Let's be honest, Djokovic was screwed worst this season

weakera

Legend
It's completely obvious. He is automatically the Wimbledon favorite by virtue of being 2x defending champion and lost his chance there and unfairly lost his chance at USO where he was the titanic favorite. The over-under on slams lost for Djokovic is like 1.5.

And he very likely would already be the weeks at number one record holder as well were it not for the pandemic.

Now he enters 2021 still without the weeks record and set to face his toughest competition in years (it feels like) at AO, still stuck at 17 slams. AND the AO may not even be held, or it might be moved to a venue with a center court that isn't as favorable for Djokovic's game.

You've got to play the ball where it lies - there's no crying in tennis and no asterisks in the record book, but I have no problem admitting that Djokovic couldn't have been screwed harder this season lol
 

weakera

Legend
Unfairly lost his chance. Maybe don’t smack balls at people and you won’t be booted from the tournament. Sure I feel for Djokovic about Wimbledon but the US Open was his own fault.
It was unintentional, and the rule is a complete joke. If LeBron James accidentally hit a ref with a ball, the ref would apologize to LeBron for getting in the way. Only the softest organization in the world would default a player over that.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
It was unintentional, and the rule is a complete joke. If LeBron James accidentally hit a ref with a ball, the ref would apologize to LeBron for getting in the way. Only the softest organization in the world would default a player over that.
Intent doesn’t matter in this instance. Don’t smack balls at people. Guessing you’d defend Shapovalov for sending someone to the hospital as well? I’d rather someone intentionally not hurt me while doing my job than someone unintentionally hurting me, no?
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
Intent doesn’t matter. Don’t smack balls at people. Guessing you’d defend Shapovalov for sending someone to the hospital as well? I’d rather someone intentionally not hurt me while doing my job than someone unintentionally hurting me, no?
Of course intent matters, lol (it just isn't always crucial, depending on the consequences of a specific action). The whole situation with Novak was still within the realm of a judgement call, it wasn't as clear cut as people portray it.

Shapovalov put a guy in the hospital who had to undergo surgery, it was a more severe case.
 

weakera

Legend
Of course intent matters, lol (it just isn't always crucial, depending on the consequences of a specific action). The whole situation with Novak was still within the realm of a judgement call, it wasn't as clear cut as people portray it.

Shapovalov put a guy in the hospital who had to undergo surgery, it was a more severe case.
Ask a judge if accidentally or intentionally running someone over with your car impacts your sentencing lol
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Of course intent matters, lol (it just isn't always crucial, depending on the consequences of a specific action). The whole situation with Novak was still within the realm of a judgement call, it wasn't as clear cut as people portray it.

Shapovalov put a guy in the hospital who had to undergo surgery, it was a more severe case.
"iNtEnT dOeSnT mAtTeR!"

:sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:
Clearly I meant in this case and not intent never matters come on people.......

As I said I’d far rather someone intentionally not hurt me at my job than someone unintentionally hurting me. Do you agree?
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Ask a judge if accidentally or intentionally running someone over with your car impacts your sentencing lol
ask a judge if you can escape punishment for killing someone while driving recklessly if you didn't do it intentionally lol

you are answering a straw man argument. the question isn't whether Novak would or wouldn't be more blameworthy if he had intended to hit the ball in the official's throat. the relevant question is only whether his lack of intent in itself has any bearing on whether he gets punished by this rule or not. it doesn't. Shapovalov didn't intend to break the ump's eye socket either, so intent is quite clearly not the determining factor here.
 

