There is no rule saying a player who hits somebody MUST be disqualified

mightyjeditribble

Hall of Fame
You are just repeating that he should be singled out. I see this as an injustice.
No. If anything, the injustice would be if another player had not gotten DQd - which I do not believe anyone has found an example of such far - not that Djokovic was. Nobody should be getting away with this IMO.

My point is that there are a LOT of benefits that come with being a top player, but a price of this is that there will be more scrutiny, and far less chance to get away with things. Being a role model to so many people does come with extra responsibility.

(Sent from my mobile phone, apologies for typos!)
 

intrepidish

Semi-Pro
Being reckless is not a disqualifiable action. Take a look at the rules above.
Recklessness is indeed sufficient. There's no legal issue posed by determining recklessness based on him hitting a ball 30-40 mph in the air in the direction of an official subsequent to full stoppage of play.

It was a trivial decision in terms of the rule book and indeed, tort law, which provides the theoretical underpinnings for the rule book 's 'jurisprudence' suggests very much the same outcome.

Mr. Djokovic knew, or should have known, that striking a ball in the air at 30-40 mph in the direction of an official subsequent to full stoppage of play could result in bodily harm.
 

mightyjeditribble

Hall of Fame


For the lines lady.
You are disgusting. You take a ball to the throat and see how you like it. She was doing her job, had NO reason to be looking out for balls coming at her after the point had ended, and got hit in one of the most sensitive areas of the body. Everyone saying he didn't hit it hard, but (I believe) he hit a ball much harder than that some points before, and if he had hit her in the same place at that speed, he could have actually killed her. Do you think that needs to happen before someone gets disqualified, or is it better to send a clear and unambiguous message that if you act out in frustration and hurt someone, there are consequences?

If any of those who are complaining have children, I sincerely hope that this isn't what you are teaching them. [emoji51]

(Sent from my mobile phone, apologies for typos!)
 

Nole_King

Professional
First off, that's not what the poster was suggesting at all rather just stating what happened. The lines judge was not able to catch her breath after being hit.

Secondly, the rules says that any such action taken in anger/frustration may result in a default. It does not state where the ball has to hit. Its up to the umpire/referee to make the decision. In this case, Djoko was already warned for smashing the ball in frustration/anger. Case closed.
I know the rule dude and I agree that per the rule Novak's DQ was correct. Where did you see me putting up any case for him?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You've not only swallowed a law book, you've swallowed a whole library ... and all to no avail.

Recklessness is indeed sufficient. There's no legal issue posed by determining recklessness based on him hitting a ball 30-40 mph in the air in the direction of an official subsequent to full stoppage of play.

It was a trivial decision in terms of the rule book and indeed, tort law, which provides the theoretical underpinnings for the rule book 's 'jurisprudence' suggests very much the same outcome.

Mr. Djokovic knew, or should have known, that striking a ball in the air at 30-40 mph in the direction of an official subsequent to full stoppage of play could result in bodily harm.
 

Nole_King

Professional
Recklessness is indeed sufficient. There's no legal issue posed by determining recklessness based on him hitting a ball 30-40 mph in the air in the direction of an official subsequent to full stoppage of play.

It was a trivial decision in terms of the rule book and indeed, tort law, which provides the theoretical underpinnings for the rule book 's 'jurisprudence' suggests very much the same outcome.

Mr. Djokovic knew, or should have known, that striking a ball in the air at 30-40 mph in the direction of an official subsequent to full stoppage of play could result in bodily harm.
Look I agree with what has happened and not suggesting at all that he should not have been DQed per the rule. But in fairness, Novak was not even facing the direction of the lineswoman. She was behind his left hand side. He lost the game and hit the spare ball in the direction of his blind spot. There is a difference between this incident and the Shapovalov one. This was more accidental than complete recklessness as was the case with Shapovalov.
 

intrepidish

Semi-Pro
Look I agree with what has happened and not suggesting at all that he should not have been DQed per the rule. But in fairness, Novak was not even facing the direction of the lineswoman. She was behind his left hand side. He lost the game and hit the spare ball in the direction of his blind spot. There is a difference between this incident and the Shapovalov one. This was more accidental than complete recklessness as was the case with Shapovalov.
You are in fact providing the very means to assert Mr. Djokovic's recklessness: "Novak was not even facing the direction of the lineswoman. She was behind his left hand side. He lost the game and hit the spare ball in the direction of his blind spot."

