ao90pernfors_mcenroe.

ao90pernfors_mcenroe.

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to ao90pernfors_mcenroe.

  1. Voo de Mar says:
    Points won by each set: | 19-30, 36-27, 42-46, 20-14 |
    The only meeting between Pernfors & McEnroe…

    A shocker in the dazzling Sun on Centre Court at Flinders Park – the first disqualification from a Grand Slam event since 1963! McEnroe [5] was complaining about everything & abusing the balls throughout the 2-hour 49-minute break-fest.

    Chronologically his violation of the rules that led to the defaulting looked as follows:
    – the first code-violation he got being *2:1 ahead in the 3rd set because he was glaring at lines-woman standing in front of her, instead of beginning another game on serve (she’d made a decision he disapproved two games before)
    [ an hour later he got the first time-violation at 1-all (0/30) in the 4th set when he changed his racquet to extend the break between the points ]
    – as Pernfors [63] had a break point leading 3:2 in the 4th set, McEnroe threw his racquet which ended up in a game awarded to the Swede
    – McEnroe couldn’t agree with that decision and his inappropriate language caused his disqualification a few minutes later

    The four players defaulted at majors in the Open Era:
    1990 Australian Open: John McEnroe… vs Mikael Pernfors at 6-1, 4-6, 7-5, 2-4… (a three-step code violation; umpire Gerry Armstrong)
    1995 French Open: Carsten Arriens… vs. Brett Steven at 7-6, 2-6… (the racquet abuse towards a lines-man; umpire Andreas Egli)
    1995 Wimbledon: Jeff Tarango… vs Alexander Mronz at 6-7, 1-2… (Tarango left the court after an argument with the umpire – Bruno Rebeuh)
    2000 French Open: Stefan Koubek… vs. Attila Savolt at 6-3, 5-7, 0-6, 2-5… (the racquet abuse towards a ball boy, he’d three warnings before nevertheless)
  2. MultiStar83 says:
    Very interesting, but I fear that I have to disagree here. It was not a “four-step code violation”, but a “three-step code violation”-system in effect here. Because they changed the rules at the start of the 1990 season…This was something that J. McEnroe was not aware of, he later stated at the press conference. So he kind of thought he had “one violation left”. I also cannot remember the second code violation you mentioned above (at 1-all 0/30 4th set). I am quite sure that there only were three violations, which resultet in McEnroe’s disqualification. The game to Pernfors was only awarded, becauce he had the “advantage” (break-point) as McEnroe received his second code violation – a point penalty…
    • Voo de Mar says:
      My impression of the entire situation is that Armstrong made a mistake not giving McEnroe a point penalty for the second code violation and it made a confusion from Mac’s perspective. Check this out at 02:30:50.. Armstrong should have said “40/0”, but he said “Let’s play” and the game continued at 30/0 for Pernfors.
      So I interpret the whole situation this way (when McEnroe lost the game for 2:4):
      – he thought he lost it on the second code violation only because Pernfors had advantage in the game
      – Armstrong knew it was the third code violation & McEnroe could lose that game anyway regardless of the scoreline

      I’m not sure about the rules at the time, anyway when McEnroe lost the last game of the match it was his third code-violation not the second (the first one occurred at 01:30:00)

  3. MultiStar83 says:
    I do not think so, because at 02:30:50 was a “time violation”, which is a separate category to the “code violation”-system. Only if you receive two “time violations” or two “code violations” you will lose a point and so on.
    • Voo de Mar says:
      Thanks. I’ve modified the description of the match…
      I didn’t know about such a differentiation. So at the time the code violation looked:
      warning -> game -> match
      instead of
      warning -> point -> game -> match
      that was legitimate before that event and is legitimate nowadays?
      • MultiStar83 says:
        You are welcome. I did not know about this differentiation either until quite recently.
        Oh, this is a good question, because I do not actually know what is legitimate today. But I am quite sure that they changed the rules the way I have described above at the start of the 1990 season, which led to McEnroe’s confusion. So, it was “warning – POINT – match” instead of “warning – point – game – match”. Anyway, then supervisor Ken Farrar stated at the press conference after the match, that McEnroe would have been disqualified in any case because of his abusive language… He said something like that he had never heard somebody swearing like that on a tennis court before!
        • Voo de Mar says:
          Quite similar situation with Koubek in Paris 2000. When he was defaulted he already had three code violations, but his fourth violation would have been turned into automatic disqualification because he hit a ball-boy with his racquet… Arriens in singles, Henman and Kuerten in doubles, were automatically disqualified at majors for the racquet/ball abuse towards people.
          • MultiStar83 says:
            Yes, hitting a ball kid with the racquet or ball in anger (even if it was unintentional) means automatic disqualification. Coria was very lucky not to be disqualified for this at the Roland Garros semifinal 2003 vs. Verkerk. And J. McEnroe was actually very lucky not to be disqualified for his abusive language at the US Open 1987 3rd round vs. Zivojinovic.

Leave a Reply