Tennis question

[BrassBulls12]

33 minutes ago, chapelbull said:

That wasn't soft and she was paying attention.  She was standing at attention, looking down the line as she is supposed to be.   He screwed up and per the rule was defaulted.

its just me but, imma keep my eye on the ball until the play is about to begin. She had no reason to be watching the line, how about keeping an eye on the guy thats starts play? You don't have to agree, but that's soft rule made to protect high horse judges. Proven by the fact that when happens to a ball boy, nothing happens....zilch, they laugh about it and tell him he's gotta be ready..... what a novel Idea

 

And again my biggest contention point isn't right or wrong, its the severity of the punishment. Take a point, ok take a game, seems severe, ejection? negative. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by BrassBulls12

[Triple B]

44 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

its just me but, imma keep my eye on the ball until the play is about to begin. She had no reason to be watching the line, how about keeping an eye on the guy thats starts play? You don't have to agree, but that's soft rule made to protect high horse judges. Proven by the fact that when happens to a ball boy, nothing happens....zilch, they laugh about it and tell him he's gotta be ready..... what a novel Idea

He wasn't the guy to start play. He had just lost serve ...... and he's looking dead at the linesman when he hit the ball at her where he didn't even glance at the ball boy when he hit right to him. It was a **** move that I don't think he meant to hit where it did but it wasn't an accident and negligent disregard was putting it nicely .... and the Federer incident has no bearing on this.

[chapelbull]

There was nothing going on with the ball either, no reason to be watching it.  Judge did nothing wrong.   I appreciate the fact that accountability matters in some corners of our society still.   The rule is clear and they were well within their right to enforce it.

 

[BrassBulls12]

1 hour ago, Triple B said:

He wasn't the guy to start play. He had just lost serve ...... and he's looking dead at the linesman when he hit the ball at her where he didn't even glance at the ball boy when he hit right to him. It was a **** move that I don't think he meant to hit where it did but it wasn't an accident and negligent disregard was putting it nicely .... and the Federer incident has no bearing on this.

I don't see how you think this was intentional in anyway. Also how is the federer thing different? That kids job is to get a ball that hits the net, Feds ball didn't hit the net and he recklessly and dangerously hit a trick shot into the kids chest. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by BrassBulls12

[BrassBulls12]

The rule is not clear, proven by the Federer situation, why was he not ejected. If there answer he hit a ball boy not a judge then clearly the intent of the rule is not safety if it is, it seems kinds backward to protect the adults so vehemently and let  whatever happen to the kids but....

Edited September 9, 2020 by BrassBulls12

[Triple B]

2 hours ago, BrassBulls12 said:

I don't see how you think this was intentional in anyway.

Actually, you are right there. Without being in someone's head Its hard to prove intent ..... but if you look at the way he bounced the first ball back to the ball boy and then looked at the linesman as he fired the ball at her, one could make a case. At the very least it met the criteria of the rule, hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences, and was entirely proper for the officials to take a look at it. That ball is a couple of inches higher and it hits her nose, possibly eye .... it was recklessly dangerous.

And if you still want to compare it to the Federer incident ..... It's the ball boy's job/responsibility to always be aware of the balls on the court and Federer was returning one to him. The kid screwed up and he knew it. It's an entirely different scenario.

[chapelbull]

The rule is clearly stated above.  This incident isn't remotely the same as Federer and the ball boy.  Ridiculous

[DELdaBull]

I love watching tennis. Especially major tennis. He was frustrated and hit the ball in anger to the general direction of the line judge.  I don't think he was intending to hit the judge, but was definitely trying to send a message to the judge. 

[BrassBulls12]

I have yet to see where the rule clearly states that a judge has to be struck in order for it to deemed reckless and dangerous. The article I posted provide two examples of tennis pros striking a ball in frustration and striking someone of the court but because it wasn't a judge, nothing happened or they were not disqualified.  

Meanwhile, only two weeks ago at the Southern & Western Open - which Djokovic won - Aljaz Bedene accidentally struck a cameraman after hitting the ball away in frustration

 

Bedene immediately apologised but the tournament official was called out to judge whether he should have been defaulted.

Fortunately for Bedene, he wasn't - receiving just a code violation instead.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by BrassBulls12

[BrassBulls12]

I realize I'm in the minority but bottom line, that's weak reason to disqualify someone. fine the hell out of them, take a set, take a game, but don't disqualify