The Rublev "DQ", etc - Lessons Learned and Your Proposals?

[RaulRamirez]

If you're reading this, I'm guessing that you're aware of the Rublev situation -- the DQ (with one game - plus possibly a TB - remaining in his SF match with Bublik), the loss of prize money and ranking points. That part was successfully appealed.

Imagine that you and I and the next poster are part of the Rules Committee, governing all tourneys for our purposes.
While it's hard to achieve consensus on many topics here, it appears that there is a consensus that we'd like to see some of the worst on-court behavior(s) eliminated, or greatly reduced. And it seems that most posters would like to see more consistency as far as penalties for various infractions.
So, regardless of the player(s) involved, what can be done? Let's be solution oriented, even if we don't agree.

THINKING OUT LOUD - and I realize that umpires will always have to apply their own judgments at times.

• Right now, there are linespeople: I agree with another poster who said that players should never talk to them - let alone berate or intimidate them. Do you agree with this, and if so, what should the penalties be for violations?
• I think we all agree that no official or fan should have to worry about dodging (or getting hit by) rackets or balls when the point is not in play How would you write the rules on this. considering that there is a huge difference between swatting a ball in anger (and where it may strike an official) and accidentally getting hit gently off a bounce or two?
• Racket smashes: Are you okay with the penalties currently in place? Should they be harsher? More lenient?
• I'm still mulling over the Rublev situation, and using this as a reference point. To me, a ridiculous aspect of the incident was the other linesman (who apparently speaks Russian) claiming that Rub said the f-bomb in Russian. As if it was okay to angrily yell at the linesman (in any language) and call him a "moron". Do we really want - during the match - a review of the actual insults and epithets that were spoken? What rules, if any, would you put into effect for such outbursts?
• Other thoughts?

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

There are bloody cameras everywhere, so for Christ's sake , rewind the bloody footage before arriving to a conclusion when someone has accused the other of verbal abuse and/or cusswords. These are the days of modern technology, don't trust anyone's words blindly without a verification from the official video recording.

 

[tudwell]

I don't know if I have super-specific answers to all of those questions, but one thing in all of this for me is giving umps more discretion in administering punishments. I could be wrong on this, but it seems like umps have essentially two paths when punishing a player. One is the ordinary escalation of code violations (a simple warning for the first offense, then a point penalty, then a game penalty, then default). The other, for more egregious transgressions, is going straight to default.

I don't know if Rublev already had a code violation in this match. If not, then his first offense – yelling in the line ump's face – would have warranted a mere warning, which seems too slight a punishment to me. But the alternative of going all the way to default seems perhaps excessive (had Rublev actually struck the line ump, for example, I think virtually every single person on earth would agree with a default). I think aggressively shouting at a line judge should at least garner an automatic point penalty, even if the player doesn't have any other violations. That maybe throws the ordinary progression out of whack – if the player then smashes a racquet after, does that get a game penalty? That doesn't seem right.

So maybe the solution is having essentially two classes of violations whose punishments are decoupled from one another. For example, something mild like smashing a racquet or muttering an audible obscenity has its own path (maybe first violation a warning, all subsequent violations a point penalty), while more egregious violations start with a point penalty, then escalate from there. I think this could also help alleviate some of the tension on those situations when a player hits someone with a ball after the point is over. If the player gets at least a point penalty, rather than a simple warning, then we maybe don't need to jump immediately to default, depending on the severity of the situation. (I'm thinking of that women's doubles match last year, where one player hit a ball kid even though she was simply trying to return the ball... to that exact ball kid. Maybe she hit it a tad hard, and a point penalty would dissuade her from doing so in the future, but a default felt entirely over the top there, to me.)

 

[RaulRamirez]

There are bloody cameras everywhere, so for Christ's sake , rewind the bloody footage before arriving to a conclusion when someone has accused the other of verbal abuse and/or cusswords. These are the days of modern technology, don't trust anyone's words blindly without a verification from the official video recording.

Okay, but did this situation and the more general questions I posed) hinge on the exact words being used?

 

[RaulRamirez]

I don't know if I have super-specific answers to all of those questions, but one thing in all of this for me is giving umps more discretion in administering punishments. I could be wrong on this, but it seems like umps have essentially two paths when punishing a player. One is the ordinary escalation of code violations (a simple warning for the first offense, then a point penalty, then a game penalty, then default). The other, for more egregious transgressions, is going straight to default.

