Daniil Medvedev Maybe Could Have Been Defaulted From His Wimbledon Semifinal With Carlos Alcaraz

By Randy Walker

@TennisPublisher

Could Daniil Medvedev been thrown out of Wimbledon in the first set of his semifinal match against Carlos Alcaraz?

It appears there was at least some discussion about it.

Midway through the first set, Medvedev was running for a short ball and, in the opinion of chair umpire Eva Asderaki, he did not get to before the second bounce and it was not up. (Replays of the shot concluded the ball did hit the ground twice) Medvedev angrily protested the call and appeared to have used so direct choice language towards Asderaki, allegedly at least the “F” word directed at Asderaki.

On the changeover, there was discussion between Asdareki with Wimbledon referee Denise Parnell and Grand Slam supervisor Wayne McKewen and Grand Slam officials, likely discussing what she heard said to her and how to interpret it and discuss what the penalty should be. This is described here: https://talksport.com/sport/1959873/daniil-medvedev-unsportsmanlike-behaviour-wimbledon-umpire-supervisor/

I suggested on X/Twitter that, based on the circumstances (the first set of a Wimbledon semifinal) that it would have to be something really terrible for a default to happen at that point in this circumstance with a full stadium of people who spent, by reports, as much as $5,000-plus per ticket, as well as millions watching around the world. James Blake of ESPN, also the tournament director of the Miami Open and who brought up a possible default in the broadcast, responded to my comments saying “Depends on what was said. That’s the judgment call and I don’t think it should be influenced by the round or event. Rules should be consistent.”

This is true but, as many know, it is an unfair world and there are people and circumstances that are not treated equally, such as top-ranked player getting to play matches under the Wimbledon roof and have extra days off and more rest because of their status. Or higher-ranked players receiving byes in certain tournaments as well as extra badges and passes for their coaches/teams, extra preferences for practice courts, etc. It has to be a clear and obvious, vile and disgusting, over the top violation for a default to happen in that circumstance, which was the first instance, in a circumstance that lasted about five seconds. Novak Djokovic getting defaulted in the fourth round of the 2020 U.S. Open for hitting a ball that hit and injured a linesperson was such a case, and he was, rightfully, defaulted.

At the 2009 U.S. Open, in a semifinal match between Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters, Williams was called for a foot fault and said vile and threatening things to the linesperson (perhaps similar to what Medvedev said to Asdareki). The linesperson then reported what Williams said to her to the chair umpire, who reported it to the U.S. Open referee, who agreed that a code violation would be issued. However, it was the second code violation of the match and thus Williams was given a point penalty and it just happened to be match point for Clijsters, so the match was then over.

No one wants to be called a “Fxxx Bxxxx” in any circumstance and the tennis world is a professional workplace. How would one react if you were called this in your professional workplace by a co-worker or by a superior? You certainly would be at the very least called into the Human Resources Department. I’ve always said in casual conversations that chair umpires should be treated like judges in a court room and should only be addressed as “your honor.” It wasn’t until the era of Ilie Nastase, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors in the 1970s when chair umpires were treated with a degree of disrespect, but became part of the vernacular or culture of how tennis was perceived.

Asderaki is one of the best chair umpires and she did the right thing to report what she heard Medvedev say to her superiors (McKewen and Parnell). As bad what was allegedly said by Medvedev to Asderaki, it’s my view that the one incident didn’t deserve a default, and that was the wise decision made by officials, but it was diligent of Asderaki to report it. Medvedev received a code violation for unsportsmanlike conduct and will likely get a fine. Had another incident happened later in the match, Medvedev would subject to a point penalty and potential game penalties and default had the bad behavior continued.

Medvedev eventually lost the match 6-7, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 and as Chris Fowler pointed out on ESPN, Medvedev did shake Asderaki’s hand following the match.

According to the Grand Slam Rule Book, the ruling on “Audible Obscenity” is as follows….

K. AUDIBLE OBSCENITY

Players shall not use audible obscenity within the precinct of the tournament site.  Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $50,000 for each violation. In addition, if such violation occurs during a match (including the warmup), the player shall be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule hereinafter set forth. In circumstances that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a single violation of this Section shall also constitute the Major Offence of “Aggravated Behaviour” and shall be subject to the additional penalties hereinafter set forth.

For the purposes of this Rule, audible obscenity is defined as the use of words commonly known and understood to be profane and uttered clearly and loudly enough to be heard by the Chair Umpire, spectators, Line Umpires or Ball persons.

What Medvedev allegedly said, however, was more than an audible obscenity, but is more along the lines of Verbal Abuse, which is defined in the Grand Slam Rule Book as follows.

VERBAL ABUSE

Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse any official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or other person within the precincts of the tournament site. Violation of this section shall subject a player to a fine up to $50,000 for each violation. In addition, if such violation occurs during a match (including the warmup), the player shall be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule hereinafter set forth. In circumstances that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious, a single violation of this Section shall also constitute the Major Offence of “Aggravated Behaviour” and shall be subject to the additional penalties hereinafter set forth.

For the purposes of this Rule, verbal abuse is defined as a statement about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or other person that implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive.

One could argue that what Medvedev allegedly would potentially fall on the category of “Major Offence”

POINT PENALTY SCHEDULE

The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for violations set forth above is as follows:

FIRST offence WARNING

SECOND offence POINT PENALTY

THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT offence GAME PENALTY

However, after the third Code Violation, the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors shall determine whether each subsequent offence shall constitute a default.

The following is the rules relating to Defaults from the Grand Slam Rule Book.

DEFAULTS

The Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Supervisor may declare a default for either a single violation of this Code or pursuant to the Point Penalty Schedule set out above. In all cases of default, the decision of the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Supervisor shall be final and unappealable. Any player who is defaulted as herein provided shall lose all ranking points earned for that event at that tournament and shall lose all prize money earned at the tournament in addition to any or all other fines levied with respect to the offending incident

DETERMINATION AND PENALTY

The Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Supervisors shall make such investigation as is reasonable to determine the facts regarding all Player On-Site Offences and upon determining that a violation has occurred shall specify the fine and/or other punishment therefor and give written notice thereof to the player. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Referee may, at his discretion, limit the fines levied during any tournament Qualifying competitions to a maximum of $20,000 for each violation.

ARTICLE IV: PLAYER MAJOR OFFENCES

1. AGGRAVATED BEHAVIOUR

No player or Related Person at any Grand Slam Tournament shall engage in “Aggravated Behaviour” which is defined as follows:

1. One or more incidents of behaviour designated in this Code as constituting “Aggravated Behaviour”.

2. One incident of behaviour that is flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a Grand Slam Tournament, or is singularly egregious, including submitting a falsified Covid-19 vaccination record.

3. A series of two (2) or more violations of this Code within a twelve (12) month period which singularly do not constitute “Aggravated Behaviour”, but when viewed together establish a pattern of conduct that is collectively egregious and is detrimental or injurious to the Grand Slam Tournaments. In addition, any Player or Related Person who, directly or indirectly, offers or provides or receives any money, benefit or consideration to or from any other Covered Person or third party in exchange for access and/or accreditation to the tournament site shall be deemed to have engaged in Aggravated Behaviour and be in violation of this Section. Violation of this Section by a player, directly or indirectly through a Related Person or others, shall subject a player to a fine of up to $250,000 or the amount of prize money won at the tournament, whichever is greater, and a maximum penalty of permanent suspension from play in all Grand Slam Tournaments.