Should Federer be stripped of the 2006 AO title?

Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
Integrity in sport is absolutely essential. Novak Djokovic has been robbed of the chance to win an 18th slam because of “hitting a ball with negligent disregard for the consequences."

Yet, Roger Federer hit the ball with negligent disregard for the consequences at the 2006 Australian Open and escaped punishment. It is impossible to argue that hitting a lines-person instead of a ball boy is the difference as Tim Henman was disqualified for hitting a ball boy at Wimbledon. Nor can the force of the stroke be the issue: not only was Djokovic's hit lighter than Federer's, the junior Australian ladies champion was previously disqualified after the ball struck a ball boy with no great force.

if we are to maintain the integrity of the sport and the slam race, surely Federer must be stripped of his 2006 Australian title?

Thoughts?
 
If you're the darling of the establishment, then you are going to be treated differently.

But here it's clearly the case that the different judgement is based on the supposed indestructibility of children, ...

whereas an old crone with one foot in the grave is seen and treated differently.
 
Spencer Gore said:
Integrity in sport is absolutely essential. Novak Djokovic has been robbed of the chance to win an 18th slam because of “hitting a ball with negligent disregard for the consequences."

Yet, Roger Federer hit the ball with negligent disregard for the consequences at the 2006 Australian Open and escaped punishment. It is impossible to argue that hitting a lines-person instead of a ball boy is the difference as Tim Henman was disqualified for hitting a ball boy at Wimbledon. Nor can the force of the stroke be the issue: not only was Djokovic's hit lighter than Federer's, the junior Australian ladies champion was previously disqualified after the ball struck a ball boy with no great force.

if we are to maintain the integrity of the sport and the slam race, surely Federer must be stripped of his 2006 Australian title?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That you are extremely disappointed.

If the ball boy had fallen on court and started writhing in pain, then it's a different matter.

Not in terms of rules,but in terms of enforcement. He laughter it off. The woman acted as if Djokovic had Thrown a fireball at her.

The USTA had to do something, the woman overreacted to such extent.

The rules indicate DQ, but authorities generally don't want that.

Bedene was not DQed for way worse offence, because the cameraman shook it off.

The rules are never followed until there appears necessity for it.

The Ball boy, for Fedal and the Cameraman for Bedene never let it appear like that.

The woman however did. Listen to the commies, they know it's over as soon as she falls down
 
News just in:

"In accordance with the Grand Slam rulebook, following his actions of intentionally hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences, the Australia Open tournament referee defaulted Roger Federer from the 2016 Australian Open"
 
EdSWright said:
Interesting the lengths people go to to defend a brattish multi multi millionaire who slammed a tennis ball into a woman’s throat.
Click to expand...

They're asking for the whole system to be overhauled in every area necessary so a grown up man with control issues can let one go without breaking a rule.
 
He should also be fined for amount of last year’s RG SF prize money. That was reckless and dangerous.

d70cccd2-1d33-4678-99e7-5d0e0eed1a15.gif
 
That's a little harsh.

When a rule depends solely on individual judement then people are quite entitled to question one person's judgement.

It's a strange rule if it gets down to whether the person struck is young and/or male and just shrugs it off because that's what young men do, or they are old and slow of movement.

Sysyphus said:
It's not unusual for young children to behave like this. To desperately try to deflect responsibility by finger-pointing at others in this way, even when the relevance is tenuous.

So with that said, I guess it's pecisely the type of behavior we should expect to see in TTW, seeing as this place is largely populated by what could effectively pass as little children.
Click to expand...
 
Yugram said:
He should also be fined for amount of last year’s RG SF prize money. That was reckless and dangerous.

d70cccd2-1d33-4678-99e7-5d0e0eed1a15.gif
Click to expand...
The guy with baseball cap was like: Oh Rogie, you almost gave me a heart attack, you beautiful, joke loving, funny man.

Rogie is such a playful character. 8-B
 
If Djokovic did not admit he was at fault, he would be torn from limb to limb by the tabloid press.

But the question is not whether he was at fault, but the type of fault and the punishment that act required.

SonnyT said:
Let's not go there!

Djokovic admitted it was his fault. End of story for this Djokfan!
Click to expand...
 
If any person admits or not, the tabloid press is going to tear him apart. That's what it is there for!

The press should have no bearing on what a person decides to do! Before all this, the tabloid press was already against Novak, especially the Murdoch papers in US, UK and Australia!
 
Last edited:
Not every ball hit in anger/frustration results in a disqualification, so there's one problem, not even every ball hit in anger/frustration that strikes someone results in disqualification.

MasterZeb said:
Why is this oh so hard for you guys. Yes djokovic didn’t mean to hit the woman. Not tennis player would. But he meant to hit the ball in anger/frustration.
Click to expand...
 
This hits the nail on the head more or less. A penalty can't just turn on the immediate 'look' of an incident.

Imagine a person struck who smiles, and there is no disqualification, but he wakes up the next day has a stroke and dies.

There is no disqualification possible. You'd have to importune the player to withdraw.

Benben245 said:
Dear non-contributing zero,

What is this nonsensical critic of wealthy people whose birthright was abject poverty earning every dime through hard work while enduring multiple nose jobs for their deviated septum. Let’s just lump Djokovic in with trust fund darlings and their giant carbon footprint. And if that’s not enough, escaping Ethno-religious genocide in Serbia to reach the peak of one’s profession. Proportionately speaking , he is better at tennis than anyone on this forum will ever be at anything else.

