Ivanisevic says Djokovic should not have been defaulted

weakera

Legend
Goran comes through and slays


Novak Djokovic should not have been disqualified, says Goran Ivanisevic


The former Wimbledon champion told Sport Klub: "I didn't see it, but I heard the woman below us sigh and I knew right away that was it - goodbye.

"The most tragic thing is that he wasn't angry at all when he lost that game. The only mistake is that he didn't look, that he threw the ball looking forward, not behind him.

"I'm not talking about Novak now, I am generally against disqualification. It is meaningless to me. If you come and knock the referee off the chair [then OK], but this was completely unintentional.

"The rules are as they are, either you are warned or you are disqualified, which in my opinion is stupid. I am not objective, but I don't think he should have been disqualified, he should have been given a game penalty."

Djokovic had been an overwhelming favourite to win an 18th Grand Slam title, which would have brought him within two of Roger Federer's all-time record.

He had not lost a match all season, which made the nature of his exit all the harder to take.

Ivanisevic and Djokovic headed back to the house they were renting for the tournament, and the Croatian said: "How could it be? Awful. He was by himself for a while, and then we talked.

"It is not easy for him, it was a huge shock that nobody expected. He was the favourite, he played great, and the tournament before that.

"I had all the scenarios in my head - that someone on the team might get infected (with COVID-19), so they kicked him out of the tournament, that he might get hurt and even lose. But I didn't have this, even in my wildest dreams, in my head."

Djokovic returned to Europe and turned his attention to the rescheduled clay-court season. He had his first practice in Rome on Friday ahead of next week's tournament, while the French Open begins on September 27.

Ivanisevic is not concerned about a hangover, saying: "Novak is a born winner and he will come out of this even stronger and better. If he wins Roland Garros, which I think he can, this will be forgotten as if it never happened."

 

UnforcedTerror

Semi-Pro
"The rules are as they are, either you are warned or you are disqualified, which in my opinion is stupid."
Is it really like this? What does the rule book say? If there was a possibility for Djoker not to get defaulted, then for sure he didn't deserve to be defaulted for such an unintentional mistake. A game penalty would have been fair imo.
 
F

FRV3

Guest
Issue is the rule is against violent, dangerous, or angry hitting of the balls. Malicious intent does not play a part. The way the rules are written gives directors a lot of leeway in how they interpret the actions on court. I think if there was no anger involved, Goran is right; it should have been a warning.
 

DreddyTennis45

Hall of Fame
Issue is the rule is against violent, dangerous, or angry hitting of the balls. Malicious intent does not play a part. The way the rules are written gives directors a lot of leeway in how they interpret the actions on court. I think if there was no anger involved, Goran is right; it should have been a warning.
Just a few games before Novak was seen smashing a ball in anger in to the advertising boarding and then he hit the line judge after PCB broke to serve for the set. Therefore it is very reasonable to assume there was anger involved and thus a default is justified
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
what is he rambling about, djokovic the careless brat with anger management issues (according to his old friend hantuchova) hits a ball carelessly to the throat of a lineswoman and leaves her on the floor in a shock........he was rightly defaulted and case closed, no one gives a hoot about how ivani sivani feels about disqualifications........what these shameless people need to do is congratulate the new slam champion tonight instead of crying about things that have already been closed by officials........
 

blablavla

Legend
Is it really like this? What does the rule book say? If there was a possibility for Djoker not to get defaulted, then for sure he didn't deserve to be defaulted for such an unintentional mistake. A game penalty would have been fair imo.
yes, it is like this.
a game penalty was not possible.

if the umpire would have warned Novak earlier, when he hit the ball into the stands, next choice would be point penalty vs default.
 

Hitman

Legend
You are a breath of sanity in here!
I can understand that mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. I know what he did was an accident, there was no intentional malice at all, but there is a professional code of conduct that all these professionals agree to adhere to when they step onto the court. He made a mistake and the correct decision was made, the default was the right call...what to me is more important is that Djokovic understands and accepts the mistake, learns from it and moves on. He has done that, and that is all I can ask of him.

