Introduction
In this essay the concept of law ‘is’ or ‘is not’ like tennis (Meyers, 2016) will be examined. This essay will first look at the similarities of law and tennis, secondly it will look at its differences as law is not a set rule, this will show which argument is stronger, whether law is or is not like tennis.
The courts of choice
Arguing before the court at hand is like the Australian open. Throwing your hardest swings from the moment the match begins, desperate to win. Each lawyer is constantly strategizing and fighting under immense pressure, asking and answering one question after another in attempt to win the case. In tennis, each player gets their own side of the court, just like a lawyer in a court room. The umpire of the tennis match watches from their chair, like a judge would sit behind the bench, watching over the court hearing. They both enforces the rules, to ensure that the match/case is played in a fair spirit. The jury and linesmen play a similar role, watching from the side, judging if it was a hit or miss and giving the final verdict on a play. However, in tennis, if a tennis player is more skilled than another, the better …show more content…
This often makes people heads dart, as if an imaginary ball is being shot from lawyer to witness - eyes fixated on the ball. They must be quick to hit back or risk missing their chance, waiving their right. As a lawyer, you must never ask a question you do not know the answer to, as you can not predict the testimony. For tennis, this is the equivalent of going to the net. If you go to the net you risk missing the shot, shooting too wide, you have less control over what happens just like a testimony for a lawyer. Tennis players can lose the match by going to the net and lawyers can lose the case by asking the question they don’t know the answer
In this essay the concept of law ‘is’ or ‘is not’ like tennis (Meyers, 2016) will be examined. This essay will first look at the similarities of law and tennis, secondly it will look at its differences as law is not a set rule, this will show which argument is stronger, whether law is or is not like tennis.
The courts of choice
Arguing before the court at hand is like the Australian open. Throwing your hardest swings from the moment the match begins, desperate to win. Each lawyer is constantly strategizing and fighting under immense pressure, asking and answering one question after another in attempt to win the case. In tennis, each player gets their own side of the court, just like a lawyer in a court room. The umpire of the tennis match watches from their chair, like a judge would sit behind the bench, watching over the court hearing. They both enforces the rules, to ensure that the match/case is played in a fair spirit. The jury and linesmen play a similar role, watching from the side, judging if it was a hit or miss and giving the final verdict on a play. However, in tennis, if a tennis player is more skilled than another, the better …show more content…
This often makes people heads dart, as if an imaginary ball is being shot from lawyer to witness - eyes fixated on the ball. They must be quick to hit back or risk missing their chance, waiving their right. As a lawyer, you must never ask a question you do not know the answer to, as you can not predict the testimony. For tennis, this is the equivalent of going to the net. If you go to the net you risk missing the shot, shooting too wide, you have less control over what happens just like a testimony for a lawyer. Tennis players can lose the match by going to the net and lawyers can lose the case by asking the question they don’t know the answer