Field of Play

The traditional view of sport's arbitrators is that decisions relating to the 'field of play' ie relating to the technical rules of the game are not subject to review. In other words, essentially the umpires decision is final. The Court of Arbitration for Sport recognises the concept of 'subsidiarity' ie the principle of devolving decision making to the lowest practical level. Umpires are far better qualified and placed to make decisions about the game than arbitrators who do not necessarily share the same level of expertise in relation to that particular sport. Umpires will inevitably make mistakes, or give rulings based upon their line of sight or position on the field of play. The contractual position of the participant is that he can expect to receive honest decisions from officials, but not always the correct ones.
In order for decisions to be reviewed there must be some evidence of lack of good faith or arbitrariness on the part of match officials. This is a high hurdle to overcome. There must be evidence of a lack of impartiality or prejudice on the part of the official.
These principles have been brought into fresh relief by the recently ended and much missed London 2012 Olympic Games. There were 2 particular appeals which caught my attention.
The first concerned the Women's Triathlon 'dead heat'. Having considered the remarkable need for a photo finish in such a long distance event, the gold medal was awarded to Nicols Spirig of Switzerland. The winning margin was deemed to be 15cms. Both athletes were given the same time. The Swedish athlete Lisa Norden appealed firstly to the International Triathlon Union (ITU) and subsequently to CAS. Both appeals failed. The Swedish argument was that the considerations relating to the decision making process with regard to determining the winner were flawed. In essence Sweden claimed that the Swede's torso had in fact crossed the line at least at the same time as the Swiss. An element of doubt had been introduced by the failure of a second back up camera. Part of Norden's torso was not visible as a result. Sweden claimed that this constituted a violation of or a failure to apply the rules rather than a 'field of play' decision. They argued that Norden should also get a gold medal. CAS disagreed finding that the decision was indeed a field of play decision and there was no breach of any rule. Norden did not really come close to overturning the original decision.

Hair's Breadth

However the second case presents more difficulty.
South Korean fencer Shin A Lam stood on the verge of Olympic Glory. In the Women's Epee semi final the clock was stopped with one second to go. She was leading. She had to resist for one second when play resumed and she was in the final. The umpire signalled for play to resume, but the clock did not restart. Profiting from the extra time the German Britta Heidemann scored the decisive point to 'defeat' Shin. It transpired that the time keeper was a 15 year old British volunteer. It was his error.
Shin protested. She was required to remain on the piste to indicate that she was not accepting the decision. Her 'appeal' was overruled. Shin then refused to leave the piste and was eventually removed by security officials.
I wonder whether the German ever considered refusing the victory a la Mats Wilander? *
Shin was so upset that she crashed out in the bronze medal match and ended up with nothing.
Is this really a 'field of play' decision? Is it so gross that arbitrators should intervene? Shin clearly won, in fact had won, but play had continued, no doubt distracting Shin. Additionally she clearly had a right to expect that the time keeper would be a qualified adult, this was after all the Olympic Games! Arbitrariness???
The IOC, clearly embarrassed by this state of affairs, offered Shin a consolation medal. Quite rightly she declined. What she should have had was the chance to contest the gold medal.
The only silver lining was that Shin was able to regroup and earn a silver in the team competition.

Justice Denied?

* Mats Wilander declined to accept victory in the French Open Final 1982 because he believed that a call against his opponent, Jose Luis Clerc, on match point, was incorrect. He insisted that the point be replayed even though the match had been called in his favour. Wilander still won, but with total honour.