The good thing for Novak is he doesn't have too much time to dwell on it, Rome is on its way and so is RG, so hopefully he can focus his energy on that. USO 2020 was not meant to be for Novak, lets move on.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Djokovic fan here - It was the right decision, time to move on. He made a mistake and he paid the price for it. I only hope he has learned from it.
I disagree that things are so straightforward and easy. Nalbandian caused physical injury (blood was drawn) as well as Shapovalov did (eye surgery was required). In the case of Djokovic there is no any physical injury and there was, at worse, debatable intention and, most likely, no intentions at all. If this decision stands, it would mean that any ATP tennis player is in jeopardy being DQ after tapping a ball to anyone on the court. The decision has to be based on objective criteria such as 1) Hitting a ball above certain speed (let’s say 80 miles/hour; DQ irrespective whether there is injury or not) or 2) injury (irrespective whether there is speed/intention or not). Subjective reaction in response to a contact with the ball should not play a role in decision making. I have to say that I saw one thing with my own eyes while pundits were claiming something different (that Djokovic hit the ball in anger/frustration); I saw that he tapped the ball back). Based on what I have seen, he should not have been DQ even according to current rules. However, I am happy that he was DQ as he should finally understand with whom he is dealing with. Ivanisevic said that they were not ready for this scenario; they should have been.
 
Last edited:

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
You are a breath of sanity in here!
You'll always get the objective side of the discussion with Djokovic fans like Hitman and Nolefam. They call it as they see it.

They've already processed what happened and are looking forward to Djokovic starting his clay campaign as one of the favourites.

At the more extreme end of the supporter spectrum are the conspiracy theorists, who can't get over this. This will still be an issue for them for a long time.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Djokovic fan here - It was the right decision, time to move on. He made a mistake and he paid the price for it. I only hope he has learned from it.
No. It was the wrong decision. The rule states a player must not abuse an official. That would mean if hitting a ball at someone they were guilty of ball abuse. Djokovic action was not ball abuse. It was a shocking decision now i have had time to see the other angle. That is what makes it more devastating for Djokovic. The umpire was to blame as she lied about what happened. She clearly stated on court to the referee Djokovic turned and then hit the ball. He did not. Djokovic was robbed of a place in final.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
You are probably the most objective Nadal fan on this board. Doesn’t mean you are correct (as I don’t know what is correct), but you are definitely objective.
I like fair play. The Djokovic incident has ruined an already poor event for me as it seems a hatchet job. He did not hit the ball in anger. He was disappointed but tapped the ball away just like i saw Thiem do the other night.
But the worse bit that nobody has mentioned was why the decision took so long. That reeks of suits making a decision in an office somewhere. Just too convenient that the guy who wants a rival tour is DQd. Politics has no place in sport.
 
F

FRV3

Guest
He was disappointed but tapped the ball away just like i saw Thiem do the other night.
People are still flicking the tennis balls back?! I’d be rolling them back with my hands if I witnessed the Djokovic incident.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
People are still flicking the tennis balls back?! I’d be rolling them back with my hands if I witnessed the Djokovic incident.
Its habit. Nadal often hits the balls back before serving if he doesnt like the ball. I am disappointed Nadal has not come out in support of Novak. I hope in rome if he is asked about it he does
 

weakera

Legend
No. It was the wrong decision. The rule states a player must not abuse an official. That would mean if hitting a ball at someone they were guilty of ball abuse. Djokovic action was not ball abuse. It was a shocking decision now i have had time to see the other angle. That is what makes it more devastating for Djokovic. The umpire was to blame as she lied about what happened. She clearly stated on court to the referee Djokovic turned and then hit the ball. He did not. Djokovic was robbed of a place in final.
Well stated.
 

myth

Semi-Pro
Goran comes through and slays


Novak Djokovic should not have been disqualified, says Goran Ivanisevic


The former Wimbledon champion told Sport Klub: "I didn't see it, but I heard the woman below us sigh and I knew right away that was it - goodbye.

"The most tragic thing is that he wasn't angry at all when he lost that game. The only mistake is that he didn't look, that he threw the ball looking forward, not behind him.

"I'm not talking about Novak now, I am generally against disqualification. It is meaningless to me. If you come and knock the referee off the chair [then OK], but this was completely unintentional.

"The rules are as they are, either you are warned or you are disqualified, which in my opinion is stupid. I am not objective, but I don't think he should have been disqualified, he should have been given a game penalty."

Djokovic had been an overwhelming favourite to win an 18th Grand Slam title, which would have brought him within two of Roger Federer's all-time record.

He had not lost a match all season, which made the nature of his exit all the harder to take.

Ivanisevic and Djokovic headed back to the house they were renting for the tournament, and the Croatian said: "How could it be? Awful. He was by himself for a while, and then we talked.

"It is not easy for him, it was a huge shock that nobody expected. He was the favourite, he played great, and the tournament before that.

"I had all the scenarios in my head - that someone on the team might get infected (with COVID-19), so they kicked him out of the tournament, that he might get hurt and even lose. But I didn't have this, even in my wildest dreams, in my head."

