One of the more prominent storylines from the French Open this week involved a disqualification from Women’s doubles. Miyu Kato hit a ball while it was out-of-play that struck a ball girl. The French Open tournament referee Remy Azemar also determined that Kato would forfeit the prize money earned in the doubles draw up to that point. In the Karma department, Kato was allowed to continue competing in the Mixed Doubles draw and won her first Grand Slam title.
This is the perfect opportunity to revisit the rules invoked when a player happens to hit a person with a ball that is not currently in play. The most prominent recent example of this arose back in 2020 when Novak Djokovic was disqualified at the US Open. At the time, I broke down the relevant rules in “Ball Strikes and Court Officials.”
While some have drawn comparisons between the two incidents, there are also some key differences. Additionally, this provides an opportunity to see if any of these rules have been changed in the intervening time that would alter the assessment of penalties.
The French Open is played under the Grand Slam Rulebook. “Abuse of Balls” is among the “Player On-Site Offenses” for which a player may be penalized.
N. Abuse of Balls
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).
Violation of this Section shall subject a player to fine up to $20,000 for each violation. In addition, if such violation occurs during a match (including the warm- up) the player shall be penalised in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule hereinafter set forth.
For the purposes of this Rule, abuse of balls is defined as intentionally hitting a ball out of the enclosure of the court, hitting a ball dangerously or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with negligent disregard of the consequences.
2023 Grand Slam Rulebook, Article III: Player On-Site Offences, Section N Abuse of Balls.
Tournament referee Remy Azemar later justified the disqualification of Kato, claiming that the consequence was “clear.” That decision could not have been rendered on the basis of the “Abuse of Balls” section. Disqualification simply isn’t listed as a penalty for that infraction.
Similar to the Djokovic disqualification, the logic that leads to that outcome starts with Section R, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.” It is elevated to “Aggravated Behaviour” when a person is hit with the ball resulting in injury.
R. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
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, Unsportsmanlike Conduct is defined as any misconduct by a player that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the Sport. In addition, unsportsmanlike conduct shall include, but not be limited to, the giving, making, issuing, authorising or endorsing any public statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of the tournament and/or the officiating thereof.
2023 Grand Slam Rulebook, Article III: Player On-Site Offences, Section R, Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Excerpt)
Djokovic was disqualified for slamming a ball in anger that struck a court official who required medical attention. That was deemed to be “singularly egregious.”
Per the brief clips that accompanied the newswire stories, social media, and the Tennis Channel studio commentary, the ball struck by Kato does not appear to qualify as ball abuse or a “singularly egregious” act. I watched an on-demand replay of the match to ensure I understood the full context. That turned out to be illuminating.
Kato and her partner, Aldila Sutjiadi, lost the first set to Sara Sorribes Tormo and Marie Bouzková. However, they were up 3-1 in the second set and looked to be in an excellent position to win another break at 0-30 in that game. This was where things got interesting.
A linesman made an erroneous call on a deep baseline shot during the ensuing point. Kato played that ball while leaping over the “Lacoste” placard that sits in front of the linesperson officiating chairs. The chair umpire, Alexandre Juge, promptly came down from the chair and overruled the call after inspecting the mark.
That is when the match truly went off the rails. Juge awarded the point to Sorribes Tormo and Bouzková after the overrule. His audible rationale on the broadcast was his belief that the call was made after Kato had already struck the ball.
There are a couple of significant problems with that claim. First of all, on the replays, the call was clearly made long before Kato played the shot. Unfortunately, it gets even worse. The ball that Kato struck after the overruled call was successfully returned into play. Awarding the point to Sorribes Tormo and Bouzková was egregiously bad.
Kato was disqualified after the very next point. Returning at 15-30, rather than replaying the point at 0-30, Sutjiadi netted the service return. That was the ball that Kato picked up and hit into the corner that struck the ball girl.
Chanda Rubin, the tennis channel analyst that described the situation, says, “You can tell that it was inadvertent.” I agree with that assessment. Kato was simply returning the ball to the ball kid, which is something players routinely do all the time.
“Abuse of Balls” is defined as “violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a tennis ball..” While Kato was likely angry over the preceding points, what is apparent in the clip of the incident does not reflect that. I am also challenged to see how Kato’s ball was unsportsmanlike conduct.
I did, however, see unsportsmanlike conduct throughout the incident exhibited by Sorribes Tormo and Bouzková. First of all, when the overrule occurred on the preceding point, they could have advocated for a replay. They surely knew that the ensuing ball was returned into play. Yet they said nothing, potentially on the self-justification that it robbed them of a sitter overhead.
Sorribes Tormo and Bouzková also approached the chair to complain that the ball kid had been hit and asserted that she was hurt. In fact, throughout the incident, those two players aggressively argued that Kato hit the ball on purpose. Those claims were made both to the chair umpire and the tournament referee once he arrived.
With the referee on the court, it appears like the ball kid explained that she wasn’t watching for the incoming ball because she was set to deliver balls to the serving team. Kato and Sutjiadi also reiterated that the ball was returned to the ball kid rather than at the ball kid. When it looked like the “freak accident” argument might be prevailing, Bouzková again repeated her claim that it wasn’t OK.
It’s a bad look because it seems clear that without the influence exerted on the chair umpire by Sorribes Tormo and Bouzková, the match would have continued without any controversy. Players are not supposed to influence officiating decisions, but it sure looks like that may have been the case in this incident.
Players routinely hit balls back to the ball kid positions. It is considered polite to do so; this helps keep matches moving along. To be “safe” in the future, players should refrain from assisting the ball kids in that way. That would significantly slow down play.
At least there was a handshake. After the disqualification was rendered, Kato and Sutjiadi shook hands with Sorribes Tormo and Bouzková. After watching the match replay, I would not have blamed them had they declined the gesture. Kato and Sutjiadi did not offer to shake hands with the chair official.
That is totally understandable.
- 2023 Official Grand Slam Rulebook, International Tennis Federation, viewed January 1, 2023.
- Miyu Kato forfeits all prize money and rankings points from women’s doubles for accidentally hitting ball girl, but continues in mixed, AP Wire Article, June 6, 2023.
Hello! Thanks a lot for the very interesting post!
A sports news paper in Japan referred to your post. Sorry to say that the newspaper does not understand your opinion on “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” well. I fear your post could pour new oil on the fire.
It’s very interesting that you denied the “abuse of balls” in the case of Miyu Kato.
Do you think the chair umpire decided wrong? Is the penalty not justified?
This case has been a big issue in Japan. I would say the majority including Tennis experts take the “warning/point penalty” to Miyu Kato as appropriate because of “abuse of the ball”. But disqualification is not acceptable.