Daniil Medvedev disqualified from China Open after ball strikes spectator in semi-final

Daniil Medvedev was disqualified from the China Open after a ball he hit during his semi-final against Novak Djokovic struck a spectator in the face, tournament reports said.

The incident occurred during the semi-final match between Medvedev and Novak Djokovic. Both Al Jazeera and MyJoyOnline reported that the Russian was disqualified after the ball made contact with a spectator’s face. The disqualification ended the match and allowed Djokovic to progress to the final.

According to Adom Online, which supplied additional match detail, Medvedev — listed as the tournament’s third seed — was trailing Djokovic 7-5, 5-3 when Djokovic hit a winner to make the score 15-15 in the game. Adom reported that the ball ricocheted off the back of the court and that Medvedev then swiped at the ball; the sequence culminated in the ball striking a spectator in the face and the player’s subsequent disqualification.

What happened next

All three outlets reported the same outcome — Medvedev was removed from the match and Djokovic advanced. The available reports do not include direct quotes from players, officials or the spectator, nor do they provide further details about any medical attention given to the person who was struck.

Why it matters

Disqualifications for striking spectators are rare on the professional tennis tour and carry immediate consequences for match results and tournament progression. The incident abruptly ended a high-profile semi-final involving two top players and will affect the draw and prize distribution at the China Open.

What the reports do not say

The three news outlets did not provide further information about disciplinary follow-up beyond the in-match disqualification, any statements from the tournament organizers, or details about the spectator’s condition beyond being struck in the face. They also did not report any quotes from Medvedev, Djokovic or officials explaining the circumstances or intent.

The China Open has not been quoted directly in the reports cited here, and the piece above relies only on the facts those outlets published.