Does this make me a bad person?

[Brian11785]

It wasn't "busted your opponent's head." It was "LEts say you are serving on a hot day and as you make contact with your serve the racquet goes flying out of your hand and hits the opposing net guy in the nose causing a nose bleed."

I don't think I'm being smug about anything. I'm trying to keep the dialog civil and clearly explain my decisions and motivations, since people keep asking me about them over and over.

Bleeding nose, busted head? What's the difference? Would whether your opponent was bleeding from the nose or above the eye make a difference in your line of action?

 

[jonnythan]

Bleeding nose, busted head? What's the difference? Would whether your opponent was bleeding from the nose or above the eye make a difference in your line of action?

Well "bleeding nose" is what I originally talked about. "Busted his head open" is a revision meant to be inflammatory and demonizing. It represents a clear departure from civil dialog.

 

[Brian11785]

Well "bleeding nose" is what I originally talked about. "Busted his head open" is a revision meant to be inflammatory and demonizing. It represents a clear departure from civil dialog.

Give it a rest with this please. No one is buying what your selling here.

 

[jonnythan]

And that would be fine. Now, as in this case, balls may regularly fly out of the court and onto a roadway. Do you adapt?

To go a step further, what if, on the off chance, you arrive and courts were being updated; you discover the court temporarily had no fencing? Do you adjust and relax the rule for chest high balls or stick with "rules are rules?"

No, I'd probably say before the match "hey, since there are no fences, feel free to catch obviously out balls."

It's OK to play by slightly different rules as long as both parties agree to them before they are implemented.

 

[jonnythan]

Give it a rest with this please. No one is buying what your selling here.

Here's a question for you: if you feel they are equivalent, why did you change from "bleeding nose" to "head busted open"? What was the precise intent of your change in verbiage?

 

[Brian11785]

Here's a question for you: if you feel they are equivalent, why did you change from "bleeding nose" to "head busted open"? What was the precise intent of your change in verbiage?

Obviously for emphasis. But to call it inflammatory speech is itself as over-the-top as my change in...verbiage.

 

[jonnythan]

Obviously for emphasis.

And what, exactly, were you trying to emphasize?

 

[Brian11785]

And what, exactly, were you trying to emphasize?

The fact that your hypothetical carelessness caused your opponent to be bleeding from the face, yet you would still call the match after 10 minutes. Basically using more forceful language to test whether or not you really believed what you were saying. My intentions were in fact hopeful; I assumed you would back off the callous position that you seemed to have been taking. That obviously hasn't proven to be the case.

 

[TeflonTom]

wow, this shit still goin?

no point arguin with poor sports. if ur moral compass is defective u dont know when ur wrong

 

[jonnythan]

The fact that your hypothetical carelessness caused your opponent to be bleeding from the face, yet you would still call the match after 10 minutes. Basically using more forceful language to test whether or not you really believed what you were saying. My intentions were in fact hopeful; I assumed you would back off the callous position that you seemed to have been taking. That obviously hasn't proven to be the case.

So you were trying to provoke an emotional reaction on my part that would result in me changing my mind or hedging my statement? You are right - that clearly didn't work. As I've stated before, I'm not one prone to get angry or make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. That's probably pretty obvious by now.

It should also be obvious by now that I would never intentionally injure an opponent, that I would never take a "victory lap" after doing so, and I would never begrudge someone applying the rules to my detriment.

That, to me, is sportsmanship and fair play - applying the rules fairly to your opponents as well as yourself, and not having inappropriate emotional reactions to legal and fair things that happen on the court. The poor sports are the ones slashing tires, having a fit about the rules being applied to their detriment, etc.

 

[jonnythan]

I should point out again that I don't see the issue in applying the rules precisely the way a professional umpire would apply them. Both to myself and my opponent.

What's the sense in applying the rules differently from an impartial professional? That seems dumb to me. There are so many arguments about how the rules are applied in pro matches and tournaments on TT already. Why should we do things differently when there isn't an official on the court?

 

[Brian11785]

So you were trying to provoke an emotional reaction on my part that would result in me changing my mind or hedging my statement? You are right - that clearly didn't work. As I've stated before, I'm not one prone to get angry or make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. That's probably pretty obvious by now.

It should also be obvious by now that I would never intentionally injure an opponent, that I would never take a "victory lap" after doing so, and I would never begrudge someone applying the rules to my detriment.

