"Djokovic incident will change tennis" - Woodbridge

Federev

Legend
I tend to agree with Woodbridge here. There is no doubt this will be tarnishing his legacy and it is now completely irrelevant whether he ends up with more GS titles.
In most people's eyes he will never be considered the greatest.

I honestly don’t see it.

it was an accident.

he didn’t mean to hurt her.
Serena threatened the life of a lines woman and she’s the queen of women’s tennis to so many.

He’ll be fine
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
I honestly don’t see it.

it was an accident.

he didn’t mean to hurt her.
Serena threatened the life of a lines woman and she’s the queen of women’s tennis to so many.

He’ll be fine
Yeah, if SW is still fine then Djoker will be too.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I think their meaning is clear if you take the trouble to read it, but they are deliberately putting 'intentionally' up front because they realise that it will be not always be read properly.

They should have simply written the sentence without reference to intention. The distinction between it and a freak accident is irrelevant because the fact he hit the ball intentionally is obvious from the facts.

The number of times that I have read on this board that Djokovic hit the lines-person intentionally is legion, and second only to the assumption that the rules mandated disqualification for his act.

Legalistic perhaps, but I think their meaning is pretty clear.

"of intentionally hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court"

They are not at all saying that he intentionally aimed for the line judge, but only that he intentionally hit the ball recklessly within the court, as opposed to this being some reflexive action such as mishitting a ball during play or something like that.

Freak accidents can happen even when one is acting prudently. Someone can unexpectedly jump in front of my car while I'm driving in a lawful manner. If I'm intentionally going way over speed limit or driving while intoxicated, that would introduce a high degree of recklessness and would make my culpability in any accident greater even if I didn't literally mean to hit anyone. Because I knowingly and intentionally engaged in behavior that predictably increased the risk of an accident.

The recklessness refers only to his action -- deliberately hitting the ball in a potentially 'dangerous' way (not very dangerous in this case) -- and not the effect (hitting the throat of the linesperson). His action would have been reckless even if he 'missed', but that wouldn't warrant more than a point penalty. When you add the effect -- hitting the throat of the judge -- the judgment of the USTA was that his action went from merely reckless to egregious and therefore a direct DQ. You are of course right that, the way the rules are written, this jump entails a certain amount of subjective discretion on the part of the officials. But it would be very difficult for them to justify letting Djokovic off the hook for recklessly hitting a ball that ended up hitting the throat of an official that went down for the count while still enforcing the rule in more flagrant cases of the same behavior (Shapovalov or Henman) where virtually everyone would agree that it should be a DQ. The mitigating factor for Djokovic is that he didn't hit the ball terribly hard, but enforcing some sort of MPH limit in snap judgments like this is obviously unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
What?

The only thing that matters is the fact that Djokovic wasted a big opporutnity to win another Slam. At 33+ he can't waste any if he wants to surpass Fed.

When tennis_pro is serious, he writes utterly sensible posts. Fully agreed. At Djokovic's age, every slam opportunity counts.
 

Nate7-5

Hall of Fame
Does he get defaulted if the ball bounces off her shoulder or was it the incredible overreaction that sealed it? :laughing:
 

wangs78

Legend
Even as a Roger fan, I think the way these commentators have jumped onto the bandwagon to excoriate Djokovic is utter horseshit. What Woodbridge says here and what I heard PMac say have made me permanently lose respect for them as they are showing that they are corporate doormats willing to tow the party line to appease their corporate bosses. I don’t think the decision to DQ Djokovic was controversial - it was by the rule book - but even I have sympathy for Novak Bc he basically flicked the ball. This was not crushing a ball into someone’s eye socket (Shapo), drawing blood from kicking (Nalbandian) or throwing chairs (Kyrgios). So for these commentators to say Djokovic will now forever be the villain is basically... fake news. An attempt to repeat a viewpoint over and over from different sources and many people just pigeon what they hear and it becomes the accepted view, even if is complete horseshit. I have no issue with the decision Bc it was by the rules but the criticism from these commentators is some kind of sick joke.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
This is the problem.