I don't know if Rublev already had a code violation in this match. If not, then his first offense – yelling in the line ump's face – would have warranted a mere warning, which seems too slight a punishment to me. But the alternative of going all the way to default seems perhaps excessive (had Rublev actually struck the line ump, for example, I think virtually every single person on earth would agree with a default). I think aggressively shouting at a line judge should at least garner an automatic point penalty, even if the player doesn't have any other violations. That maybe throws the ordinary progression out of whack – if the player then smashes a racquet after, does that get a game penalty? That doesn't seem right.

So maybe the solution is having essentially two classes of violations whose punishments are decoupled from one another. For example, something mild like smashing a racquet or muttering an audible obscenity has its own path (maybe first violation a warning, all subsequent violations a point penalty), while more egregious violations start with a point penalty, then escalate from there. I think this could also help alleviate some of the tension on those situations when a player hits someone with a ball after the point is over. If the player gets at least a point penalty, rather than a simple warning, then we maybe don't need to jump immediately to default, depending on the severity of the situation. (I'm thinking of that women's doubles match last year, where one player hit a ball kid even though she was simply trying to return the ball... to that exact ball kid. Maybe she hit it a tad hard, and a point penalty would dissuade her from doing so in the future, but a default felt entirely over the top there, to me.)

Good, thoughtful reply -- and I don't know that I have the answers, so am "crowdsourcing" solutions. (I did think about that match -- was it at the FO? -- And I'm wondering how a rule can be written to cover a variety of situations...the umpire, I think, will always have a fair amount of leeway. If the ballgirl...I don't want to dump on her...caught the ball, or laughed it off, there probably would have been no penalty - let alone a DQ. Some luck is involved as well, I suppose.)

 

[helterskelter]

Good, thoughtful reply -- and I don't know that I have the answers, so am "crowdsourcing solutions. (I did think about that match -- was it at the FO? -- And I'm wondering how a rule can be written to cover a variety of situations...the umpire, I think, will always have a fair amount of leeway. If the ballgirl...I don't want to dump on her...caught the ball, or laughed it off, there probably would have been no penalty - let alone a DQ. Some luck is involved as well, I suppose.)

There is no way to write the rules such that they cover all possible situations - of course, a good rule will be written in such a way that it covers a wide variety of situations. Human behavior is so varied that there will always be some eventuality that the rule-makers didn't anticipate or plan for. There's a decades-old literature in legal theory on how this is true for laws. It might be that the range of possibilities is slightly narrower on a tennis court than the matters that criminal law deals with, but it's still variable enough that it's not possible to anticipate every possibility. Every teacher who has ever devised a syllabus knows this, too.

So, long story short, I agree with you that the umpire will always have some leeway, and will have to do so. One possibility is that when an umpire encounters an unforeseen situation and makes a ruling, that ruling could become the rule going forward - unless the umpire decided it in a way later decided to be wrong, in which case the rule going forward could be different to the umpire's ruling. (In law, when a judge encounters an unforeseen circumstance, their ruling often becomes a precedent in the future and thus develops the law further).

 

[RaulRamirez]

There is no way to write the rules such that they cover all possible situations - of course, a good rule will be written in such a way that it covers a wide variety of situations. Human behavior is so varied that there will always be some eventuality that the rule-makers didn't anticipate or plan for. There's a decades-old literature in legal theory on how this is true for laws. It might be that the range of possibilities is slightly narrower on a tennis court than the matters that criminal law deals with, but it's still variable enough that it's not possible to anticipate every possibility. Every teacher who has ever devised a syllabus knows this, too.

So, long story short, I agree with you that the umpire will always have some leeway, and will have to do so. One possibility is that when an umpire encounters an unforeseen situation and makes a ruling, that ruling could become the rule going forward - unless the umpire decided it in a way later decided to be wrong, in which case the rule going forward could be different to the umpire's ruling. (In law, when a judge encounters an unforeseen circumstance, their ruling often becomes a precedent in the future and thus develops the law further).

Agreed, in the main. At the same time, because so many matches have been played - and there have been a number (don't ask me what that number is) of on-court incidents requiring some form of discipline (or at least consideration of discipline) - I think that a lot of these code-of-conduct penalties can be more accurately enacted. Yes, there will always be, I think (and we agree), some judgment calls, but why not try to lessen the parameters of those judgment calls?

