US Open 2020

gmisk

Girly Gal wrote: »

Will he get a suspension now and miss the French Open too, that would be extremely harsh

I wouldn't think so.

velo.2010

The question now is 'why there was a discussion?' The rules are quite straightforward, yet they entertained his pleas to be allowed to continue.

The rules on temper tantrums, whacking balls and throwing rackets around probably need a revisit after this — apparently, Djokovic nearly took the head off a ball kid a few minutes earlier.

lostcat

unfortunate to hit someone given that there were probably 30 people in the stadium, as opposed to the tens of thousands who usually would be!

AllForIt

lostcat wrote: »

unfortunate to hit someone given that there were probably 30 people in the stadium, as opposed to the tens of thousands who usually would be!

Well he should have hit the ball up into the stadium auditorium then. He's supposed to be good at aiming balls.

VillaMad

Aljaz Bedene did it a couple of weeks ago in Cincinnati when he hit the ball in frustration and it hit a cameraman. He got a code violation.

Interested to know how they decide which ones deserve a disqualification and which ones don't.

lostcat

velo.2010 wrote: »

The question now is 'why there was a discussion?' The rules are quite straightforward, yet they entertained his pleas to be allowed to continue.

The rules on temper tantrums, whacking balls and throwing rackets around probably need a revisit after this — apparently, Djokovic nearly took the head off a ball kid a few minutes earlier.

why would the rule need to be revisited just after it has been applied correctly?
there most certainly should have been a discussion, he has a right to try to defend his actions, it would have been a lot worse to call in a bouncer to escort him off the court immediately. he did something stupid, he had his say, he lost, job done and rule works.

gmisk

velo.2010 wrote: »

The question now is 'why there was a discussion?' The rules are quite straightforward, yet they entertained his pleas to be allowed to continue.

The rules on temper tantrums, whacking balls and throwing rackets around probably need a revisit after this — apparently, Djokovic nearly took the head off a ball kid a few minutes earlier.

Yes he was arguing out on court with them for a good bit.
Yes earlier in set he did.

mzungu

Djokovic only has himself to blame. The rules on this are clear.

lostcat

AllForIt wrote: »

Well he should have hit the ball up into the stadium then. He's supposed to be good at aiming balls.

the ironic thing is, I imagine that all pro players have a subconscious unwillingness to hit a ball over fence height, in order to avoid hitting a fan.

mzungu

Girly Gal wrote: »

Will he get a suspension now and miss the French Open too, that would be extremely harsh

Nothing that harsh. He will, however, lose all ranking points earned at the US Open and will also be fined the prize money he has won.

EagererBeaver

He really hasn't had the best few months.

velo.2010

lostcat wrote: »

why would the rule need to be revisited just after it has been applied correctly?
there most certainly should have been a discussion, he has a right to try to defend his actions, it would have been a lot worse to call in a bouncer to escort him off the court immediately. he did something stupid, he had his say, he lost, job done and rule works.

Djokovic and others regularly throw rackets and hit balls with force that just miss officials and ball kids, yet nothing is done and we end up with situations like this. Rules could be tightened to stop players doing this... a violation could be applied similar to smashing rackets.

There was no discussion to be had. He hit an official which is not allowed.

lostcat

velo.2010 wrote: »

Djokovic and others regularly throw rackets and hit balls with force that just miss officials and ball kids, yet nothing is done and we end up with situations like this. Rules could be tightened to stop players doing this... a violation could be applied similar to smashing rackets.

There was no discussion to be had. He hit an official which is not allowed.

can't agree,
on the discussion thing, someone in an earlier post pointed out that the same thing happened last week and the player involved got a code violation. given what was at stake, he was entitled to make his case. if it was me i;d still be out there complaining (i'd be wrong to do so of course)

on the racquet breaking, unless a player breaks it over someones head it really doesn't matter. as for throwing racquets, ditto, if they throw it at the ground let them at it, if they throw it at someone, the rule which was enforced tonight comes into play.

I don't want tennis to turn into snooker.

Girly Gal

velo.2010 wrote: »

Djokovic and others regularly throw rackets and hit balls with force that just miss officials and ball kids, yet nothing is done and we end up with situations like this. Rules could be tightened to stop players doing this... a violation could be applied similar to smashing rackets.

There was no discussion to be had. He hit an official which is not allowed.

Players are not robots and sometimes get frustrated on court and lash out, it's part of the game and shows their passion, of course if they go too far they get warnings, lose points, games or even disqualified as happened here, it's probably what should have happened to Serena when she had that melt down a few years back( much worse than what Djokovic did here in my opinion), but, because of who she is, she was allowed play on and was almost treated as the victim.

gmisk

lostcat wrote: »

can't agree,
on the discussion thing, someone in an earlier post pointed out that the same thing happened last week and the player involved got a code violation. given what was at stake, he was entitled to make his case. if it was me i;d still be out there complaining (i'd be wrong to do so of course)

on the racquet breaking, unless a player breaks it over someones head it really doesn't matter. as for throwing racquets, ditto, if they throw it at the ground let them at it, if they throw it at someone, the rule which was enforced tonight comes into play.