Whether the act is disqualifiable depends on whether it is 'outstandingly bad, shocking'.

So how it looks at the time is given far too much weight. Her reaction seems to have been 'shocking' enough to seal the deal.

Does he get defaulted if the ball bounces off her shoulder or was it the incredible overreaction that sealed it? :laughing:
 

Soianka

Hall of Fame
I tend to agree with Woodbridge here. There is no doubt this will be tarnishing his legacy and it is now completely irrelevant whether he ends up with more GS titles.
In most people's eyes he will never be considered the greatest.


This is just silly.

I don't even like Novak and all of this hand wringing and hyperbole about an accident is just too much.

It's making me think that TPTB are coming after perhaps because of his attempts to start a new tour or whatever it is he is doing.
 

Soianka

Hall of Fame
This is the problem.

Whether the act is disqualifiable depends on whether it is 'outstandingly bad, shocking'.

So how it looks at the time is given far too much weight. Her reaction seems to have been 'shocking' enough to seal the deal.

I wish they would standardize the punishments for these sorts of things. They should not be judgment calls by the tournament referee IMO when so much is at stake.

The official looked very injured and it was scary to see. But when you watch the replay of what Novak did, it's clear he didnt hit the ball very hard. It didnt appear to be hit in a rage of anger as we've seen happen frequently on tennis courts. And he definitely wasn't trying to hit anyone.
 

MugOpponent

Hall of Fame
Won only 1 AO. Won 0 ATP Finals indoor.

And yes, indoor counts as a separate category from outdoor hard courts because the playing conditions are drastically different.

Nadal's achievements are enormous, much more than Agassi's, but I would actually put Agassi ahead for versatility. Especially since he won Wimbledon from the baseline at a time when the playing conditions were much faster, won the ATP Finals and made 4 more finals there.

These are my two favorite players. Agassi isn't in Nadal's stratosphere when it comes to accomplishments. I'll concede the level of talent between the two is narrower than the accomplishments but even Andre would laugh at the idea of being more versatile than Nadal. Nadal has twice defeated Djoker at the USO, defeated Federer at W and dominated Roland Garros more than anyone has dominated a tournament. Agassi's a great player but you can't make a case for versatility against a guy with Nadal's track record.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The only rule that I can suggest is one of 'strict liability' and that would not help Djokovic:

'Where an intentionally-hit ball outside of point play strikes an official or ball person (or spectator) anywhere on court (in the arena), then that player is immediately disqualified.'

I could live with that. Bizarrely enough, people are arguing that if Djokovic had struck a ball person in the neck that would have been alright as they are supposed to catch balls!

I wish they would standardize the punishments for these sorts of things. They should not be judgment calls by the tournament referee IMO when so much is at stake.

The official looked very injured and it was scary to see. But when you watch the replay of what Novak did, it's clear he didnt hit the ball very hard. It didnt appear to be hit in a rage of anger as we've seen happen frequently on tennis courts. And he definitely wasn't trying to hit anyone.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I tend to agree with Woodbridge here. There is no doubt this will be tarnishing his legacy and it is now completely irrelevant whether he ends up with more GS titles.
In most people's eyes he will never be considered the greatest.

giphy.gif
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
These are my two favorite players. Agassi isn't in Nadal's stratosphere when it comes to accomplishments. I'll concede the level of talent between the two is narrower than the accomplishments but even Andrew would laugh at the idea of being more versatile than Nadal. Nadal has twice defeated Djoker at the USO, defeated Federer at W and dominated Roland Garros more than anyone has dominated a tournament. Agassi's a great player but his accomplishments just aren't even close.

I made clear that I wasn't talking about overall achievements, where Nadal is light years ahead. The discussion was about versatility, and I think there's a a fair point to be made that Agassi was as versatile, if not more, than Nadal. They are both Golden Slams holders, but Agassi won the Masters / ATP Finals indoor. I'd also venture that winning Wimbledon on the super fast grass of the early 90's against a server like Ivanisevic is more remarkable that winning Wimbledon in the 2000's on much slower grass, even against Fed (and I am a big Fed fan).
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
The problem with applying the current stupid rule to this incident is that it is totally dependent on the REACTION of the linesman.

If the linesman ducks out of the way, there is no DQ.
If the linesman gets hit and laughs it off, there is no DQ.

Unfortunately in this case for Djoker, the linesman is an old woman with slow reflexes who loves to over-dramaticize.

One possible solution is to DQ any player who recklessly smashes the ball or smashes the racket regardless of whether it actually strikes anyone or not. The penalty for such incidents should NOT be dependent on the reaction of the linesman.

Of course if the struck linesman has a serious injury, the penalty is clear. But that is not the case here. This woman has said she is fine and has no serious injury.

In fact, it is practically impossible to get seriously injured from a tapped 40mph soft tennis ball. These line judges need to understand that the risk is inherent in the job. We cannot coddle and overprotective these linespeople . They should not be on the court if they cannot accept the minimal risks and insist on ridiculous theatrics like this pathetic childish lineswoman.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You go too far here, as there has to be some contact to warrant disqualification ... so the player will get lucky if the linesman ducks, but not so otherwise.

My solution runs:

'Where an intentionally-hit ball outside of point play strikes an official (or perhaps anyone ) anywhere on court (or even in the arena), then that player is immediately disqualified.'

Such balls can hit ballkids, cameramen, photographers, close-by spectators or even distant ones.

It might even hit the Queen of England at Wimbledon!

The problem with applying the current stupid rule to this incident is that it is totally dependent on the REACTION of the linesman.

If the linesman ducks out of the way, there is no DQ.
If the linesman gets hit and laughs it off, there is no DQ.

Unfortunately in this case for Djoker, the linesman is an old woman with slow reflexes who loves to over-dramaticize.

One possible solution is to DQ any player who recklessly smashes the ball or smashes the racket regardless of whether it actually strikes anyone or not. The penalty for such incidents should NOT be dependent on the reaction of the linesman.
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
You go too far here, as there has to be some contact to warrant disqualification ... so the player will get lucky if the linesman ducks, but not so otherwise.

My solution runs:

'Where an intentionally-hit ball outside of point play strikes an official (or perhaps anyone ) anywhere on court (or even in the arena), then that player is immediately disqualified.'

You are so silly. Your proposed penalty should not be dependent on whether anyone was struck. You need to penalize the behavior.

If a baseball player throws a bat he is DQed regardless of whether anyone was actually injured.
 

zaskar1

Professional
I tend to agree with Woodbridge here. There is no doubt this will be tarnishing his legacy and it is now completely irrelevant whether he ends up with more GS titles.
In most people's eyes he will never be considered the greatest.

all
it was an accident, the "joker" did not intentionally try to injure anyone. the linesperson just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
you could tell from his reaction, he was shocked that he hit anyone.
hopefully the "joker" might learn to behave more maturely in the future, as his behavior probably cost him the 2020 US Open.
z
 

Soianka

Hall of Fame
The only rule that I can suggest is one of 'strict liability' and that would not help Djokovic:

'Where an intentionally-hit ball outside of point play strikes an official or ball person (or spectator) anywhere on court (in the arena), then that player is immediately disqualified.'

I could live with that. Bizarrely enough, people are arguing that if Djokovic had struck a ball person in the neck that would have been alright as they are supposed to catch balls!

I think he did hit her in the neck.

But I wasn't aware that linespeople are supposed to catch balls. Though that was the exclusive job of the ball kids.

I'm not sure I would make it a strict disqualification (if I was in charge) only because these things are bound to happen with players clearing balls out of the way. It just didnt seem like there was a malevolent motive from Novak.

I do think the lineswoman should be financially compensated by Novak because she appeared to be really injured.

I do think the players should be fined after the match and there should have been some sort of penalty such as a game penalty or a set penalty.

But a disqualification for an accident seems excessive to me.

Either way, Novak definitely isn't the bad guy of tennis or this incident will change tennis or any of the other hyperbole being spewed.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The behaviour is penalised. It is just not penalised by disqualification. Only behviour that strikes someone is disqualifiable. And, by the way, a rubber ball is not a baseball bat, silly.

You are so silly. Your proposed penalty should not be dependent on whether anyone was struck. You need to penalize the behavior.

If a baseball player throws a bat he is DQed regardless of whether anyone was actually injured.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
We would offer the following proposal for dealing with the Djoker types of scenarios:

The player would be issued a warning.

Second violation would be a penalty, which would include possible DQ.

Again, this is for the Djoker scenario where there was no intent to harm.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The question is whether any such striking of an official is disqualifiable or whether only such a striking as considered serious by the tournament referree, as currently seems the case.

I'd opt for the former over the latter. It's less open to arbitrary decision-making.

I think he did hit her in the neck.

But I wasn't aware that linespeople are supposed to catch balls. Though that was the exclusive job of the ball kids.

I'm not sure I would make it a strict disqualification (if I was in charge) only because these things are bound to happen with players clearing balls out of the way. It just didnt seem like there was a malevolent motive from Novak.

I do think the lineswoman should be financially compensated by Novak because she appeared to be really injured.

I do think the players should be fined after the match and there should have been some sort of penalty such as a game penalty or a set penalty.

But a disqualification for an accident seems excessive to me.

Either way, Novak definitely isn't the bad guy of tennis or this incident will change tennis or any of the other hyperbole being spewed.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
The behaviour is penalised. It is just not penalised by disqualification. Only behviour that strikes someone is disqualifiable. And, by the way, a rubber ball is not a baseball bat, silly.

You are contradicting yourself. If some scary tennis ball rolls up somebody's leg the player is disqualified. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Think it thru some more and get back to us with a viable proposal.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
They already have penalties like this for reckless actions, but striking is considered more serious.

We would offer the following proposal for dealing with the Djoker incident:

The player would be issued a warning.

Second violation would be a penalty, which would include possible DQ.

This is for the Djoker scenario where there was no intent to harm.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Striking is not rolling, silly.

You are contradicting yourself. If some scary tennis ball rolls up somebody's leg the player is disqualified. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Think it thru some more and get back to us with a viable proposal.
 

KineticChain

Hall of Fame
GOAT title does not exist. There is no trophy for it and nobody is holding a contest for it. If you declare player A a GOAT, there is a real possibility in the future that somebody will be a better player.

There is no "All Time" because time hasn't stopped yet.
then the logical next step is to stop time. i will create a new thread in GPPD to seed this task
 

Big_Dangerous

Talk Tennis Guru
I once read that Federer told an umpire “dont tell me to be quiet”.

It was a disgraceful display that has tarnished his legacy forever, just like this.

"Don't tell me the ****ing rules!"

One of the best exchanges ever when Del Potro was allowed to challenge after taking a pretty insane amount of time. They've actually changed the rule and that example is one of the reasons why.

Hard to fault Fed on that one because the umpire allowed the challenge way late, and then told Fed to be quiet after a legitimate complaint... Seems like the umpire was pretty much asking for it at that point.

 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
They already have penalties like this for reckless actions, but striking is considered more serious.

The relevant sections of rulebook was posted in the other thread.
Would you agree that Djokers actions did not meet the test of "egregious" conduct. And it did not amount to "physical abuse".

His actions fit in more closely with "ball abuse" rulebook section.
 
"Don't tell me the ****ing rules!"

One of the best exchanges ever when Del Potro was allowed to challenge after taking a pretty insane amount of time. They've actually changed the rule and that example is one of the reasons why.

Hard to fault Fed on that one because the umpire allowed the challenge way late, and then told Fed to be quiet after a legitimate complaint... Seems like the umpire was pretty much asking for it at that point.


LOL at people quoting that incident to Fed's detriment. If anything, he was completely right in his remarks. It actually shows how acutely aware he is about the rules of the game and their proper application. Not a given, and something that certain someones are yet to learn.

