PDA

View Full Version : Shouldn't Vika be disqualified for the match vs Caroline?


JJandAna4ever
Oct 31st, 2009, 03:52 AM
When she got the abuse violation the 2nd time, with a point penalty, she lost the game. However, she thought that since she already got the violation, she smashed her racket again multiple times. Isn't it the rules that you get disqualified when you make a third violation?

Wiggly
Oct 31st, 2009, 04:05 AM
When she got the abuse violation the 2nd time, with a point penalty, she lost the game. However, she thought that since she already got the violation, she smashed her racket again multiple times. Isn't it the rules that you get disqualified when you make a third violation?

She never received a third violation.

JJandAna4ever
Oct 31st, 2009, 04:09 AM
She never received a third violation.

That's the point I was trying to make. He gave her the second violation on game point. She then smashed her racket twice after the received the violation (which should have gotten her a third violation. But she didn't get it). However when she got herself a new racket, she picked up the old one and smashed it twice AGAIN, she should have been disqualified right then.

Donny
Oct 31st, 2009, 04:22 AM
No chair ump wants to be the person to end a match on a technicality.

TheBoiledEgg
Oct 31st, 2009, 08:58 AM
you dont get DISQ on 3rd violation these days

Julian.
Oct 31st, 2009, 09:01 AM
Her first name isn't Serena?.

Your arguments are invalid.

Feyd
Oct 31st, 2009, 09:30 AM
When she got the abuse violation the 2nd time, with a point penalty, she lost the game. However, she thought that since she already got the violation, she smashed her racket again multiple times. Isn't it the rules that you get disqualified when you make a third violation?

You get a game penalty for the third violation, not default.

thrust
Oct 31st, 2009, 10:45 AM
Her first name isn't Serena?.

Your arguments are invalid.

She didn't threaten anyone with physical violence either.

Julian.
Oct 31st, 2009, 10:51 AM
She didn't threaten anyone with physical violence either.

and who said so? :shrug:

saska77
Oct 31st, 2009, 11:43 AM
Why does every thread become a Serena thread?

The umpire probably thought that it would be too harsh to finish a good match with a disq..and let it go on at disadvantage of point deducted. Just like in football in UK, sometimes instead of awarding a kick/card the team gets to continue in the attack so they do not loose momentum...

Discretion is prob used for the benefit of the game/viewers/sport....

Monica_Rules
Oct 31st, 2009, 12:16 PM
Because when she broke the racket for the 3rd/4th time it was the same racket that she broke to get the 2nd warning so she can't get another warninh cos the racket was already broken. Unless she threw it at someone which she didn't

Break My Rapture
Oct 31st, 2009, 12:36 PM
:rolleyes: x 200. Please. :o

kman
Oct 31st, 2009, 12:47 PM
Because when she broke the racket for the 3rd/4th time it was the same racket that she broke to get the 2nd warning so she can't get another warninh cos the racket was already broken. Unless she threw it at someone which she didn't

She was damaging the court!

sammy01
Oct 31st, 2009, 12:55 PM
because it goes;

warning
point penaulty
game penaulty
default

if she only got 2 warnings its only a point penaulty, and if she was smashing the same racket its all one violation.

Alex03Maccy
Oct 31st, 2009, 12:59 PM
Rathorserenka :o