I’m just glad this didn’t happen in the United States. France and weenies go together like…well, the U.S. and wieners, and if this could happen here, please don’t tell me until tomorrow. I’ve already thrown myself in a woodchipper once today.
In less hyperbolic terms, I can’t understand this crazy ethics episode at all.
No.16 seeds Miyu Kato and Aldila Sutjiadi of Japan were playing a doubles match in the French Open today, a set down to Czech Republic doubles team of Marie Bouzkova and Sara Sorribes Tormo, but winning the second set, 3-1. Kato slammed the ball to the opposite end of the court between points, inadvertently hitting the ball girl, who burst into tears. Chair umpire Alexandre Juge issued a code violation warning, but that wasn’t enough for Bouzkova and Tormo, who insisted that the Japanese women be disqualified because—get this—the ball girl was crying.
They shouldn’t even have been warned! Here’s the rule: players “shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a tennis ball within the precincts of the tournament site except in the reasonable pursuit of a point during a match (including warm-up)”
When told by the umpire that it was an accident, Sorribes Tormo protested, “She didn’t do it on purpose? She’s crying!” “And she has blood,” Bouzkova added, prompting the umpire to go to check on the ball girl, who was sobbing away. Then he consulted with the tournament referee and the Grand Slam supervisor Wayne McEwen, went back up to his chair on the court, and announced the end of the match. Sutjiadi and Kato were disqualified. Many in the crowd jeered. Kato apologized and was in tears as she left the court.
She disemboweled herself later. (Just kidding).
The rule book states that in all cases of default, “the decision of the referee in consultation with the grand slam chief of supervisors shall be final and unappealable.” It also declares that a player who is defaulted loses all ranking points earned at the tournament and all prize money earned at the tournament.
What the hell? I count at least six weenies , if I leave out every spectator who didn’t boo this ridiculous and unethical decision, and two ethics villains, Bouzkova and Tormo. I’ll get them out of the way first: Bouzkova said, “It’s just a bad situation for everyone. But it’s kind of something that, I guess, is taken by the rules, as it is, even though it’s very unfortunate for them. … At the end of the day, it was the referee’s decision.” Sure. Why were Bouzkova and Tormo lobbying to win the match through default? What say did they have in the matter at all? They just were trying to steal a victory not just on a technicality, but on an unethically applied technicality by making a terrible argument.
The umpire, Alexander Juge, shouldn’t have talked with the Czechs, issued his warning to make the silly ball girl and the “Think of the children!” fanatics in the stands feel better, and continued with the match. He also shouldn’t have consulted the ball girl: the rule doesn’t say that players should be punished if an errant ball makes someone cry. The two other officials—maybe they weren’t French but they were in Farnce, and maybe that does something to people’s spine—should not have agreed to punish the Japanese team because, as tennis journalist Ben Rothenberg tweeted, the ball was not hit in anger, “just hit across to [the] ball girl to keep the match flowing because it was the other team’s turn to serve. Ball girl had hands full, reacted late.”
So this is pure moral luck, and two innocent tennis players are being punished for it. Kato could have done the exact same thing, and an alert ball girl would have dodged the ball. If she hadn’t dissolved into tears because the mean old ball hurt her boo-boo, the team wouldn’t have been disqualified. If she had behaved professionally and shaken it off, saying, “I’m okay, keep playing,” as she should have done, was obligated to do and should have been trained to do, the team wouldn’t have been disqualified. If she had said, even while crying, “This was my fault, I wasn’t paying attention,” the team wouldn’t have been disqualified.
And I hate to say it, but if she had been a ball boy who would rather die than be seen weeping on TV because a little tennis ball struck him, the team wouldn’t have been disqualified.
That makes four weenies: the inexcusably tender ball girl, who should not been on the courts if she was not prepared to take shot from a tennis ball and “rub some dirt on it,” and the three officials who let her excessive tears govern their decision. The remaining two weenies are the Japanese players, who should have protested vehemently, and should be doing so now to anyone who will listen. So should their fellow players, so should tennis fans, so should everyone.
Since I really can’t understand how this could happen, I won’t speculate that it’s The Great Stupid creeping into sports: someone was hurt, it was a little girl, who was given the job for diversity and inclusion, attention must be paid and the harming party must be punished to make all ball girls feel safe.
