problem with vague concepts like the spirit of the game. While we want the law to be implemented in “letter” when it comes to the Kyrgioses of the world, we expect officials to look at the spirit before punishing players like Djokovic. This is the kind of perception, right or wrong, that led Serena Williams to question the alleged “double standards” applied to top male players and others on the tour while handing out penalties after she had been docked a point during her US Open final loss to Naomi Osaka in 2018. The veteran American had called the chair umpire a “liar” and a “thief”.</p>.<p>The idea of the spirit of the game isn’t just restricted to tennis. For decades, cricket has grappled with the issue of the clash between the law and the spirit of cricket. From bodyline to underarm bowling to Mankading. In the first two instances, the protagonists weren’t penalised by match officials because their actions, however dangerous or devious, were within the rules of the game as they existed then. To prevent a recurrence, though, both bodyline and underarm bowling have been outlawed.</p>.<p>Mankading or MCC Law No 41.16, which deals with running out a batsman/batswoman who is backing up too far, though, has been held legitimate after several debates over the matter. In fact, the law has been strengthened in favour of the bowler and puts the onus completely on the non-striker for the consequences.</p>.<p>Yet, as in the case of Djokovic, bowlers like R Ashwin or Murali Kartik, who follow the letter of the law to prevent a batsman from taking undue advantage by leaving the ground early, are painted as villains. Just over three weeks ago, Delhi Capitals coach Ricky Ponting held a strong view against bowlers running out an erring non-striker as it apparently went against the spirit of cricket, and promised to talk to Ashwin, who is with the Capitals now, out of it. Following a discussion between the two, it appears as if the Australian great has changed his view.</p>.<p>Just like the Law on “Mankading”, the Grand Slam rule book’s definitions of “ball abuse” and “unsportsmanlike conduct” left officials with two options they could cite to penalise and oust Djokovic from the tournament. Technically speaking, Djokovic defaulted from the match.</p>.<p>In a statement, the United States<br />Tennis Association said: “In accordance with the Grand Slam rule book, following his actions of intentionally hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences, the US Open tournament referee defaulted Novak Djokovic from the 2020 US Open.”</p>.<p>It’s as simple as driving negligently or recklessly. The driver’s intentions may not be to hurt anyone on the road, but he/she knows the potential consequences of such driving and will have to be punished accordingly.</p>.<p>Despite the rule, as in the case of the MCC Law, putting the onus on the person who is taking undue risk, it’s remarkable to see a sizable chunk of the burden being placed on those who follow the rule book, as the ‘spirit’ is invoked. If it’s the bowlers in cricket, it’s the officials in tennis and someone else in some other sport.</p>.<p>German tennis great and former Djokovic coach Boris Becker agreed with the official’s decision to send Djokovic packing.</p>.<p>“I’m as shocked as anybody. Novak and I go way back. We call each other family,” Becker said. “This is probably the most difficult moment in his entire professional life. He did break the rule, the decision is correct.</p>.<p>“The ball was hit in the lineswoman’s throat, she fell backwards and she was looking for air. This wasn’t the intention, he didn’t want to hit the line judge, but he did hit the ball and those are the rules. Tough one.”</p>.<p>It’s one thing to sympathise with a fallen but a bungling hero, but quite another to blame those who have been entrusted with the task of enforcing those rules. Maybe it wouldn’t have caused such heartburn if it were to be a Kyrgios or a Shapovalov. But punishing a player who may finish his career with the most Grand Slam singles titles did cause a flutter or two. While that’s understandable, one must laud the courage and conviction of the tournament supervisor to stick to the letter of the law.</p>