That, to me, is sportsmanship and fair play.

As was established days ago, we are getting nowhere here because you seem to have a different definition of sportsmanship than almost everyone else in the thread.

So answer this question:

Ok, there's no way, by the rules, to really prove if an injury were intentional or not, right?. What would you do if your racquet flew out of your hands, hit the opponent in the nose/face/head (you choose the verbiage....) and then you default him after he spends 15 minutes in the restroom. He comes out as you're about to leave and accuses you of intentionally hitting him. He says that HE will claim the default win. Now what?

 

[Mauvaise]

Not the same thing as having a racket fly out of your hand.

Players are supposed to keep their rackets in their hands. Having your racket fly out of your hand is not a normal part of the game. This is why throwing a racket can be penalized and why you must have your racket in your hand when you make contact. If you lose your racket and injure your opponent, of course you don't take their default. YOU retire or have it go as a double default.

Apparently it's a normal enough part of the game that The Code (2011 version from the Friend of the Court PDF) takes the time to spell out what would happen on that occasion.


From The CODE:

36. Injury caused by player. When a player accidentally injures an opponent, the opponent suffers the consequences.

Consider the situation where the server’s racket accidentally strikes the receiver and incapacitates the receiver. The receiver is unable to resume play within the time limit. Even though the server caused the
injury, the server wins the match by retirement. On the other hand, when a player deliberately injures an opponent and affects the opponent’s ability to play, then the opponent wins the match by default. Hitting a ball
or throwing a racket in anger is considered a deliberate act.

 

[Brian11785]

From The CODE:

That seems awfully hazy. How do you prove what is intentional or unintentional. So if an opponent out of anger hits a ball at an opponent injuring him, the player loses the match. So does that mean balls in play or balls in between points?

 

[jonnythan]

As was established days ago, we are getting nowhere here because you seem to have a different definition of sportsmanship than almost everyone else in the thread.

So answer this question:

Ok, there's no way, by the rules, to really prove if an injury were intentional or not, right?. What would you do if your racquet flew out of your hands, hit the opponent in the nose/face/head (you choose the verbiage....) and then you default him after he spends 15 minutes in the restroom. He comes out as you're about to leave and accuses you of intentionally hitting him. He says that HE will claim the default win. Now what?

There is actually, depending on how you define intentional. See the above post. Losing the racquet while swinging at an in-play ball is by definition not intentional. Throwing the racquet or ball after a point, such as out of frustration, is intentional.

So while there's no true way to determine the actual intent of someone, the rules provide a way of making a determination of "intentional" for purposes of who retires.

All that said, I cannot imagine a situation where a player is so devious that he intentionally lets the racquet "slip" out of his hand during a point while swinging at the ball with the intent to injure his opponent. I suppose it's possible, but I think it would be extremely obvious the player was violent and dangerous before it got to that point.

 

[jonnythan]

That seems awfully hazy. How do you prove what is intentional or unintentional. So if an opponent out of anger hits a ball at an opponent injuring him, the player loses the match. So does that mean balls in play or balls in between points?

How does someone get so angry during a point that they throw a racquet or hit the ball in anger before the ball is even out of play??

I don't think most people get angry until they've actually lost the point

 

[Mauvaise]

That seems awfully hazy. How do you prove what is intentional or unintentional. So if an opponent out of anger hits a ball at an opponent injuring him, the player loses the match. So does that mean balls in play or balls in between points?

How do you get that?

It very clearly states that "Hitting a ball or throwing a racket in anger is considered a deliberate act." And deliberate acts are a forfeit on the part of the person that struck the ball.

 

[Brian11785]

How does someone get so angry during a point that they throw a racquet or hit the ball in anger before the ball is even out of play??

Maybe there was a questionable call in a doubles match on a previous point. The net person on the wrong side of the call gets a short ball that is an easy put away to the open court. Instead, he looks the person across the net from him in the eye, let's go a two handed backhand swinging volley right in the face of the opposing player.

Then let's say he doesn't look him in the eye.

Then let's say there was no open court, and going at the guy is the player's best shot.

Where is the "deliberate" line in your precious rules?

 

[Brian11785]

How do you get that?

It very clearly states that "Hitting a ball or throwing a racket in anger is considered a deliberate act." And deliberate acts are a forfeit on the part of the person that struck the ball.

So who's to say what is deliberate?

