Novak Djokovic's 'Default'- A Fault

The decision to ‘default’ the match against Novak Djokovic was a harsh one. The punishment, in my view, did not fit the crime. 

I may be in the minority when it comes to this viewpoint. Legends of the game like Billie Jean King have said on twitter- ‘The rule is the rule. It is unfortunate for everyone involved, but in this specific situation the default was the right call’. 

The US Open website had a report on what happened. In a nutshell when a player violates a code, the Point Penalty Schedule is as follows- The first code violation is a warning, the second is a point penalty and the third (and subsequent) is a game penalty. This scheduled may be bypassed in favour of an immediate default. 

The USTA Statement read, ‘In accordance with the Grand Slam rulebook, following his actions of intentionally hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences, the tournament referee defaulted Novak Djokovic from the 2020 US Open.’

Let’s go over the facts.

A few minutes before the incident Djokovic slammed a ball in to an advertising board. What was surprising here is that he did not receive a warning when he probably should have. 

Moving on to the incident. I have watched it a number of times and it really comes down to how you want to interpret ‘dangerously or recklessly’.

Everyone, including the Referee and the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors are in agreement that the action was not 'intentional'. There was no ‘intent’ in his action.

Hitting the ball back after one's service game is a standard practice. Was Djokovic’s action in this 'standard practice' marginally more aggressive than the usual ‘knock the ball on the ground’ action. Yes, a case can be made for that if you really want to. But was the manner in which he hit the ball so ‘dangerous and reckless’ so as to cause a default? Not at all.  

As often is the case with such decisions the rules are not black and white. A rule is not always a rule. 

Section T of Article III of the ITF Grand Slam Rule Book says the ‘The Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors may declare a default for either a single violation of this Code or pursuant to the Point Penalty Schedule’

So the decision was permissible by the rules. It just wasn't the right one.