This is the very definition of recklessness: "not even facing...hitting into a blind spot."

'In fairness', given what you yourself assert, there should not even be a moment of doubt as to his reckless behavior.
 

Nole_King

Professional
You are in fact providing the very means to assert Mr. Djokovic's recklessness: "Novak was not even facing the direction of the lineswoman. She was behind his left hand side. He lost the game and hit the spare ball in the direction of his blind spot."

This is the very definition of recklessness: "not even facing...hitting into a blind spot."

'In fairness', given what you yourself assert, there should not even be a moment of doubt as to his reckless behavior.
Ok. And the players hitting the balls post winning a match with full force is celebratory and not recklessness.

Also he has admitted to his mistake so not sure what you are trying to imply by referring him to Mr. Djokovic in every second post of yours. It is not as if he is claiming innocence prompting you to address him such.
 

intrepidish

Semi-Pro
Ok. And the players hitting the balls post winning a match with full force is celebratory and not recklessness.

Also he has admitted to his mistake so not sure what you are trying to imply by referring him to Mr. Djokovic in every second post of yours. It is not as if he is claiming innocence prompting you to address him such.
If a player were to, without warning, strike a ball into the public in a manner and time which was not understood to be 'reasonable' by the parties, then he could open himself up to all sorts of tort actions. There are expectations derived from legal doctrine (which we also see adopted in sport rule books) as to the 'reasonable person's standard' regarding such events.

Similarly, striking a ball on the fly in the situation we witnessed and connecting with an official (who is neither employed to field such balls nor held to be reasonably expecting them upon full stoppage of play), leads ineluctably to the conclusion we also witnessed.
 

ChrisG

Professional
You are disgusting. You take a ball to the throat and see how you like it. She was doing her job, had NO reason to be looking out for balls coming at her after the point had ended, and got hit in one of the most sensitive areas of the body. Everyone saying he didn't hit it hard, but (I believe) he hit a ball much harder than that some points before, and if he had hit her in the same place at that speed, he could have actually killed her. Do you think that needs to happen before someone gets disqualified, or is it better to send a clear and unambiguous message that if you act out in frustration and hurt someone, there are consequences?

If any of those who are complaining have children, I sincerely hope that this isn't what you are teaching them. [emoji51]

(Sent from my mobile phone, apologies for typos!)
Come on, American people are known for their theatrics in order to get a lawsuit for every minor life occasion.
I’m not telling this is going to happen but you’ve seen a lot of ball kid get hit by a serve or a big forehand and they don’t even cry.
This is so soft, besides the organization have a full set of penalties they could apply there.
They chose the worst from a tennis standpoint
 

fox

Semi-Pro
Actually this was not abuse of balls but hurting a judge. And yes this is mentioned in the rules that it requires dnf.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Where did you see me putting up any case for him?
Where you asked if it would have been the same result had the ball hit somewhere else.

Maybe it would have the same result. Maybe not. But make sure to tell Djoko to not hit any sensitive area the next time.;)

Hurling a ball at an official in any sort of manner will be dealt with severely.
 

Nole_King

Professional
Where you asked if it would have been the same result had the ball hit somewhere else.

Maybe it would have the same result. Maybe not. But make sure to tell Djoko to not hit any sensitive area the next time.;)

Hurling a ball at an official in any sort of manner will be dealt with severely.
Sorry to say then that your comprehension skills need lot of work.
 

Nole_King

Professional
If the woman hadn't fallen to the ground looking in pain, then DQ probably wouldn't have been an option.
Should the suspension be based on severity of injury or the action? In my view it should be action. If someone recklessly fires the ball at an official and they duck and prevent hurting themselves, the play should be nevertheless DQed.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Should the suspension be based on severity of injury or the action? In my view it should be action. If someone recklessly fires the ball at an official and they duck and prevent hurting themselves, the play should be nevertheless DQed.
define "fires the ball"

what speed are we talking about here? did Djokovic fire the ball or not?
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
You can't spell. And, ignoring what the actual rule says is moronic.
I am relieved you were able to figure out my typo. I almost could not sleep. Anyway, he is out and deservedly so.
Let me spell it out to you, s-l-o-w-l-y.
The USTA , ex-ATP players, and commentators are ALL in agreement of him being defaulted for his wreckless and irresponsible behavior of smacking a ball unintentionally at a person.

