Referee Friemel Was Justified in Defaulting Djokovic. Here’s Why.

It was an outcome that stunned all. Top-ranked male tennis player Novak Djokovic was defaulted from his match and charged with multiple fines after unintentionally striking a line judge with a ball, adding to what has already been perhaps the most bizarre U.S. Open in history.

The 17-time Grand Slam winner shook the hand of his opponent, Pablo Carreno Busta, before abruptly leaving the stadium. He later took to Instagram, voicing that he felt “sad and empty,” but would use this moment as a “lesson for [his] growth and evolution as a player and human being.”

From his tactfully composed tweet to the rather poised way he dealt with the judges, Djokovic did an impeccable job garnering sympathy for his case. His support has been especially apparent on social media pages, on which countless tennis platforms have been flooded with messages essentially conveying the same line of reasoning: Djokovic didn’t intentionally harm the line judge, and, therefore, should not have received such a severe repercussion. And while that reasoning is very appealing, it doesn’t fully work.

According to the Grand Slam rule book, Djokovic’s incident falls under two categories: ball abuse and unsportsmanlike conduct; Soeren Friemel, the main referee of the match, chose to classify this case under the latter. The penalty ranges from a warning to a default, depending on the referee’s interpretation of the action’s severity. For Friemel, however, the verdict was clear: “The line umpire was clearly hurt, and Novak was angry. He hit the ball recklessly, angrily back and taking everything into consideration, there was no discretion involved.” Though Friemel’s ruling received immense backlash, he was simply doing his job as a referee and sticking to the hard rules as delineated by the Grand Slam rule book, some of which even Djokovic admitted he wasn’t aware of. Referees aren’t supposed to appease crowds, and in fact, playing without crowds has arguably been “the great equalizer” in allowing referees to make fairer judgments without external influence.

In addition, allowing Djokovic to play the “I didn’t mean to do it” card sets the dangerous example that in sports, especially ones that can get very physical and aggressive, intention overrides outcome and that inappropriate conduct can be excused under the guise of “emotions.” In other words, as long as a player doesn’t mean to harm someone and is acting under pressure, he or she shouldn’t have to face the full consequences of his or her actions. Just because Djokovic didn’t mean to strike the line judge with the ball doesn’t change the fact that he did and, more importantly, that the line judge suffered because of his careless actions. And who are we, as audiences watching through a screen, to dictate the level of pain the line judge must have experienced from having a ball unexpectedly swipe her throat? This is not Djokovic’s first rodeo, and he clearly knows where line judges stand on the court; striking the ball in the general vicinity of the line judge, regardless of whether or not he meant any harm or the level of pain actually wrought onto the line judge, clearly demonstrates his lack of caution around surrounding staff. And what’s worse is that he has exhibited unsportsmanlike conduct before—countless times in fact—and has received many warnings for them. It is doubtful that another warning would have done much to make him reevaluate his careless actions, whereas, it’s safe to say, his default has been a true reality check for him.

Arguably, the main reason why there is so much controversy surrounding Friemel’s ruling is that at the center of the debate is the top-ranked player himself, who, especially without fellow tennis legends Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, was extremely likely to win the whole tournament. Djokovic used his fame as leverage in making his case, but as Friemel proved, being popular does not guarantee a free pass from the rules. In fact, Nick Kyrgious, another tennis player who has often been dubbed the “bad boy” of tennis, posted a mocking tweet on Twitter, asking fans, of three choices (five years, 10 years, or 20 years), how much probation time he would receive if he were in Djokovic’s shoes. Unsurprisingly, 20 years garnered the most votes, a testament to the often downplayed double standard that exists between low and high-profile athletes when it comes to ruling. Most fans are used to seeing Djokovic, along with many other high-profile tennis players, face lighter penalties like warnings when violating rules, and it’s this unscrutinized assumption—that top players, more often than not, won’t have to face harsher penalties—that makes Djokovic’s incident so controversial.

Furthermore, many people have applauded Djokovic for his immediate concern for the line judge’s well-being and his online apology, citing them as portrayals of his character. But this isn’t the first time he’s had to apologize for inappropriate, harmful behavior. Djokovic organized the Adria Tour in June 2020, at which multiple people became infected with the coronavirus; even Djokovic, at one point, was suspected of having contracted the virus. And of course, you guessed it: he apologized, saying he was “deeply sorry” (sound familiar?). His lack of attention to and forethought on the way his actions affect those around him is laughable, and he’s issued so many apologies that whether they even hold meaning anymore is highly questionable. Whether or not he is actually taking steps to reflect on his decisions and become a better player and person, as he claims, is debatable, but it’s clear that he needs more than just a few warnings and light penalties to truly self-assess his conduct.

What I find most disappointing of all is that Friemel and the line judge have been receiving extensive criticism from sports fans. Why two staff personnel, who are putting their bodies at risk for the greater good of allowing tennis to continue, are being heavily chastised for an incident that Djokovic single-handedly instigated, I will never understand. To me, it’s pretty clear: there’s only one person at fault here and his default was completely justified.