A separate question here on policy - why is it that any angry wallop of the ball that goes in the general direction of anyone is not also an immediate DQ? It seems to me that the negligence is the same, and it’s just dumb luck whether it happens to hit someone. Or are we saying that we’re going to allow players petulant wallops when they get annoyed because they have the skill to direct their wallop safely?
It’s a similar issue to legal punishment for (say) drunk driving. For a given level of inebriation, it’s usually just dumb luck whether a drunk gets home safely or kills someone, so why do we punish much more severely based on random consequences rather than the actions that created the risk?
I don’t know, but this rule has been in place in every form of organized tennis I have played since the early 1980s. In Pakistan and in the US. Though in Pakistan at least in the 1980s, the rules applied unless your father showed up in uniform (military or police).
I once lost a match to an absolute incompetent because the umpire overruled every call I made in which the ball was within a meter of the line. And upheld every atrocious call from my opponent. Every ace or service winner I hit was called a let, even if it was nowhere near the net. I walked off after the first set, the only time I have quit a tennis match. The kids father was an SHO (equivalent to a Police captain in the US, I believe) and had a long chat with the umpire before the match. His son was also the only 13 year old in history to sport a full mustache.
We used to sarcastically refer to this as the wardi (uniform) effect. Or refer to the “uniform application of rules” in English.
Yes, I watched it many times. It was a limp-wristed swat at the ball that didn’t travel very far after hitting the judge. It doesn’t look like there was much energy in it at all. The adam’s apple is just a sensitive spot on the body.
I saw headlines about this. Not knowing fuck all about tennis (other than a brief stint in 7th grade), I figured y’all might be explaining what’s up in a more accessible manner.
Can’t say I have my head fully wrapped around it, but I appreciate the discussion.
Yeah, he hit a ball out of frustration and it hit a lineswoman in the throat. More or less an automatic disqualification. He didn’t mean it, but they really are right to not allow wiggle room on it.
Serena was worse, to be honest, when she lost her mind on that lineswoman a few years ago. That was verbal assault and he response to it lowered my opinion of her a lot.
is your statement accurate? It looked to me like it was hit toward the corner where the ball-person is and who would be expected to retrieve it.
Personally, I expect a line judge to be aware of what is going on around them while on the court. They’re subjected to 130 mph volleys and this is no different. the risk of a fast volley should be no different than a tap to a ball chaser.
Yet there was no doubt in any of the commentators minds that he hit it in anger. Literally within one second of seeing it I knew it was an automatic disqualification. When you see it in regular speed it’s perfectly obvious. Just watch matches and see how gently they tap the balls back to the ball kids.
If I “tapped” a ball back like that in a USTA league match and hit someone I’d be defaulted. Djokovic has tapped the ball back to ball kids probably literally millions of times. The ball never travels six feet without bouncing.
Never mind that he has form on this. Last time he just missed someone he was annoyed when the press brought it up.
And that he did this Immediately after losing a game in which he was visibly frustrated.
Never mind that he himself doesn’t claim he was doing anything other that hitting the ball in anger. He’s not exactly the guy who quietly goes along with rulings he doesn’t agree with.
The difference between how hard he hit it and what you describe is minuscule. There’s no indication it was aimed at her nor was there any power behind it.
I’m 110% in favor of penalizing deliberate and/or aggressive behavior. This was neither. I’m inclined to value your opinion on this given your participation in the sport but I’m just not seeing it as a disqualifying event. I would have expected a ball chaser to be able to handle this and therefore the line judge should have
My question to you is this, if it hadn’t hit the line judge would he have been chastised in any way for unsportsmanlike conduct?
If that’s “minuscule” and you keep referring to the ball kid as a “ball chaser“ there’s no point in continuing this. You obviously have no idea about tennis.
No he didn’t aim and it was less powerful than it could be, but what seems like effortless for Djokovic still propels the ball at a good speed, 40+ mph to my eye. Certainly enough to cause pain and risk damage (unless you think the line judge was faking her pain and distress). Next time you find yourself with a tennis ball and a willing friend, get them to throw it hard into your nuts…report back.
Irrelevant. The regulations put the burden of care on the player with the understanding by everyone that if you don’t watch what you are doing you run the risk of disqualification.
The contact of ball and official is not the only way in which unsportsmanlike behaviour can manifest but it is a very clear and understood offence. Had that ball whizzed past the head of the official, causing her to evade it, then yes, I would expect a player to be cautioned at least, even without contact.
40 mph is a quantifiable number and it’s something they can measure. It’s one thing to levy a fine for a poorly aimed flick to the corner. It’s another thing to disqualify him from a 6 figure income if it’s not a 40 mph flick to the corner.
Yes, but the line judge was hit in such a way that any ball hitting her there would hurt. It was a freak accident with no ill intent. The rules allowed for more discretion than was given. That discretion could have involved something quantifiable.
Djokovic’s economic loss was significant and the line judge received death threats over this. I think a little more effort in the decision process would have lead to a decision that was better accepted by all.
Every time a drunk driver wipes out a family of four it’s a “freak accident with no ill intent”. It’s not deliberate, it’s highly unlikely to happen on any given trip. But it is negligent and careless.
Good. That will encourage him to modify his behaviour in the future.
By all means, base the decision on what will keep the lunatics who send death threats happy, because their feelings are what matter here. Mustn’t upset them.
Which is why it’s so incumbent upon the players to pay close attention to where they’re hitting the balls.This isn’t rocket science.
That’s the point of a fine, isn’t it? Hopefully he’ll pay closer attention to what he’s doing next time.
Who has failed to accept it as a fair decision? The vast, vast majority of people in the sport and the spectators who follow it think it was the right decision. Regrettable, but completely in keeping with the interpretation of the laws.
We aren’t dealing with a loss of liberty here. This is a code of conduct imposed by a private organisation that all involved signed up to and very little leeway is allowed for these incidents. The same punishment is imposed whether a few hundred or a few million dollars are at stake, and that’s the way it should be.
It’s not irrelevant. It’s literally impossible for someone to hit a tennis ball and predict it’s precise location of impact. They can’t be held to that. What they CAN be held to is how hard they hit it.
How would like to be given a speeding ticket by a police office based on their best guess. They’re expected to give a quantifiable number.
Nonsense. He was fully in charge of whether he hit the ball towards a line judge without looking. He knew he was doing it, he knows where they stand, he was capable of not doing it,
The punishment was not based on the speed. The equivalent scenario would be a police officer giving you a ticket for drunk driving even though they have no idea how fast you are going.
The rules focus on unsportsmanlike conduct. Djokovic did not aim the ball specifically at the judge nor did it appear to be hit hard. The line judge is subjected to 130 mph tennis balls and should be expected to handle a low velocity ball hit toward her.
He was fined $10,000 AND disqualified. There is nothing in his behavior that warranted disqualification.
During play, sure. But this wasn’t during play. During play, Djokovic should focus on keeping the ball in play, and others on the court are responsible for their own safety. But outside of play, as this incident was, the line judge can’t be expected to pay strict attention to the ball for every second. That’s not feasible.
This wouldn’t have happened if Djokovic had been looking where he was hitting. This was his fault.