Carlos Bernardes and Nadal

stormholloway said:
In or out is absolutely the point (at least the one I was trying to make). Someone called him a "freaking diva". He was still wronged by the linesmen. It's hardly diva-esque to simply want justice. No, he shouldn't have been granted the challenge, but it should have been called out by one of the people PAID to call the lines, including the chair.

Calling him a diva in this instance is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

I do think it is a tad bit Divaish as he was directly responsible for his little outburst. He took too long to challenge. Instead of raising his arm to challenge he ran over to try and continue the point finally raising his arm just as Berdych's ball was about to land in the court. The "Diva" comment is also probably due in part to the last outburst Nadal had over a challenge, ironically with Bernardes also.

I agree that the ball should have been called out because it was out, but for Nadal to try and coverup a mistake with a challenge just doesn't sit well with me.
 
Bartelby said:
The challenge system doesn't work with a ball in play.

Its too hard for a player to call his own line and get quick acknowledgement in real time.

You only get three challenges so what's the problem with challenging at the end of the point?
Click to expand...

You're not suppose to get the acknowledgment. If you believe the call to be wrong, you challenge. If you don't want to chance it, you keep on playing. Had Nadal of challenged right after he returned the ball or as soon as it hit he would have won the point.
 
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
I do think it is a tad bit Divaish as he was directly responsible for his little outburst. He took too long to challenge. Instead of raising his arm to challenge he ran over to try and continue the point finally raising his arm just as Berdych's ball was about to land in the court. The "Diva" comment is also probably due in part to the last outburst Nadal had over a challenge, ironically with Bernardes also.

I agree that the ball should have been called out because it was out, but for Nadal to try and coverup a mistake with a challenge just doesn't sit well with me.
Click to expand...

Here..........same characters, different venue....


www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJgYfTmzuYw
 
Atherton2003 said:
The real issue is why can't the linespeople make the correct call in the first place? That ball had to be at least a foot out, and yet it wasn't called. What are these linespeople sleeping? At that stage in the match, a grand slam match as well....and these linespeople made too many bad calls. That is not acceptable. Perhaps they need a rule that if a linesperson misses 3-4 calls per game, they can't call another match for a certain amount of time. That was the worst calls in a match I've ever seen. It's one thing to lose a set or match on the player's own accord, but not because of bad calls by umpires and linespeople.
Click to expand...

I think one of the reasons linespeople make bad calls is that they are often afraid to correct themselves or to make a call that is perceived to be too late. They are expected to be highly focused at all times and make the call instantly. But it's not that easy. After a close ball, you need time to replay it in your mind and see it again. This is not really allowed of linespeople.

In the case of players, expecting such an instant reaction is even more unreasonable because the player is watching the ball with a mind to hit it in the best possible way -- not in order to determine if it touched the line or not. This difference in purpose is crucial. So it's perfectly normal that players need even more time to process where the ball landed after they hit it. The time it takes for the ball to reach the opponent's court once they've hit it can be very short, and it is normal that sometimes they don't fully realize it was out before it lands on the other side. If you think of the challenge system as having the purpose of getting things right, it should not be a great deal to require a player to challenge only before the ball gets back to him, rather than being required to challenge the moment they've hit it. If he is wrong, he still loses the point, and loses one challenge. And if he is right, well then he had in fact won the point legitimately already in any case, and the challenge only set this rather important fact right. It's hard to see how the slight lateness of the challenge cancels the much more important fact that the ball had been out and he had therefore already won the point.
 
Yes, but my point is how can you expect the player to call the lines when he's playing when the linemen can't. He stopped, went to either challenge or looked plaintively and then played on. His first instinct was correct and the linesman and the umpire were wrong, so this shouldn't happen.



Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
You're not suppose to get the acknowledgment. If you believe the call to be wrong, you challenge. If you don't want to chance it, you keep on playing. Had Nadal of challenged right after he returned the ball or as soon as it hit he would have won the point.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Yes, but my point is how can you expect the player to call the lines when he's playing when the linemen can't. He stopped, went to either challenge or looked plaintively and then played on. His first instinct was correct and the linesman and the umpire were wrong, so this shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

I don't expect them to call the lines, but as the person above you said it's not easy calling lines. No this isn't an excuse for what happened in the match. The call should be right every time, but things happen.

