Djokovic disqualified from the US Open for hitting a lines woman in the throat.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sir 250

New User
Lotsa tough guys on here. Can we figure out the speed of Nole’s shot (~48ft, less than 1/2 a second to hit throat, you do the math-it’s not what you think) and take shots at the throat of someone shifting from bent over with hands on their knees to upright with hand behind their back? Btw, the view of swing was blocked by his body-good luck recognizing a ball headed at you in your relaxed state. Is Johnny Knoxville available?
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Unpopular opinion, but...
Someone needs to explain where in the rule, it says automatic disqualification and where it says anything about hitting someone. The rule in full:

Players shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a tennis ball
within the precincts of the tournament site except in the reasonable pursuit of a point
during a match (including warm-up).
Violation of this Section shall subject a player to fine up to $20,000 for each
violation. In addition, if such violation occurs during a match (including the warm-
up) the player shall be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule
hereinafter set forth.
For the purposes of this Rule, abuse of balls is defined as intentionally hitting a ball
out of the enclosure of the court, hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the
court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences.

Nowhere does it mention disqualification. Nowhere does it specify hitting anyone. This rule can be applied to every single match, because a player hits a ball much harder into the stands pretty much every match, out of frustration. This rule was misapplied in this case and is not applied all the time, solely because no one gets struck by the ball. This whole thing is a joke. Why no one is actually reading the rule, is inexplicable. Everyone is acting like its a no brainier. There is no language in the rule that supports what happened in this match. Djokovic got screwed!
And yet, Nalbandian too was DQ-ed on the first instance of kicking at the advertising boards and injuring the umpire. Henman too was DQ-ed for the first instance of violating the rule at Wimbledon. It's not the first time and it's common sense. You don't want to give three strikes to someone to hit the linespersons/ball boys. I wonder why you omitted the fact that the referee has the power to escalate and directly impose the highest penalty of DQ for a flagrant violation. Is that because you decided finding an old hag with the ball is not 'flagrant'? Well, it's not up to you or to disgruntled Djokovic fans, it's simply how the rules have been applied. You can of course try to obfuscate the issue by pointing to hitting the ball into the stands or at SHOTS that accidentally find a ball boy. Spouting a contrarian opinion to become the internet hero for one day is after all a popular pursuit. It still doesn't make it true, unfortunately.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Lotsa tough guys on here. Can we figure out the speed of Nole’s shot (~48ft, less than 1/2 a second to hit throat, you do the math-it’s not what you think) and take shots at the throat of someone shifting from bent over with hands on their knees to upright with hand behind their back? Btw, the view of swing was blocked by his body-good luck recognizing a ball headed at you in your relaxed state. Is Johnny Knoxville available?
I would indeed like to line up every Novak fan insisting it's the umpire's fault for not getting out of the way, make them show their back to me and hit them hard with the ball on the back of the head. Come on, tough guys, let's see if you can take as much as you give.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The rules may have been different back then, but the standard here is 'egregious' and I can't see that was met.

And yet, Nalbandian too was DQ-ed on the first instance of kicking at the advertising boards and injuring the umpire. Henman too was DQ-ed for the first instance of violating the rule at Wimbledon. It's not the first time and it's common sense. You don't want to give three strikes to someone to hit the linespersons/ball boys. I wonder why you omitted the fact that the referee has the power to escalate and directly impose the highest penalty of DQ for a flagrant violation. Is that because you decided finding an old hag with the ball is not 'flagrant'? Well, it's not up to you or to disgruntled Djokovic fans, it's simply how the rules have been applied. You can of course try to obfuscate the issue by pointing to hitting the ball into the stands or at SHOTS that accidentally find a ball boy. Spouting a contrarian opinion to become the internet hero for one day is after all a popular pursuit. It still doesn't make it true, unfortunately.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
The rules may have been different back then, but the standard here is 'egregious' and I can't see that was met.
You cannot because you want to invest in arcane theories rather than apply Occam's Razor. Intent can only be inferred and not proved. But to hit a ball such that it travels on the full toss from the baseline to the lines person is reckless and unwarranted. So it is egregious enough. Just trying hitting the ball that far at Arthur Ashe, it's a long way with the deep backcourt there.
 

Nole_King

Professional
This is trash. Should not have been disqualified. Utter trash.
Although aAs big a disappointment that it is, I think based on current rules right decision has been made. Though truth is that he just hit away the spare ball he was carrying, a little bit harder, without looking at the direction of the lineswoman. Unfortunate it is but I dont see how the rules can be modified from what they are at present.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
Although aAs big a disappointment that it is, I think based on current rules right decision has been made. Though truth is that he just hit away the spare ball he was carrying, a little bit harder, without looking at the direction of the lineswoman. Unfortunate it is but I dont see how the rules can be modified from what they are at present.
Yeah I know. But it truly sucks.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You are indeed presenting us with a reckless act, but the penalty for that is not disqualification.

