Week 4 - ITF ($50K) - Maui, Hawaii, USA - Hard

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

RE: Week 4 - ITF ($50K) - Maui, Hawaii, USA - Hard

indiana · Tennis legend

Hmm, looks like I remain in the minority ( of one? ) from these that have commented here re the Ostapenko incident.

I expressed my doubts at the time and the more I then saw what we did see ( i.e. excluding the racquet actually contacting the ball boy ) it would have been a total nonsense if she had been defaulted. She flipped her racquet to the side, yes in a bit of exasperation, but it was not violently done, it wasn't exactly travelling at the speed of sound and it is little surprise that the ball boy was quickly able to confirm he had indeed survived this inadvertent 'hit'.

I think this latest incident has much more of a case in that the ball is truly travelling so the person assumedly getting a straight hit might well properly know about it, though I still think debatable. To me no debate re Ostapenko and Naomi was way OTT.

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 29th of January 2016 01:20:32 PM

Jaffa · Challenger level

They have to set a precedent Indiana and a NO tolerance approach. If they were lax on this sort of thing other behaviours creep in to the game.

Look at football.

Just my opinion.

paulisi · Tennis legend

harsh...

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

but fair...

indiana · Tennis legend

Well with Ostapenko they simply showed common sense. A warning.

I reckon the game will survive

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 29th of January 2016 01:24:04 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Katy Dunne would certainly have been defaulted at the Wimbly qualis if we're using the strict interpretation.

Personally, I'm more with Indy and paulisi - it seems harsh to default someone for hitting a ball, crossly, which just happens, unfortunately, to then hit someone.

But I can understand the other point of view.....

Jaffa · Challenger level

Don't even understand why she's so annoyed there it's only the second game!!

wimdledont · Challenger level

The rules are the rules. The rules say nothing about intention, malice, or damage.

It would be absurd if they did. I don't think there has ever been an instance where a player deliberately set out to hit any official or spectator. So there would be no rules.

The job of the officials is to apply the rules, as set down by some committee, deliberating in their wisdom, at their leisure. And not to make up new unwritten rules on the hoof.

Bonaventura, Ostapenko and Dunne should all have been DQed.

The most injured party in these 3 incidents was Naomi, who attracted a lot of online flak (elsewhere), for 'trying to win a match without playing', when she was simply asking the officials why they weren't applying the rules.

(If any player ever does deliberately physically attack an official or spectator, they should be banned for a number of years.)

indiana · Tennis legend

The force involved and thus always potential consequence that was there has to be an issue in my view. There thus will often be a judgement call to be made - it is not black and white.

Player a bit exasperated turns and kicks the ball along the ground and it rolls into the ball boy's foot when he was looking the other way. He stoops down, picks it up and play continues. But, but he was struck ...

Ostapenko, tossing her racquet to the side and it hitting the ballboy, just not for me a default, while I understand the other point of view.

I don't question Naomi's motives, and clearly many share her point of view. I don't and personally disagree the fuss she made over it.

Let's keep all players on court playing tennis unless there has been a really serious loss of control.

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 29th of January 2016 04:30:48 PM

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Thing is, once the ball is out of play, you are not supposed to throw your racquet or hit balls in temper AT ALL. Players are meant to be warned should they do so and then have the relevant penalties applied if the behaviour continues. If the ball or racquet hits someone it is MEANT to be an automatic DQ. The only example of those quoted in which I can see a grey area is Katy Dunne. She did not hit the ball in temper but gently practiced the shot she wished she'd hit but towards the back fence away from any ball kids or linesmen. Unfortunately at exactly that moment the lineswoman turned and walked towards Katie's target and walked into the ball.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Er, that's not how I saw it. Were you there?

Katy most certainly hit the ball in anger, i.e. she whacked the ball pretty hard (which may well have been how she meant to hit the shot) and she was cross - it wasn't gentle.

Of course, she didn't mean it to hit the lineswoman but, as wimbeldont says, we (assume) that no one means that.

NB I wouldn't have defaulted Katy, nor the others probably. As said, as an umpire - assuming it was the first incident - unless I was 100% convinced, I would give the player the benefit of the doubt. Although I completely understand that there are rules, as decided, and it's up to umpire to enforce them.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Naomi about to start - streamed

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

OK CD, gently is overstating the case!! But I definitely saw it as a practice shot and not a ball hit in anger. Maybe I need to go to Specsavers........but the linesperson definitely walked into it and those 2 factors suggest to me that that particular instance was not quite black and white. Nonetheless, under the strict rules of the tour I think she should have been given her marching orders and was very lucky to be able to complete the match.

DF · Tennis legend

Naomi 0-2 down