If he thought his first instinct was correct he should have challenged. That is what the challenge system is there for, to correct human error. As I have said before, you have to either challenge or keep on playing. Not only did Rafa keep on playing, but he tried to make it to the ball and only when he realized he couldn't did he try to challenge. He would have been best off saying challenge as soon as he hit the ball. If he does that it could be possible the late call would come in and then he wouldn't of had to use a challenge. If they are there to correct errors, why not use them? Can't complain about errors if you don't use the tools at your disposal to correct them.
 
Last edited:
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
You're not suppose to get the acknowledgment. If you believe the call to be wrong, you challenge. If you don't want to chance it, you keep on playing. Had Nadal of challenged right after he returned the ball or as soon as it hit he would have won the point.
Click to expand...

He was confused as to whether the ball had been called out. Thing is, a player shouldn't have to make that decision in the middle of a point. That's the linespeople and the umpire's job...

It would be a good idea to allow for the challenge to be made after the point there.

In any case, I thought the problem was Rafa moved towards the next ball, not that he took too long.
 
Bartelby said:
The challenge system doesn't work with a ball in play.

Its too hard for a player to call his own line and get quick acknowledgement in real time.

You only get three challenges so what's the problem with challenging at the end of the point?
Click to expand...

The only problem I can think of is that it's unfair to the opponent. A player shouldn't have to keep playing just because his opponent is waiting to see if he loses the point before challenges some line call that took place 10 shots ago. That's wasted energy. Where do you draw the line? A player can then challenge the second shot of a 40 stroke rally?
 
Crisstti said:
He was confused as to whether the ball had been called out. Thing is, a player shouldn't have to make that decision in the middle of a point. That's the linespeople and the umpire's job...

It would be a good idea to allow for the challenge to be made after the point there.

In any case, I thought the problem was Rafa moved towards the next ball, not that he took too long.
Click to expand...

You can't allow the challenge to occur after the point is over. You'll get too many players challenging a ball at the beginning a 20+ shot rally just to slow down the tempo. Not to mention the boxes will be giving even more help to their player. Each stroke needs to be treated as a play and you should have to challenge before the next play.

Yes it is the lines people and the umpire's job to get the call correct. They should get every play correct, but they are human and they don't. Complaints about those errors are what brought Hawk Eye to the ATP and that is exactly what it is there for. It is a tool to correct miscalls/no calls. If you don't like the call and you feel it was incorrect then you should challenge.

Tennis survived with no Hawk Eye for many years and it could survive without it. I think it should stay in place with the current rules.
 
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
You can't allow the challenge to occur after the point is over. You'll get too many players challenging a ball at the beginning a 20+ shot rally just to slow down the tempo. Not to mention the boxes will be giving even more help to their player. Each stroke needs to be treated as a play and you should have to challenge before the next play.

Yes it is the lines people and the umpire's job to get the call correct. They should get every play correct, but they are human and they don't. Complaints about those errors are what brought Hawk Eye to the ATP and that is exactly what it is there for. It is a tool to correct miscalls/no calls. If you don't like the call and you feel it was incorrect then you should challenge.

Tennis survived with no Hawk Eye for many years and it could survive without it. I think it should stay in place with the current rules.
Click to expand...


I have a sneaking suspicion you would not be looking at this situation the same way if it were Fed who got jobbed out a set due to a sh*tty linecall he was not allowed to challenge. Especially since Berdych was allowed to challenge in a very similar situation later on the match.
 
Clarky21 said:
I have a sneaking suspicion you would not be looking at this situation the same way if it were Fed who got jobbed out a set due to a sh*tty linecall he was not allowed to challenge. Especially since Berdych was allowed to challenge in a very similar situation later on the match.
Click to expand...

If you look back you will see that I don't condone Bernardes allowing Berdych to challenge later in the match. You shouldn't be able to challenge whether the ball your opponent hit was in or out if yours is just about to land out. That isn't what a challenge is for and Bernardes shouldn't have allowed it. I don't feel that players should have a huge amount of time to challenge. You will also see my problem that Nadal tried to continue the play and finally threw up his arm to challenge just as Berdych's ball was about to hit the court.

If Federer didn't challenge immediately and continued to stare at the spot the ball landed and wanted to challenge I would tell him "tough $h*t." I don't care who it is. This is about rules not the players.
 
JustBob said:
Berdych hits a ball that appears to be long.

Rafa hits ball back.

No out call from line judge.