What is moronic is his immature behavior, unable to keep it together and slamming balls at things. Karma baby, karma.

Shood thay hav konsulted with yu furst?
Leeve your numbur so thay kan kall you fore any possibul confewshun.

What is done is done. 29-1. it's not like he won't be winning any more slams.
 
Last edited:

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
It always has to be a judgement call. For example, if a player empties his pockets after his service game and one of the balls accidentally hits a linesperson, do they need to be disqualified?
dude, do you even play tennis?
could you perhaps record a video to show us how you can "empty your pockets" in a way that the ball accidentally hits a linesperson?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
His point is that discretion is always necessary, so he invented a fanciful example to make that clear. But all you heard was blah blah blah.

dude, do you even play tennis?
could you perhaps record a video to show us how you can "empty your pockets" in a way that the ball accidentally hits a linesperson?
 

Nole_King

Professional
define "fires the ball"

what speed are we talking about here? did Djokovic fire the ball or not?
I would be blamed a Nole fanboy if I said that I really dont think he hit the ball in a way it constituted firing at someone but actually thats what I think it was. The speed of that ball was not more than 30-40 mph and we know what the speeds can be when someone really has a go. E.g. Shapovalov.

But again such subjectivity cant be brought in to the rule. Like I said earlier, given that he hit the lineswoman, as per the rule he was right in getting DQed.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I would be blamed a Nole fanboy if I said that I really dont think he hit the ball in a way it constituted firing at someone but actually thats what I think it was. The speed of that ball was not more than 30-40 mph and we know what the speeds can be when someone really has a go. E.g. Shapovalov.

But again such subjectivity cant be brought in to the rule. Like I said earlier, given that he hit the lineswoman, as per the rule he was right in getting DQed.
ok what if he threw the ball at an official but the ball was so slow that it barely touched him/her?
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
When is an assault on an individual not a default? In people who want to have an exception to the rule! If this happens, the rule becomes unfair since it is not across the board the same!
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Let's be clear. If a football player petulantly kicked the ball in the direction of an official and it hit them in the face/throat - then intentionally or unintentionally they would be gone. How do I know? Because I've seen it happen. Any "violent behaviour" such as kicking the ball at someone (even if it does not hit them) is a cardable offence. Players have been sent off for just putting their hands gently on the referee - it's a no go zone. Djokovic was way in the wrong and the punishment fits the crime. It wasn't intentional but it was petulant and reckless and to be honest he has plenty of form in this area.

remembered this incident.
even if Hazard was rightly frustrated by the kid intentionally delaying the game, to my memory nobody was saying that his red card was too harsh.
 

albatros_forehand

Professional
1. Djokovic has a history of ball / racket abuse and this default has been long time coming, until yesterday he had just been lucky not to hit anyone.
2. Immediately prior to the incident yesterday he launched a ball in anger into the side panel, again lucky (probly wouldnt have done it if there was audience).
3. People talk about lack of intent is just bull*hit. He launched the ball recklessly (and quite fast) knowing there are people back there and that he might hit someone...that's indirect intent = still guilty ;) (its like getting drunk and knowing you need to drive later, and then causing an accident)
4. Apology thru INstagram hours later is a joke, laughable stuff really. He should have grown a pair and faced it like Shapo in the press conference.
5. No role model = no GOAT ;)
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
His point is that discretion is always necessary, so he invented a fanciful example to make that clear. But all you heard was blah blah blah.
oh, you're not afraid to answer to me Bart?

it's an absurd example.
there is reality, and there is rule book.
go check the section T, and report back what did the officials do wrong, against the rules.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I am afraid the message posted means they will NOT allow him to keep points from either last year or this year. I don't know if he can appeal the decision but that does seem like unusual punishment. (Retaliation for starting the new players organization maybe?) :unsure:
The PTPA has been on the cards for at least 2 years so I don't think it's got anything to do with it. In any case it seems like a completely ineffective association.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
I am the universe and I disagree. The decision did not meet the test of 'egregious'. The consequence of the act is only one factor.
Otha Bart ... if you're the universe, Djokovic is your creator.

