[sportbos]

Front Row: Here's A Way To Temper The Tempers

Edited by Larry Harris

With crowd-pleasing tennis stars Serena Williams and Roger Federer winning to conclude the U.S. Open and the sad recent passing of golf hall of famer Terrible Tommy Bolt, it seems an appropriate time to re-examine the fine old stately, sophisticated sporting arts of racket-smashing and club-throwing.

A whole bunch of players got fined $500 for smashing rackets in New York over the past two weeks, even mild-mannered Lindsay Davenport. On the men's side, Nikolay Davydenko managed to bash four in one match and in doing so set a shining example for young Chris Harrison.

Harrison threw his racket so many times during a loss that U.S. Open officials sent a guy down to tell him he was despoiling the advertising signs surrounding the court. Harrison, playing in the junior division of the tournament, is 14.

Athletes have a lot more money today, so it doesn't cost nearly as much to make a donkey of oneself on the tennis court as it used to. Then too, those old Jack Kramer wooden cudgels didn't shatter nearly as impressively as today's models that are made of all sorts of miracle materials.

Husky Andy Roddick, who actually once won a major, is pretty much regarded as the king of American racket tossers. A powerful man whose serves regularly clock over 140 mph, Roddick has no trouble smashing his rackets and even can justify his actions.

"If a guy wants to break a bat in the dugout, he doesn't get warned; it's not hurting anyone," Roddick told The Associated Press. "If it's affecting your opponent, then that's probably disrespectful, then keep it out of there. But it's my racket, not anybody else's."

http://www.pressboxonline.com/story.cfm?id=4094

[sportbos]

So what do you think should be done? Nothing. Increase the fine. Increase the fine a whole lot, or add a penalty of a point (as is allowed for some other infractions)? Or is Roddick correct...it's the players' racquet - they should be allowed to do what they want.

[trowUrillioth]

This would be a lot more credible if they had gotten the kid's name (Christian) and age (13) right.


Anyway, if the reason the rule was made is supposedly to avoid endangering others, then maybe that's when it should be applied.

[teewHettive]

Personally, I think they shouldn't fine them at all. It makes watching the match more amusing when a player gets pissed off and smashes a racquet

I think that the only time the rule should be in effect is when, as m8 said, someone else is in danger of being hit.

btw, I loved the "Who actually won a major once" line HILARIOUS

[QQQQQ-Trek]

The rule should go IMO. I agree with Andy. (and that that you hear is the sound of the Earth being torn by a black hole)

Now, if the player should harm someone by his racquet tossing he should be HEAVILY fined/punished.

[trowUrillioth]

The rule should go IMO. I agree with Andy. (and that that you hear is the sound of the Earth being torn by a black hole)

Now, if the player should harm someone by his racquet tossing he should be HEAVILY fined/punished.

I couldn't make myself type "as Roddick said"

[sportbos]

I think everyone enjoys watching a good smash. But is it fair to an opponent?

Me, I think I'd be cool with a 1-smash rule. First one's free. 2nd one's a sizable fine. 3rd one's a point. 4th one, perhaps the game.

I do think it's beginning to get out of hand. And it's time to reign it in a bit.

[AdipexAdipex]

I actually like it when a player gets that annoyed that they smash their racket.
They should just do away with the whole fine thing.

[teewHettive]

I think everyone enjoys watching a good smash. But is it fair to an opponent?

Me, I think I'd be cool with a 1-smash rule. First one's free. 2nd one's a sizable fine. 3rd one's a point. 4th one, perhaps the game.

I do think it's beginning to get out of hand. And it's time to reign it in a bit.

If I was in favor of keeping the rule, I'd actually make the First one free and the 2nd one a point. With how much players make now, they aren't hurt by a fine. But, losing a point because they smash racquets would definitely hurt them far more than a fine.

[sportbos]

If I was in favor of keeping the rule, I'd actually make the First one free and the 2nd one a point. With how much players make now, they aren't hurt by a fine. But, losing a point because they smash racquets would definitely hurt them far more than a fine.

Anyone remember off the top of their head what, if anything, Kiefer was assessed at the Aussie?


BTW...LOVE the avatar, Jessie. I miss the Love Muffin.

[sportbos]

Anyone remember off the top of their head what, if anything, Kiefer was assessed at the Aussie?

Just checked. It was nothing. That's what I remember it was on-court, but for some reason, I thought the ATP might hve taken action following the Aussie.

[teewHettive]

BTW...LOVE the avatar, Jessie. I miss the Love Muffin.