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
If the line judge didn't acted like she was hit with a torpedo, the DF thing would have never happened. That was the WTF moment of this whole WTF year. The real question here is why she did what she did!?
 

weakera

Legend
ask a judge if you can escape punishment for killing someone while driving recklessly if you didn't do it intentionally lol

you are answering a straw man argument. the question isn't whether Novak would or wouldn't be more blameworthy if he had intended to hit the ball in the official's throat. the relevant question is only whether his lack of intent in itself has any bearing on whether he gets punished by this rule or not. it doesn't. Shapovalov didn't intend to break the ump's eye socket either, so intent is quite clearly not the determining factor here.
He should have gotten punished - a fine, a game penalty, etc. - not a DQ. You're the one building a strawman, Shapovalov injured someone whereas the old lady was by all accounts completely fine. DQ'ing a player over a reckless action that ultimately had no consequences or genuine victim is senseless.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
He should have gotten punished - a fine, a game penalty, etc. - not a DQ. You're the one building a strawman, Shapovalov injured someone whereas the old lady was by all accounts completely fine. DQ'ing a player over a reckless action that ultimately had no consequences or genuine victim is senseless.
you are just conceding my point, galaxy brain

you are now admitting that intent is indeed not the determining factor and you are now moving on to focusing on consequences instead

thenk u

 

weakera

Legend
you are just conceding my point, galaxy brain

you are now admitting that intent is indeed not the determining factor and you are now moving on to focusing on consequences instead

thenk u


I never said "intent is the ONLY thing that matters." Ironically, you are indeed the person who is too dim to think of more than one dimension in the situation.

If you accidentally hit someone with your car, and the person you hit is completely fine, the cops aren't called.
If you accidentally hit someone with your car, and you break their leg, the cops are called.

Do you understand the difference yet?
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
it's also not terribly interesting how some ttw edgelord *thinks* the rules *should* be within the confines of his own fantasy

the only thing of relevance in the real world is what the rules actually *are* and how they are enforced in terms of precedence.

the precedence in Novakgate type incidents is quite clear. Reckless behavior causing visible pain or discomfort to an official – as far as I have been able to tell – virtually always leads to an immediate DQ. There is no threshold that says you have to break someone's bones or send them to the hospital for this to be applicable.
 

weakera

Legend
it's also not terribly interesting how some ttw edgelord *thinks* the rules *should* be within the confines of his own fantasy

the only thing of relevance in the real world is what the rules actually *are* and how they are enforced in terms of precedence.

the precedence in Novakgate type incidents is quite clear. Reckless behavior causing visible pain or discomfort to an official – as far as I have been able to tell – virtually always leads to an immediate DQ. There is no threshold that says you have to break someone's bones or send them to the hospital for this to be applicable.
There is no rule saying anywhere stating that a player who hits somebody must be disqualified. A fiction invented in your mind.
 

Bumbaliceps

Rookie
Shapovalov also hit the ball hard with the intention to hit it hard because he was angry. Djokovic was lacking caution when he hit the ball, I saw it as bad luck more than anything. If he hit someone when he hit the ball angrily on the previous game, then I would say the situation is similar to Shapovalov's.
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
It was unintentional, and the rule is a complete joke. If LeBron James accidentally hit a ref with a ball, the ref would apologize to LeBron for getting in the way. Only the softest organization in the world would default a player over that.
And there is the bias right there
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
If you accidentally hit someone with your car, and the person you hit is completely fine, the cops aren't called.
If you accidentally hit someone with your car, and you break their leg, the cops are called.

Do you understand the difference yet?
Another example that further elucidates precisely my point

lmao

amazing
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
There are certain negatives for the older players from playing more. Those same negatives are positives for the younger players, so, as much the OP wants to "give it" to Novak, he is just being generous, because it doesn't really matter anymore, not because there is much merit in what he says.

Worst screwed from the whole debacle are the younger players that are making a breakthrough. Sinner, Musetti etc. They would have had a lot more chances to raise through the rankings, and their ranking from the acquired points from 2020 would have placed them in much better position than they are now (thanks to the double counting from 2019, effectively transforming the rankings into a 2 year ranking system. Something Nadal vouched for in the past for exactly the same reason, to make the path of the upcoming younger players more difficult i.e. easier for him).

