Should Federer be stripped of the 2006 AO title?

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I like to play tennis, but watching is a tad boring. I should be happy Djokovic was disqualified, as I prefer Federer's style of play. If he's not playing, I tend not to watch.

But if the only thing that invokes such a severe punishment is a consequence that is objectively trivial, then I am happy to conclude that Djokovic was hard done by.

I see a loaded poster, that likes to argue more than anything else and not sure if the poster actually cares for tennis
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
Sure jan, complain about a sleepy ball kid who failed to do his job in 2006

Meanwhile nolefam is literally terrorizing the lineswoman as we speak. Calling her " Дувај га курво "
 
Last edited:

blablavla

Legend
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.
dude, do you live in real life?

imagine that you are driving the car.
imagine that you are speeding. If there is no radar, or policeman - you've done a wrong thing, but there will be no consequence
imagine that a radar catches you. You will receive a fine.
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving. And there is police. You'll be screwed in many countries.
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving and an accident happens, but the damage is only to the cars. You'll be screwed big time.
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving and an accident happens and there are serious consequences for some person, up to death. What do you think will happen to you?
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving and an accident happens and there are serious consequences for some person, up to death. When the police makes a blood test, they find residuals of weed for exampl. What do you think will happen to you?

Perhaps in all instances you didn't mean, and you didn't want to cause any damage, so even less was your intention to cause serious health consequences, or kill someone.
Perhaps you were only looking to get some fun, in the wrong place.
Perhaps that was your way to let some steam out.
Perhaps you are a really nice person.

But the punishment will depend on the outcome, not on your intention.

Are you sure that you still don't see the difference?
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Breaking rules by escaping into a foreign languge is also wrong, and a tad useless given that we have Google Translate.

Sure jan, complain about a sleepy ball kid who failed to do his job in 2006

Meanwhile nolefam is literally terrorizing the lineswoman as we speak. Calling her " Дувај га курво "
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If you punish Djokovic according to the consequence of his action then all that is warranted is a small penalty.

The consequence here was not death, and the police were watching his minor transgression.

dude, do you live in real life?

imagine that you are driving the car.
imagine that you are speeding. If there is no radar, or policeman - you've done a wrong thing, but there will be no consequence
imagine that a radar catches you. You will receive a fine.
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving. And there is police. You'll be screwed in many countries.
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving and an accident happens, but the damage is only to the cars. You'll be screwed big time.
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving and an accident happens and there are serious consequences for some person, up to death. What do you think will happen to you?
imagine that as you are speeding, you come to a road cross, and the traffic light changes to red, but you can't stop in due time, so you keep driving and an accident happens and there are serious consequences for some person, up to death. When the police makes a blood test, they find residuals of weed for exampl. What do you think will happen to you?

Perhaps in all instances you didn't mean, and you didn't want to cause any damage, so even less was your intention to cause serious health consequences, or kill someone.
Perhaps you were only looking to get some fun, in the wrong place.
Perhaps that was your way to let some steam out.
Perhaps you are a really person.

But the punishment will depend on the outcome, not on your intention.

Are you sure that you still don't see the difference?
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
Breaking rules by escaping into a foreign languge is also wrong, and a tad useless given that we have Google Translate.
Just reporting a literal quote of the slur #nolefam heaped on her. Letter for letter.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Playfulness v aggressiveness is not something that the tournament referee turns his attention to, according to the rules, for obvious reasons.

It was literally different. With Federre it was playful carelesness. With Djokovic it was agressive carelesness. So please shut up, you are cringe.
 

blablavla

Legend
If you punish Djokovic according to the consequence of his action then all that is warranted is a small penalty.

