Marc Polmans defaulted in Shanghai on own match point for belting the ball at the chair umpire

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Polmans had just failed to convert match point while up 7-6 6-6 (6-5) and belted the ball in anger and it hit the chair umpire right in the face.

Just like Shapovalov a number of years ago. He was quickly defaulted.

Absolutely stupid by Marc who had he won the match, would've qualified for his first ever Masters main draw.

Footage here, bit hard to see


 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Wildly irresponsible. I know his brain wasn't working at the moment, but if you whack a ball in that direction, it's highly likely that you'll hit the umpire

Well deserved DQ and upcoming fines
 

Mediterranean Might

Professional
Wildly irresponsible. I know his brain wasn't working at the moment, but if you whack a ball in that direction, it's highly likely that you'll hit the umpire

Well deserved DQ and upcoming fines
Either that or someone in the crowd. Players have to learn and a DQ is absolutely the right thing here. The idiot ruined things for himself
 

atatu

Legend
The ball girl was even closer to him and that would have been even worse if he hit that kid in the head, completely idiotic.
 

onyxrose81

Hall of Fame
Even if he lost, he would have been next in line if someone withdrew (which there is a very good chance). Idiotic.
 

norcal

Legend
At least be smart enough to hit it up 'out of the stadium' - I mean it might land on someone but that wouldn't hurt. Hitting hard at a low trajectory is so dangerous... but I guess that is 'out of the stadium' for challengers/futures lmao.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Epic Napo had 1 foot in the grave. Now he gets Zhukayev in the first round of an M1000...
Yep, Polmans has also never played in a Masters main draw at the age of 26! He was a point away from making it in, would've probably pushed him near a new career high as well. Just so irresponsible and stupid.
 

reaper

Legend
The ATP likes to have it both ways with player anger....it makes the sport seem less robotic. Shapovalov and Pulmans in blind rages have accidentally smashed the ball straight into the umpire's face. Plenty of other players lose all self control but by good fortune don't end up harming anyone else in the process. They should automatically DQ players who fly into uncontrollable rages ordinarily seen by toddlers at the supermarket. The players will then miraculously learn to control themselves, and umpires won't be subject to missiles being directed at their heads just because a player's mood has turned sour.
 

Lauren_Girl'

Hall of Fame
These DQ are just so random, it's a joke. Andreeva did the exact same thing against Gauff in RG this year and nothing happened. Begu hit a little girl and made her cry (against Alexandrova in RG last year if I'm not mistaken)... and zilch. Something similar with Bedene in Cincinnati or Brooksby in Miami... and then there is Tsitsipas who literally targetted his opponent ON PURPOSE (which makes it 10 times worse than if it's accidental) in Wimbledon... not defaulted.

Just a bunch of examples I have in mind but there are many others...

Those who say well deserved DQ... I don't disagree, but then umpires have to be consistent. Apparently, only certain players deserve to be defaulted, some are protected.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
How is it random... this is a clear DQ just like Djokovic at 2020 USO.

It is inconsistently applied if the evidence assembled by Lauren above is true. As someone else pointed out, are you DQ'd if your aim is out? The answer seems to be 'probably not'.
 

Lauren_Girl'

Hall of Fame
How is it random... this is a clear DQ just like Djokovic at 2020 USO.

Then why not apply the same rules to Andreeva, Begu, Bedene, Tsitsipas, Brooksby and other examples? The Begu example was 1000x worse than this . The girl she hit was bleeding and in tears, yet she was allowed to continue. Why?
 

Lauren_Girl'

Hall of Fame
Are you saying that her examples are false in some way?

Definitely all true. The Begu and Andreeva examples are very recent...
No video for the Andreeva one but many analysts saw the scene and discussed it after the match. Should have definitely been defaulted. Maybe they gave her a pass because she's 16...
Bedene threw a ball and hit a cameraman if I remember well... Very similar to this but no consequence.

Brooksby didn't hit anyone but his outburst in Miami was about as bad as Zverev's in Acapulco. Zverev's one happened AFTER the double ended, yet he wasn't allowed to play his next single match. Brooksby's breakdown was during the match and they let him continue... probably because he's american in Miami...