:cool:
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
There is no rule saying anywhere stating that a player who hits somebody must be disqualified. A fiction invented in your mind.
 

weakera

Legend
Unfortunately for the would be jurors, the facts will have to get in the way once again:


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.

Q. PHYSICAL ABUSE

Players shall not at any time physically abuse any official, opponent, spectator or other person within the precincts of the tournament site.
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, physical abuse is the unauthorised touching of an official, opponent, spectator or other person.


The player shall be penalized according to the Point Penalty Schedule. This is what the Point Penalty Schedule mandates:

S. POINT PENALTY SCHEDULE

The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for violations set forth above is as follows:

FIRST offence: WARNING
SECOND offence: POINT PENALTY
THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT offence: GAME PENALTY

However, after the third Code Violation, the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall determine whether each subsequent offence shall constitute a default.


In cases of a particularly egregious offense, tournament referee MAY choose to default the player (section T of the code).

Rulebook: https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-2020-f.pdf
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Unfortunately for the would be jurors, the facts will have to get in the way once again:


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.

Q. PHYSICAL ABUSE

Players shall not at any time physically abuse any official, opponent, spectator or other person within the precincts of the tournament site.
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, physical abuse is the unauthorised touching of an official, opponent, spectator or other person.


The player shall be penalized according to the Point Penalty Schedule. This is what the Point Penalty Schedule mandates:

S. POINT PENALTY SCHEDULE

The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for violations set forth above is as follows:

FIRST offence: WARNING
SECOND offence: POINT PENALTY
THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT offence: GAME PENALTY

However, after the third Code Violation, the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall determine whether each subsequent offence shall constitute a default.


In cases of a particularly egregious offense, tournament referee MAY choose to default the player (section T of the code).

Rulebook: https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-2020-f.pdf
Nice cherrypicking. Here's the parts that actually discuss default. Guessing you neglected to read those?


F. FAILURE TO COMPLETE MATCH A player must complete a match in progress unless he is reasonably unable to do so. Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $20,000. In circumstances that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a violation of this Section shall subject a player to immediate default and shall also constitute the Major Offence of “Aggravated Behaviour” and shall be subject to the additional penalties hereinafter set forth.

T. DEFAULTS
The Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors may declare a default for either a single violation of this Code or pursuant to the Point Penalty Schedule set out above. In all cases of default, the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall be final and unappealable. Any player who is defaulted as herein provided shall lose all ranking points earned for that event at that tournament and may be fined up to the prize money won at the tournament in addition to any or all other fines levied with respect to the offending incident. In addition, any player who is defaulted as herein provided may be defaulted from all other events, if any, in that tournament, except when the offending incident involves only a violation of the Punctuality or Dress and Equipment provisions set forth in Article III. B and C, or as a result of a medical condition or when his doubles partner commits the Code Violation which causes the default.
 

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
Ask a judge if accidentally or intentionally running someone over with your car impacts your sentencing lol
well if you are going through a road full of pedestrians at 100 mph and you overrun and kill someone, would that be taken as culpable homicide or not? When you very much aware that consequences could be dangerous still does the same thing, then it will be deemed as intentional even if you didn't intend to cause exact consequences.
 

weakera

Legend
Nice cherrypicking. Here's the parts that actually discuss default. Guessing you neglected to read those?


F. FAILURE TO COMPLETE MATCH A player must complete a match in progress unless he is reasonably unable to do so. Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $20,000. In circumstances that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a violation of this Section shall subject a player to immediate default and shall also constitute the Major Offence of “Aggravated Behaviour” and shall be subject to the additional penalties hereinafter set forth.