To your last point, I'm thinking about it. I don't know how many unforeseen circumstances there can be. I realize that's why they're considered "unforeseen", right? But I don't think the rules committees. for example, have to delineate every word that shouldn't be used, so the umpire can get leeway there. And (maybe, I'm tempting fate) I think that you and I and others on our ad-hoc committee here can anticipate almost every type of misconduct.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

i don't think i learned much, but i'm enjoying the mess

 

[junior74]

Racquet smashings are very different. When done after a game, they get a warning for racquet abuse. Same thing during a game - but in that case they should get time violation, too - except they don't. I do believe abusing your racquet and delaying a point with a minute are two ways of breaking the rules. And for that matter, if a player is verbally abusing the umpire and gets a warning, and continues, he sometimes loses a point, and a game if he doesn't stop.

Umpires are as consistent as Grigor's backhand.

 

[Neptune]

Recognize the good intentions of the OP, but genuine improvement won't occur until enough fans have reached a point of rejecting the bs script and manipulation.

 

[Arak]

I think it should be like football, especially with the introduction of an additional orange card. So it must be specific to certain violations. Hitting someone with ball or racket is an automatic red card. Shouting at umpire or line judge is an automatic point deduction. Racket abuse can start with a warning and escalate accordingly. Arguing with the umpire should not be punished, as in many cases, the players turn out to be right.

 

[ibbi]

I don't really care enough to go into great detail, all I will say is that as someone who loves Rublev, I didn't think the punishment was undeserved. Ignoring what he may or may not have said, which I think it is probably impossible to genuinely know, if you get up in someone's face like that and yell at them, then **** you. You deserve it. Even if you don't get up in someone's face, I think of Serena and Roddick doing it from a distance, **** them too.

Really I just think line judges need to be done away with. When the alternative has been proven to work it is absolutely absurd to still be doing this, Especially in places that can obviously afford the alternative.

 

[Pandora Mikado]

If you're reading this, I'm guessing that you're aware of the Rublev situation -- the DQ (with one game - plus possibly a TB - remaining in his SF match with Bublik), the loss of prize money and ranking points. That part was successfully appealed.

Imagine that you and I and the next poster are part of the Rules Committee, governing all tourneys for our purposes.
While it's hard to achieve consensus on many topics here, it appears that there is a consensus that we'd like to see some of the worst on-court behavior(s) eliminated, or greatly reduced. And it seems that most posters would like to see more consistency as far as penalties for various infractions.
So, regardless of the player(s) involved, what can be done? Let's be solution oriented, even if we don't agree.

THINKING OUT LOUD - and I realize that umpires will always have to apply their own judgments at times.

• Right now, there are linespeople: I agree with another poster who said that players should never talk to them - let alone berate or intimidate them. Do you agree with this, and if so, what should the penalties be for violations?
• I think we all agree that no official or fan should have to worry about dodging (or getting hit by) rackets or balls when the point is not in play How would you write the rules on this. considering that there is a huge difference between swatting a ball in anger (and where it may strike an official) and accidentally getting hit gently off a bounce or two?
• Racket smashes: Are you okay with the penalties currently in place? Should they be harsher? More lenient?
• I'm still mulling over the Rublev situation, and using this as a reference point. To me, a ridiculous aspect of the incident was the other linesman (who apparently speaks Russian) claiming that Rub said the f-bomb in Russian. As if it was okay to angrily yell at the linesman (in any language) and call him a "moron". Do we really want - during the match - a review of the actual insults and epithets that were spoken? What rules, if any, would you put into effect for such outbursts?
• Other thoughts?

Tennis at the highest levels needs to tone down its uppity image.

Let’s compare

Linespeople
Other sports with roving umpires and referees like basketball and baseball sometimes even get tripped up in the action and it’s never seen as problematic as linepeople in tennis, who are well clear of the court. Solution: automate completely as we have the technology (even on clay) and remove the issue altogether. We don’t see players arguing with Hawkeye do we?

Contact with ball/equipment
Leave it entirely to the discretion of the umpire. The good and efficient umpires will get work and the bad ones will weed out.

Racket Smashes
The nearest I can think is NHL, which to my knowledge doesn’t penalize players for smacking their sticks on a sideboard or ice in a moment of frustration. In itself, not a huge deal. If disruptive to the match, leave discretion to the umpire.

Bad language
Every other sport seems fine with cussing, football, basketball, hockey and whatever - tennis should quit being so prim and proper. This isn’t the 1920’s and slang is commonplace now in work, education, politics and modern households so tennis should allow players to vent in a moment of frustration. Again, if going too far and disrupting the match, leave to the discretion of the umpire.


All tennis needs is a human umpire and technology for line accuracy. Sure helps to preserve the upper class image to have 10-15 people on court and a bunch of children picking up balls just for two people to have their match, but this also is part of why tennis is seen the way it is by the broader audience.