Djokovic returned to Europe and turned his attention to the rescheduled clay-court season. He had his first practice in Rome on Friday ahead of next week's tournament, while the French Open begins on September 27.

Ivanisevic is not concerned about a hangover, saying: "Novak is a born winner and he will come out of this even stronger and better. If he wins Roland Garros, which I think he can, this will be forgotten as if it never happened."

I like Novak and Goran....but the rules are the rules.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
I disagree that things are so straightforward and easy. Nalbandian caused physical injury (blood was drawn) as well as Shapovalov did (eye surgery was required). In the case of Djokovic there is no any physical injury and there was, at worse, debatable intention and, most likely, no intentions at all. If this decision stands, it would mean that any ATP tennis player is in jeopardy being DQ after tapping a ball to anyone on the court. The decision has to be based on objective criteria such as 1) Hitting a ball above certain speed (let’s say 80 miles/hour; DQ irrespective whether there is injury or not) or 2) injury (irrespective whether there is speed/intention or not). Subjective reaction in response to a contact with the ball should not play a role in decision making. I have to say that I saw one thing with my own eyes while pundits were claiming something different (that Djokovic hit the ball in anger/frustration); I saw that he tapped the ball back). Based on what I have seen, he should not have been DQ even according to current rules. However, I am happy that he was DQ as he should finally understand with whom he is dealing with. Ivanisevic said that they were not ready for this scenario; they should have been.
Blood being drawn is not the definition of physical injury. In the Nalbandian situation it was just a scrape. With Djokovic the line judge was clearly in distress. What is worse?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Well, Goran WOULD say that wouldn't he? There is no question that Novak was frustrated after surrendering his serve to let PCB serve out for the set and his frustration was evident in the ball he impatiently hit back towards the lineswoman, The point is that he had received several warnings for earlier such incidents in his career but got away with it because he luckily avoided hurting someone. That changed on Wednesday night and chickens finally came home to roost. Let's hope that means the lesson has finally sunk in.
 

irishnadalfan1983

Hall of Fame
I can understand that mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. I know what he did was an accident, there was no intentional malice at all, but there is a professional code of conduct that all these professionals agree to adhere to when they step onto the court. He made a mistake and the correct decision was made, the default was the right call...what to me is more important is that Djokovic understands and accepts the mistake, learns from it and moves on. He has done that, and that is all I can ask of him.

The good thing for Novak is he doesn't have too much time to dwell on it, Rome is on its way and so is RG, so hopefully he can focus his energy on that. USO 2020 was not meant to be for Novak, lets move on.
I wonder has he really learned from it....It is like Covid in June? Maybe those around him telling him it is fine - pretty sure Goran stuck up for him then though....I know he came out with apology but I don’t think Goran coming out with this helps...No doubt he will coming storming back in Rome again this week either way...
 

GabeT

Legend
The rule needs to be reviewed and makes little sense as it stands. but the rule is what it is today and Novak was careless. Now on to clay!
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
I disagree that things are so straightforward and easy. Nalbandian caused physical injury (blood was drawn) as well as Shapovalov did (eye surgery was required). In the case of Djokovic there is no any physical injury and there was, at worse, debatable intention and, most likely, no intentions at all. If this decision stands, it would mean that any ATP tennis player is in jeopardy being DQ after tapping a ball to anyone on the court. The decision has to be based on objective criteria such as 1) Hitting a ball above certain speed (let’s say 80 miles/hour; DQ irrespective whether there is injury or not) or 2) injury (irrespective whether there is speed/intention or not). Subjective reaction in response to a contact with the ball should not play a role in decision making. I have to say that I saw one thing with my own eyes while pundits were claiming something different (that Djokovic hit the ball in anger/frustration); I saw that he tapped the ball back). Based on what I have seen, he should not have been DQ even according to current rules. However, I am happy that he was DQ as he should finally understand with whom he is dealing with. Ivanisevic said that they were not ready for this scenario; they should have been.
Is the correct answer.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Only other person I can think of is @Rafa.the.Magnificent, but she doesn't really debate. Maybe @Azure. I do like this @Beckerserve guy's attitude though. Even gave a like when I said the tour needs more grass.
Yes, I can see now this is your third or fourth account, otherwise an actual new user wouldn't have a clue about any of this. And you therefore must also be Beckerserve. How do you juggle so many accounts and what's the point?

But Azure, Rafa the Magnificent and MN are awesome Rafa fans! There's others too.
 
Top