T. DEFAULTS
The Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors may declare a default for either a single violation of this Code or pursuant to the Point Penalty Schedule set out above. In all cases of default, the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall be final and unappealable. Any player who is defaulted as herein provided shall lose all ranking points earned for that event at that tournament and may be fined up to the prize money won at the tournament in addition to any or all other fines levied with respect to the offending incident. In addition, any player who is defaulted as herein provided may be defaulted from all other events, if any, in that tournament, except when the offending incident involves only a violation of the Punctuality or Dress and Equipment provisions set forth in Article III. B and C, or as a result of a medical condition or when his doubles partner commits the Code Violation which causes the default.
Same exact point as what I posted. The operative word is "may." There was no rule that he had to be defaulted. The officials used their judgement, and their judgement completely failed.
 

weakera

Legend
well if you are going through a road full of pedestrians at 100 mph and you overrun and kill someone, would that be taken as culpable homicide or not? When you very much aware that consequences could be dangerous still does the same thing, then it will be deemed as intentional even if you didn't intend to cause exact consequences.
You might have a point had he actually done any damage to Judi Dench. She was completely fine.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Same exact point as what I posted. The operative word is "may." There was no rule that he had to be defaulted. The officials used their judgement, and their judgement completely failed.
They used the correct judgement, the same judgement that has been used several times in the past aka David Nalbandian, Darian King, Denis Shapovalov. Don't be salty, he did it, we all saw it.
 

aditya123

Professional
It's completely obvious. He is automatically the Wimbledon favorite by virtue of being 2x defending champion and lost his chance there and unfairly lost his chance at USO where he was the titanic favorite. The over-under on slams lost for Djokovic is like 1.5.

And he very likely would already be the weeks at number one record holder as well were it not for the pandemic.

Now he enters 2021 still without the weeks record and set to face his toughest competition in years (it feels like) at AO, still stuck at 17 slams. AND the AO may not even be held, or it might be moved to a venue with a center court that isn't as favorable for Djokovic's game.

You've got to play the ball where it lies - there's no crying in tennis and no asterisks in the record book, but I have no problem admitting that Djokovic couldn't have been screwed harder this season lol
Will they accept that Djoker was extremely lucky at Wimbledon 18 & 19??? Roof top court at 18 semi, an physically exhausted Anderson at the finale and Federers nerves at Wim 19 to close out the match .
 

weakera

Legend
They used the correct judgement, the same judgement that has been used several times in the past aka David Nalbandian, Darian King, Denis Shapovalov. Don't be salty, he did it, we all saw it.
I'm not salty at all lol. You think I'm a Djokovic fan? I simply have a brain in my head. The notion that what Djokovic did warranted a DQ is a complete joke and symptomatic of the soft, PC world we now live in. There was no rule that he had to be defaulted - the officials took the soft approach when any reasonable person would conclude that such a punishment does *not* fit the crime.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, cry me a river. Why don't you mention that RG pretty much turned their slam to a Djokovic Open with roof, lights, night matches, changing the surface?... The fact that Djokovic still wasn't good enough to beat a mentally terrible Nadal (which is really funny) doesn't change that. Djokovic is the luckiest player of all time, and it is not even close. If Nadal was nearly as lucky he would already have at least 3 AO and 3 Wimbledon titles.
 

weakera

Legend
Yeah, cry me a river. Why don't you mention that RG pretty much turned their slam to a Djokovic Open with roof, lights, night matches, changing the surface?... The fact that Djokovic still wasn't good enough to beat a mentally terrible Nadal (which is really funny) doesn't change that. Djokovic is the luckiest player of all time, and it is not even close. If Nadal was nearly as lucky he would already have at least 3 AO and 3 Wimbledon titles.
True, he did lose the Djokovic Open, but RG was always (and is always) a bonus in Nole's schedule anyway.
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
Djokovic is a product of his environment. The throwing and smashing of a tennis racquets is now an acceptable, and cool, way to express your feelings. Let off some steam. It's often ignored by chair umpires who don't want to upset the fragile tennis players ego, and get banned from that players matches.. Smashing a tennis ball into orbit makes the sports highlights of the day. This is all fine until somebody has an eye socket or windpipe crushed. Yeah, Djokovic is to blame, but tennis officials who are lax in enforcing the rules can share some of that blame.
 
Top