Sport

Medvedev disqualified after incident in Beijing semifinal

Daniil Medvedev was disqualified at the China Open in Beijing following an incident involving a spectator. Novak Djokovic advances to the final as a result.

6 October 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Medvedev disqualified after incident in Beijing semifinal — Archive photoPhoto: James Boyes from UK · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 2.0

In the semifinal of the China Open in Beijing, an incident overshadowed the match between Daniil Medvedev and Novak Djokovic. After losing a point, Medvedev hit a ball into the crowd, striking a spectator in the head.

According to multiple sources, Medvedev was immediately disqualified due to this incident. The referee determined that the behavior of the Russian player was unacceptable, forcing him to leave the match.

Novak Djokovic, who faced Medvedev in this semifinal, benefits from the disqualification and thus advances to the final of the China Open. This gives Djokovic the opportunity to celebrate his 102nd tournament victory.

Reports indicate that the match was characterized by a high level of play and intense excitement until the incident occurred. The uproar leading to Medvedev's disqualification caused a stir among the audience and viewers.

The incident has sparked discussions on social media and in sports reports. Some sources raise questions about players' responsibility in managing emotions during important matches.

Djokovic subsequently had the opportunity to compete in the final, putting him on the path to another title in tennis. The tournament organizers in Beijing responded to the incident with the immediate disqualification of the player.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.