Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

US Open 2020

1356789

Comments



  • He really hasn't had the best few months.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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


  • Advertisement


  • 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.




  • Aristotle 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.




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




  • 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?




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.

    1wj8vrxzell51.jpg




  • 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.




  • Most commentators/pundits say the right call made..

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




  • 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.




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




  • 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.

    www.buymeacoffee.com/glassopy





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

    He meant to hit it at her?:rolleyes:




  • lostcat wrote: »
    He meant to hit it at her?:rolleyes:

    Where did I say that?




  • It was hardly hit in anger

    It was. That's literally exactly what happened.

    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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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?




  • 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.




  • 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.




  • 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 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.

    www.buymeacoffee.com/glassopy





  • Aristotle 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.




  • 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.




  • 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




  • 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"?


  • Advertisement


  • Aristotle 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?!


Advertisement