 

[jonnythan]

Maybe there was a questionable call in a doubles match on a previous point. The net person on the wrong side of the call gets a short ball that is an easy put away in the open court. Instead, he looks the person across the net from him in the eye, let's go a two handed backhand swinging volley right in the face of the opposing player.

That would be unintentional according to the rules. The opposing player would lose the point and, if they were unable to continue playing, the match. That's a perfectly valid shot.

Same thing with an overhead. If a player is at net and there's someone setting up for a short overhead five feet away, you should probably turn your back.

I don't think I could hit a shot such as you describe while looking at my opponent's face instead of at the ball. I'd mishit it. I suppose a really good player could do it, but if you're playing competitively at 4.5, 5.0 level you should be prepared for that sort of shot anyway.

In other words, the situation you describe is somewhat unrealistic. However, since it is a 100% legal tennis shot, the player who hit the shot would get the point.

However, it is a very unsportsmanlike thing to do. Very. If someone did it to my partner I would be rather upset with them and probably file a grievance.

 

[Brian11785]

That would be unintentional according to the rules. The opposing player would lose the point and, if they were unable to continue playing, the match. That's a perfectly valid shot.

However, it is a very unsportsmanlike thing to do. Very. If someone did it to my partner I would be rather upset with them and probably file a grievance.

But I don't see, based on the rules posted, how it is legal. It would appear to be deliberate. So why isn't it a default?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Since the rule is 15 minutes, and I arrived 16 minutes late, that's well within margin of error and I would expect to play the match.

If I arrived 20 minutes late, I would apologize to my opponent and give him the match. Then I would offer to play anyway with the understanding that it would be scored as a default in his favor.

Actually that wouldn't even happen. Our alternate would have filled in for me. The match would have begun by the time I arrived.

No, no, no. I think you misunderstood. Let's try it this way.

You arrive at noon for the noon match. Your opponent arrives after the 15 minute default period because he had to wait for tow truck after YOU wrecked his car. The rules say default at 15 minutes. He has no sub to play for him.

Now what? Are you going to follow the rules and default him or not?

 

[jonnythan]

But I don't see, based on the rules posted, how it is legal. It would appear to be deliberate. So why isn't it a default?

Because it wasn't a deliberate act. The "act" was a valid tennis shot. In the case of throwing a racquet, the "act" is actually throwing the racquet.

 

[jonnythan]

No, no, no. I think you misunderstood. Let's try it this way.

You arrive at noon for the noon match. Your opponent arrives after the 15 minute default period because he had to wait for tow truck after YOU wrecked his car. The rules say default at 15 minutes. He has no sub to play for him.

Now what? Are you going to follow the rules and default him or not?

Oh LOL I missed that.

If I caused my opponent to be late, then I would either wait for him or reschedule.

This is a situation not specifically covered by the rules, unlike all of the other situations we've been discussing where the rule is 100% clear. I think that waiting or rescheduling, at the opponent's discretion, is clearly the right call. And it's not specifically prohibited by the rules.

 

[Brian11785]

Because it wasn't a deliberate act. The "act" was a valid tennis shot. In the case of throwing a racquet, the "act" is actually throwing the racquet.

Where is the "valid tennis shot" loophole that trumps the word "deliberate" in the rules? I'm just not getting it. Maybe you're more experienced in competitive tennis so you're used to seeing the rule applied, but it just does not make sense to me.

 

[jonnythan]

Where is the "valid tennis shot" loophole that trumps the word "deliberate" in the rules? I'm just not getting it. Maybe you're more experienced in competitive tennis so you're used to seeing the rule applied, but it just does not make sense to me.

If you really want to discuss that rule in this much detail, start a new thread about it. It's pretty clear throughout the interpretations of the rules of tennis that a valid tennis shot is not a "deliberate act to cause injury."

 

[Cindysphinx]

Apparently it's a normal enough part of the game that The Code (2011 version from the Friend of the Court PDF) takes the time to spell out what would happen on that occasion.


From The CODE:

Ok, but. . . .

You do agree that having your racket slip out of your hand and hitting someone is the cause of their injury in every sense of the word "cause," right? You were careless in not gripping your racket tightly enough, and you did not mean for that to happen.

And we can agree that hitting a tennis ball there instead of over there does not cause an opponent to pull a hamstring, right? Nor is it a careless and unintentional act.

I hope we can agree that there is more culpability in the first instance than the second. If not, virtually all tennis injuries could be said to have been caused by an opponent who struck the ball. We don't want to go there, do we?

