Watching a tennis match between two promising juniors, one an Australian and the other a New Zealander, earlier this year, I observed a very interesting incident.
At matchpoint down in the second set, the Australian player clearly failed in an attempt to run down a drop volley from his opponent. Scooping the ball (which had clearly bounced twice) over his opponent’s head, the Australian player continued to treat the point as if it were still “live”.
Meanwhile, the New Zealander, certain that the match was over, headed towards the net to shake his opponent’s hand.
With the exception of the umpire, everyone who was there, including the Australian player, knew that the ball had bounced twice. Despite a legitimate protest and an appeal to his opponent’s honesty, the New Zealander “lost” the point, came very close to “losing” the set, and, I’m sure, would have found it extremely difficult to win the match had it gone to a third set.
Had that been the case, had the Australian won the match, would it have been a case of dishonesty, not honesty, being the best policy? After all, when it comes...
To view and download this full PLR article, you must be logged in. Registration is completely free. Once you create your account, you will be able to browse, search & downlod from our PLR articles database of over "1,57,897+" on 1,000's of niches and 200+ categories without paying a penny. Click here to signup...