Thanks I miss her too . You kind of made me a fan of hers


Love your avatar, too.

Alicia

And weird that the ATP didn't do anything to Keifer.

[Laqswrnm]

The rule should go IMO. I agree with Andy. (and that that you hear is the sound of the Earth being torn by a black hole)

Now, if the player should harm someone by his racquet tossing he should be HEAVILY fined/punished.

Unlike our conversations about players we like, I completely agree with Drop-Shot.

I actually find it funny when players throw their racket. It makes it a little easier to spot the ones who needtheir mommys.

In Toronto, this year, qualifier Alexandre Kudryavstsev tossed his racket a couple of times after losing a point. He was actually up a set and on serve in the 2nd vs. Kohlschreiber. I can't imagine how much he'd throw his racket if he was losing.

If it doesn't hurt anyone then who cares?

[Dreaming]

Playing devil's advocate here.....I believe that these rules were put in place as folks have been harmed and/or nearly harmed before. Not all that frequently, of course. SO, as/if folks have been harmed before- why wait until someone gets hurt again? You smash a racquet or ball as a lines-kid is nearby and/or the racquet/ball goes out of control....

Still, a silly little fine is meaningless. If you're serious about this- then, I agree with Jessie, you have to do something substantive, like take away a point/game, or whatever.

I'm quite undecided about this- albeit, this subject doesn't exactly stir me one way or the other.

[shihoodiacarf]

If you really want to see innocent people get hurt, make these players hold their frustration in until it really explodes.

In all seriousness, I think the fine is ridiculous. You can't try and make our sport more interesting to the spectator while at the same time trying to curb behavior that many spectators enjoy watching.

If someone gets hurt, then it becomes a different story. Just ask Tim Henman.

[Dreaming]

If you really want to see innocent people get hurt, make these players hold their frustration in until it really explodes.

In all seriousness, I think the fine is ridiculous. You can't try and make our sport more interesting to the spectator while at the same time trying to curb behavior that many spectators enjoy watching.

If someone gets hurt, then it becomes a different story. Just ask Tim Henman.

There is just too obvious a metaphor to make of this for even nelslus.....

Alternate post: I hear ya. Again, though, the argument is, why keep allowing something to go on if, odds are, someone will get hurt at some point in time? Still, other sports DO tolerate similar actions.....again, can't say that I'm gonna heatedly debate either side (and there goes ANOTHER potentially naugthy metaphor.....)

[teewHettive]

Playing devil's advocate here.....I believe that these rules were put in place as folks have been harmed and/or nearly harmed before. Not all that frequently, of course. SO, as/if folks have been harmed before- why wait until someone gets hurt again? You smash a racquet or ball as a lines-kid is nearby and/or the racquet/ball goes out of control....

Still, a silly little fine is meaningless. If you're serious about this- then, I agree with Jessie, you have to do something substantive, like take away a point/game, or whatever.

I'm quite undecided about this- albeit, this subject doesn't exactly stir me one way or the other.

Well, I think that something should DEFINITELY happen if the opponent gets hurt. No question.

But if there's no chance that someone will get hurt, I don't see why there has to be any sort of fine or penalty. The racquet is the only thing that's "hurt."

Plus, like Kirkus said, fans (typically) like watching players smashing racquets.

[Dreaming]

Well, I think that something should DEFINITELY happen if the opponent gets hurt. No question.

But if there's no chance that someone will get hurt, I don't see why there has to be any sort of fine or penalty. The racquet is the only thing that's "hurt."

Plus, like Kirkus said, fans (typically) like watching players smashing racquets.

Still, the counterpoint is, when you throw the racquet, you cannot absolutely guarantee that it won't fly out of control (and/or break apart) and hurt someone. It's happened. So, it really is impossible to say that there is absolutely no chance that someone will get hurt if you throw your racquet.

In any case, I'm fine either way, truth be told. And, hell, it ain't like I've never thrown and, ahem broken a racquet or two or..... (STILL, it ain't exactly like there were ball-kids and umpires around at the time. So there.) (Which is why I also DO get pissed off when folks boo when players throw their racquets or get upset or whatever. I feel like saying, as IF so many of you hypocrites haven't done the same things, and/or worse, and with a LOT less on the line.)

[seodiary]

Maybe they should relax about racket abuse, and get tight on ball abuse, which is much more likely to hurt someone else (even by accident).

[Dreaming]

Maybe they should relax about racket abuse, and get tight on ball abuse, which is much more likely to hurt someone else (even by accident).

Don't MAKE nelslus go there once again, Scotty.

Alternate post: Good point.