A clip of Denis Shapovalov yelling at the Italian Open crowd to “Shut the f*** up!” went viral last week. The incident occurred in his first round match against Lorenzo Sonego following a call that didn’t go his way after the umpire inspected a ball mark. The episode revealed that Shapovalov didn’t understand one of the fundamental rules of tennis.
Down 3-4 in the second set and playing to stay on serve, Shapovalov hit a second serve down the T that was called in by the line umpire. The call was subsequently overruled by the chair umpire following the inspection of the mark. Shapovalov believed that the umpire examined the wrong spot and stepped over the net to more directly point to an alternate location.
By sheer coincidence the chair umpire was Richard Haigh who seems to be a lightning rod for controversial calls. Other than possibly examining the wrong mark, as Shapovalov passionately believes that he did, I can find only one minor fault with how Haigh handled the situation. In fact, he cut Shapovalov considerable latitude.
The rule in question comes directly from the ITF Rules of Tennis. Consequently, it is one of the foundational laws that universally applies to all tennis matches.
A player may not cross the net to check a ball mark without being subject to the Unsportsmanlike provision of the Code of Conduct.
ITF Rules of Tennis as published in the USTA Friend at Court, Ball Mark Inspection Procedures Excerpt
The moment that Shapovalov stepped over the net, Haigh had no choice other than to issue a Code Violation. He gently explained the rule to Shapovalov and indicated that a point penalty would be issued for the Code Violation. That discussion culminated with Haigh stating “That’s just the rule.” Shapovalov responded with “No it’s not. It’s stupid.”
The fact that the Code Violation resulted in a point penalty means that Shapovalov had been issued a Code Violation previously in the match. The schedule for the penalties for Code Violations is explicit in the ATP Rulebook. The excessive capitalization is verbatim from that source.
The Point Penalty Schedule to be used for Code Violations is as follows:
FIRST OFFENSE – WARNING
SECOND OFFENSE – POINT PENALTY
THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE – GAME PENALTY
ATP Rulebook, Section VIII, The Code
The tournament referee (or a perhaps a delegate) came to the court and had a discussion with Shapovalov. That was when he turned to the crowd with the viral “STFU” exclamation. That falls under the “Audible Obscenity” part of the ATP Rulebook. Per that section, Shapovalov was surely issued a fine by the ATP Tour. He also should have received an additional Code Violation, but did not.
This is where I believe that Haigh showed considerable restraint appropriate for the context of the situation. Shapovalov’s second serve at 3-4 deuce was originally ruled in and Sonego netted the return. The overruled call on the serve meant that Sonego had a break point. When Shapovalov stepped over the net, the point penalty on the Code Violation gave Sonego the game.
Had a Code Violation been called for the ensuing audible obscenity, it would have given the subsequent game to Sonego and consequently the set. That would have been a pretty dramatic turn of events. This is where Haigh extended a lot of latitude to Shapovalov. He continued to delay play, gesturing to a fan in the stands, and asking for him to be removed. It was a veritable Code Violation minefield.
The only fault I have with Haigh throughout the entire episode is that he called the score incorrectly as play resumed. Following his announcement of the Code Violation, Haigh said the score was 4-3 when in fact it was actually 5-3. That is a relatively minor mistake. The score was correct on the scoreboard.
In the post match press conference Shapovalov apologized to Haigh for his behavior and also indicated that he is now aware of the rule and will not be committing that Code Violation in the future. Shapovalov went on to reach the quarterfinals in the tournament, losing there to Casper Ruud.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2022
- ATP Official Rulebook, 2022, ATP.
I was a pro line umpire for several years an in ATP tournaments it was accepted a player could cross to the other side of the court to check a mark if invited by the opponent. Circling a mark with a racket was deemed an ‘invitation.
I must add that I disagreed with this interpretation… and I don’t believe there is anywhere in the Rules that say a player can cross the net at the invitation of another player.
Why are ITF rules and USTA rules not in alignment with the issue of Code Violations? There is no ‘Warning’ in USTA.
Another issue is the ‘Serve Clock. which counts down from the 25 seconds allowed between points. The clock is started by the chair umpire when he feels like it… whereas the rules states that the 25 seconds is timed from the end of the previous point.
The instruction to chair umpires appears to be…’start the clock when the server put his towel down’ – which can be a long time after the end of the previous point.
Oh for consistency in the rules and their application!
why is there ‘latitude’ to not call an Audible when it was audible to all in attendance? Who cares what the score will be after the code awards the game to the opponent. Chairs are there to enforce the rules, all the rules. yes / no?
Just because the parabolic microphone trained on Shapovalov picked up the expletive doesn’t mean that either the chair umpire or the referee heard what was said. With a chorus of boos raining down from the crowd both officials have plausible deniability that they heard it.