Although aAs big a disappointment that it is, I think based on current rules right decision has been made. Though truth is that he just hit away the spare ball he was carrying, a little bit harder, without looking at the direction of the lineswoman. Unfortunate it is but I dont see how the rules can be modified from what they are at present.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I have no arcane theories, but this act stretches the limits of something defineable as 'outstandingly bad, shocking'.

Most here and in the media are describing it as an unfortunate accident. That suggests recklessnes.

You cannot because you want to invest in arcane theories rather than apply Occam's Razor. Intent can only be inferred and not proved. But to hit a ball such that it travels on the full toss from the baseline to the lines person is reckless and unwarranted. So it is egregious enough. Just trying hitting the ball that far at Arthur Ashe, it's a long way with the deep backcourt there.
 
He didn't hit her intentionally. It's injustice.
He wasn't penalised for hitting her intentionally. Hitting the linesperson was the end result of an action that the officials interpreted as being dangerous and / or reckless ... which in fact it actually was. Look at the footage ... Novak was not looking at where he was hitting that ball.

a reckless act, but the penalty for that is not disqualification.
The Grand Slam rulebook clearly indicates that Default is a possible outcome of such action.
 
Why something like this never happened to Nadal at French open?
Because the Officials at that tournament interpret the Rules differently ... which they are permitted to do.

When are people going to realise that many of the Rules of Tennis are not clear cut ... they are subjective.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
He wasn't penalised for hitting her intentionally. Hitting the linesperson was the end result of an action that the officials interpreted as being dangerous and / or reckless ... which in fact it actually was. Look at the footage ... Novak was not looking at where he was hitting that ball.



The Grand Slam rulebook clearly indicates that Default is a possible outcome of such action.
Possible? But necessary?
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
The thing that honestly boggles me about all this is that Djokovic had an entire stadium of empty stands that he could have sent the ball into in his little fit of pique and on a whim he decided to aim in the direction of one of the few spots that had people. Brilliant.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I have no arcane theories, but this act stretches the limits of something defineable as 'outstandingly bad, shocking'.

Most here and in the media are describing it as an unfortunate accident. That suggests recklessnes.
You used the word recklessness yourself. The purpose of this rule is simply to ensure that players aren't reckless with how they dispose the ball when it is not in play. If they are, they have to be aware the consequences of finding a lines person with the ball is high. Nobody is forcing you to fling the ball that hard just to get rid of it. If you decide to, own the consequences. Funnily enough, Djokovic has owned it.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
If Serena had done this, every post in this thread would be about banning her from the sport and stripping her of her titles but because one of the big 3 was responsible, you have people on here actually trying to claim it was too harsh a punishment. Really shows you which users have absolutely no integrity around here.
List the names on here. I want to block them so I don't have to deal with them in future.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
He didn't hit her intentionally. It's injustice.
Why something like this never happened to Nadal at French open?
Because the Officials at that tournament interpret the Rules differently ... which they are permitted to do.

When are people going to realise that many of the Rules of Tennis are not clear cut ... they are subjective.
It's extraordinary to disqualify a player for unintentional hit. It never happens. On top that umpire DQed world #1, member of Big 3 on such crucial time when Slam race has become so tight. I smell something fishy. I see Djokovic a victim as this might harm his chances in GOAT debate.
 
Funnily enough, Djokovic has owned it.
Got me thinking.

Imagine if Djokovic had immediately Defaulted himself. As soon as he realised the Linesperson was OK. Imagine if he called for the Match Referee and Defaulted himself? Would the Referee have accepted that? Bit of Reverse Psychology. LOL
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
There's something rotten in the state of New York, that's for sure.

It's extraordinary to disqualify a player for unintentional hit. It never happens. On top that umpire DQed world #1, member of Big 3 on such crucial time when Slam race has become so tight. I smell something fishy. I see Djokovic a victim as this might harm his chances in GOAT debate.
 
It's extraordinary to disqualify a player for unintentional hit.
Look, I agree with you 100%.

But the Rules are there, they can be legitimately interpreted in the way they were, they can be applied in the way they were.

Wonder if it would have happened in an ATP Tournament? Remember the US Open is an ITF Tournament not an ATP one!
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
Look, I agree with you 100%.

But the Rules are there, they can be legitimately interpreted in the way they were, they can be applied in the way they were.