The consequence here was not death, and the police were watching his minor transgression.
did someone die when Henman was disqualified from W?

if you compare the 3 incidents Bart, which ones are similar:
1. Novak hitting the lineswoman in the throat when point was over, the ball that was in play was taken by ball kids, and Novak did this with the ball from his pocket, that should have been passed to ball kids?
2. Henman hitting the ball kid in the neck when the point was over, the ball that was in play was taken by ball kids, and Henman did this with the ball from his pocket, that should have been passed to ball kids?
3. Federer redirecting a ball that a moment before was in play, the point wasn't over, and the ball kid should have been aware, as if the ball would be redirected into the net it was precisely the duty of this ball kid to rush and take the ball away?

let me give you some possible options:
1 & 2 are similar, while 3 is different
I am Novak fan so Fed should be disqualified
Nadal
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
Its pretty simple really. If Novak hadn't have hit her in the throat he probably wouldn't have been disqualified. Unluckily for Novak it did. Intentional or not that doesn't really matter. Shapovalov didn't mean to hit the umpire in the eye but it did.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
The rules are being made by bureaucrats. The players need to assert some power and get involved in the rules. This rule is selectively applied without regard to intent.
 

Nole Slam

Hall of Fame
Should Spencer Gore be stripped of his 1877 Wimbledon title as a consequence of the disgrace wreaked upon his name by his internet namesake?

The question must be asked.
Please no. I loved Spencer Gore. I watched all of his matches.
 

gjm127

Rookie
Ball boy should have been stripped of his duties. He wasn't paying attention. There's a difference here, ball boys are directed balls intentionally. Not lineswomen.
 

EdSWright

Professional
If you punish Djokovic according to the consequence of his action then all that is warranted is a small penalty.

The consequence here was not death, and the police were watching his minor transgression.
Let’s look after the officials in all sports, rather than extremely privileged, obscenely wealthy brats. It’s not that hard.
 

EdSWright

Professional
Let’s extend this straw man argument if the subject is double standards. What would happen if the line judge whacked Djokovic in the throat? Would we be pleading for her to be given just a warning? No, only brats have enough self importance to attract victimhood.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You just sound resentful.

Let’s look after the officials in all sports, rather than extremely privileged, obscenely wealthy brats. It’s not that hard.
Let’s extend this straw man argument if the subject is double standards. What would happen if the line judge whacked Djokovic in the throat? Would we be pleading for her to be given just a warning? No, only brats have enough self importance to attract victimhood.
 

Wurm

Rookie
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."
He was robbed of the chance because he hit the ball into a line judge's throat. He wasn't robbed of the chance when he slammed the ball negligently into the hoardings moments earlier.

Yet, Roger Federer hit the ball with negligent disregard for the consequences at the 2006 Australian Open and escaped punishment.
Because he didn't hit anyone. The only evidence anyone has that he did is the schizophrenic commentary, which is completely at odds with the video evidence.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It is not really the player's responsibility to feed balls to ballkids. They should probably be prohibited from doing it.

Ball boy should have been stripped of his duties. He wasn't paying attention. There's a difference here, ball boys are directed balls intentionally. Not lineswomen.
 

40L0VE

Semi-Pro
Exactly! Why can't people understand this? Lol. Comical.
They don't want to understand because understanding would mean accepting Djokovic's own behaviour ultimately cost him a slam. Instead by blaming everyone and everything else they convince themselves that in the unlikely event Djokovic falls one slam short of the slam record or ' only' equalling it they can take the moral high ground by saying Djokovic was cheated out of one.
 

EdSWright

Professional
You just sound resentful.
Not at all (and beside the point). Players and officials should be able to do their jobs safely. When it’s unsafe, the last thing we should do is jump to the defence of the negligent party. The way this is all framed seems to suggest players are of a higher class and somehow exempt.
 

blablavla

Legend
Not at all (and beside the point). Players and officials should be able to do their jobs safely. When it’s unsafe, the last thing we should do is jump to the defence of the negligent party. The way this is all framed seems to suggest players are of a higher class and somehow exempt.
Bart just wants to argue.
the topic doesn't really matter.
 

Winner

New User
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.
Slow of movement. People still blaming a line judge for a wannabe tennis GOAT not being able to control his shots. Do you think line judges should be aware of balls headed towards their throats?

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.
Read the rulebook. You do realize that line judges are supposed to judge if a ball was in or out DURING play. You think line judges should still be following balls AFTER a rally. So, let me ask you a question. Since there are 6 balls in play at the same time, do you think that only 6-eyed-humans should become line judges since they, as you claim, have to follow every ball at every time, which means during a changeover/after a rally, possibly six balls are moved around the court?
It's still ridiculous that people blame a woman getting shot in the throat for the World No. 1's incapability to control a tennis ball.