I don't want tennis to turn into snooker.

I don't think it was the same thing the example from last week the ball hit a camera man, not an official for a start

Am I right in saying that if the ball had missed the line judge then nothing would have happened? Seems like it should either always be or it should never be a default when a player hits in a ball in anger without looking towards where a line judge might be, regardless of whether there happens to be a line judge in that exact spot or not.

byronbay2

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I right in saying that if the ball had missed the line judge then nothing would have happened? Seems like it should either always be or it should never be a default when a player hits in a ball in anger without looking towards where a line judge might be, regardless of whether there happens to be a line judge in that exact spot or not.

The rule is "reckless" hitting. I felt sorry for Henman in 1995 (was doubles, as I recall) who went to hit the ball into the net but the ball-girl ran across at the wrong moment. No such sympathy for Djokovic, who really was reckless.

As for Serena, she seems to be able to get away with ANYTHING!! As someone said in a previous post, she claimed to be a victim of sexism after her huge tantrum when she lost to Osaka in the US Open final 2018. At least Osaka won that match, I would have been absolutely sick if Serena's psychological warfare had paid off! BTW, people (not least Billy Jean King) were lining up to justify Serena's actions that night.

Dr. Bre

Ridiculous. It’s not like he looked at the judge and fired a ball at her

byronbay2

byronbay2 wrote: »

The rule is "reckless" hitting.

So what does that mean? He would have defaulted if he missed her too? Has that happened before?

yerwanthere123

Harry lyme wrote: »

Defaulting an entire match for something like that does seem quite harsh.

The one good thing about it is it'll mean in future there can never be any more whining about Serena Williams incident in 2018 and nobody can ever claim that the men get away with more than the women in Tennis.

Nobody, bar Serena Williams, has ever claimed that.

Rob2D

Haha, absolutely delighted. Just when I thought this dumb motherf***er couldn't possibly make himself look any worse this year.

And the decision is totally fair. The rule exists specifically because things like THIS can happen.

velo.2010

lostcat wrote: »

on the racquet breaking, unless a player breaks it over someones head it really doesn't matter. as for throwing racquets, ditto, if they throw it at the ground let them at it, if they throw it at someone, the rule which was enforced tonight comes into play.
.

Your missing the point I made.

walshb

Most commentators/pundits say the right call made..

His refusal to officially apologise in doing the presser was not good..

MisterAnarchy

EagererBeaver wrote: »

The fact he didn't mean it is irrelevant. He hit a ball in anger that struck a line judge. Completely his own fault.

The penalty is deliberately that harsh to try and stop players doing it.

It was hardly hit in anger, it was like a lollipop shot.
The pensioners down the local court would hit it harder than that.

If he had walloped it full force then disqualification would be merited but it was an aimless tap on the volley.

john9876

Hard to believe that his place at the top of the all time grand slam leaderboard could be jeopardised by an act of petulance.

EagererBeaver

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Ridiculous. It’s not like he looked at the judge and fired a ball at her

Watch the video. That's basically exactly what he did.

A bit of a mess really from all sides.

As if the tournament wasn't a bit of a shambles already.

lostcat

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Watch the video. That's basically exactly what he did.

He meant to hit it at her?:rolleyes:

EagererBeaver

lostcat wrote: »

He meant to hit it at her?:rolleyes:

Where did I say that?

Rob2D

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

It was hardly hit in anger

It was. That's literally exactly what happened.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

it was an aimless tap on the volley.

As someone else here pointed out earlier, an aimless tap from Novak probably has more force behind it than most forehands you and I would hit.

lostcat

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Where did I say that?

You claimed that he looked at a judge and then fired a ball at her, how else should I parse that?

EagererBeaver

Smashed a ball in anger in the previous game. Hits a line judge. Sarcastically refuses to shake umpire's hand (although not sure what covid protocol here is) and doesn't attend press conference.

Petulant bellend.

EagererBeaver

lostcat wrote: »

You claimed that he looked at a judge and then fired a ball at her, how else should I parse that?

No I didn't. If you read my post properly, if you're capable of doing so, you'll notice I said that it was "basically exactly what he did. Watch the video, he clearly looks round. The line judge is clearly in his field of view. He hit the ball. The ball hit the line judge. By definition, he hit the ball at her.

What more do you want? None of that is to say that he intentionally took aim at and fired a ball at the line judge. As I said earlier though, intent is irrelevant.

If you don't or can't understand that, then I suggest we leave it there.