Wonder if it would have happened in an ATP Tournament? Remember the US Open is an ITF Tournament not an ATP one!
Happened at Cinci a week ago and no DQ.
 
No anger. No frustration. Not even hit hard. Just WATCH
I think you misunderstand the situation. How the player feels is irrelevant to the application of the Rule. The player could have had a huge smile on his face, he could have been jumping for joy ... but the Rule could be applied in the manner it was.

Happened at Cinci a week ago and no DQ.
Cinci is ATP NOT ITF though !
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
More than that: he did not hit that ball in frustration AT ALL. He may have hit other balls that way but not the one that hit the person. He did not even look angry and the ball was not hit hard. People need to watch the video.
I was watching the match when it happened and Prime showed the replay goodness knows how many times. In slow motion from one of the angles from the back it looked pretty casual. In full speed from an angle that was more like the side/top you can see a decent amount of whip of the racquet went through the ball. No, he didn't launch it at her like Shapovalov did, also unintentionally, at the umpire but it certainly pinged off his racquet with more speed than it looks from certain replays.

But none of this is relevant. From that distance, with the line judge quite possibly not looking his way post-game, straight to the throat?

You simply can't do what Novak did and expect not to be defaulted. Had he not been it would have smelled badly of favouritism.
 

dParis

Hall of Fame
If Serena had done this, every post in this thread would be about banning her from the sport and stripping her of her titles but because one of the big 3 was responsible, you have people on here actually trying to claim it was too harsh a punishment. Really shows you which users have absolutely no integrity around here.
We're only half way through the tournament.

Novak: OMG, I just hit a line judge in the throat with a tennis ball.

Serena: Hold my daughter...
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
The last time an ATG was defaulted from a slam was in 1990 when McEnroe was booted from the AO.... 30 years ago.
Although Serena Williams would have been had the point penalty not already decided the issue v Clijsters, also at the USO.
 

jon70

Semi-Pro
Djokovic's prize money covers a lot of entry fees. Helps the tournament's bottom line.

Come to think of it, losing all his prize money is unfair. For that match only is better.
 

Miki 1234

Semi-Pro
I would indeed like to line up every Novak fan insisting it's the umpire's fault for not getting out of the way, make them show their back to me and hit them hard with the ball on the back of the head. Come on, tough guys, let's see if you can take as much as you give.
I would just like to tap you on the head and you would faint and collaps.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I was watching the match when it happened and Prime showed the replay goodness knows how many times. In slow motion from one of the angles from the back it looked pretty casual. In full speed from an angle that was more like the side/top you can see a decent amount of whip of the racquet went through the ball. No, he didn't launch it at her like Shapovalov did, also unintentionally, at the umpire but it certainly pinged off his racquet with more speed than it looks from certain replays.

But none of this is relevant. From that distance, with the line judge quite possibly not looking his way post-game, straight to the throat?

You simply can't do what Novak did and expect not to be defaulted. Had he not been it would have smelled badly of favouritism.
Like I mentioned earlier, it's a long way from the baseline (and he was actually quite a bit INSIDE the baseline) to the linesperson at Arthur Ashe. Of course, angry keyboard warriors who have never played tennis aren't going to factor this in and will simply look at those replays and conclude it was no biggie. Actually, no, you have to send it pretty fast and hard for it to have hit her on the full toss from the baseline. Had there been spectators in this match watching this, they would have gasped.
 

AceyMan

Semi-Pro
He didn't hit her intentionally. It's injustice.
I agree. But I wonder.

Have you seen kids on Social Media hitting tiny targets with behind the back flicks and other trickshot swings.

Novak could knock a booger out of a gnat chasing a bumblebee late for work ... if he wanted to.

Just something to think about.

/Acey
 

intrepidish

Semi-Pro
The rules may have been different back then, but the standard here is 'egregious' and I can't see that was met.

You have repeated this claim several times but unfortunately, it's not accurate. In fact, the passage you are referencing contains a coordinating conjunction and states that the standard regards behavior which is EITHER "egregious" OR "particularly injurious to the success of the Grand Slam Tournament"

Either one could suffice here. And of course even a layperson who knows little of rule books and the tort doctrines on which they are based might imagine that the highest representative of the US Open's policies, a highly decorated and veteran tournament referee, might well be rather aware of procedure regarding what is an eminently foreseeable incident with an unexceptional legal fact pattern.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
stop, stop

this is a terrible argument, you know this, everyone knows this

stop

shaming

the

victim
She was fine after the incident!
I have a feeling this would not happen in any other slam. She was super dramatic about it. Wouldn’t accept Novak’s apologetic behaviour after. Acting if he was like dangerous.

A victim? Cmon, she is a line judge in a grand slam! They have to dogde balls all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top