 

[jonnythan]

Ok, but. . . .

You do agree that having your racket slip out of your hand and hitting someone is the cause of their injury in every sense of the word "cause," right? You were careless in not gripping your racket tightly enough, and you did not mean for that to happen.

And we can agree that hitting a tennis ball there instead of over there does not cause an opponent to pull a hamstring, right? Nor is it a careless and unintentional act.

I hope we can agree that there is more culpability in the first instance than the second. If not, virtually all tennis injuries could be said to have been caused by an opponent who struck the ball. We don't want to go there, do we?

The rule is clear. If you hit a legal tennis shot or your racquet slips during a valid attempt at a shot and injures your opponent, they're on the hook if they can't continue. If you hit a ball out of play or throw a racquet and it injures your opponent, you're on the hook.

I'm not really sure what this argument is about.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Apparently it's a normal enough part of the game that The Code (2011 version from the Friend of the Court PDF) takes the time to spell out what would happen on that occasion.


From The CODE:

Oh LOL I missed that.

If I caused my opponent to be late, then I would either wait for him or reschedule.

This is a situation not specifically covered by the rules, unlike all of the other situations we've been discussing where the rule is 100% clear. I think that waiting or rescheduling, at the opponent's discretion, is clearly the right call. And it's not specifically prohibited by the rules.

Incorrect.

The default rule in our local rules and also the rules of tennis is 15 minutes. Some leagues have a different default period -- I have seen 10 minutes -- but all leagues have some defined default period.

You are 100% entitled to the default win under the crystal clear rules.

I am relieved to hear you would not follow the rules in all cases and that you believe it is acceptable to consider concepts such as fairness and sportsmanship. I do wish it hadn't taken 19 pages to get there.

 

[jmnk]

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't feel differently if it happened to me either.

I'd be angry at myself for foot faulting. Which has happened before. I've had a foot fault called on me (maliciously, actually). I moved on.

Oh, it's because I wasn't foot faulting. He was trying to get back at me for a line call on the previous point.

Just found this post. There were a handful of people (people I had never met) watching the match who said I was a couple inches behind the baseline, as is normal for me. My front foot does not move at all during my service motion.

well, for the continuous sake of argument. You admitted in the earlier post (bolded part) that you do foot fault at least occasionally, but later on you try to claim it is virtually impossible because of the way you normally serve. And you are accusing the opponent of making a 'malicious call'. Hmm. You do realize that it is his right to call a foot-fault on you, right?

 

[sundaypunch]

The rule is clear. If you hit a legal tennis shot or your racquet slips during a valid attempt at a shot and injures your opponent, they're on the hook if they can't continue. If you hit a ball out of play or throw a racquet and it injures your opponent, you're on the hook.

I'm not really sure what this argument is about.

This is your 92nd post in this thread (for real). Isn't there a rule here-

"if you can't make your point in 91 posts, it's time to move on"

 

[Cindysphinx]

The rule is clear. If you hit a legal tennis shot or your racquet slips during a valid attempt at a shot and injures your opponent, they're on the hook if they can't continue. If you hit a ball out of play or throw a racquet and it injures your opponent, you're on the hook.

I'm not really sure what this argument is about.

The argument is about this:

If you do something careless to impede your opponents ability to compete (racket slip or rear end accident), it would be outrageous to take your opponent's default, even if the rules say you can.

 

[jonnythan]

The argument is about this:

If you do something careless to impede your opponents ability to compete (racket slip or rear end accident), it would be outrageous to take your opponent's default, even if the rules say you can.

If it's something you did before the match that impedes your opponent's ability to show up or compete, then you suffer the consequences.

If it's something you did during the match, then either:

1) If it's a valid play that accidentally injures your opponent, they are on the hook.
2) If it's not a valid play, it is considered intentional and you are on the hook.

 

[jmnk]

If it's something you did before the match that impedes your opponent's ability to show up or compete, then you suffer the consequences.

If it's something you did during the match, then either:

1) If it's a valid play that accidentally injures your opponent, they are on the hook.
2) If it's not a valid play, it is considered intentional and you are on the hook.

I think I actually liked you more when you were sticking by the rules. Now it seems you are inventing the rules/interpretation on the fly. That is awfully close to, how to phrase it, using 'common sense'. Don't go there, we may not have an argument soon.

