Letter: Wimbledon faults
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: While the Wimbledon authorities were no doubt correct to disqualify Tim Henman for striking a ball in anger (report, 29 June), by doing so they have highlighted their inconsistent treatment of previous breaches of the rules.
Why has no player ever before been penalised by more than a point or a fine for persistent verbal abuse of officials, racket-smashing, illegal massage between games and so on, whereas a first offender who clearly did not intend to hurt anyone suffers the ultimate penalty?
Perhaps the rules allow no alternative; but one cannot help wondering whether a Becker or an Agassi would have received such harsh treatment.
If Henman has unwittingly made it easier for players who behave badly to be defaulted as a matter of course, perhaps we should welcome what has happened.
Yours faithfully,
Graham Shipley
Leicester
29 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments