Federer hits ball kid . USTA didn't default him .

Third Serve said:
In terms of the speed of the ball and the recklessness of it all, the two occasions are very similar. Where they differ is exactly where the ball hit the person.
Click to expand...
BS. One was a ball kid. They’re supposed to handle balls. They get balls swatted to them all the time. Line judges are not responsible for handling balls.
 
Gary Duane said:
It's very subject, but basically:
  • No injury, no anger, no called foul
  • No injury, no anger, someone gets hurt, that will be tricky. So you remember an incident like that?
  • Some amount of anger/annoyance, could go either way, and that's when it gets really subjective.
  • Some amount of anger/annoyance, someone gets hurt, DQ and fine.
Anyone watching that match knows that Djokovic was annoyed. What he did was not playful. Only a blind Joker fan is going to miss that.
Click to expand...
Gary Duane said:
Yes and no. Fed was not mad, so that counts in his favor. But he hit the ball awfully hard to a young kid, and that kid could just as easily been hit in the throat as in the side of the head. If the kid had gotten clobbered, I'm wagering that Fed would not have been DQed because he was not angry.

That's the point most people are missing. Joker was angry, and that's why he's now gone. But he's not the only person who has been angry that way, so it's like Russian roulette. If you keep getting angry, this kind of thing is going to eventually happen. That's why everyone need to think about what happened, and why there are consequences for losing your temper, for all of us.
Click to expand...

Normally I'd be on your side and the idea of a 100% objective rule is obviously stupid, but our resident sophist did make a good point for once:

r2473 said:
The presence of anger isn't required.

By the letter of the law, Federer should have at least been warned.

Djokovic should have been warned a few points before

In fact, this rule should be applied OFTEN during a tennis match. But isn't.

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 warmup) 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.
Click to expand...

So anger is only one of the criteria for a code violation, and while I do think Fed's inadvertent nailing of the ball boy was more show-offy than angry I can see why one would insist he should've been warned no matter how high/low he registered on the p!ss-o meter.

And since Novak had never been warned up to that incident the question then is whether his behavior was so "singularly egregious" (per the GS rule book) it merited an immediate default. Well, this "blind Joker fan" has watched the footage multiple times from multiple angles in multiple time frames and I really don't see what you say every reasonable person should be seeing:


No doubt the guy was frustrated, as just about anyone would be after losing serve at 5-all, but to me it doesn't even seem like one of Novak's temper tantrums, just a mild blowing off steam which of course led to the ball hitting the linesperson at/near her throat. Should that have been an automatic default, an action so "singularly egregious" that the usual 3-step penalty schedule had to be dispensed with? I honestly am skeptical. Though Soeren Friemel/the USTA brought up the element of "intent" in his presser the fact of the matter is that the word makes all of five appearances in the official rule book, and that is only if you include "intentionally" (3 times) and "intention" (1) in the total count. Of course we shouldn't overplay this factoid when "singularly egregious" shows up more than twice more often (11), but what I'm trying to say here is that what mattered in Friemel's decision, or at least what should've mattered in his decision, is not the fact that Djokovic hit the linesperson but the perception that he hit her out of anger, however inadvertently. And that is a necessarily subjective decision,

So intention really has little bearing here, which is probably what Friemel meant by this: "Intent is part of the discussion, but there are two factors: one is the action and [the other] the result. The action, while there was no intent, the result of hitting the line umpire and [her] clearly being hurt is the essential factor in the decision-making process here." Now the rule book also says decisions on defaults are "final and unappealable" and I do think Friemel's was as fair as he judged it to be, but he's not being entirely accurate when he says "[t]here was no other option." There's a great deal of discretion involved here, and maybe there needs to be an addendum to the book that says any code violation that results in physical harm to an official or a linesperson is to be followed by an immediate default regardless of intent or, more preferably IMO, that a default is to be replaced by a set penalty (or some other penalty harsher than loss of a game) where the referee determines lack of egregious intent. Still won't be 100% foolproof, but leaves some legroom for not-100%-clear cases like this.
 
Does the OP suffer from a brain ailment? Thread title refers to USTA not defaulting Fed, then he goes on to say it was Australia association. If you can't make your question coherent, your capacity for analyzing what took place is automatically suspect.
 
NonP said:
So intention really has little bearing here, which is probably what Friemel meant by this: "Intent is part of the discussion, but there are two factors: one is the action and [the other] the result. The action, while there was no intent, the result of hitting the line umpire and [her] clearly being hurt is the essential factor in the decision-making process here."
Click to expand...
Can someone find in the rulebook where "the result" is a factor? I didn't see it.


N. ABUSE OF BALLS 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 warmup) 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.

EDIT: FOUND IT. IT WAS HANDLED UNDER SECTION "R":

R. UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT Players shall at all times conduct themselves in a sportsmanlike manner and give due regard to the authority of officials and the rights of opponents, spectators and others. Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $20,000 for each violation. In addition, if such violation occurs during a match (including the warmup), the player shall be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule hereinafter set forth. In circumstances 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 Major Offence of “Aggravated Behaviour” and shall be subject to the additional penalties hereinafter set forth. For the purposes of this Rule, Unsportsmanlike Conduct is defined as any misconduct by a player that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the Sport. In addition, unsportsmanlike conduct shall include, but not be limited to, the giving, making, issuing, authorising or endorsing any public statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of the tournament and/or the officiating thereof. S. POINT PENALTY SCHEDULE The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for violations set forth ab
 
Last edited:
5 pages in and no-one's mentioned we can't even see in that video if the ball kid's been hit, the ball sounds like it thumps into the umpire's chair, the ball kid leaps into action immediately as if he hasn't actually been hit and was just taking evasive action and the initial commentary suggests it didn't hit him anyway ("almost hit the ball kid", "that was close"). They then cut to the ball kid laughing and only afterwards does the commentator start randomly talking about the ball kid getting clocked in a delicate spot despite no replay to show he did get hit and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the ball kid was in any kind of discomfort.

Until someone shows me a convincing video I'm simply not buying it.
 
yossarian said:
Also because the pros routinely hit the balls toward the ball kids after a point. They don’t routinely hit balls toward a linesperson after the end of a game in frustration

People are really grasping at straws rather than coming to terms with the fact that their favorite player made a stupid mistake
Click to expand...
How dare you treat this forum ax though it is filled with rational adults!!! You need a Wilson US Open tattoo on your Adam’s apple for this offense, while you’re least expecting one.
 
Red Rick said:
Great, it's about risk, not outcome then.

Let's talk every racket smash next to a ball person/line judge, ever.
Click to expand...
So how to assess risk? Do you get to be the arbiter or should we look at all the hundreds of racquet smashes in the game and the 0 injured people?
 
metsman said:
They changed it from grass to hard to help Federer back when Federer was 6 years old? Don't think so, Gore.
Click to expand...
Sorry metsman, I wasn't talking about the switch from grass. I was addressing my comments to people who have knowledge of recent tennis history-specifically the 2017 Australian Open. Ask a friend who is into tennis or google it and you'll get up to speed.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Sorry metsman, I wasn't talking about the switch from grass. I was addressing my comments to people who have knowledge of recent tennis history-specifically the 2017 Australian Open. Ask a friend who is into tennis or google it and you'll get up to speed.
Click to expand...
What about the 2008 AO when they changed the surface into a gritty, medium-slow court that made Federer's shots penetrate much less into the court?

Because Fed was much more comfortable with Rebound Ace and you don't even need to look at competition to derive this.
 
Third Serve said:
What about the 2008 AO when they changed the surface into a gritty, medium-slow court that made Federer's shots penetrate much less into the court?

Because Fed was much more comfortable with Rebound Ace and you don't even need to look at competition to derive this.
Click to expand...
In 2008 they didn't change the surface to suit a single player. In 2017 they did.
 
canta_Brian said:
So how to assess risk? Do you get to be the arbiter or should we look at all the hundreds of racquet smashes in the game and the 0 injured people?
Click to expand...
We use the scientific method. Also people have been hit with rackets plenty of times. Also how injured is the Karen now?
 