I won’t..I won’t…
Oh oh, the anti-weenie, John Wayne, is demanding a moment…
The Roland Garros crowd greeted the news with jeers and boos, while Sutjiadi comforted Kato.
Tennis journalist Ben Rothenberg tweeted: “Brutal call. Ball not hit in anger whatsoever, just hit across to ball girl to keep the match flowing because it was the other team’s turn to serve. Ball girl had hands full, reacted late.”
It isn’t the first time a player has been defaulted at a grand slam. One of the most high-profile incidents happened in 2020 when Novak Djokovic’s US Open ended early after he was defaulted for unintentionally hitting a line judge.
Ethics Alarms 
Ah, but you see, the Japanese team should have conceded the issue, because the Shinto religion is about pollution rather than intention, so the fact that the ball girl got hurt is still their fault, and…
OK, that’s all bullshit. You’re right: utter incompetence/weenieism all around.
A left-wing troll who submitted 9 insulting comments today included this post on his hit list, arguing that the fact that the ball girl cried was relevant to whether the ball was hit “violently” or “dangerously.” Is this really so hard to understand? Those adjectives modify “hit”. How the ball was hit can only be determined by what was observed in the hitting process. Random results of a “hit” do not change the nature of the hit. Anyone in the vicinity of a tennis match, on the court area, risks being hit by a ball. The fact that a ball strikes a weenie or a “protected class” as opposed to a sufficiently mature individual qualified for the job should not reflect on the player AT ALL. If the ball had been hit “dangerously,” it shouldn’t matter if it just hit air and a fence. Nobody alleges that the Japanese player was angry or doing anything she and other players don’t do in every match. She did not deliberately hit a ball at the ballgirl. These fools—the French Open officials, the Czechs, the troll, are literally arguing that the more weepy (or the bigger drama queen) the ballgirl was, the worse the player’s violation justifying loss of the game, ranking points and prize money. How can reasoning like that prevail? If that’s the standard, players should demand that ball girls be strapped into helmets and armor.
And if THIS ball girl ever shows up in that capacity, players should walk off the court.
(You would not believe the comments I have to read every day in moderation….)
I wonder if your comment “hit man” bothered to watch the video of incident. I did, and there was nothing violent, dangerous, or remotely deliberate with what happened. It’s not a perfect comparison, but I’ve been hit much harder with a baseball, and the pitcher received not so much as a second glance from the umpire, much less disqualification.
This was absolutely ridiculous.
“There’s no crying in tennis!”
Ha. Why didn’t I think of that?
What are the rules regarding support staff and players? I mean, is there a rule that a player can object to specific personnel being involved in their match and request a replacement, for example if there’s a personal conflict between the two and the player is concerned the official or staffer might harbor bias against them?
If such a rule exists, all players should object to the presence of this ball girl in their matches. If the possibility of having a win stolen from you by her tears exists, that’s an unacceptable risk.
She’s a kid who got hit hard enough to draw blood. She probably cried as much from the shock as the pain. I’m a little sympathetic in her case. Yes, she should have “rubbed dirt on it,” but she didn’t cause the forfeit. The umpire did. He’s the one to be avoided.
Fair enough. Pretty much everyone involved in this debacle should be avoided, I’d say. Utterly ridiculous.
I’m trying to figure out how and where she was hit that could draw blood. Her nose wasn’t bleeding, or her lip. I’m been hit by a lot of tennis balls: they don’t exactly cut. They leave bruises.
Yeah, I agree, we should feel a little bit sorry for the girl. But she wasn’t up to the job she accepted, and she sets feminism back another few steps. Are girls being stereotyped as prone to crying under stress, or not? Are they as tough as boys, or aren’t they? Do they bring downsides to traditionally make roles and jobs, or not? She’s just one girl, but she’s in an internationally prominent event, and she made a spectacle of herself, not in a good way.
I’ve seen ballgirls in MLB games hit by batted balls, which come faster than tennis balls and baseballs are much harder than tennis balls. I’ve never seen a ball girl cry, or a batter or his team be disqualified for such an accident.
“She disemboweled herself later. (Just kidding).”
Perfectly timed humor. Made me laugh good.
Thank you! I was proud of it…
Recently received an email (political) talking about Ranked Choice Voting. Just wondering what the ethical considerations are for Ranked Choice Voting. Any chance of a discussion of that topic on the blog?
Kathy J.
Oooh, we had a long one a while back, with Extradimensional Cephalopod taking a leading role. I’ll find the link….