The officials elected to supersede the point penalty system escalation guide referring to the action of Djokovic as particularly egregious which allows for a default based on the officials subjective interpretation as per section T of the PPS. Djokovic lost his service and was returning balls to the corner of the backcourt, standard within the context of the game. It makes me wonder, the linesman's job is literally to watch the ball, had the ball bounced first and hit her in the throat would he have been defaulted? If the woman was unaffected by the ball hitting her would the ruling be the same? Likely not, which suggests the act itself is of far less consequence than the result. That old ho’s job is literally to watch the ball, she was in breach of her fiduciary duty. Moreover, I would also argue that Djokovic could have held serve and performed the exact same act, with the same force and he would not have been disqualified because his negligence could not rationally be interpreted as anger once again illustrating the hypocrisy of the rule, that it is the result not the act, the adjective egregious referencing the aftermath disregarding the intent and action preceding the result.

Sincerely,

Fed Fan who thinks Djokovic has the best overall ground strokes of all time.(also, this all in good fun, I respect the linesperson and do not believe the OP is a non-contributing zero, I’m sure he’s lovely)
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Not every ball hit in anger/frustration results in a disqualification, so there's one problem, not even every ball hit in anger/frustration that strikes someone results in disqualification.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. It ends in a code violation. So that’s the difference.
 
MasterZeb said:
Why is this oh so hard for you guys. Yes djokovic didn’t mean to hit the woman. Not tennis player would. But he meant to hit the ball in anger/frustration.
Click to expand...
Djokovic was disqualified for “hitting a ball with negligent disregard for the consequences." Where does it mention anger/frustration?
 
This doesn't even state the consequence in this instance, and what consequences in general would be considered sufficient, as this is all a asubjective determination.

Spencer Gore said:
Djokovic was disqualified for “hitting a ball with negligent disregard for the consequences." Where does it mention anger/frustration?
Click to expand...
 
Spencer Gore said:
Integrity in sport is absolutely essential. Novak Djokovic has been robbed of the chance to win an 18th slam because of “hitting a ball with negligent disregard for the consequences."

Yet, Roger Federer hit the ball with negligent disregard for the consequences at the 2006 Australian Open and escaped punishment. It is impossible to argue that hitting a lines-person instead of a ball boy is the difference as Tim Henman was disqualified for hitting a ball boy at Wimbledon. Nor can the force of the stroke be the issue: not only was Djokovic's hit lighter than Federer's, the junior Australian ladies champion was previously disqualified after the ball struck a ball boy with no great force.

if we are to maintain the integrity of the sport and the slam race, surely Federer must be stripped of his 2006 Australian title?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

surely you don't see the difference between:
Novak and Henman incident
Federer incident

in one case, the point was over.
the ball that was in play is no longer there.
so, nobody was supposed to be aware and dodge a ball, or racket or anything else being carelessly and recklessly launched by the player
the player takes the ball from the pocket and instead of passing it -> hits a person

in another case, well, the ball that was in play was passed to the ball kid, while the point was technically ongoing, and the ball kid was supposed to be alert
 
blablavla said:
surely you don't see the difference between:
Novak and Henman incident
Federer incident

in one case, the point was over.
the ball that was in play is no longer there.
so, nobody was supposed to be aware and dodge a ball, or racket or anything else being carelessly and recklessly launched by the player
the player takes the ball from the pocket and instead of passing it -> hits a person

in another case, well, the ball that was in play was passed to the ball kid, while the point was technically ongoing, and the ball kid was supposed to be alert
Click to expand...
The point wasn't technically ongoing. A fault had long since been called. Federer hit the ball that was no longer in play “with negligent disregard for the consequences."
If the rules were consistently applied he should have been disqualified.
 
Spencer Gore said:
The point wasn't technically ongoing. A fault had long since been called. Federer hit the ball that was no longer in play “with negligent disregard for the consequences."
If the rules were consistently applied he should have been disqualified.
Click to expand...

did he?
it is not uncommon for players to hit such ball in the direction of the ball kid at the net to keep the pace of the game.

But it is uncommon for players to take the ball from their pocket after the point ended and instead of passing it to the ball kids to launch it into the ball kids neck or lineswoman throat.

are you still sure that you don't see a difference?
 
I see a loaded question, not a difference.

blablavla said:
did he?
it is not uncommon for players to hit such ball in the direction of the ball kid at the net to keep the pace of the game.

But it is uncommon for players to take the ball from their pocket after the point ended and instead of passing it to the ball kids to launch it into the ball kids neck or lineswoman throat.

are you still sure that you don't see a difference?
Click to expand...
 
Federer hit the ball “with negligent disregard for the consequences." It is clear from the footage that he doesn't look where he has hit the ball and that it hits the ball boy. It could easily have hit the ball boy in the throat. According to the authorities in the Djokovic case it is not where the ball hit the lines-person that was key, it was the “negligent disregard for the consequences." The same “negligent disregard for the consequences" shown by Federer.
According to the rules he should have been disqualified.
 
And given the consequences for the woman were trivial, then a four million dollar or so possible/probable fine seems a tad high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

guanzishou
Italian junior player disqualified for hitting a ball kid
Replies
3
Views
1K
r2473
r2473
JennyS
  • Poll Poll
Would Federer trade his French Open title for a positive h2h against Nadal?
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
veritech
veritech
clayqueen
9-times-tennis-players-have-been-disqualified-mid-match
Replies
47
Views
2K
clayqueen
clayqueen
S
The Top 5 Stories of the 2006 AO
Replies
16
Views
1K
raftermania
raftermania
jm1980
There is no rule saying a player who hits somebody MUST be disqualified
7 8 9
Replies
407
Views
19K
jm1980
jm1980
Back
Top