Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

US Open 2020

1246789

Comments

  • #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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?


  • #93
    john9876
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭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.


  • #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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.


  • #95
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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? :p


  • #96
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭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.


  • #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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. :)


  • #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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.


  • #100
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭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.


  • #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    MrKingsley
    Registered Users Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭MrKingsley


    Didn’t know “reckless hitting” was the rule. I imagine that’s what the conversation was about. To determine whether or not it was indeed reckless. I think it’s harsh but understand completely how the umpire and referee came to that conclusion.

    Don’t agree with anyone saying that there will/should be an asterik beside the winners name at all. Would there have been one beside Djokovics if he had strolled it?


  • #103
    Rob2D
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 2,449 Mod ✭✭✭✭Rob2D


    glasso wrote: »
    are you over 75?

    the ball was not going very quickly, at all.

    Ah, yeah it was. There must be nearly 10 metres between him and her and the ball gets there in less than a second.
    MisterAnarchy wrote: »
    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.

    You've clearly never spent much time on a tennis court.


  • #104
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,549 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Was the line judge involved in any “dubious” call during the game lost/match?

    Or just happened to be in the line of fire?


  • #105
    whiterebel
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭whiterebel


    Djokovic very nearly defaulted in the French in 2016. Threw down the racquet near the back of the court, and it just missed the line judge. Nalbandian lost Queens (?) for kicking the box at the line judges feet. Shapavalov at 17 when he flaked the ball into the judges eye. Djokovics discussion at the end was shameful to me....” She doesn't have to go to the hospital for this." He added: "You're going to choose a default in this situation? My career, Grand Slam, centre stage." Me, me, me......


  • #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Rob2D wrote: »
    Ah, yeah it was. There must be nearly 10 metres between him and her and the ball gets there in less than a second.



    You've clearly never spent much time on a tennis court.

    Agreed. Some quick maths suggests that the ball is going at about 30-40 km/h. Anyone who doesn't think that that can cause someone to feel pain has never been on a tennis court or has at least never been hit by a tennis ball.


  • #107
    MrKingsley
    Registered Users Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭MrKingsley


    I really think that it was a combination of shock and the area of impact that mad it look so bad for the line judge. Not necessarily the pace of the ball.

    If it had hit her on her arm would the same punishment have been given? I mean he clearly didn’t aim at her throat.

    Or as a poster previously asked, if he had hit it way harder and it just hit the advertising signs then would’ve he been kicked out?


  • #108
    whiterebel
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭whiterebel


    MrKingsley wrote: »
    I really think that it was a combination of shock and the area of impact that mad it look so bad for the line judge. Not necessarily the pace of the ball.

    If it had hit her on her arm would the same punishment have been given? I mean he clearly didn’t aim at her throat.

    Or as a poster previously asked, if he had hit it way harder and it just hit the advertising signs then would’ve he been kicked out?

    It’s not that difficult. Once you hit someone with a reckless swing, you’re out. If you hit it violently at the hoarding, its a warning.
    I was hit in the eye with a ball lobbed from the far end, giving the ball back to serve, and I was literally poleaxed. A gentle hit back, I was flat out, and I’m 6'2" and 118kgs


  • #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    MrKingsley wrote: »
    I really think that it was a combination of shock and the area of impact that mad it look so bad for the line judge. Not necessarily the pace of the ball.

    If it had hit her on her arm would the same punishment have been given? I mean he clearly didn’t aim at her throat.

    Or as a poster previously asked, if he had hit it way harder and it just hit the advertising signs then would’ve he been kicked out?

    Yeah I doubt he would have gotten the same punishment. In my opinion though he should, regardless of whether he hit someone or not, where he hit them, how hard he hit the ball etc. If he hits a ball without looking towards an area where there's likely to be someone there, he should be defaulted.


  • #110
    EagererBeaver
    Registered Users Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    MrKingsley wrote: »
    I really think that it was a combination of shock and the area of impact that mad it look so bad for the line judge. Not necessarily the pace of the ball.

    If it had hit her on her arm would the same punishment have been given? I mean he clearly didn’t aim at her throat.

    Or as a poster previously asked, if he had hit it way harder and it just hit the advertising signs then would’ve he been kicked out?

    Clearly not. He'd probably have been given a code violation and warning given he got away with smashing a ball to the side in the previous game when he lost from being 0-40 up. The fact is the rule specifically refers to hitting perks, which is what he did.