Rafa kindda stops playing but doesn't challenge. Instead, Rafa goes into a series if internal monologues:

Looks at the line: "You not feel yellow ball hitting you no?"

Looks at the line judge: "You saw ball is out, why no call?"

Meanwhile Berdych hits the ball back for a winner.

Rafa moves in the direction of the ball, can't get to it. Then Rafa resumes his internal monologues:

Looks at the ball kid: "You saw ball out to no?"

Looks at Bernardes: "You should have overruled no?"

Looks at Uncle Toni who gives him the secret sign for a challenge.

Rafa puts his hand up to challenge.

Bernardes says: "Too late, no challenge for you!"

Rafa approaches Bernardes and launches into a tirade in Spanish:

"Why you do nothing. You never get any call right. You are not a spectator here. Don't look at me. You're ugly inside. Etc... etc.. etc..."

Berdych wins the point.

The End
Click to expand...

TV commentators replay shot. "HAWKEYE SHOWS THE BALL WELL OUT"

Umpire denying the challenge caused rafa to lose this set. That's an injustice and inexcusable lack of usage of technology.
 
equinox said:
TV commentators replay shot. "HAWKEYE SHOWS THE BALL WELL OUT"

Umpire denying the challenge caused rafa to lose this set. That's an injustice and inexcusable lack of usage of technology.
Click to expand...

Sure let me not use a challenge until after I lost the point. Seems to be really fair right? No one but the players can use that "technology" to determine if a call was correct. If you don't use the challenge within the rules you shouldn't be able to use it. Nadal only attempted to use it after he realized he had lost the point.
 
Yes, maybe he has until he hits the next ball. Once hit, the challenge is over.




stormholloway said:
The only problem I can think of is that it's unfair to the opponent. A player shouldn't have to keep playing just because his opponent is waiting to see if he loses the point before challenges some line call that took place 10 shots ago. That's wasted energy. Where do you draw the line? A player can then challenge the second shot of a 40 stroke rally?
Click to expand...
 
To quote you:


That is what the challenge system is there for, to correct human error



This is correct, but this is not what happened.




Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
I don't expect them to call the lines, but as the person above you said it's not easy calling lines. No this isn't an excuse for what happened in the match. The call should be right every time, but things happen.

If he thought his first instinct was correct he should have challenged. That is what the challenge system is there for, to correct human error. As I have said before, you have to either challenge or keep on playing. Not only did Rafa keep on playing, but he tried to make it to the ball and only when he realized he couldn't did he try to challenge. He would have been best off saying challenge as soon as he hit the ball. If he does that it could be possible the late call would come in and then he wouldn't of had to use a challenge. If they are there to correct errors, why not use them? Can't complain about errors if you don't use the tools at your disposal to correct them.
Click to expand...
 
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
Sure let me not use a challenge until after I lost the point. Seems to be really fair right? No one but the players can use that "technology" to determine if a call was correct. If you don't use the challenge within the rules you shouldn't be able to use it. Nadal only attempted to use it after he realized he had lost the point.
Click to expand...

The ball hadn't double bounced or hit back siding thus the point wasn't lost when he signaled to challenge.

Technology must be used everytime or not at all.

Umpires are given far to much leeway to decide challenges and lets.

Imho give players buzzers linked to chair pda.
 
Bartelby said:
To quote you:


That is what the challenge system is there for, to correct human error



This is correct, but this is not what happened.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is there to correct human error. The error of the lines people, not that of the player. All challenges have their limits in every sport. If you exceed those limits the challenge will not be honored. Why do you think NFL teams rush to get a play off when a challenge is possible? Nadal took too much time to call his challenge. You either challenge right after the ball in question or you keep playing. You don't keep playing and then when you lose the point go challenge that ball that was ultimately out.

What about the times that players don't call a challenge but the ball is out? Should we have an overrule from another off court official? Why not just go about creating a computer based referee system?
 
equinox said:
The ball hadn't double bounced or hit back siding thus the point wasn't lost when he signaled to challenge.

Technology must be used everytime or not at all.

Umpires are given far to much leeway to decide challenges and lets.

Imho give players buzzers linked to chair pda.
Click to expand...

http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus12/sto...ger-federer-rafael-nadal-set-semifinals-match

10 seconds in. There was no way that Nadal was getting to that ball. Rather than challenge when he realized the play was live he attempted to retrieve the ball. Only upon realizing he wouldn't get to it did he try and challenge. It wasn't the time that made it so Nadal couldn't challenge, it was the fact that he continued to play. Had he not made a move for the ball then yes he should have received a challenge.
 
