[GogoGirl]

The Dokic default makes Business Day's news.


Organisers call for changes after Dokic pulls out of Paris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARIS The cancellation of the singles and doubles finals at the 585000 Paris WTA event yesterday has led to calls for the rules on injury forfeits to be changed.
Yugoslavia's Jelena Dokic was forced to pull out of the eagerly awaited singles final against Wimbledon and US Open champion Venus Williams just two hours before she was due to go on court.

The No4 seed was suffering from a right thigh injury she picked up in her three-set semifinal win against Monica Seles on Saturday.

The situation worsened steadily for organisers yesterday as the doubles final was also cancelled as one of the players, Elena Dementieva of Russia, withdrew suffering from bronchitis and a fever. "Perhaps it is time for the WTA (Women's Tennis Association) and the ITF (International Tennis Federation) to review their rules," said Patrick Prosiy, hard-pressed organiser of the Paris tournament.

"In the case of injury to one of the finalists, perhaps the semifinalist defeated by that player can be authorised to take her place. The cancellation of both finals completely ruined the event as a spectacle."

This is thought to be the first time in the history of the women's tour that both finals in an indoor event have been called off on the same day. Dokic aggravated the injury when she returned to court later on Saturday to play in the semifinals of the doubles. Sapa-AFP.


Feb 11 2002 12:00:00:000AM Business Day 1st Edition

Monday
11 February 2002

 

[destructo_girl]

"In the case of injury to one of the finalists, perhaps the semifinalist defeated by that player can be authorised to take her place. The cancellation of both finals completely ruined the event as a spectacle."

I think thats a stupid idea. Stupid.

What happens when the semifinalist wins? You'd can't exactly give the title to the injured player, but you cannot say that the semifinalist won it, since she was beaten in the first place.

And then what would happen about the points?

Either way, its a stupid idea. Thought of, by some pathetic-ass guy, who's just bitter about having their home event screwed up. ie "why'd they have to get injured here? Why couldn't they have gotten injured in Britain, or the United States? Or why couldn't they just play anyway? Hop around on one leg, and only breathe at the change of ends. We could supply icepacks, I'm sure."

 

[HAIL-VENUS]

My thoughts exactly, Destructo_girl. That idea is definitely a terrible one for all players involved. I think it should remain the same. Whoever is fit enough to make it to the finals should win the title. There's no way that someone who's been put out of the tournament should even have a chance to win the title. They've already been disqualified. That's the dumbest thing from the tour I've heard of yet!

 

[BK4ever]

Even, I disagree with the article, I can still sympathize with the tournament people. They could simply have an exhibition match between the finalist and another singles player still at the tournament.

Also, I must add that it turned out to be unwise for Jelena to go out and play doubles when she was already hurting after her win over Seles.

 

[Brian Stewart]

I've actually proposed similar ideas to the tour several times. If a player can't go, let the person she beat in the prior round replace her. The incentive being that if the replacement wins, they would split the extra ranking points gained.

Why reward the withdrawing player with points? If someone is hurting that badly, it's better for all that they pull out. Better for the player (to heal), and better for the fans, as they get to see a healthy (or, at least, healthier) player compete. Without giving the potential of some points to the injured player, they might come out and just play one game, then quit. That's not really any better.

And she would only get points if her replacement wins.

But what's to stop a reasonably healthy player from feigning injury to avoid a player they feel they can't beat, and sending in the substitute, who they think would have a better chance? Nothing. But, if a player really has the attitude that she has no chance, then it's better if someone who feels they do plays the match.

Other incentives could be added to make it workable. A payment out of an "injury fund" to the replacement, a few extra bonus ranking points to the player who would have won by default under the old rules, etc. This contingency would only be necessary in the later rounds (say from the quarters on). It would benefit the tour and tournaments with TV contracts, etc. if they could be guaranteed that every tournament would have matches the whole way through; and matches that count for the rankings.

 

[Volcana]

Good idea, in some form or another. Brian covered most of the salient points. If the losing semi-finalists are willing to hang around, I think kicking them up to the final is good.

They play for the title and the money, but the losing SF-er can only get finalist points. Or some derivation thereof. It comes close to creating a 'loser's bracket', which is a time tested form of running tournaments. It's saying youcan win the tournament with one loss, taking a point penalty. Or giving a bonus for winning w/o a loss.

Having fans show up and there's NO final in singles or doubles is not acceptable.

 

[Keith]

Maybe they can give the title to the winner and have a rubber match between the semifinalist and the winner

 

[HAIL-VENUS]

Why reward the withdrawing player with points?

better yet, why reward the losing semi-finalist with points? Again, this person has already been exited from the event. It makes no sense to give them any further opportunities because the person who defeated them is unable to play the finals. It's cheating the person who beat her semi-final opponent and is ready to play the finals. If they enforce this rule, then why not let everyone get a second chance in the same tournament by having to lose twice. That's crazy.

 

[BrianII]

I think its a terrible idea (agreeing with Hail venus)......it just opens up a pandora's box of complications. What if we had this same scenario at say a big event like IW or Miami ....and Monica beat Venus in the final ..thenwho would recive the finalist paycheck ....Venus for losing in the final or jelena for beating monica to reach the final ..what if Monica for some reason is unable to play the final do we then have a rematch of venus amelie to determine the tournament winner, what justification do you have to restrict this only to the later rounds. Sponsoring a
tennis tournament is a buisness venture and like all other buisness venture there are risks involved ..looking at the total number of tournaments played over the course of a year and the relatively few in which finals are not played ..i'd say those risks are more than acceptable..besides which if you had these rules Jelena would simply walk out on court and recieve serve then retire do you think if she needed the points to say become number 1 or be seeded at some other event she would accept a fraction of the points that are rightfully hers.

