ATP's dictatorship?

[Fee]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Yes I think he was in the wrong. I said a reasonable person would not feel that his act was not flagrant. A double negative

Gah! Double negative! Code violation! Warning, but no point penalty this time.

As far as the Serena incident from the USO in what seems like another decade already... there was so much discussion at the time I think the decision to give her the point penalty over the default may have come from the fact that the end result would have been the same. Either way, the match was over and Serena was out. As for the penalty for what she said? She got off light, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons. But that's old news.

Woodrow, thanks for coming back into the thread to clarify.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

I actually that needs to be decided by the ATP Exec. VP of rules and competition at a later date, when deciding if further fines/suspension will be issued.

But it was clearly severe and flagrant misconduct.

well, so it is a done deal. per code, any actions "that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a single violation of this section shall also constitute the player Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior." If ATP views this as 'clearly severe and flagrant misconduct' than he must be assessed this 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' penalty, no?

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by jmnk

well, so it is a done deal. per code, any actions "that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a single violation of this section shall also constitute the player Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior." If ATP views this as 'clearly severe and flagrant misconduct' than he must be assessed this 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' penalty, no?

Right, it should. So? I never said it shouldn't be.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by jmnk

well, so it is a done deal. per code, any actions "that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a single violation of this section shall also constitute the player Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior." If ATP views this as 'clearly severe and flagrant misconduct' than he must be assessed this 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' penalty, no?

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Right, it should. So? I never said it shouldn't be.

well, if he is assessed that 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' penalty (which carries various but mandatory additional fines or suspensions) at some near future for that incident than it will mean ATP did indeed view it as 'flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious'.
If however he is not assessed that penalty than it will mean that contrary to your opinion Nalbandian's behavior was neither flagrant nor particularly injurious nor egregious.
I suppose we wait and see.

[woodrow1029]

I just cant do this anymore

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by jmnk

well, if he is assessed that 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' penalty (which carries various but mandatory additional fines or suspensions) at some near future for that incident than it will mean ATP did indeed view it as 'flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious'.
If however he is not assessed that penalty than it will mean that contrary to your opinion Nalbandian's behavior was neither flagrant nor particularly injurious nor egregious.
I suppose we wait and see.

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Wait, now I'm confused. I said that the act is clearly severe and flagrant misconduct, and that it should be considered a major offense of aggravated behavior.

But, I don't recall seeing where it says to get a default, it has to be a major offense of aggravated behavior. I recall quoting the rule as something like the supervisor may default a player for any single act of unsportsmanlike conduct or something.

But, I think that a reasonable person would consider this act flagrant and particularly injurious...etc.

If ATP does not decide to call it that and fine further or suspend, then so be it.

But it certainly doesn't mean that any default situation is required to be classified that.

yes, agreed. The default and the classification as a 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' are two different things indeed.

All I'm saying is that you stated many times that Nalbandian's behavior was 'clearly flagrant' and the supervisor had a clear decision to make. I think you have used the term ' it was clearly severe and flagrant misconduct'. if that is so clear to, as you have stated, any reasonable person, than ATP should have zero doubts to classify the offense as 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' - because that is what the code says in case there's a flagrant and egregious behavior.

that is what we are arguing about - whether it was a clear cut case, with no doubt as to what the supervisor should do.

[Sentinel]

^ Don't get pulled down, Woodrow. We need you here

[woodrow1029]

Damn you're quick. Lol

Of course it was clear cut what the supervisor should have done.

[woodrow1029]

There's only 2 people that I have seen that don't think it was clear cut.

Even Andrew Castle, the worst commentator in the world, said immediately there's no question what Tom Barnes needs to do unless the rules state something about intent.

Tom Barnes said he had no choice, the tournament director sai there was no choice, even Nalbandian said he do a mistake and he has to pay like that.

This is like umpire 101, actually it's like not even that advanced the decision was so simple.