Sysyphus said:
hmmmm...

two different tennis players did two different actions in two different contexts with two different outcomes and got two different reactions.

CAN WE REALLY SAY EVERYONE IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW ANYMORE?
Click to expand...

And on two different continents!!
 
Slowtwitcher said:
How come Federer didn't get DQ'ed for this?????

roger-federer.new_.c.jpg
Click to expand...

Point deduction... at minimum!
 
Third Serve said:
Can you provide evidence (I'm looking for statements made by tournament officials or anyone else who would know)?
Click to expand...
You think tournament officials would admit that they tried to give an advantage to a player at a slam? You're joking, right?

Everyone who understands the game knows what happened.
 
Spencer Gore said:
You think tournament officials would admit that they tried to give an advantage to a player at a slam? You're joking, right?

Everyone who understands the game knows what happened.
Click to expand...
Very thinly veiled insult there.

I wasn’t joking but I knew that wasn’t true. You don’t have any evidence, just as I thought. Only assumptions and guesses.

Now I guess I can say that the AO changed the 2008 courts to disadvantage Federer. You don’t even need evidence because anyone who truly understands the game should know that that was the case.
 
Third Serve said:
Very thinly veiled insult there.

I wasn’t joking but I knew that wasn’t true. You don’t have any evidence, just as I thought. Only assumptions and guesses.

Now I guess I can say that the AO changed the 2008 courts to disadvantage Federer. You don’t even need evidence because anyone who truly understands the game should know that that was the case.
Click to expand...
Can you provide any evidence that players in the locker room believed that to be the case?
 
Lonnng thread, though I think the point I agree with is that there is wiggle room within the rules. Ironically, the ball that Novak hit (most rational people would say inadvertently "at") the lineswoman did not look like it was hit with anger or frustration, though watching the match, one could see that the last couple games frustrated him, while the ball he hit - that did not hit anybody - one game prior did seem to be hit out of (self-directed) anger and frustration.

The wiggle room is this: If the same action hit the wall in between linespeople, he may not have even been assessed a warning. If it hit her in the arm, but she, essentially, shrugged it off (a la Bedene and the camera man), I don't think he would have been DQd.

Note: I am NOT blaming her. This was bad luck for both of them, and while I don't blame the officials, they did have wiggle room to not DQ him.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Can you provide any evidence that players in the locker room believed that to be the case?
Click to expand...
No, I can't (at least I'm not aware of evidence). That's the point.

I was illustrating how anyone can make statements like that, offer no evidence to support it, and insist that only those who "know about the sport" will understand. It's like the Rick and Morty copypasta.
 
Third Serve said:
No, I can't (at least I'm not aware of evidence). That's the point.

I was illustrating how anyone can make statements like that, offer no evidence to support it, and insist that only those who "know about the sport" will understand. It's like the Rick and Morty copypasta.
Click to expand...
Players at the 2017 tournament believed the court speed had been increased to favour Federer. So I'm not just "making a statement without evidence".
 
Look, unfair or not, Djokovic got defaulted. That's life- he's had plenty of much deserved luck- and now it's time to stop crying and time to move on.
Next...
 
Spencer Gore said:
Players at the 2017 tournament believed the court speed had been increased to favour Federer. So I'm not just "making a statement without evidence".
Click to expand...
Why didn't you tell me this before? I'd also appreciate an article since all of the ones I'm seeing have quotes from the players saying that the courts did speed up, and speculation that they would favor fast-court players like Federer, but nothing to show if it was actually intentional.

And besides, these players aren't in any position to know. They can tell us that the courts sped up but what they can't tell us is why those changes occurred. Their guesses are honestly as good as ours, unless they can prove to have been in contact with someone who does know.

So, no evidence. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but don't go around peddling it like gospel unless you can offer convincing evidence that it happened.
 
Legend of Borg said:
I'm not sure what's to be gained here

some kind of moral victory?

dredging up some obscure clip of Fed clipping a ballboy is just desperation at this point
Click to expand...
It shows a disturbing level of bias in favour of certain players and against others.
Everyone who cares about the integrity of the sport should be concerned.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Note: I am NOT blaming her. This was bad luck for both of them, and while I don't blame the officials, they did have wiggle room to not DQ him.
Click to expand...
In this case I don't think so. This does not mean that I agree with any number of past decisions, and I agree it was bad luck - HORRIBLY bad luck. But I think they realized something obviously over the line happened, and they had to make the decision they made.

HOWEVER: there are lots of things leading up to this that contributed to the mess. Much as the time violation rules got broken so often that it is now hard to enforce them, this could have been taken care of long ago by being tougher and retraining all the players that certain things they have been doing are not acceptable. The refs and officials get into trouble because they are afraid to hold the line until things are crazy. It's kind of like a parent who never lays down the law until their kids are so out of control that it's too late to stop really bad behavior.

The fact is that officials are afraid to draw a line before things get totally out of control. Then something happens that is so out of control that someone realizes, too late, that a line has to be drawn. But then the wrong line is drawn at the wrong time, in desperation, and that's what happened to Novak. He was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, hitting the wrong ball in the wrong direction. And I still think it sucks, because that's no way for a champion to lose the chance to make his mark in the slam race.

No one deserves horribly bad luck, and the bottom line is that he was incredibly unlucky.
 
Gary Duane said:
In this case I don't think so. This does not mean that I agree with any number of past decisions, and I agree it was bad luck - HORRIBLY bad luck. But I think they realized something obviously over the line happened, and they had to make the decision they made.

HOWEVER: there are lots of things leading up to this that contributed to the mess. Much as the time violation rules got broken so often that it is now hard to enforce them, this could have been taken care of long ago by being tougher and retraining all the players that certain things they have been doing are not acceptable. The refs and officials get into trouble because they are afraid to hold the line until things are crazy. It's kind of like a parent who never lays down the law until their kids are so out of control that it's too late to stop really bad behavior.

The fact is that officials are afraid to draw a line before things get totally out of control. Then something happens that is so out of control that someone realizes, too late, that a line has to be drawn. But then the wrong line is drawn at the wrong time, in desperation, and that's what happened to Novak. He was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, hitting the wrong ball in the wrong direction. And I still think it sucks, because that's no way for a champion to lose the chance to make his mark in the slam race.

No one deserves horribly bad luck, and the bottom line is that he was incredibly unlucky.
Click to expand...
Disqualification decisions shouldn't be based on luck.
 
Wurm said:
5 pages in and no-one's mentioned we can't even see in that video if the ball kid's been hit, the ball sounds like it thumps into the umpire's chair, the ball kid leaps into action immediately as if he hasn't actually been hit and was just taking evasive action and the initial commentary suggests it didn't hit him anyway ("almost hit the ball kid", "that was close"). They then cut to the ball kid laughing and only afterwards does the commentator start randomly talking about the ball kid getting clocked in a delicate spot despite no replay to show he did get hit and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the ball kid was in any kind of discomfort.

Until someone shows me a convincing video I'm simply not buying it.
Click to expand...

That's because the kid doesn't actually look like or react like he got hit at all. As much as I can tell he MAY have been hit on the side of the head (with a hat on of course). Sounds more like the ump's chair as you said.

PMac then says "Almost hit the ball kid." BG says (being the complete and utter tool that he is) " He got that right in the wrong spot" as if to imply that it hit the private parts, yet the kid is up and running after a ball almost instantly. And even if the kid was hit anywhere else on the body with a ball coming at that speed he still wouldn't be running for a ball literally not 2 seconds later. So in other words BG is an idiot who exaggerated it all for effect.

The PMac says "That kid is going home tonight and saying "Mom guess what Roger hit me with the ball," which is very questionable whether it happened at all, though I think PMac knows that kids might exaggerate to their parents, so I'll cut him a little slack.

Now, was Federer careless, even reckless, and did he get lucky? Absolutely he did. He shouldn't have done the shot at that speed and from behind his back. Could've ended much worse and I hope Federer learned from this and will be careful in future even around the ballkids (let alone the linespeople). And yes I agree there's a difference, but at the very least he shouldn't be doing trickshots to the ballkids, just normal swings will suffice or not at all.

But many players have gotten lucky, including Djokovic at RG 2016. He was just unlucky this time.
 
Last edited:
yossarian said:
How are you going to design an experiment to create an objective rule that assesses risk? Are you serious?
Click to expand...
you have Novak Djokovic play the part of line judge, ballboy and chair umpire

then you hire Fed to do reckless trickshots, Henman to do reckless frustration slaps and Shapovalov smashing balls wildly around the arena and so on and so on

repeat this a cruel number of times, see who has the highest chance of hitting him, calculate expected medical costs for each scenario etc

then ban federer

science™

200.gif
 
maratha_warrior said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.givemesport.com/1597781-us-open-roger-federer-wasnt-disqualified-like-novak-djokovic-when-he-hit-a-ball-boy?amp

Djokovic hits LinesPerson , USTA defaults him . (y)
Federer hits Ball Kid , Australian Open Association didn't default him (n).

Are rules same for everyone ??
What this tells us ?

Want a honest discussion on this , friends .
Click to expand...
If you stumble during play, and accidentaly fall on your racket so that it breaks, should you get a warning for racket abuse?

If you are trolling here its ok, but if you really dont see the difference in the Fed & Djoko cases, im a bit worried.

First of all, "aggrevated behavior" is the key element here. Federer misses a serve, and simply passes the ball to the ballboy, which job is to pick up balls. Its not Federers fault that the ballboy is unable to do his job, nor does Fed show aggrevated behavior.

Djokovic is pissed of after missing 3BPs and then loses on serve. He clearly shows unnecessary aggrevated behavior, and although he doesnt intend to hit the lineswoman, it would never have happened if he wasnt pissed off.
 
Jonas78 said:
If you stumble during play, and accidentaly fall on your racket so that it breaks, should you get a warning for racket abuse?

If you are trolling here its ok, but if you really dont see the difference in the Fed & Djoko cases, im a bit worried.

First of all, "aggrevated behavior" is the key element here. Federer misses a serve, and simply passes the ball to the ballboy, which job is to pick up balls. Its not Federers fault that the ballboy is unable to do his job, nor does Fed show aggrevated behavior.

Djokovic is pissed of after missing 3BPs and then loses on serve. He clearly shows unnecessary aggrevated behavior, and although he doesnt intend to hit the lineswoman, it would never have happened if he wasnt pissed off.
Click to expand...

"He clearly shows unnecessary aggrevated behavior"

Does he? He doesn't look particularly aggressive or angry in any of the footage I've watched.
If anything he seems to mindlessly hit the ball towards the back of the court. I see no great anger in it at all.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Sorry metsman, I wasn't talking about the switch from grass. I was addressing my comments to people who have knowledge of recent tennis history-specifically the 2017 Australian Open. Ask a friend who is into tennis or google it and you'll get up to speed.
Click to expand...
Gore, the 2016 Australian open was played on hard courts, as was the 2017 Australian open, on the same brand of HC nonetheless. To what change of surface do you refer?
 
So what is the rule exactly? If you smash a ball/racket and it luckily misses everyone then no penalty? If you smash a ball/racket and it hits somebody but they are luckily not hurt then it's either no penalty or a code violation warning? If you smash a ball / racket and it unfortunately hurts somebody then you are defaulted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

demrle
Is this a legitimate proof that Federer is more talented than Djokovic?
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
blablavla
B
OddJack
Roger Federer : Match point
2
Replies
86
Views
8K
larry10s
L
W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Djokovic, US Open final, 2007
Replies
13
Views
4K
BrokenGears
BrokenGears
W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Djokovic, Year End Championship semi-final, 2010
Replies
4
Views
2K
ForehandCross
ForehandCross
W
Match Stats/Report - Djokovic vs Federer, Australian Open semi-final, 2008
Replies
1
Views
2K
Waspsting
W
Back
Top