The drama of Kyrios/Tsitsipas match in Wimbledon is also well documented. Still mind-blowing that Tsitsipas wasn't instantly defaulted.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
These DQ are just so random, it's a joke. Andreeva did the exact same thing against Gauff in RG this year and nothing happened. Begu hit a little girl and made her cry (against Alexandrova in RG last year if I'm not mistaken)... and zilch. Something similar with Bedene in Cincinnati or Brooksby in Miami... and then there is Tsitsipas who literally targetted his opponent ON PURPOSE (which makes it 10 times worse than if it's accidental) in Wimbledon... not defaulted.

Just a bunch of examples I have in mind but there are many others...

Those who say well deserved DQ... I don't disagree, but then umpires have to be consistent. Apparently, only certain players deserve to be defaulted, some are protected.

There's nothing random about getting disqualified for hitting a ball in anger directly into the umpire!

I don't think all of your examples are correctly described. For example, Begu bounced her racquet and it almost hit someone. It didn't actually hit the girl according to the reports (https://www.tennis.com/news/article...roland-garros-default-after-outburst-sends-ra). There's a video of it as well, and it's in not comparable in terms of a safety issue with what Polmans did. I'm not sure about all of the other incidents, but some of the players involved are not stars, so your argument that some are protected doesn't make sense to me. I think the issue is there is a degree of subjectivity involved in these incidents. Maybe the rules need to be changed or amended.
 

Nate7-5

Hall of Fame
Didnt the umpire hit by Shapo end up with permanent vision impairment? You are taking a much bigger risk hitting a low, errant ball than breaking a racquet.
 

Bukowski

Professional
Unfortunately situations like this lend credibility to the Karen’s and country club minions anti racket and ball abuse stance.
 

puppybutts

Hall of Fame
Polmans had just failed to convert match point while up 7-6 6-6 (6-5) and belted the ball in anger and it hit the chair umpire right in the face.

Just like Shapovalov a number of years ago. He was quickly defaulted.

Absolutely stupid by Marc who had he won the match, would've qualified for his first ever Masters main draw.

Footage here, bit hard to see


these kind of players need at least a temporary ban for endangering someone with a potentially permanent damage. Shapo's umpire was way too soft on him, practically apologizing for defaulting him when his eye bone was literally fractured. did Shapo even offer to pay for his surgery?

the comment's on Shapo's video on YT in particular are ridiculous, people praising him for acknowledging his mistake and apologizing or saying it wasn't intentional. wtf do these ragers think will happen when they smack the sh*t out of a ball sideways towards a crowd of people? there was also that instance with Rublev smacking a ball at a bench, which promptly rebounded and sniped a ball kid's hat off his head, narrowly missing his eye. Rublev didn't even realize he put anyone in danger.

as a volunteer or worker, you should not have to worry about permanent vision damage as a risk associated with your role. you do that sh*t in any normal job, you are fired and banned from the organization for life. imagine an officer worker chucking his laptop or pen in frustration, which goes crashing into a coworker's face.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
It is inconsistently applied if the evidence assembled by Lauren above is true. As someone else pointed out, are you DQ'd if your aim is out? The answer seems to be 'probably not'.
The reason for that is, apart from there being no harm to anyone (which is not a great excuse), that umpires cannot be sitting and calculating velocities and trajectories of the ball to determine if it is similar to other cases where people have been actually hit.

So, it is usually applied only where the results are obvious to everyone. The same reason why everyone who goes 1 unit above the speed limit is not fined, but only the unlucky ones.
 

Arak

Legend
There are many rules in tennis that are not applied, or just selectively applied. It’s not wrong to make accusations of favouritism. I would certainly like all rules to be applied to everyone systematically and unequivocally.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The reason for that is, apart from there being no harm to anyone (which is not a great excuse), that umpires cannot be sitting and calculating velocities and trajectories of the ball to determine if it is similar to other cases where people have been actually hit.

So, it is usually applied only where the results are obvious to everyone. The same reason why everyone who goes 1 unit above the speed limit is not fined, but only the unlucky ones.

I did mention this in passing in post #27 when I used the word "egregious".
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
There are many rules in tennis that are not applied, or just selectively applied. It’s not wrong to make accusations of favouritism. I would certainly like all rules to be applied to everyone systematically and unequivocally.
AI should replace umpires
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If you keep your eye fixed only on the umpire, the blow seems quite a heavy one. And I doubt that we'll get a better video of the incident, but the aftermath ... mabye.
 
Top