Btw, calling the lines woman and "Old ho" really is classy. Glad you refer to other posters as "Zero-Contributing".
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I didn't bring up the question of athletic young ball kids who can catch fast-moving balls up as an issue. The woman is, by contrast, 56.

Slow of movement. People still blaming a line judge for a wannabe tennis GOAT not being able to control his shots. Do you think line judges should be aware of balls headed towards their throats?
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
...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). Other interesting facts: my avatar is in jest, she is vile, I’m a Capricorn, my fiancée past away suddenly last year. I am currently hitting with an open pattern Tfight 320 technifbre with a 31.8 cm balance at 340 grams. Scariest movie I’ve ever seen?: my playsight video
Misogyny aside no, it was not her job to watch the ball while a game is not being played.

Changeover time is resting period for line judges too, just like the players............. but totally unlike the ball boys.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Its pretty simple really. If Novak hadn't have hit her in the throat he probably wouldn't have been disqualified. Unluckily for Novak it did. Intentional or not that doesn't really matter. Shapovalov didn't mean to hit the umpire in the eye but it did.

The question was always when it will happen, not if. Luckily not at RG 2016.
Look at this post from @Cortana :
This lines man is personally responsible for saving Novak's skin at RG16. Had he not been alert, Novak would have been sent right off court!
 

Winner

New User
I didn't bring up the question of athletic young ball kids who can catch fast-moving balls up as an issue. The woman is, by contrast, 56.
So you think line judges should be able to catch balls that are shot towards their throats OUTSIDE of play at every time?

I really wonder: Imagine a ball boy losing a ball during play and it rolls onto the court. Do you think play should be stopped or would you argue that a tennis player should be able to play with a tennis ball rolling around since it's his job to play with tennis balls, and he should always be aware that there can be tennis balls rolling around at every time? And even worse, if he steps onto the ball and gets injured, would you say it's his own fault because as a tennis player, he should be fit enough to handle the situation?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You should read what I write, rather than trying to read what I think.

So you think line judges should be able to catch balls that are shot towards their throats OUTSIDE of play at every time?

I really wonder: Imagine a ball boy losing a ball during play and it rolls onto the court. Do you think play should be stopped or would you argue that a tennis player should be able to play with a tennis ball rolling around since it's his job to play with tennis balls, and he should always be aware that there can be tennis balls rolling around at every time? And even worse, if he steps onto the ball and gets injured, would you say it's his own fault because as a tennis player, he should be fit enough to handle the situation?
 

mikej

Hall of Fame
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?
I’m so glad you started this thread - my happiness at Djokovic being DQ’d was starting to wane, but knowing that his fans are still so bothered and still unwilling to accept the consequences of his behavior made my morning.

Will you be sure to start another thread tomorrow? Maybe one about stripping titles from Rafa? Thank you in advance.
 

tudwell

Legend
Clearly harming an official is a line in the sand. It might not be reflected in the wording of any of the relevant rules, but that’s been pretty consistently how these things have been enforced, as rare as they are.

Fed definitely hit that ball way harder than necessary and had he knocked the kid’s eye out he probably would have come under real fire. But that was the extent of his negligence. He knew who he wanted to hit the ball to and hit the ball to him. Djokovic on the other hand wasn’t even paying attention to where he hit the ball, in addition to hitting harder than necessary. That alone wouldn’t result in a default, but hitting the lineswoman in the throat and causing her apparent distress for a few minutes is what tipped the scales. That makes sense to me, though it’s certainly reasonable to debate whether or not that’s a valid set of criteria for defaulting someone.
 

Winner

New User
You should read what I write, rather than trying to read what I think.
I read what you wrote. And you wrote that you don't think it is right to make individual punishment depend on the ability to take hits or the ability to move quickly, which suggests you think that the 56-year-old women was hit because she has slow movement. She may have slower movements than a 14-year-old ballkid, but that doesn't necessarily make these slower movements responsible for the hit. because you don't know if she recognized the ball before she was hit.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
Fed wasn't really the darling of the establishment back then.
 
Top