The player is not meant to call the lines, but if he has to then he has to have sufficient time and until he hits the next shot may be a fair solution.



Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
Yes, it is there to correct human error. The error of the lines people, not that of the player. All challenges have their limits in every sport. If you exceed those limits the challenge will not be honored. Why do you think NFL teams rush to get a play off when a challenge is possible? Nadal took too much time to call his challenge. You either challenge right after the ball in question or you keep playing. You don't keep playing and then when you lose the point go challenge that ball that was ultimately out.

What about the times that players don't call a challenge but the ball is out? Should we have an overrule from another off court official? Why not just go about creating a computer based referee system?
Click to expand...
 
If continued to play is defined as hitting the next ball things would be clearer.



Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus12/sto...ger-federer-rafael-nadal-set-semifinals-match

10 seconds in. There was no way that Nadal was getting to that ball. Rather than challenge when he realized the play was live he attempted to retrieve the ball. Only upon realizing he wouldn't get to it did he try and challenge. It wasn't the time that made it so Nadal couldn't challenge, it was the fact that he continued to play. Had he not made a move for the ball then yes he should have received a challenge.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I know, but the rule is wrong because it gives the player too little time to challenge when both linespeople and umpire have manifestly failed their job and technology is available to correct.




Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
He continued to play by not challenging in a timely manner and attempting to track the ball down. That is continuing to play. If a player believes the wrong call has been made, then they need to challenge before they hit the ball or right after.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/107396-challenges-tennis-rules/

Nadal did neither of those and waited too long.
Click to expand...
 
Do they intentionally put out a spanish speaking umpire when Rafa plays? It seems like I've seen a few matches with him arguing in spanish with the umpire. But it could just be selective memory.
 
Carlos was 100% correct. The fact Nadal made an attempt to get the next shot from Berdych automatically disallows him to challenge. The only reason he challenge is because he couldn't reach the next shot.

If a player is to challenge, the player must stop straight away. Don't understand why people think Nadal was right.
 
Bartelby said:
Yes, I know, but the rule is wrong because it gives the player too little time to challenge when both linespeople and umpire have manifestly failed their job and technology is available to correct.
Click to expand...

Oh snaps then. I guess the Federer Nadal 08 Wim Final should have been suspended since Hawk Eye didn't work. Man, he lost the final because that piece of technology wasn't in effect.

That isn't too little time. You have enough time to say challenge before you hit it or after you hit it. Looking down at the mark is not what you are too do. You can't say oh here you can challenge 15 seconds after the ball in question.
 
Bernades was wrong because he made two different calls in the exact same situation. I don't think he was trying to cheat, as it was too far away from him overrule, presumably. Having denied one player, he should have denied the other. It made him look bad, not Nadal, imo.
 
Nadal was wrong under the rules, but the reality is that he stopped initially because he thought it was out.

The next shot should never have happened, so I think the challenger should have more time.

As it stands, the ball has to be far out for a player to take the risk of a challenge.
 
TheTruth said:
Bernades was wrong because he made two different calls in the exact same situation. I don't think he was trying to cheat, as it was too far away from him overrule, presumably. Having denied one player, he should have denied the other. It made him look bad, not Nadal, imo.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Neither player should have received a challenge.
 
Not interested in the Federer/Nadal rivalry. Interested in the rules, only.



Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
Oh snaps then. I guess the Federer Nadal 08 Wim Final should have been suspended since Hawk Eye didn't work. Man, he lost the final because that piece of technology wasn't in effect.

That isn't too little time. You have enough time to say challenge before you hit it or after you hit it. Looking down at the mark is not what you are too do. You can't say oh here you can challenge 15 seconds after the ball in question.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Not interested in the Federer/Nadal rivalry. Interested in the rules, only.
Click to expand...

If this technology must be employed because it is there surely no match on courts equipped with it should be played when it's non operational. I mean, you did stress how important it is to use the technology.
 
Bartelby said:
Nadal was wrong under the rules, but the reality is that he stopped initially because he thought it was out.

The next shot should never have happened, so I think the challenger should have more time.

As it stands, the ball has to be far out for a player to take the risk of a challenge.
Click to expand...

I agree he should have challenged immediately, but I think the same should have occurred with Berdych. Same situation. Two totally different decisions.
 