The lineswoman fell clutching her throat. It's not the referee's responsibility to check authenticity of injury. He had no choice but to default Djokovic.
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
1. Djokovic has a history of ball / racket abuse and this default has been long time coming, until yesterday he had just been lucky not to hit anyone.
2. Immediately prior to the incident yesterday he launched a ball in anger into the side panel, again lucky (probly wouldnt have done it if there was audience).
3. People talk about lack of intent is just bull*hit. He launched the ball recklessly (and quite fast) knowing there are people back there and that he might hit someone...that's indirect intent = still guilty ;) (its like getting drunk and knowing you need to drive later, and then causing an accident)
4. Apology thru INstagram hours later is a joke, laughable stuff really. He should have grown a pair and faced it like Shapo in the press conference.
5. No role model = no GOAT ;)
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
I'm really disappointed because slam No. 18 was there for the taking! Djokovic simply had to go through the motions :(

A 17-slam winner chasing 2 of the most important records in tennis and with years of experience should know better. During the 2016 French Open, Djokovic flung his racket and just barely missed another linesperson. Didn't he learn anything from that?
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
It always has to be a judgement call. For example, if a player empties his pockets after his service game and one of the balls accidentally hits a linesperson, do they need to be disqualified?
dude, do you even play tennis?
could you perhaps record a video to show us how you can "empty your pockets" in a way that the ball accidentally hits a linesperson?
I could empty my pockets and the ball could roll and lightly hit a linesperson on their foot if they are not paying attention. I clearly didn't intend any harm nor was I frustrated, or reckless in disposing of the ball, but it happened to hit somebody anyway.

I'm not saying that's what happened here. It was just a point to illustrate why you can't have a black-and-white rule that says "ball hits person => player must be disqualified"
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I am afraid the message posted means they will NOT allow him to keep points from either last year or this year. I don't know if he can appeal the decision but that does seem like unusual punishment. (Retaliation for starting the new players organization maybe?) :unsure:
The statement reads:

"In all cases of default, the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall be final and unappealable."

Whether he can appeal against losing his 2019 points, I'm not sure.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
The statement reads:

"In all cases of default, the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall be final and unappealable."

Whether he can appeal against losing his 2019 points, I'm not sure.
do you think he will lose 2019 points?
I don't think so.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Credit to PCB for sitting down quietly whilst Djokovic pleaded with the referee. Had it been Stan, he would have demanded to know what they were talking about.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
The statement reads:

"In all cases of default, the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall be final and unappealable."

Whether he can appeal against losing his 2019 points, I'm not sure.
They aren't going to retroactively take away his 2019 points. But even if they did, it was only 90 points anyway
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Machis ... I don't know how the slam race will play out in light of this incident but what about weeks at No .1? Will Djokovic keep the No .1 ranking at the end of the Open and what does he have to do to keep it that way to the end of the year?
 

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
I could empty my pockets and the ball could roll and lightly hit a linesperson on their foot if they are not paying attention. I clearly didn't intend any harm nor was I frustrated, or reckless in disposing of the ball, but it happened to hit somebody anyway.

I'm not saying that's what happened here. It was just a point to illustrate why you can't have a black-and-white rule that says "ball hits person => player must be disqualified"
I guess that is different because it is not a reckless movement, but who knows. Maybe a hit in the throat is not the same as a hit in the foot
 

undecided

Semi-Pro
You are in fact providing the very means to assert Mr. Djokovic's recklessness: "Novak was not even facing the direction of the lineswoman. She was behind his left hand side. He lost the game and hit the spare ball in the direction of his blind spot."

This is the very definition of recklessness: "not even facing...hitting into a blind spot."

'In fairness', given what you yourself assert, there should not even be a moment of doubt as to his reckless behavior.
To me it looked like he was passing the ball in the direction of the ball kids. It's just that the ball flew higher than usual.
 
Top