A rule is a rule, but does this have to be revisited?

[citybert]

There have been many rules and laws that were changed because it no longer made sense. Do people think this is one of them. Maybe not a complete overhaul but to let the umpire or tournament director review the footage of what happened. Of course Nole was pissed and did this and should be ejected but what if he was leading 2 sets to love and just hit the ball lightly over to the ball boy and by mistake he hit it a little too hard and it got away from him. I know it happened in WO with a cameraman but I saw someone say that WO has slightly different rules?

Shuzo Matsuoka’s cramps was what basically let to the MTO rule(it should be named after him), does anyone think this rule should be reviewed? Allow replay or even make them forfeit a game or an entire set? They can even name new rule after Nole, that would also be a big punishment to him as that would be echoed for a while.

 

[tonylg]

No, the rule is there to prevent players from carelessly hitting a ball outside of play that strikes another person.

Which is exactly what happened.

 

[citybert]

No, the rule is there to prevent players from carelessly hitting a ball outside of play that strikes another person.

Which is exactly what happened.

right agree but what if they were hitting them to a ball boy and they either shanked it or it got away from them?

 

[tonylg]

right agree but what if they were hitting them to a ball boy and they either shanked it or it got away from them?

Same

You know how Federer likes to hit balls to the ball kids? If he does that outside of play and stuffs up and hits someone - DQ.

It's black and white and the only way the rule can work.

 

[citybert]

Same

You know how Federer likes to hit balls to the ball kids? If he does that outside of play and stuffs up and hits someone - DQ.

It's black and white and the only way the rule can work.

So based on that could federer have been ejected here? (not should - obviously not) But could he have been and it be totally within rules w no recourse.

 

[Tennease]

No need to revise the tennis rule regarding physical abuse. Otherwise, players will deliberately smack tennis balls and injure more people. Players must learn from their mistake and not repeat their shameful behaviour on court.

 

[accidental]

In on all-green account thread

 

[tonylg]

So based on that could federer have been ejected here? (not should - obviously not) But could he have been and it be totally within rules w no recourse.

Yep, if that had hit the kid in the eye, throat, etc and injured him .. definitely should have been defaulted.

 

[citybert]

Yep, if that had hit the kid in the eye, throat, etc and injured him .. definitely should have been defaulted.

Feels like there is a lot of interpretation on the rule then. (As it should be) As long as its the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law in this case