:cool:
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It doesn't matter that Federer was right. The umpire is authorised to make decisions, even bad ones. It's usually only the bad ones that attract anger, obviously.

LOL at people quoting that incident to Fed's detriment. If anything, he was completely right in his remarks. It actually shows how acutely aware he is about the rules of the game and their proper application. Not a given, and something that certain someones are yet to learn.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
My solution runs:

'Where an intentionally-hit ball outside of point play strikes an official (or perhaps anyone ) anywhere on court (or even in the arena), then that player is immediately disqualified.'

Don't like this solution as it is even more strict than the current rule. Current rule would have allowed Djokker to play on if the woman had been struck in a less sensitive area.

It is important that these linespeople understand that there is an inherent risk of being struck accidentally as in the Djoker incident. We do not need to mollycoddle these linesman and treat them as sacrosanct by disqualifying players left and right who dared to accidentally hit them

There also needs to be an age limit and basic physical fitness tests so we can avoid incompetents like this feeble old frightened woman.
 
It doesn't matter that Federer was right. The umpire is authorised to make decisions, even bad ones. It's usually only the bad ones that attract anger, obviously.

Yes, it does. The only reason why this example is brought up is to show Federer's altercation with the umpire. There was no real altercation. Federer schooled the umpire in the situation.

:cool:
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's is indeed more strict, as I said at the beginning, as it is the only way to eliminate too much discretion being left to umpires and referees while penalising those who strike officials.

You do realise, of course, that the next incident of this nature which does not result in a disqualification will cause another absolute uproar, and it will eventually happen.

There will be all kinds of reasons given why the situations are not quite the same. It's better to clarify the rule now.

Don't like this solution as it is even more strict than the current rule. Current rule would have allowed Djokker to play on if the woman had been struck in a less sensitive area.

It is important that these linespeople understand that there is an inherent risk of being struck accidentally as in the Djoker incident. We do not need to mollycoddle these linesman and treat them as sacrosanct by disqualifying players left and right who dared to accidentally hit them

There also needs to be an age limit and basic physical fitness tests so we can avoid incompetents like this feeble old frightened woman.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
It's is indeed more strict, as I said at the beginning, as it is the only way to eliminate too much disretion being left to umpires and referees while penalising those who strike officials.

How certain are you that Djoker was DQed due to his organizing activities? 100%?
:unsure:
 

Federev

Legend
I would have advised him on the day he announced the Association, if he had asked, never to show the slightest hint of anger or dissension on court ever again.
Absolutely ridiculous.

Henman, Nalby, Shapo all go out for the same thing, but for Djokovic its a conspiracy?????

Laughable.

And a kind of special pleading for the elite.

If it was fair play for them it is for him as well.

The guy lost his own temper, shot a ball into a lines woman’s throat and got defaulted... it’s his responsibility not anyone else’s.

Just laughable.

“all are equal but some are more equal than others” right?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I've personally known many people who have been sacked, demoted or not rehired because of engaging in union aka association activity.

So your claim that this does not happen is ludicrous.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Henman, Nalby, Shapo al go out for the same thing, but for Djokovic is a conspiracy?????

Laughable.

And a special pleading for the elite.

If it was fair play for them it is for him as well.

Just laughable.
 

wangs78

Legend
The fact some of these commentators are criticizing Djokovic for missing his press conference is disgusting. The guy just got DQ’d basically on a technicality. The officials did what they had to but Djokovic who we know has endured bad treatment from fans against his biggest rivals has made it his mission to achieve Slam record. That he gets DQ’d here where he was the favorite would make anyone want to skip the press conference.

Had Serena Williams skipped a press conference, PMac would have bent over backwards to make excuses for Serena. He is a doormat and a POS.
 

tsurismo5

Semi-Pro
Everything he does will have a magnifying glass put on it, viz. Woodbridge's comment, so that by itself will change some people's views.
To me this behavior falls in line with other tendencies of his that would’ve also seen the magnifying glass.
 
Top