Ivanisevic says Djokovic should not have been defaulted

[Raul_SJ]

Coach from a defaulted player says that his player shouldn't have been defaulted.

This should have warranted the first page, next to their other big news piece, "Water is wet".

Please. Goran is a Wimbledon champion and is fully aware of the rules and how it should be fairly applied. He is more qualified to offer an opinion than anybody here.

Moreover, Joker, by acknowledging the need to change his behaviour and apologizing to this woman, has essentially said that he agreed with the DQ.

You make it sound like Goran is somehow intimidated from expressing his own opinion on the incident. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Goran's general comment on DQ in the context of Jokers's incident makes perfect sense.

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.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Please. Goran is a Wimbledon champion and is fully aware of the rules and how it should be fairly applied. He is more qualified to offer an opinion than anybody here.

Well, if the resume of the person posting is the only thing that says whether they are right or wrong on any matter, you may wish to compare Goran's to Navratilova's and look what she (and numerous other players) had to say on the matter.

But hey, that won't keep you from complaining anyway, so please keep those salty tears coming.

 

[Raul_SJ]

Well, if the resume of the person posting is the only thing that says whether they are right or wrong on any matter, you may wish to compare Goran's to Navratilova's and look what she (and numerous other players) had to say on the matter.

But hey, that won't keep you from complaining anyway, so please keep those salty tears coming.

The point is that Goran's position as coach does not preclude him from offering expert insight on the matter, as you had claimed.

No salty tears here. Just wanted to see competitive matches with Joker against Thiem and Zverev but it was not to be due to the senseless DQ.

 

[blablavla]

The point is that Goran's position as coach does not preclude him from offering expert insight on the matter, as you had claimed.

No salty tears here. Just wanted to see competitive matches with Joker against Thiem and Zverev but it was not to be due to the senseless DQ.

point is Goran's position as coach precisely means that he has a conflict of interest.
do you understand that he would be dismissed in a bunch of life situations because of conflict of interest?

 

[NonP]

Before I start anyone who's seen me go off on Djoko for his anti-vaxx nonsense or Adria fiasco should know I'm not a blind fanboy and what follows is the best take I've been able to come up with.

Let's all agree on one thing. The GS rule book says the referee's decision regarding defaults is "final and unappealable." Can't get clearer than that, so any talk of Novak suing the USTA/ITF/ATP/whoever is not only petulant and petty but completely irrelevant. That should be the last word on this score.

Whether his punishment fit his "crime," however, is a different matter that deserves more attention. I think at least one poster got the gist of the bigger picture:

On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being zero aggression/total accident and 10 being completely anger-induced and malicious, I think it was about a 2 or 3. Unfortunately, a 2 is all you need.

And that's about the max number I'd give Novak's ball toss. I've reviewed the footage dozens of times by now and still don't see what was so unmistakably angry about it. I'm not even sure "frustration" is the word that'd come to mind if one were to watch it in isolation for the first time. That's not to say Novak wasn't frustrated, but if he meant to take it out on the ball he sure did a poor job of showing it. The Shapo ball abuse that also got him defaulted? That was frustration - so was, at the risk of inviting another tiresome tribal tussle, Fed slamming the ball out of the arena at last year's RG which would've almost certainly resulted in a default of his own had he somehow aimed incorrectly and hurt one of the fans. Compared to either incident Novak's more infamous "angry" outburst was much ado about nothing. The only material difference between Fed's offense and Novak's or Shapo's is that one happened to hit an official/spectator while the other did not.

Now I've been seeing a lot of you dismiss this observation by pointing to an earlier incident where Novak hit the ball just as recklessly, but I don't see why this should have such a big role in the later decision to default him. To begin with the umpire never gave him so much as a warning, but even if she did are we really going to advocate for a tennis equivalent of broken-windows policing whereby the players are penalized for minor infractions lest they be encouraged to commit more serious ones?

And the fact that people are seeing or pretending to see such different versions of the same incident is proof that the Grand Slam Board's "singularly egregious" standard is open to much interpretation. So the referee's decision to skip the usual 3-strike rule and hand down an outright default is not just about intent or the result but a combination of both that will always involve some degree of discretion. I'm with those that think the current warning-or-default approach is too black-and-white and perhaps there should be a harsher penalty than that of a game in cases like this where it's broadly agreed that the player did not intend to commit the offense in question and the aggrieved party suffers relatively minor damage (so more flagrant violations like Shapo's would still warrant a default). And I also think even players who fail to meet this standard (like Shapo, again) should be able to appeal for restoration of their ranking points and prize money earned prior to the round in question if they can demonstrate that the incident was an inadvertent accident. Maybe this wouldn't be so workable in practice, but tennis has dealt with even more chaos before so why not give it a try?

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

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 agree. I think he will be fine. Novak will learn from it and actually it might help him really focus on having a great clay season. I have faith in him!

 

[prairiegirl]

Sick of hearing about this. Overly hyped athlete who is arrogant and annoying can't deal with the fact that he broke the rules and paid the price. Move on.

 

[blablavla]

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."

Novak Djokovic should not have been disqualified, says Goran Ivanisevic

Ivanisevic: I am not objective, but I dont think he should have been disqualified, he should have been given a game penalty

www.skysports.com

here is what Novak says:
Djokovic fully understands the penalty: "If you hit the ball the way I hit it, there is a chance of hitting someone on the pitch. Then the rules are perfectly clear. "

 

[Bartelby]

If the rule is perfectly clear, then why does Djokovic not appear to know what it is? He is not stating a rule or penalty here, merely referring to the fact his ball was misdirected.

 

[Rina]

I wonder if Fed did it, would he have been disqualified?

 

[Rina]

I think the rule is May be... Or is it disqualified, no doubt about it?

 

[Bartelby]

It's a subjective determination made by the tournament referee. And if you follow the responses, many argue that Djokovic deserved it. So reputation may be a factor even for a referee.

I wonder if Fed did it, would he have been disqualified?

 

[blablavla]

If the rule is perfectly clear, then why does Djokovic not appear to know what it is? He is not stating a rule or penalty here, merely referring to the fact his ball was misdirected.

you need to ask your idol & God about it

 

[Bartelby]

I thought God was unimpressed with idolatry. You must have missed theology 101.

you need to ask your idol & God about it

 

[blablavla]

I thought God was unimpressed with idolatry. You must have missed theology 101.

Bart, your idol & God is Novak.
Not sure theology is involved in answering your question.

If the rule is perfectly clear, then why does Djokovic not appear to know what it is? He is not stating a rule or penalty here, merely referring to the fact his ball was misdirected.

 

[daphne]

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

And you know if he was angry better than his coach?

 

[daphne]

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.

100%