Should intent matter?
Possibly the greatest tennis player of all time. An unbelievable champion. On his way to another Grand Slam title. There was an air of inevitability around the outcome of this tournament. Until there wasn’t. Undone by a momentary lapse in judgment. A flick of the wrist.
It was not malicious but definitely careless. Djokovic didn’t intend to hit the lineswoman. Which brings us to the question at hand.
Should intent matter?
In this case, the rules are clear. He committed a violation according to the rules on both abuse of balls and unsportsmanlike conduct. The umpire then had two options in the penalty that was assessed: either provide a warning according to the escalating penalty system or, if the violation is deemed sufficiently egregious, default Novak. Unfortunately, any injury to someone as a result of the violation, regardless of intention, is automatically considered sufficiently egregious. Therefore, the umpire had no choice but to default Djokovic and end his quest for the 2020 US Open.
Should intent matter?
The rules of tennis say intent doesn’t matter in this case, but should it? Imagine a world where tennis players were educated not just on the rules, but on the reasoning behind the rules’ existence. Where players understood that the abuse of balls not only set a bad example for youth (the reason for the violation) but carried risks for those in the vicinity (the reason for the harsh penalty if those risks came to pass).
With that understanding, it would be clear to players that if their ball abuse led to the accidental injury of another person, they would be defaulted. Intent would be the decision to abuse a ball, not the resulting consequences. If Djokovic understood that, do you think there’s any chance he would have taken the risk? I think the answer is no. Heck, even if he were told that he’s getting a warning this time but the next ball abuse violation that injured another person for the rest of his career would be a default, do you think he would have gotten the message?
It seems obvious from Djokovic’s reaction to the incident that a) he had never considered the possibility of injuring someone, and b) he had no idea the consequences of doing so were so harsh and so black-and-white. It seems harsh for intent not to matter when a player has not been educated on the rules and the reasoning behind those rules.
Possibly the greatest tennis player of all time. An unbelievable champion. Trying to stay match fit during a global pandemic. Attempts to raise money for humanitarian projects in his home region. Until it all goes wrong. Social distancing guidelines ignored. Lapses in judgment. One COVID case. Then another. Then an outbreak.
Djokovic has said he did everything “with a pure heart and sincere intentions.” Does it matter when the consequences are so dangerous? It’s almost certain that some death somewhere can draw a direct line back to the tournament Djokovic hosted and the ensuing outbreak.
Should intent matter?
In the court of public opinion, apparently not. Djokovic was thoroughly criticized for his “foolish” decisions that endangered people’s health. There was plenty of information about the dangers of COVID-19 and how it spread. Packed crowds, parties, and close contact between players showed a willful ignorance of the grave consequences of this disease. There was no choice but to harshly condemn Djokovic for his actions.
Should intent matter?
Most people think it doesn’t in this case judging by their condemnation, but should it? To be honest, I’m not sure. There is so much misinformation out there. Djokovic is a tennis player, not a scientist or a policymaker (which is obvious from his misinformed machinations on vaccines and changing the molecular composition of water with human emotions). If there was better education and dissemination of information on not just the guidelines but also the scientific reasoning, could that have made a difference? I’m not sure, but it feels harsh for intent not to matter when a person is not adequately informed on the guidelines and the reasoning behind those guidelines.