Rally Reaction: Novak Djokovic is defaulted from the US Open

The Rally, DQ Edition: Steve Tignor and Joel Drucker discuss why the US Open had to default Novak Djokovic, and what it means for the tournament.

Hi Joel,

I’m going to assume you’re as shocked as I am at the moment. Seeing Novak Djokovic defaulted from the US Open for striking a line judge with a ball leaves you, or at least me, with an empty feeling. First, there’s the sight of the lineswoman on the ground, moaning, having been hit in the throat. We can only hope she’s OK. Then there’s the thought of something happening that’s so consequential for the tournament and for the sport that was so completely avoidable.

Let me start by asking you if you think the officials had any other option. On court, you could hear the referee say that he “had no choice,” and you could hear Djokovic say that he did have choices other than a flat-out default. Like most people, I think it was the only—and therefore, unfortunately, the right—call. Djokovic obviously wasn’t trying to hurt anyone, but he hit the ball in frustration, “with a negligent disregard for the consequences,” as the Open put it in a statement—i.e., he hit the ball without looking where it was going to go first. He also hit it hard, and really did injure the lineswoman. We’ve seen it before with Tim Henman at Wimbledon and David Nalbandian at Queen’s, and everyone in the game knows it’s a “major offense” and an automatic DQ. In some cases, these incidents can seem accidental and innocuous enough that you wonder if the player really should be defaulted; in this case, the fact that the lineswoman was hurt shows why the rule is there in the first place, and why it has to be enforced across the board. Still, it had to be a brutal decision for the US Open to send the No. 1 player in the world home.

Do you agree, Joel? Not that it matters for this specific incident, but Djokovic has been playing with fire in this regard for a while. He’s hit balls around the court, and let his racquet fly, on a fairly regular basis. Lesson learned, one Grand Slam too late.

Getty Images

Hi Steve,

Do the crime, do the time. Hit someone with a ball and that’s a DQ. End of story. We’ve all known that for years. Like you, Steve, I hope the line judge has not been hurt too badly. I wonder how or if Djokovic will reach out to her. (Update: Djokovic posted on Instagram that he checked with tournament officials and "thank God she is feeling ok.")

No question, it was a hard decision, which is the likely reason why there was a 10-minute discussion between the officials and Djokovic to clarify what was going to happen.

Though down the road we’ll discuss Djokovic and all the controversies that have been part of his 2020, right now I also want to address a few other aspects of this unprecedented US Open.

It is fascinating that while the outside courts featured automated calls, line judges were deployed on Arthur Ashe and Louis Armstrong. Surely, the USTA and the ITF are wondering if that should continue moving forward. I suppose it will stay that way for the duration of this year’s US Open. But in future events, will players—such as Novak and others in the start-up Professionals Tennis Players Association he’s seeking to create—demand nothing but Hawk-Eye Live on all courts at every event? Maybe it will even start that way in New York.

I’m also staggered to see resurrection of the asterisk notion on Twitter—the idea that whoever wins this year’s US Open is a lesser champion than prior victors. This strikes me as ridiculous. So Novak is gone. So be it. Any player who wins a major title amid a global pandemic, while residing in a bubble, being tested frequently for an as-yet incurable disease—that is a darn impressive achievement.

But the bigger point is that a player violated a longstanding rule. The US Open men’s draw has become incredibly wide open. No asterisk—and plenty of intrigue.