{"id":657082,"date":"2026-05-21T20:17:09","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T20:17:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/657082\/"},"modified":"2026-05-21T20:17:09","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T20:17:09","slug":"tennis-player-avoids-immediate-disqualification-after-kicking-racket-into-crowd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/657082\/","title":{"rendered":"Tennis player avoids immediate disqualification after kicking racket into crowd"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ahead of the French Open<\/a>, tennis is again reckoning with one of its strangest approaches to enforcing its rules.<\/p>\n

Thursday at the Hamburg Open, Germany\u2019s Daniel Altmaier was frustrated after Tommy Paul of the U.S. broke his serve to lead their quarterfinal 6-2, 5-4.<\/p>\n

He did what plenty of tennis players have done, smashing his racket<\/a> by throwing it down onto the clay court. Then he kicked it once, sending it bouncing into his bench, before kicking it again \u2014 sending it flying into a crowd of spectators at pace.<\/p>\n

Careful, Daniel \ud83d\ude2c#bitpandahamburgopen<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/I7DsnjZMI4<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Tennis TV (@TennisTV) May 21, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

A fan in the crowd passed it back, and Altmaier, the 27-year-old world No. 65, held up a hand in apology after ascertaining that no one was hurt. Paul, who had sat down for the changeover at 5-4, looked at the chair umpire, Fergus Murphy, with some expectation. A member of the American\u2019s team stood up and gestured to indicate what had happened.<\/p>\n

And then Murphy issued Altmaier a code violation for racket abuse, rather than the more serious punishment of a default: Immediate disqualification from the match.<\/p>\n

The ATP rulebook\u2019s passage on racket abuse states: \u201cPlayers shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a racket or other equipment within the precincts of the tournament site.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor purposes of this rule, abuse of rackets or equipment is defined as intentionally, dangerously and violently destroying or damaging rackets or equipment or intentionally and violently hitting the net, court, umpire\u2019s chair or other fixture during a match out of anger or frustration.\u201d<\/p>\n

This may seem like a surprising decision, but it is consistent with recent punishments for both racket and ball abuse. Whether officially or not, umpires appear to have alighted on the following logic: The severity of the offense, or the aggressiveness of the action, matters less than its outcome. A tennis player can smash a ball with no control or hurl a racket in anger, and where the ball or racket happens to land \u2014 or on whom \u2014 determines how severely they are punished.<\/p>\n

This incident is the latest example of tennis\u2019 odd outcome-based approach to racket and ball abuse.<\/p>\n

An approach that could lead to two things: One, a spectator and\/or someone on the court getting seriously hurt because there\u2019s no serious deterrent. And two: Accusations of inconsistency when a player does get disqualified, not because their offence was necessarily worse, but because the outcome was.<\/p>\n

At Roland Garros three years ago, doubles player Miyu Kato and her partner Aldila Sutjiadi were defaulted after Kato accidentally hit a ball kid in the neck when returning a ball to her \u2014 not even swatting it in frustration \u2014 because the ball kid was in tears.<\/p>\n

Sometimes, even the same player can be dealt with inconsistently. Novak Djokovic was defaulted from the 2020 U.S. Open when a ball he smacked away in frustration hit a line judge in the throat. However, he has avoided punishment for similar offences before and since, including at this year\u2019s Australian Open, when a ball he hit away in anger avoided hitting a ball kid by inches. After not even being given a warning, Djokovic apologised afterward.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat was not necessary and in the heat of the moment,\u201d he said in his news conference. \u201cYeah, I was lucky there, and I\u2019m sorry for causing any distress to the ball kid or anybody.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other players won\u2019t be so lucky, but this really should be a question of applying a set of rules, rather than good or bad fortune.<\/p>\n

Against Nick Kyrgios at Wimbledon in 2022, Stefanos Tsitsipas hammered a ball into the crowd in frustration, but escaped a default because it missed a fan\u2019s head by inches. Alex Michelsen similarly did the same at the Winston-Salem Open in North Carolina<\/a>\u00a0and escaped a default for a similar reason. He hit a spectator, but they told the chair umpire, that day Aur\u00e9lie Tourte, they were OK.<\/p>\n

At the 2024 French Open, France\u2019s T\u00e9rence Atmane followed a similar path. He struck a ball in anger; it hit someone; a supervisor came out; the fan said they were OK. Atmane received a warning.<\/p>\n

The logic is consistent, but it also gives players credit for control of outcomes that they do not have. Even Altmaier\u2019s initial racket smash against Paul, which was a full throw rather than a dash into the ground, could have bounced just about anywhere. It just happened to bounce perfectly for him to kick it.<\/p>\n

Paul, the world No. 26, ultimately did not serve out the match at 5-4, but completed a 6-3, 7-5 victory to move into a Hamburg Open semifinal against either Alex de Minaur or Luciano Darderi.<\/p>\n