 

[Fingon]

I think it's an awful idea.

Yes, the tournament got the final ruined, it's not the first, and it won't be the last, that's part of the risk.

You can't change the rules just because the tournament organizers feel their show was ruined.

What happens then when a final is rained out? like Scottsdale in 2000, then you don't have a match, the situation is exactly the same, if a player lost in the semis, she lost period, you can't add uncertainty on the draw.

What if the injured player decides to step on the court, play 1 point and retire? huh?, then the rule doesn't apply but the injured player gets finalist points and the winner gets all the quality points.

What if both players are injured?, then we will have a final between the losers.

The event is important, but you can't set up all the rules just for that, there is a championship, a ranking, and clear rules.

Another thing, there are two semifinalist that lost, why would you favour the one that played the injured player?, she has nothing to do with that and only you would have a sort of lucky loser in the final.

 

[TeeRexx]

The main concern to the promoters is not to the players and the fans, but to the sponsors, TV and their own insensitive greed.
Is what happened in Paris a regular occurance? No.
The rules that they propose can, to some extent, bring about a legal "fixing" of a tournament and will not benefit the sport, fans or the players.

 

[Bright Red]

I'm just glad that the idea will never fly. That is certain.

 

[destructo_girl]

If a player can't go, let the person she beat in the prior round replace her. The incentive being that if the replacement wins, they would split the extra ranking points gained.

What would they do with the title, and the trophy?

"Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and my house. Tuesdays, Thurdays, Saturdays at yours. And on Sundays we'll meet and admire it together."

 

[joao]

I think that's a ridiculous idea too! First it wouldn't be fair for the other defeated Semi-finalist...why pick the one who lost to the injured finalist?? I mean the semi-finalist losers are pretty much equivalent in that matter! 2d it wouldn't be fair for the healthy finalist either. Between winning a title by default or having to play the finals with one of the semi-finalist and put at risk the title, which one do you think the finalist would pick??

 

[disposablehero]

I like the idea on a number of levels, but I would have to say no. To me, one of the appeals of tennis is that when you lose, you lose. You are done for the tournament. Granted, there is the lucky losers, but that is a bit different. Qualifying is not really part of the tournament, it is just an exercise to determine who deserves to get in.

 

[Dawn Marie]

The idea sucks ass! lol

It is just plain stupid for the following reasons:

1. Why should the winner of the un-injured semi-final have only one chance to win the final? Why penalize them and let the other semi-finalst gain? due to a third party's injury?

2. Why let a loser in the semi-final get another chance at the final? It is not the initial injury free's players fault that another player pulled out.

3. What the hell will this do for the game of tennis? It will make it suffer imho and diminish in quality.

That is like saying that the "RAMS" can get another shot at winning the Superbowl because the starring QB is injured.


I am totally in disagreement with this scenario for the obvious reason. Once your ass loses in a match you are outta there period. I am against any player getting a second chance at winning anything in any sport. It does nothing for the sport!!

Maybe they can play a match with the winner and the losing semi-finalist? In my opinion Venus and Amelie was the final anyway.

 

[BrianII]

Just to demonstrate the foolishness of this idea ..you can just go back to the year end championships and add 1 or 2 very plausible but hypothetical scenarios ...remeber that Lindsay ended the year no1 buy beating Kim in the SF take away any of lindsay's points and caprati who lost ealier would be no 1. Imagine for an instance if venus had played the tournaments she was to play and was also in contention for the number 1 (very plausible)....and it was venus who lost to linds in the Sf thus ending her hopes of ending the year no1 ..then you turn round the next day and allow venus to play serena for the title and points since Linds is injured and she now becomes no1 beating Serena ..is there really anybody who can't see (regardless of who your a fan of ) the problems this would cause.

 

[Dawn Marie]

It is more than a problem it is CHEATING!!!

No sport should ever give a loser another shot at winning.. LMAO!!

What happens if Serena or Lindsay or Kim caught a quick flight out? Would they have to fly back and re-play for a title shot? lmao

Or what about this little scenario? What if these rules did exist and all players knew them like the back of their hand?

Well Jelena would only have to play ONE point and STILL then withdraw and Seles would get a losers points. The ladies would only work the sysytem like they do the rankings to their ADVANTAGE.

I am sorry but this whole dang idea is absoultely hysterical.. I am laughing so hard at these silly organizers. Money makes people go crazy.. I tell yah!

ROTHLMAO

 

[GogoGirl]

The Idea Won't Fly

Dawn Marie - I agree with you. In essence - if the "Powers That Be" decided to substitute a losing semi finalist in the final match - then IMO - that would be akin to putting on an exhibition match - simply for the fact that most astute tennis fans would never buy it if the semi finalist just so happened to beat the legitimate finalist.

I've tried since yesterday to wrap my brain around this foolhardy idea - and I just can't seem to square it in my mind. What they may could do is have the two semi finalist play a match to see whom would get the third place finish - and thus some extra points and money. One can see I'm pulling at straws here.

I also agree w/the poster that declared that the tourney organisers are just worried about their bottem line - and hence is the reason they were indignant w/Jelena. Now - did Jelena still get her money? I imagine so - but ohhh - what a spidery web they are trying to weave.

 

[Dokicfan17]

Uhh!!!

What was he thinking? He cares more bout money than players!!What a horrible idea, if you are injured you injured, your not going to play on your damn death bed or with a broken arm or hurt thigh, so it was cancled , you dont gain more money, big deal they cant do anything about it, the semi finalist lost in semi*s, thats where it ends for them

What a HORRIBLE THOUGHT!
but it is a good idea when finals are cancled to throw a good exhibition