<p>Soon after Novak Djokovic was sensationally ejected from the US Open for unsportsmanlike behaviour, forcing the World No 1 to forfeit his fourth-round match, thousands of miles away in Australia, a certain Nick Kyrgios had a field day on social media. Coming from someone who has been penalised almost as often as he has won titles, his sanctimonious rants appeared a bit rich, but they did raise an important point. Only half in jest, the temperamental Australian ran a twitter poll asking for how many years he would have been banned had he committed the same offence as Djokovic. The options -- five years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years.</p>.<p>The point Kyrgios is trying to drive home shouldn’t be lost in the dramatics of his tweets, especially with people questioning if the Serbian’s disqualification was in the “spirit of the game.” That’s the fundamental problem with vague concepts like the spirit of the game. While we want the law to be implemented in “letter” when it comes to the Kyrgioses of the world, we expect officials to look at the spirit before punishing players like Djokovic. This is the kind of perception, right or wrong, that led Serena Williams to question the alleged “double standards” applied to top male players and others on the tour while handing out penalties after she had been docked a point during her US Open final loss to Naomi Osaka in 2018. The veteran American had called the chair umpire a “liar” and a “thief”.</p>.<p>The idea of the spirit of the game isn’t just restricted to tennis. For decades, cricket has grappled with the issue of the clash between the law and the spirit of cricket. From bodyline to underarm bowling to Mankading. In the first two instances, the protagonists weren’t penalised by match officials because their actions, however dangerous or devious, were within the rules of the game as they existed then. To prevent a recurrence, though, both bodyline and underarm bowling have been outlawed.</p>.<p>Mankading or MCC Law No 41.16, which deals with running out a batsman/batswoman who is backing up too far, though, has been held legitimate after several debates over the matter. In fact, the law has been strengthened in favour of the bowler and puts the onus completely on the non-striker for the consequences.</p>.<p>Yet, as in the case of Djokovic, bowlers like R Ashwin or Murali Kartik, who follow the letter of the law to prevent a batsman from taking undue advantage by leaving the ground early, are painted as villains. Just over three weeks ago, Delhi Capitals coach Ricky Ponting held a strong view against bowlers running out an erring non-striker as it apparently went against the spirit of cricket, and promised to talk to Ashwin, who is with the Capitals now, out of it. Following a discussion between the two, it appears as if the Australian great has changed his view.</p>.<p>Just like the Law on “Mankading”, the Grand Slam rule book’s definitions of “ball abuse” and “unsportsmanlike conduct” left officials with two options they could cite to penalise and oust Djokovic from the tournament. Technically speaking, Djokovic defaulted from the match.</p>.<p>In a statement, the United States<br />Tennis Association said: “In accordance with the Grand Slam rule book, following his actions of intentionally hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences, the US Open tournament referee defaulted Novak Djokovic from the 2020 US Open.”</p>.<p>It’s as simple as driving negligently or recklessly. The driver’s intentions may not be to hurt anyone on the road, but he/she knows the potential consequences of such driving and will have to be punished accordingly.</p>.<p>Despite the rule, as in the case of the MCC Law, putting the onus on the person who is taking undue risk, it’s remarkable to see a sizable chunk of the burden being placed on those who follow the rule book, as the ‘spirit’ is invoked. If it’s the bowlers in cricket, it’s the officials in tennis and someone else in some other sport.</p>.<p>German tennis great and former Djokovic coach Boris Becker agreed with the official’s decision to send Djokovic packing.</p>.<p>“I’m as shocked as anybody. Novak and I go way back. We call each other family,” Becker said. “This is probably the most difficult moment in his entire professional life. He did break the rule, the decision is correct.</p>.<p>“The ball was hit in the lineswoman’s throat, she fell backwards and she was looking for air. This wasn’t the intention, he didn’t want to hit the line judge, but he did hit the ball and those are the rules. Tough one.”</p>.<p>It’s one thing to sympathise with a fallen but a bungling hero, but quite another to blame those who have been entrusted with the task of enforcing those rules. Maybe it wouldn’t have caused such heartburn if it were to be a Kyrgios or a Shapovalov. But punishing a player who may finish his career with the most Grand Slam singles titles did cause a flutter or two. While that’s understandable, one must laud the courage and conviction of the tournament supervisor to stick to the letter of the law.</p>