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
Completely agree. Neither player should have received a challenge.
Click to expand...

That too.The umpires should be consistent. The problem is that they're not. This creates a lot of confusion. I hate this issue anyway since it was spawned in the commentary booth. As soon as they say something, everyone jumps on their bandwagon. It's annoying.
 
The Hawk-Eye system, which is originally designed to correct human error, however, instead of just concentrating on playing the point, players also has to be the lineman themselves in order to raise a challenge.

The Ump and the lineman, who are responsible to perform professionally, can now slip their duty to the computer system AND the players, "yes Mr.player, WE MADE A BAD CALL, so what, you are the one who should raise the final call a.k.a challenge, it's YOUR JOB, NOT US!! Yes, that ball was out, but you didn't make the call, sorry, you lost the point."

Therefore, under this particular system, a player can WIN a point even he hits the ball out.

Interesting.
 
Yes, that's what's happening.



alcheng said:
The Hawk-Eye system, which is originally designed to correct human error, however, instead of just concentrating on playing the point, players also has to be the lineman themselves in order to raise a challenge.

The Ump and the lineman, who are responsible to perform professionally, can now slip their duty to the computer system AND the players, "yes Mr.player, WE MADE A BAD CALL, so what, you are the one who should raise the final call a.k.a challenge, it's YOUR JOB, NOT US!! Yes, that ball was out, but you didn't make the call, sorry, you lost the point."

Therefore, under this particular system, a player can WIN a point even he hits the ball out.

Interesting.
Click to expand...
 
alcheng said:
The Hawk-Eye system, which is originally designed to correct human error, however, instead of just concentrating on playing the point, players also has to be the lineman themselves in order to raise a challenge.

The Ump and the lineman, who are responsible to perform professionally, can now slip their duty to the computer system AND the players, "yes Mr.player, WE MADE A BAD CALL, so what, you are the one who should raise the final call a.k.a challenge, it's YOUR JOB, NOT US!! Yes, that ball was out, but you didn't make the call, sorry, you lost the point."

Therefore, under this particular system, a player can WIN a point even he hits the ball out.

Interesting.
Click to expand...
and this is why the current system just isn't cool for me. on every other court in the world, where there is no hawkeye, you play the close balls and rely on the linespeople to make the calls, and the chair to overrule when he/she sees a clear mistake. of course, it puts the onus on the chair, and his/her idea of what a clear error might be, which is totally subjective from one umpire to the next. but there it is.

on the handful of courts where there is hawkeye, suddenly every close call is up for grabs. and every line is being fought over between the players and the linespeople. the onus to get the calls right is now shared between the people who are there to do the job, and the players, who believe they can do the job better. and the final authority of the chair is negated. as has been said, why holler out "correction" if you're a linesman and you think you got your initial call when you can just let the player decide if the call was right or wrong? and as the chair, why overrule if you think a mistake has been made? the player can do it, cos he has the challenge rule, which is his power to overrule and correct any potential mistake?

on the courts with the challenge, you've basically set up a system that undermines the linespeople and the umpire. and the responsibility to get calls right is shared equally. i just don't get that. not to mention the fact that i don't feel it's right to have technology help the game, but not for every player. i can't imagine another professional sport that operates like that. in baseball or american football, a small-market team can't say, "hey, we don't have the money to pay for all those extra cameras for replay. so here we go with the umpire's call as the final decision." and then you go to los angeles or chicago or new york, and they have those extra perks. no, the teams are afforded the same access to technology everywhere because every field is treated with equal importance.
 
Last edited:
gsharma said:
Watch the video from 15 seconds onwards and make your own decision.

To me, the umpire's decision was iffy.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus12/sto...ger-federer-rafael-nadal-set-semifinals-match
Click to expand...

Are you serious? :rolleyes:

Berdych's shot was out, but Nadal played the ball back, then waited for the out call which never came. After Berdych hit a winner, Nadal then decided to challenge. That's way too late. I agree the line calling was atrocious in the match, but Nadal had challenges and to me, he should have stopped that point immediately. He didn't do it, and he lost the set because of it.

And because the line calling was so bad, you would think that Nadal would be more likely to challenge right away. It wasn't like that was the first bad call of the match, there were at least 5 or 6 terrible calls prior to that one.
 
A player should have more time to challenge.

The reality is that he immediately knew it was out.

