If last night's Big Bash League final wasn't played or it was determined by a number of overs even shorter than 40, then that's simply unacceptable. In fact, it borders on a hoax.
BBL organisers have exalted their product at every available opportunity.
They have encouraged fans to turn up to game after game or watch on television.
Each and every one of those matches part of a pyramid that we were told would determine the winner in a final encounter.
The fans not only purchased memberships and tickets, but merchandise aplenty. Those who wanted to watch all matches or a particular game on the box may have had to buy a television subscription service in order to do so.
But in return, the organisers cannot even guarantee that the final match will be played. If eventually it was not - they should be accountable for gross inflexibility at the very least.
Those in charge knew for days in advance of the final that the weather forecast was unfavourable. There was plenty of time to come up with Plan B.
If the new finals format had not been invented, then perhaps they would not have even been faced with the problem - for in previous situations it was not even known where the final would be played until a few days before.
Now we have the situation where a team that had to play only one finals match to make it might have been crowned the winner without even a ball being bowled.
If that was the case - or even if it was simply that it could have been - then what was the last six or seven weeks all about?
Surely it hasn't come to be that it's all about raking in the cash along the way, and who cares if there is no outcome at all on the field of play.
In cricket it's not that hard to fly a few handfuls of players and a single handful of officials to another venue somewhere in Australia, or alternatively wait a day or two until the rain stops.
Even in this era of mass inflexibility there are still examples where changes can be made when required.
Take for example the Olympic women's qualifying tournament in soccer currently being played out in Australia.
It was meant to be in China - specifically in Wuhan, the epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak.
Plan B was to move the competition within China to Nanjing but when that became no better a solution, the Asian football folk agreed on Plan C - to move the whole thing to Sydney.
Yes, slightly more time to make the decision - and a substantially different reason - but it was still possible even with bigger logistical considerations.
On the contrary, the media seemed to suggest that the AFL was in all sorts of a tizz about the need to find a potential solution if its roster game scheduled for China in May had to be relocated back to Australia. A return to Monday night football was even touted as a solution. Surely it cannot be that hard.
There are AFL grounds all over the country that host AFL matches every weekend throughout the Australian winter. On almost all of those weekends, nine matches are played. There are myriad reasons why inflexibility is now built into so much of what happens in high-level sport in Australia.
The most horrendous example was Adelaide's withdrawal from the bidding process for the 2026 Commonwealth Games. Even with seven years' notice, a plan B could not be found.
To have an AFL team in Tasmania, it appears that the creation of a new $30 million purpose-built stadium will be necessary ... even when we already have two fit-for-purpose venues that are significantly underutilised.
One of the reasons is the significant change in which television coverage is now produced. There is little equipment owned by the networks that purchase the broadcast rights. They employ very few of the workers. Everything is outsourced.
But by far the biggest factor in being unable to change anything is the inflexibility built into commercial agreements and their own rules and regulations by those administering sporting bodies and competitions.