 

[Cindysphinx]

If it's something you did before the match that impedes your opponent's ability to show up or compete, then you suffer the consequences.

If it's something you did during the match, then either:

.

The rules make no such distinction. In both cases, you are absolutely entitled to the W.

Careful. You are getting dangerously close to augmenting the rules with common sense.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think I actually liked you more when you were sticking by the rules. Now it seems you are inventing the rules/interpretation on the fly. That is awfully close to, how to phrase it, using 'common sense'. Don't go there, we may not have an argument soon.

Someone stop me from asking what he would do if he were warming up with his opponent 30 minutes before match time and his racket injured his opponent and his opponent couldn't compete for one hour.

 

[jonnythan]

I think I actually liked you more when you were sticking by the rules. Now it seems you are inventing the rules/interpretation on the fly. That is awfully close to, how to phrase it, using 'common sense'. Don't go there, we may not have an argument soon.

I'm going a bit on the fly because the rules of tennis don't cover what happens when you're driving to the match.

Other people in the thread are trying to come up with convoluted situations that create some kind of conflict in how to apply the rules, so they've extended beyond the scope of the rules. So you kinda have to make it up as you go!

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think I actually liked you more when you were sticking by the rules. Now it seems you are inventing the rules/interpretation on the fly. That is awfully close to, how to phrase it, using 'common sense'. Don't go there, we may not have an argument soon.

I'm going a bit on the fly because the rules of tennis don't cover what happens when you're driving to the match.

Other people in the thread are trying to come up with convoluted situations that create some kind of conflict in how to apply the rules, so they've extended beyond the scope of the rules. So you kinda have to make it up as you go!

If you truly believe you consider the rules and only the rules and you apply them without exeption, then it is easy -- you take the default, car accidents and flying rackets notwithstanding.

Or you listen to the little voice in your head that says something isn't right.

 

[jonnythan]

The rules make no such distinction. In both cases, you are absolutely entitled to the W.

Careful. You are getting dangerously close to augmenting the rules with common sense.

I am fairly confident that an official USTA interpretation of the "break your opponent's kneecaps before he leave his house that morning" would result in you losing the match. The rules don't specifically cover such a situation because I think it's not something that ever actually happens.

I've stated previously that I base my decisions on what I think a professional, unbiased umpire would do. I'm pretty sure an umpire would not give me the match if the opponent was late because I broke his knees an hour ago.

 

[jonnythan]

If you truly believe you consider the rules and only the rules and you apply them without exeption

I never said that's what I do. Not once, not ever. Truly extraordinary situations require exceptions. Catching an out ball before it bounces is not extraordinary, and neither is accidentally injuring an opponent through an overhead or slipped racquet.

 

[jonnythan]

By the way, I believe that the rules allow a player injured during warmups to be subbed out for the alternate. So I would of course allow that.

 

[jmnk]

@jonnythan - So on a serious note. What would be, in your eyes, a reasonable example of sportsmanship behavior in USTA unofficiated match? Something that could happen, every now and than. I'm not asking about fair play - that is what following the rules is for. I just would want to know what 'practical sportsmanship' in your eyes is.

 

[jonnythan]

@jonnythan - So on a serious note. What would be, in your eyes, a reasonable example of sportsmanship behavior in USTA unofficiated match? Something that could happen, every now and than. I'm not asking about fair play - that is what following the rules is for. I just would want to know what 'practical sportsmanship' in your eyes is.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Apologizing for an overhead that hits your opponent? Gracefully shaking hands and saying "you played a good match, want to come and get a beer with us?" after a win? Not celebrating when you get a point on an unforced error? Reversing an out call when you realize it might not have been out?

That kind of thing? I do all those things. I value fair play and good sportsmanship a great deal.

 

[Larrysümmers]

What would jesus do?

 

[jmnk]

@jonnythan - So on a serious note. What would be, in your eyes, a reasonable example of sportsmanship behavior in USTA unofficiated match? Something that could happen, every now and than. I'm not asking about fair play - that is what following the rules is for. I just would want to know what 'practical sportsmanship' in your eyes is.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Apologizing for an overhead that hits your opponent? Gracefully shaking hands and saying "you played a good match, want to come and get a beer with us?" after a win? Not celebrating when you get a point on an unforced error? Reversing an out call when you realize it might not have been out?

