Djokovic, DEFAULTS and DISAPPOINTMENT
Last night I tuned in to tennis moments after a line judge had been struck in the throat by a tennis ball. I saw Djokovic’s look of shock and regret as the women collapsed to the ground, struggling to breathe. As any champion would, he rushed to her side to ensure her safety. Djokovic would be defaulted for this accident. At the time, the commentators felt it was the correct decision, but over the next few hours, my social media because overrun with people claiming “overreaction,” “injustice,” and “flopper.”
The most common reason cited for an overreaction is that it was an accident. Djokovic is not a malicious man. He obviously did not try to hit the line judge. Basic human decency achieved. Unfortunately, Djokovic was not looking where he was hitting the ball, and he was clearly upset having been just broken. He may not have smacked the ball in anger, but he struck the ball harder than his usual gentle tap towards the ball kids. Sure, had the ball landed a few inches in any direction, and we wouldn’t be here today, but it didn’t. A woman was clearly hurt by Djokovic’s actions, regardless of intent. He was negligent and could have done better. He did not take necessary care of duty when he aimless hit a tennis ball towards the back fence.
Others are pointing to other similar events, stating that Federer or Nadal would have never been defaulted for this kind of incident. Furthermore, events including other player, like Shapovalov and Nalbandian. Let’s go through the incidents.
What about when Fed hit that kid in the balls and we all laughed?
In Federer hits a ballboy, there are a few important differences:
Federer’s ballkid was smiling, Djokovic’s line judge was on the ground in pain.
Federer was looking where he was hitting the ball, Djokovic had his back turned, making it hard for people to anticipate risk.
Djokovic was visibly upset leading up the incident, making it possible that he struck the ball in anger. While this may not be true, it could easily be interpreted this way.
Federer and Djokovic faced different circumstances, so it not fair to make direct comparisons or sweeping accusations because of it. It is clear that Federer’s case is much more mild than Djokovic’s when it comes to the consequences of his actions. We cannot use this example to say the Djokovic was treated unfairly, given any conception of leniency in the Federer case. We will likely never know if Federer or Nadal would have been treated differently for their high status if they faced the same scenario. The next incident we will investigate is Shapovalov and the chair umpire. In my mind, these incidents are pretty similar, with one glaring difference.
What about when Shapo drilled the chair umpire eyeball?
Both player’s are carrying levels of anger that lead to an outburst where a ball was struck in a random location, leading to the ACCIDENTAL collision with an official.
Both officials seems to recover on court before the default occurred.
Shapovalov’s was way harder and obviously more dangerous, making the default much more cut and dry. Djokovic’s was relatively soft, just aimed at a very fragile part of the body, the throat. It’s important to note that neither man had malicious intent.
What’s tricky is that Djokovic’s case lands between these two in severity. Another way we could look at this is, “what would have happened if the call was reversed.” While there had been plenty of backlash by Djokovic fans, Federer fans, tennis enthusiasts and general sport lovers, I can’t imagine what we would have seen if Djokovic was allowed to continue. Our Instagram poll was split about 65/35 supporting the ruling, despite most of the comments being from those 35% against the ruling. There would have been plenty of accusations of corruption by the USTA and Djokovic would have been under a lot of heat for using his status to bend the rules.
Given the way the rules of tennis are written, demanding that necessary ball striking, leading to the injury of a person, should require a default, I believe that the tournament supervisor made the correct call. Anything else would have been unjust to precedence. That said, as many have pointed out, the rule be imperfect. This horrible, unlucky and shocking incident will lead to positive change in the typical tradition-bound sport of tennis.