[timaru50]

There are some nice linesman and officials but there are a lot of pompous *** with big ego's ..never played the game and honestly if you meet them personally you will get some idea what I am saying. Give Nalbandian a break

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by timaru50

There are some nice linesman and officials but there are a lot of pompous *** with big ego's ..never played the game and honestly if you meet them personally you will get some idea what I am saying. Give Nalbandian a break

Which is how I'm sure some people feel about me after this thread. But some people would make that assumption after one incident or argument. An that's too bad. But honestly I do feel bad about a lot of the things I said, and most of it was out of character for me.

As to your generalization, can't that be said about just about any profession? Of course there some asses with egos. But, te majority of us have played te game. I don't know where you got that information. If you are saying never played the game on a professional level, true, but what sport has a lot of officials that have played pro? Maybe soccer/football? I don't know.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Damn you're quick. Lol

Of course it was clear cut what the supervisor should have done.

yap, I use my 'page refresh + clicking on quote option' as a means to master my reflexes. Helps at the net

Seriously, I think we have established our positions, we have returned to civilized discussion, and at that point I'll just wait and see how ATP deals with it. At which point we will resume.....

[Fee]

Originally Posted by timaru50

There are some nice linesman and officials but there are a lot of pompous *** with big ego's ..never played the game and honestly if you meet them personally you will get some idea what I am saying. Give Nalbandian a break

So that linesman deserved it, for some reason?

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Fee

So that linesman deserved it, for some reason?

LOL. That's what I was wondering.

[Virginia]

Originally Posted by jmnk

yap, I use my 'page refresh + clicking on quote option' as a means to master my reflexes. Helps at the net

Seriously, I think we have established our positions, we have returned to civilized discussion, and at that point I'll just wait and see how ATP deals with it. At which point we will resume.....

Yes, indeed we will. But it may take a while....

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by Virginia

Yes, indeed we will. But it may take a while....

true, but we are a patient bunch, aren't we

[Larrysümmers]

he was going for the box and hit a dude, big whoop.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by jmnk

so was Nalbandian assessed a 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' in addition to the default? (a serious question - do you know?)

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

I actually that needs to be decided by the ATP Exec. VP of rules and competition at a later date, when deciding if further fines/suspension will be issued.

But it was clearly severe and flagrant misconduct.

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

[...]
Would any reasonable person actually believe that what Nalbandian did or what Serena did (if it was clear to the referee) were *not* acts of severe and flagrant misconduct? I certainly hope not.[/font][/size]

Originally Posted by jmnk

well, so it is a done deal. per code, any actions "that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a single violation of this section shall also constitute the player Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior." If ATP views this as 'clearly severe and flagrant misconduct' than he must be assessed this 'Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior' penalty, no?

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

Right, it should. So? I never said it shouldn't be.

ok, the verdict is in, and since there are no more Wimbledon matches today anymore we can come back and discuss this soem more.

Per reports ATP decided NOT TO punish Nalbandian anymore for the incident:
----------
"After a review of the incident, the ATP determined that although David's actions were unacceptable and under ATP rules warranted an automatic default, the injury to the linesman was unintentional," the Tour said in a statement Sunday.

"As such, it was decided that the sanctions already levied against David are sufficient in this case."

Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18867852/nalbandian-escapes-further-atp-punishment-over-linesman-incident#ixzz1ywPFfcMD"
------------

There are two factors here I'd like to bring up.

1) per the above statement it reads

"the ATP determined that although David's actions were unacceptable and under ATP rules warranted an automatic default".

Well, we have reviewed the ATP rulebook, and no one could find any direct language that would state that this incident warranted automatic default. there's just no such rule in ATP rulebook. in fact there's no specific (un)sportsmanlike behavior action listed that automatically causes a default. So ATP spokesman, or whoever, is in reality bending the rules a bit, or at least follows 'unwritten rules'. Which is fine, except that this is exactly what Nalbandian was referring to when he semi-complained about the decision. When he was alluding to ATP rulebook being big, but not necessarily followed to the letter in all cases, or for all players.

2) It appears that contrary to some views expressed in this thread (hint, hint ), the actions were NOT "flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious". If they were, ATP would have to assess additional punishment as per action constituting "Major Offense of Aggravated Behavior." It seems that there are more than two reasonable folks (Virginia and myself) that thought these were not particularly flagrant actions - it seems 'ATP Exec VP of rules' also thought that there was nothing particularly egregious.