EagererBeaver

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No I didn't. If you read my post properly, if you're capable of doing so, you'll notice I said that it was "basically exactly what he did. Watch the video, he clearly looks round. The line judge is clearly in his field of view. He hit the ball. The ball hit the line judge. By definition, he hit the ball at her.

What more do you want? None of that is to say that he intentionally took aim at and fired a ball at the line judge. As I said earlier though, intent is irrelevant.

If you don't or can't understand that, then I suggest we leave it there.

I also have no idea how you are not implying exactly that in your first paragraph.

Anyway, from what I can see in the video it doesn't look like he starts looking up until he is mid-swing.

Rob2D

Rob2D wrote: »

As someone else here pointed out earlier, an aimless tap from Novak probably has more force behind it than most forehands you and I would hit.

are you over 75?

the ball was not going very quickly, at all.

as can be seen here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtpfrhiV8G8

EagererBeaver

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I also have no idea how you are not implying exactly that in your first paragraph.

Anyway, from what I can see in the video it doesn't look like he starts looking up until he is mid-swing.

That's your concern, not mine. I can't stand the twat. If I thought he had intentionally smashed a ball at a line judge I'd be saying so.

Have watched back the 10th and 11th games. He had three set points and then lost 7 straight points before he slipped and called the trainer. Slip didn't look that bad and his shoulder looked absolutely fine afterwards. Would have no problem whatsoever believing that was the latest bout of Djokovic gamesmanship that he's been at his entire career.

MisterAnarchy

Rob2D wrote: »

It was. That's literally exactly what happened.

As someone else here pointed out earlier, an aimless tap from Novak probably has more force behind it than most forehands you and I would hit.

His backswing was less than a foot, you can't generate much power with that no matter who you are.

A shot with a one foot back swing is not a shot hit in anger.

Girly Gal

The glee with which some people have shown over Djokovic's disqualification is very disappointing, yes, he made a mistake and got punished for it. I'm not Djokovic's biggest fan, but, I do admire him as a tennis player, he is one of the greatest players ever and the tournament will be the poorer without him in it. There will forever be a question mark over this year's winner- would they have won if Djokovic hadn't been disqualified - we'll never know which is a pity and takes away from the tournament.

While he has made some serious misjudgments in the last few months I do like how he tends to speak his mind and not just go with the flow, which alot of players do. I would imagine he is disgusted with himself for missing out on a golden opportunity to add another slam.

When was the last time none of the big 3 were involved at this stage of a slam before, it must be back around 2003/4

EagererBeaver

EagererBeaver wrote: »

That's your concern, not mine. I can't stand the twat. If I thought he had intentionally smashed a ball at a line judge I'd be saying so.

Could you perhaps clarify the point you were making though? I just want to make sure the mistake is not on my part and that I may have not understood you correctly. Are you suggesting that there is a difference between "he deliberately hit the ball at her" and "he deliberately aimed the ball at her"?

EagererBeaver

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Could you perhaps clarify the point you were making though? I just want to make sure the mistake is not on my part and that I may have not understood you correctly. Are you suggesting that there is a difference between "he deliberately hit the ball at her" and "he deliberately aimed the ball at her"?

This is the post I replied to where I said it was "basically exactly what he did":

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Ridiculous. It’s not like he looked at the judge and fired a ball at her

He looked around (as he was striking the ball, yes) and the ball struck. As I said, by definition, he hit the ball at her. He almost certainly didn't intend to, but that doesn't change the fact that there exactly what he did.

Where you're getting this "deliberately hit the ball at her" and "deliberately aimed the ball at her" stuff from is beyond me. They're not my words. As I've repeatedly said, and have done so again in this post, I didn't think he intentionally hit the ball at her. The fact it was not intentional doesn't change the fact that he hit it right at her. Can you not see this?!

EagererBeaver

EagererBeaver wrote: »

This is the post I replied to where I said it was "basically exactly what he did":



He looked around (as he was striking the ball, yes) and the ball struck. As I said, by definition, he hit the ball at her. He almost certainly didn't intend to, but that doesn't change the fact that there exactly what he did.

Where you're getting this "deliberately hit the ball at her" and "deliberately aimed the ball at her" stuff from is beyond me. They're not my words. As I've repeatedly said, and have done so again in this post, I didn't think he intentionally hit the ball at her. The fact it was not intentional doesn't change the fact that he hit it right at her. Can you not see this?!

I agree with other people in that I'm confused about your opinion. You said "that's basically exactly what he did" with regards to this post:

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Ridiculous. It’s not like he looked at the judge and fired a ball at her

i.e. you believe that he did actually look at the judge and fire a ball at her, but then you later say "none of that is to say that he intentionally took aim at and fired a ball at the line judge" which is the opposite. Are you perhaps just not explaining your opinion too well?

john9876

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree with other people in that I'm confused about your opinion. You said "that's basically exactly what he did" with regards to this post:



i.e. you believe that he did actually look at the judge and fire a ball at her, but then you later say "none of that is to say that he intentionally took aim at and fired a ball at the line judge" which is the opposite. Are you perhaps just not explaining your opinion too well?

