Fairness is often called the “over-riding principle” in English common law, which was passed down to colonies such as Canada and Australia.
In court rooms, litigants expect procedural fairness, meaning fairness in the process, if not the outcome.
Players and fans also expect this on the tennis court.
Thus many fans are questioning the fairness of Australian Open organizers deciding to halt play in order to close the roof while Jannik Sinner was down 1-3 in the third set and hobbling like what British Press Association reporter Eleanor Crooks called an “arthritic stork”.
This roof closure delay, plus another 10-minute break after the third set, allowed Sinner to recover from alleged “cramping” and beat Eliot Spizzirri in four sets.
After the match, Sinner called it “lucky”. Spizzirri told press that he thought the timing was “funny”. Many fans, noting favorable treatment to Sinner after his doping tests, accused Australian Open organizers of unfairness or even corruption.
The incident could taint the tournament if Sinner wins his third AO title in a row. It shouldn’t have to be this way.
Australian Open organizers made the heat rule, which guides them to close stadium roofs when their “heat meter” reaches level 5. They do not have to be slaves to their own rules. They are not robots or artificial intelligence. They are experienced organizers who have successfully managed “the Happy Slam” which repeatedly breaks attendance records. They can use their heads and apply common sense to their own rules, which should inform their decisions, not make the decisions for them.
In this case, organizers could reasonably anticipate extreme temperatures about 38 Celsius or 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Although they are trying to keep it an outdoor tournament as much as possible, they could have closed the roof before the Sinner-Spizzirri match, or at least waited until after the 2nd set, instead of disrupting play when one player was losing 1-3 and barely able to walk.
Instead, AO radio announcers, and many others watching it live, noticed that the heat meter suddenly went from 4 to 5 immediately after an immobile Sinner went down 1-3.
This sparked valid arguments on all sides. Sinner fans think it’s unfair that Sinner had to play the day match while Djokovic played the night match (which began under the roof due to extreme heat). Critics of Sinner (a large and vocal cohort on X) accused the tournament of bailing out its defending champion when he seemed moments away from retiring and begging for help from his coach Darren Cahill (an Australian reportedly close to AO organizers). They note previous allegations of favoritism toward Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and also Sinner last year, who benefited from an incident during his match with Holger Rune.
In my view, organizers must read the room and consider the optics of their actions. It’s not enough for them to hide behind their own “rules” and protect themselves from legal consequences. More importantly, they have a duty of care to the players, fans, workers and also reputation of the tournament. By following the “rule is a rule is a rule” approach (which draconian government officials used to deport a healthy Novak Djokovic in 2022), they have unnecessarily created a shadow over the Happy Slam.
Fans have legitimate reason to ask who is behind the heat meter, and why it suddenly went to five when Sinner was on the verge of exiting the tournament. Or does the heat meter react automatically to outside temperatures? If so, are temperatures the same on all courts?
Either way, organizers are not slaves to technology. Everybody in the tennis world knew it was too hot to play on Saturday afternoon in Melbourne. We don’t need a “heat meter” to tell us that. Common sense must prevail. Deploying the roof before the match, or after the 2nd set, would have been more fair than bailing out an unfit player mid-way through a set.
AO organizers can solve this problem by modifying their rules and applying common sense. If they are going to close the roof, do it before the match, or after a set, not in the middle of a set when a cramping player can’t run. This would give both players an equal chance to adjust to new conditions while minimizing impact on results. As in courts of law, there must be an appearance of procedural fairness on the tennis court.
words and images copyright Christopher Johnson Globalite Media all rights reserved
Grand Slam Magazine 