That kind of thing? I do all those things. I value fair play and good sportsmanship a great deal.

my question was purposely open-ended.
All of the examples you cited (except the last one which is not sportsmanship but simply following the rules) are in fact nice gestures. the thing is that's all they are, gestures that don't 'cost' you anything. they have no bearing on the result whatsoever. They make one 'look' good, but they are so 'easy'.

My point being that the above is all nice and good - but I think sportsmanship is a bit more than that. And I think that is the essence of this thread, the OP did not want to go 'above and beyond' and show sportsmanship, he just took what was his regardless. that's cool, maybe he is not a bad person, but it was not sportsmanship either.

 

[jonnythan]

my question was purposely open-ended.
All of the examples you cited (except the last one which is not sportsmanship but simply following the rules) are in fact nice gestures. the thing is that's all they are, gestures that don't 'cost' you anything. they have no bearing on the result whatsoever. They make one 'look' good, but they are so 'easy'.

Well some of them cost me something - reversing an out call costs me the point. Admitting I tipped a ball when the opponent didn't know costs me the point. Admitting a ball touched me as it went long costs me the point. I do all those things too.

Sportsmanship, to me, is respecting the game, playing fairly and by the rules, and respecting your opponent.

 

[Brian11785]

Well some of them cost me something - reversing an out call costs me the point. Admitting I tipped a ball when the opponent didn't know costs me the point. Admitting a ball touched me as it went long costs me the point. I do all those things too.

Sportsmanship, to me, is respecting the game, playing fairly and by the rules, and respecting your opponent.

I guess the moral of the story is that we all hold ourselves to different standards in regard to sportsmanship. Your idea is "not cheating" and "following the rules", which puts you ahead of the curve compared to a lot of players out there. But others have even loftier ideals.....see the Golden Rule and, per the Wiki on Sportsmanship, fostering "a sense of fellowship with one's competitors."

 

[Mauvaise]

I guess the moral of the story is that we all hold ourselves to different standards in regard to sportsmanship. Your idea is "not cheating" and "following the rules", which puts you ahead of the curve compared to a lot of players out there. But others have even loftier ideals.....see the Golden Rule and, per the Wiki on Sportsmanship, fostering "a sense of fellowship with one's competitors."

Well, with regard the Golden Rule, I don't think he'd have an issue on his opponent taking a point if he caught an out ball while standing 5 feet behind the baseline. Nor would he have an issue if his opponent accidentally injured him to the point he had to retire and his opponent took the W.

He is treating others the way he expects to be treated. Just because you expect to be treated differently doesn't make him a poor sport.

 

[jonnythan]

I guess the moral of the story is that we all hold ourselves to different standards in regard to sportsmanship. Your idea is "not cheating" and "following the rules", which puts you ahead of the curve compared to a lot of players out there. But others have even loftier ideals.....see the Golden Rule and, per the Wiki on Sportsmanship, fostering "a sense of fellowship with one's competitors."

I don't think anyone else here has "loftier" goals. They're simply different.

You put two phrases in quotes that I did not use. You attempt to characterize my idea of sportsmanship as "not cheating and following the rules" when the words I actually used were "respecting the game, playing fairly and by the rules, and respecting your opponent." Those are not the same thing.

You speak of the golden rule, which is to treat others the way you would like them to treat you. And that is exactly what I do. I play fairly, make calls fairly, apply the rules fairly, treat them fairly.

 

[Brian11785]

I don't think anyone else here has "loftier" goals. They're simply different.

You put two phrases in quotes that I did not use. You attempt to characterize my idea of sportsmanship as "not cheating and following the rules" when the words I actually used were "respecting the game, playing fairly and by the rules, and respecting your opponent." Those are not the same thing.

You speak of the golden rule, which is to treat others the way you would like them to treat you. And that is exactly what I do. I play fairly, make calls fairly, apply the rules fairly, treat them fairly.

I shouldn't have put them in quotes, but it is basically what you said.

What does "respecting your opponent" mean to you? To what degree does this respect extend past the amount of respect required (if there is any required) by the rules? Is it an internal concept, or does this respect extend to actions?

I think sportsmanship is a loftier ideal than rule-following. Because the ideals of some encompass everything you've said sportsmanship means to you, plus more. The comparison between the Code and sportsmanship is similar to that of morality and law, I think. Just because a law is on the books, that doesn't make it inherently moral (slavery, anyone?). Just because a rule is part of the Code, that does not make someone's use of the rule inherently sportsmanlike.