I wouldn't say anything else without consulting with a lawyer.

Girly Gal

Girly Gal wrote: »

The glee with which some people have shown over Djokovic's disqualification is very disappointing, yes, he made a mistake and got punished for it. I'm not Djokovic's biggest fan, but, I do admire him as a tennis player, he is one of the greatest players ever and the tournament will be the poorer without him in it. There will forever be a question mark over this year's winner- would they have won if Djokovic hadn't been disqualified - we'll never know which is a pity and takes away from the tournament.

While he has made some serious misjudgments in the last few months I do like how he tends to speak his mind and not just go with the flow, which a lot of players do. I would imagine he is disgusted with himself for missing out on a golden opportunity to add another slam.

When was the last time none of the big 3 were involved at this stage of a slam before, it must be back around 2003/4

In fairness, yes he is authentic.

Not a fake like some other high profile ones you could mention.

john9876

john9876 wrote: »

I wouldn't say anything else without consulting with a lawyer.

But is consulting with a lawyer the same thing as intentionally calling a lawyer?

EagererBeaver

You're clearly struggling to read between the lines here, so I'll spell it out.

The original poster is, effectively, saying that the whole thing is ridiculous because Djokovic didn't intend to hit her.

I'm pointing out that this is absolutely irrelevant, therefore it's not ridiculous at all. Did he look at her? As you say, he probably raised his head mid swing. I think it's likely that she was in his field of view. Did he hit the ball at her? Indisputably yes (as I've repeatedly said, by definition). Does any of it matter except the fact that he struck the ball and the ball struck her? No.

EagererBeaver

Also, for anyone going with the "he didn't even hit it that hard" line, try taking a tennis ball square to the throat (assuming that's what happened - I'm going with the general reporting on it and the fact she was clutching your throat), try taking any sort of shot straight to the windpipe and see if it doesn't have you gasping for air.

EagererBeaver

EagererBeaver wrote: »

You're clearly struggling to read between the lines here, so I'll spell it out.

The original poster is, effectively, saying that the whole thing is ridiculous because Djokovic didn't intend to hit her.

I'm pointing out that this is absolutely irrelevant, therefore it's not ridiculous at all. Did he look at her? As you say, he probably raised his head mid swing. I think it's likely that she was in his field of view. Did he hit the ball at her? Indisputably yes (as I've repeatedly said, by definition). Does any of it matter except the fact that he struck the ball and the ball struck her? No.

I think the confusion is therefore that you misinterpreted Dr. Bre's post. He is clearly suggesting that he doesn't believe that he did it intentionally, and by disagreeing with his post you have made myself and others think that you believe that he in fact intentionally did it. Twas just a misunderstanding with English tis all.

EagererBeaver

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Also, for anyone going with the "he didn't even hit it that hard" line, try taking a tennis ball square to the throat (assuming that's what happened - I'm going with the general reporting on it and the fact she was clutching your throat), try taking any sort of shot straight to the windpipe and see if it doesn't have you gasping for air.

I agree and in my opinion it shouldn't matter anyway. If you punch a referee or if you push a referee you'll get a red card in football either way even though one is practically painless. It's not up to Djokovic to decide on what the threshold of pain is for another person and if he wants to hit a ball in frustration he should hit in the air away from people, regardless of speed.

EagererBeaver

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the confusion is therefore that you misinterpreted Dr. Bre's post. He is clearly suggesting that he doesn't believe that he did it intentionally, and by disagreeing with his post you have made myself and others think that you believe that he in fact intentionally did it. Twas just a misunderstanding with English tis all.

I understand his post perfectly. He's saying that the disqualification is ridiculous as what he did wasn't intentional. I'm saying there's nothing ridiculous about it at all as intent is irrelevant.

The stuff about him looking at her and hitting it at her is just me having fun.

EagererBeaver

EagererBeaver wrote: »

I understand his post perfectly. He's saying that the disqualification is ridiculous as what he did wasn't intentional. I'm saying there's nothing ridiculous about it at all as intent is irrelevant.

The stuff about him looking at her and hitting it at her is just me having fun.

I understand that you don't believe intent matters, and as you can tell from my above posts, we both believe the same thing.

The confusion is this. You said that "that's basically exactly what he did" in reply to that post, implying that you think "he looked at the judge and fired a ball at her", i.e. you believe it was intentional (even though you and I both don't think it should matter).

However, you have also said in a later post "he almost certainly didn't intend to", which is the opposite. Regardless of whether you think intent matters, you have said both that you believe there was intent and that you believe that there wasn't intent, which is where the confusion arises.

It doesn't matter anyway.