No Djok-ing around, Novak Djokovic ejected from US Open

[Bo]

Line judges are always at the same locations. A professional player likely doesn’t need to look to know exactly where they are. Doesn’t mean it was intentional but I don’t think the argument hinges on whether or not he glanced up.

[rjmacs]

Intent is irrelevant.

The rules are in place to protect the unprotected on the court. They must be observed regardless of what is in the players' heads.

The penalty was appropriate and necessary.

[Robert M]

rj,

Correct on one level. The penalty was spot on especially since Djokovic's action resulted in an injury. Intent is at play here not because it has an impact on the penalty but because some people believe the incident was intentional, not accidental. While intent shouldn't have bearing on the penalty, it does factor into how people feel about Djokovic as a person and a professional tennis player.

Robert

[rjmacs]

Robert M wrote:
rj,

Correct on one level. The penalty was spot on especially since Djokovic's action resulted in an injury. Intent is at play here not because it has an impact on the penalty but because some people believe the incident was intentional, not accidental. While intent shouldn't have bearing on the penalty, it does factor into how people feel about Djokovic as a person and a professional tennis player.

Robert

OK. As long as we're on the same page that the call was correct, and the gameplay is governed by rules ignorant of intent.

[vision63]

He was just being petulant and they had enough of it. It wasn't smart for them to kick him out. They do depend on ratings and he's a draw. If he did it on purpose, then yeah, but he didn't. He ain't got the guts for that. I know the NBA wouldn't be kicking Michael Jordan out of the playoffs for something that wasn't malicious.

As far as the "rules" are concerned. They're just rules. They're not laws. They can do whatever they want to do.

[RgrF]

Same newspaper, same sportswriter...
...vastly different takes.

[NewtonMP2100]

.....the djokes.....on him........???

[rjmacs]

vision63 wrote:
He was just being petulant and they had enough of it. It wasn't smart for them to kick him out. They do depend on ratings and he's a draw. If he did it on purpose, then yeah, but he didn't. He ain't got the guts for that. I know the NBA wouldn't be kicking Michael Jordan out of the playoffs for something that wasn't malicious.

As far as the "rules" are concerned. They're just rules. They're not laws. They can do whatever they want to do.

I'm mildly surprised that you think that rules should be enforced based on what's good for ratings.

Probably just another necessary reality check for the forum from v63.

[vision63]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=vision63]
He was just being petulant and they had enough of it. It wasn't smart for them to kick him out. They do depend on ratings and he's a draw. If he did it on purpose, then yeah, but he didn't. He ain't got the guts for that. I know the NBA wouldn't be kicking Michael Jordan out of the playoffs for something that wasn't malicious.

As far as the "rules" are concerned. They're just rules. They're not laws. They can do whatever they want to do.

I'm mildly surprised that you think that rules should be enforced based on what's good for ratings.

Probably just another necessary reality check for the forum from v63.
I'm not buying that what he did is what they say it was. I'm also not buying that there has to be a rigid adherence to rules for the sake of following rules. It's like giving judges mandatory minimums with no discretion. It's not like it was a foot fault or something that addressed the outcome of the match, which is completely different. This was behavior and that's more arbitrary and should be subject to a discretionary judgement.

So basically, the fan is deprived of watching the most dynamic male figure in the sport for basically some specious reason.

[rjmacs]

vision63 wrote:

I'm not buying that what he did is what they say it was. I'm also not buying that there has to be a rigid adherence to rules for the sake of following rules. It's like giving judges mandatory minimums with no discretion. It's not like it was a foot fault or something that addressed the outcome of the match, which is completely different. This was behavior and that's more arbitrary and should be subject to a discretionary judgement.

So basically, the fan is deprived of watching the most dynamic male figure in the sport for basically some specious reason.

What "they say it was" was negligent behavior that caused harm to a line judge. That's all, no intent ascribed or required.

The rule is there, and has no exception for intent, because for line judges, ball kids, and other staff to operate effectively they must know that the players are respecting their safety.

It has no discretion because the line judges, ball kids, etc. also have no discretion. They are required to put their bodies on the line, at risk of being hit with a ball, crashed into, or otherwise impacted while doing their job.

Players are required to respect the safety of the court staff above all else. It's at the same level, within the sport, as playing fair. There are no exceptions, and that rule is accepted by everyone.

It's not the same as "mandatory minimums for judges," and that is a facile comparison. This rule is legitimate, and exists for good reason.

Djokovic seems to get this - why don't non-players? He's not complaining or asking for a do-over. He accepted the outcome immediately, and apologized for his mistake repeatedly.