    If he'd hit her on the arm, he should have been thrown out as well. Whether he would have been is a different question.


  • #111
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    so whos the favourite now? Thiem, Medvedev and (maybe) Zverev must be practicing with renewed vigor this morning.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    whiterebel
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭whiterebel


    lostcat wrote: »
    so whos the favourite now? Thiem, Medvedev and (maybe) Zverev must be practicing with renewed vigor this morning.

    I do like Berratini. If Thiem doesn’t do it now, he never will.


  • #113
    MrKingsley
    Registered Users Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭MrKingsley


    whiterebel wrote: »
    It’s not that difficult. Once you hit someone with a reckless swing, you’re out. If you hit it violently at the hoarding, its a warning.
    I was hit in the eye with a ball lobbed from the far end, giving the ball back to serve, and I was literally poleaxed. A gentle hit back, I was flat out, and I’m 6'2" and 118kgs

    I’ve played tennis for over 20 years and have been hit plenty of times. It’s unpleasant and can of course be dangerous. Would he have been kicked out it if hit her on the arm though? I’m not so sure

    I’m my mind hitting a ball full pelt at the hoardings is far more reckless than was he did. But anyway. He’s out and by the letter of the law it is the correct decision


  • #114
    byronbay2
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭byronbay2


    EagererBeaver wrote: »
    If he'd hit her on the arm, he should have been thrown out as well. Whether he would have been is a different question.

    I am pretty certain that Djokovic (or any player) would have been defaulted for playing the shot he did and hitting any official on any part of their body. Fairly easy decision, imo.


  • #115
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    lostcat wrote: »
    so whos the favourite now? Thiem, Medvedev and (maybe) Zverev must be practicing with renewed vigor this morning.
    Would love to see Thiem win it, he's been consistently knocking on the Grand Slam door for the last few years. Would be a bit mad to see him win his first Grand Slam on HC, as opposed to clay - maybe that's a testament to Nadals ownership of that surface! Anyway, he has a tough opponent next in Auger-Aliassime, if he beats him, I can see Thiem going all the way


  • #116
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    I would have preferred to see one of the lads beat Djokovic or Nadal on their way to their first slam, for an official 'changing of the guard' moment. However, a new winner is still going to change the dynamics of the tour, hopefyully everyone will gain confidence from it.

    I constantly have to remind myself that Thiem is 27, the next gen guys are all 22-23 at this stage.


  • #117
    Royale with Cheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,972 ✭✭✭Royale with Cheese


    From having three set points to Carreno Busta serving for the set to being disqualified, all the in the space of about 10 minutes. Things fell apart fairly rapidly for Djokovic there.


  • #118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Rob2D wrote: »
    Ah, yeah it was. There must be nearly 10 metres between him and her and the ball gets there in less than a second.

    you said that he hit it harder than your forehand so you are clearly over 75
    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.

    as you can't hit a forehand harder than this shot?

    I'm actually surprised that she didn't avoid it really by seeing it coming - must have be staring off somewhere.

    it hit her and the rules are the rules etc. yes but let's not get hyperbolic on the speed of the ball and saying that it was hit harder than normal people's forehands which is complete rubbish (unless you are over 75 as stated)

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


  • #119
    BagheeraBlue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭BagheeraBlue


    ha oscar worthy performance from the line judge the absolute snowflake but the rules are the rules and he should be disqualified


  • #120
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    glasso wrote: »
    I'm actually surprised that she didn't avoid it really by seeing it coming - must have be staring off somewhere.


    ah look, a lot of people (inc a few on here) don't like Djokovic and enjoy his various misfortunes, perhaps ocasionally overstating his intent in the process

    but a linesperson shouldn't have to to continuously 'keep an eye' on a player in case they let fly with a loose ball! her reaction (i.e. shock) was a perfectly normal one from someone who had, out of the blu been hit in the throat by a missile.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users Posts: 14,513 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    Rob2D wrote: »
    You've clearly never spent much time on a tennis court.

    :rolleyes:

    You said Djokovics tap was more powerful than an average persons forehand.
    So your forehand is 30-40km/hr is it ??

    His backswing was less than a foot on a static tennis ball, you can't generate much power on that, its the laws of physics .
    The ball looks like its beginning to drop in height just before it hits the judge ,thats how weak a shot it is.


Advertisement