But he stuffed around before challenging and moreover ruined his chance of retrieving the ball.
 
about the 15 second mark you can clearly see he stops playing, and then he looks at the linesman

the fact is that he's not playing at that point,

but yes he stuck his hand up after the winner so no challenge,

yet Tomic stuck his racket up and that wasn't a challenge either

im not arguing he should have won under the current rule only that the current rule is incoherent.
 
Bartelby said:
Yes, maybe he has until he hits the next ball. Once hit, the challenge is over.
Click to expand...

That also sounds to me like a reasonable compromise. Clearly you can't allow retroactive challenges several shots back. But establishing your next shot as the limit to raise a challenge seems okay. The way things stand, a player hits a ball and then realizes it looked out. By the time this becomes clear in his mind (about half a second later), his opponent has already hit the ball back to him, so it’s already too late to challenge. It seems perfectly reasonable he should be allowed to challenge before he hits the next shot. If he is wrong, his opponent wins the point and he has wasted a challenge; and if he is right he simply gets what he had already won. What's wrong with that? The way things are done, in all these situations the other player is gifted a point he had lost, because of an error that the rules refuse to correct.
 
Yes, that's the way I see it.

The current rule priotizes timeliness to a degree that damages correctness.

The current rule gives someone a half a second or less to challenge.

The rule I'd suggest only gives someone another half second.




Benhur said:
That also sounds to me like a reasonable compromise. Clearly you can't allow retroactive challenges several shots back. But establishing your next shot as the limit to raise a challenge seems okay. The way things stand, a player hits a ball and then realizes it looked out. By the time this becomes clear in his mind (about half a second later), his opponent has already hit the ball back to him, so it’s already too late to challenge. It seems perfectly reasonable he should be allowed to challenge before he hits the next shot. If he is wrong, his opponent wins the point and he has wasted a challenge; and if he is right he simply gets what he had already won. What's wrong with that? The way things are done, in all these situations the other player is gifted a point he had lost, because of an error that the rules refuse to correct.
Click to expand...
 
The other annoying aspect of the challenge system that the Nadal case brings to light due to the fact that the technology couldn't be used is that ...


the overwhelming majority of times when the challenge is invoked the person challenging almost fully realizes the futility of his or her action.


Its legalized time-wasting every bit as bad as either Nadal's or Djokovic's hestitations before serve.
 
What about every line call being automatically hawk-eyed challenged and overturning human errors to ensure the correct results?

Is there reason why this isn't implemented?

Are officials that inaccurate or scared?

The visual display comes out to slow. But surely now that players trust the technology, a simple quick automated google voice "OUT" sound is enough.

Then all lines can be virtually called or offer quick correction on human mistakes.
 
skip1969 said:
[...] not to mention the fact that i don't feel it's right to have technology help the game, but not for every player. i can't imagine another professional sport that operates like that. in baseball or american football, a small-market team can't say, "hey, we don't have the money to pay for all those extra cameras for replay. so here we go with the umpire's call as the final decision." and then you go to los angeles or chicago or new york, and they have those extra perks. no, the teams are afforded the same access to technology everywhere because every field is treated with equal importance.
Click to expand...

This is not a good argument. Your are mixing up different kinds of fairnesses. The difference in systems may be seen as unfair, but it doesn't follow that the fairer system should be disallowed. A man lives in a place where paternity can be established (or ruled out) by DNA testing. Another man lives in a place where no such technology is available, and fatherhood is established by more fallible methods. Your argument amounts to saying that until such time as DNA testing is made available everywhere on Earth, it should be disallowed everywhere on Earth because it's unfair to those who don't have access to it. When I play tennis, my opponent calls the lines on his side of the court. It's a very imperfect system. I often wish we had access to hawkeye, or at least to linespeople. But it doesn't occur to me to think hawkeye should be disallowed on Rod Laver Arena until it's made available to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Im(moral) Winner
The GOAT's last week retirement celebration and discussion has been muted
Replies
3
Views
406
vokazu
V
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
Nadal had kind words for Carlos Bernardes during the Barcelona trophy presentation
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
Soulie
Soulie
pame
Nadal himself confirms he asked for Bernardes removal from his matches
2 3 4
Replies
175
Views
16K
Tennis_Hands
T
jamesblakefan#1
Carlos Bernardes is blind.
Replies
22
Views
4K
Ratsoup
R
Novichok
Was he really Carlos Bernardes?
Replies
23
Views
2K
onefineday
onefineday
Back
Top