Rules Proposal:
"One Point Margin to Win Set"
rev A, 2008-11-17, by Rules Officer Hans Mullamaa
Original proposer: Martti Vottonen (Finnish rep)
_________________

Revision History:
rev A, 2008-11-17: First version.
_________________

1) Original Proposal (e-mail from Martti 2008-11-13):

Finnish Racketlon Federation has decide to make a proposal to rools!
 
We have rool that there has to be 2 points difference in every sport we succes only 1 point!
 
Reasons
The came can end with 1 point marginal
Every points counts
Orginal rool has been in Finland 1 point difference is enouhg in every sport
Racketlon symbol is hard sport so its very strange rool what we have now
its not working wiht bacic idea of mailapelit.

2) Amendment by Rules Officer

2.1) Existing Rule (2.2a)
Running score to 21. Margin of two points.
Every rally results in a point to the winner of the rally - i.e. "running score" is applied - and the winner of each set is the player who first reaches 21 points. Except at 20-20 when the set is extended until there is a margin of two points. A set can thus end e.g. 22-20 or 25-23 but never 21-20.

2.2) Wording Proposed by Rules Officer (if proposal is accepted)
Running score to 21. Margin of one point.
Every rally results in a point to the winner of the rally - i.e. "running score" is applied - and the winner of each set is the player who first reaches 21 points. A winning margin of one single point is enough to win a set meaning that it can end 21-20.

_________________________________

 

Attachment:
Comments by Rules Officer
rev B, 2009-01-01, by acting Rules Officer Hans Mullamaa
_________________

Revision History:
rev A, 2008-11-17: First version.
rev B, 2009-01-01: Added a record of the final AGM decision.
_________________

The background to this proposal is that "winning by a margin of 1" indeed seems to have been the original Racketlon rule in both Finland and Sweden back in the Eighties and Nineties. In the first version of the rules in English (from 2001-08-01) it is still there. The change to "2 points margin" was introduced into the international rules 2002-05-17 on the initiative of Peter Landberg and Hans Mullamaa (this was before the foundation of the International Racketlon Federation in September 2002) after a test period.

The analysis behind the change published in December 2001 can still be found through this link. Here is an updated version:

1) Aspects

Arguments FOR margin-of-2 scoring
- The main argument for the change is that it will increase the number of points of extra importance and therefore make the matches more interesting to watch. At the end of a tight set at 20-20 the players will now compete for 4 points (which is the effective difference between 22-20 and 20-22) instead of only 2. This means that the winner of a tight set will be offered an extra, potentially decisive premium.

- In addition the combat for these 4 points has a good chance of being prolonged over many more points and end at something like 27-25. As the rules are today a set is more or less over at 20-20 and there is not much more to fight about. Contrasting this the new counting takes advantage of a tight situation to offer several more points - of extra importance.

- In particular, at the end of the tennis set at the end of the match chances increase that the match is undecided until the final point is over - simply since there is a bigger chance that 4 points (e.g. -3 instead of +1) will decide a tight match rather than 2.

- A final argument for the introduction of the change is that it has been done before and is well tested. Several other sports are using this margin-of-2 scoring; e.g. table tennis, tennis, volley ball etc. And they have good reasons to... Since the first version of this analysis was published in 2002 both badminton and squash have introduced margin-of-2 scoring, meaning that all four of our individual sports now make use of it.

Arguments AGAINST margin-of-2 scoring
There are a few arguments that have been brought forward against the new margin-of-two counting but none of them is arguably strong enough to off-set the postive side. Here goes:
- "Not as simple". True, but no one can honestly accuse the new counting of being really complicated either. People have learned to cope with the margin-of-2 scoring in other sports. One could, in fact, argue that it is the margin-of-1 scoring that has been the confusing exception. We are actually moving back to the original model (it was the old table tennis counting that once formed the model for the Racketlon counting).

- "Unfair since a larger percentage of the points will be played in the prolonged set". This argument does not hold. First, the number of points are not equally distributed between the sets today either. Second, the implicit logic behind why it would be unfair to play more points in one individual sport is that this would be an advantage for the player that is better in that sport. But since the margin-of-2 counting will only take effect in tight sets the players will obviously be fairly equal in the sport. So, none of them is advantaged.

"Longer matches." True, some sets will contain more points. But it will not be enough to have any major practical consequences for someone that manages a tournament. The new counting will only make a difference in sets that today end 21-20. They are not that many. The other aspect concerning longer matches is that this will increase the advantage for the player who is physically stronger in terms of stamina. The view has been brought forward that this calls for a limitation of the length of the set to e.g. 25 or 28 points. But is that really necessary? Is that argument really strong enough to introduce an artificial interruption of a thrilling end game? (Neither tennis nor table tennis has introduced this kind of rule.)

2) Proposed Voting Procedure
Simple "Yes" or "No" vote.

3) Recommendation by Rules Officer
No. Let's keep the margin-of-2 scoring. It has increased the number of interesting points and made Racketlon more exciting to both play and watch. All in line with the model adopted in all four of our individual sports.

4) AGM Decision (According to Lennart Eklundh, acting Rules Officer at the AGM)
Proposal REJECTED.


_________________________________