Controversial change and reverse: when modification threatens the essence of sport

It is as difficult to measure the influence of Olympism in this regard as it is to ignore that the IOC’s evaluations of each discipline have, in many cases, been decisive in some of the most important regulatory changes that several sports have undergone during the last decades.

The question involves several topics, from the diversity of participating countries -and eventually medalists- to the dynamics of the show: although it is often complex, the equation between maintaining traditions and updating is an unquestionable factor of success. As arbitrary or superb as it seems that an organism that is not specific to one discipline and at the same time encompasses all of them, it is reasonable for those most responsible for such a show to do their best to maintain attraction before increasingly dispersed and dissimilar audiences.

Many lovers of digital modernity are tempted to announce which game was that of Instagram or which World Cup turned around Twitch. These sentences, which at least are exaggerated -the sports universe continues to choose the traditional television concept over any other modality-, nevertheless have some truth to them. And it’s wise not to ignore the messages of today’s times... and they fly by.

The quest to streamline and eventually simplify the understanding of each sport is not a new issue. However, some unique miscalculations are made in the search. Even in very recent cases.

In recent days, the International Hockey Federation (FIH) analyzed the possibility of making a change to the regulations and generated a stir, to the point that it quickly put a brake on it. The intention was to try a new way to execute the short corner, eliminating direct shooting, thinking about the safety of athletes due to the speed that the ball can take.

“The interruption of this trial does not stop the process of reviewing and evaluating possible changes to improve the safety of our athletes,” the FIH explained through its official Twitter and its president, Tayyab Ikram, acknowledged that “I think it is wise that we do not proceed with this test because we must protect the original characteristics of the short corner.” The main modification in the document published by the FIH suggested that the ball had to come out at least five meters out of the circle before a goal could be scored.

Agustina Gorzelany, specialist in short corners and goal scorer of the last 2022 World Cup with the Argentine National Team, explained in an interview with ESPN that “the essence of the game and of being able to find a corner to have a direct shot would be completely lost... The drag would be lost, a gesture that is trained so much and that has been used for so many years. The possibility that some players who don’t reach the area could have that free archery would be lost. In short, the short corner would cease to be what it is, a direct shot, to become one more play in the game.”

In recent years, the FIH has made changes in search of a more attractive sport for playing, watching and televising. Among other changes, it went from two halves of 35 minutes to four quarters of 15; it streamlined the resumption of the game after an offense or a winger and even established a mandatory time so that after a goal the spectator can enjoy the repetitions. But here they went for something else: the essence of the game. Without the current short corner, one of the sport’s great attractions would be lost.

As well as hockey, other sports made changes to their regulations in order to make them more attractive, both for the protagonists and for the spectators. And for television. Basketball, for example, at some point added the triple point, reduced possession time and, like hockey, implemented quarters. Volleyball was another one that took a drastic turn by changing the way of scoring and ending those endless serve changes without modifying the score or tennis, which also in the quest to shorten the duration of the games, added the super tie break and tried to eliminate the advantage after the deuce.

Some sports even modified their traditional format and so hockey 5 appeared at the Nanjing 2014 Youth Olympic Games: more dynamic, more goals, more games, more show. The experience continued - successfully - in Buenos Aires 2018. Rugby also found out of the traditional, in Sevens, the opportunity to join the Olympic program from Rio 2016.

In regard to the changes in professional tennis, they have not yet achieved the full objective. Considering that it is a sport whose score includes the concept of infinity, the risk that, without measuring the occasion or attractiveness, a men’s Grand Slam match will go beyond five hours makes it impossible to keep fans in their stadium armchair or sitting on the couch in front of the TV.

The so-called No-Ad rule is a resource already imposed on men on the doubles circuit, but no one dares to impose it on symphonists. They say that it is the tennis players themselves who refuse to do so.

Two specific references can clear up some doubts in this regard.

One is ancient: there are signs that, in its origins, every game of tennis lasted, at most, seven points. Neither 15 nor 30 existed, but from time to time 1 was added to 4. Faced with a possible equality in 3, a decisive point was at stake. Tribute to the reviled No-Ad.

Another one is very recent. A Davis Cup match between Argentina’s Leo Mayer and Brazil’s Joao Souza ended 7-6, 7-6, 5-7, 5-7 and 15-13. It lasted almost 7 hours and ended with both gladiators cramped. From that moment on, the ITF took various measures to prevent something like this from happening again and ended up reducing the games from the best of five sets to the best of three. A drastic and improper way to take that unique epic away from its flagship competition.

Had they played with the No-Ad system (I clarify that it is impossible to make an exact calculation for reasons of the game itself), that same game would have lasted 3 to 4 hours less.