Not at all, I was just disputing the ridiculous notion that a few momentary and entirely verbal losses of temper constitute a reasonable judgment as a “person of very low character”. If the poster had simply said “I don’t like Serena because she loses her temper too often”, then I’d shrug my shoulders. But “person of very low character”? And from a poster with a long history of, let’s just say controversial posts about black people? I think that’s well worth challenging/mocking/criticizing.
I thought we were talking about Serena. And when you are a large, very strong and muscular person brandishing a racquet as you approach a petite older woman and angrily say you are going to “shove this racquet up your fucking ass”, that is NOT “entirely verbal”. I believe that is actually technically a crime, as in a criminal act. Like, she could have been arrested and successfully prosecuted, not just penalized by officials.
I too thought that was the rule, but either ESPN got it wrong or they have changed it (or it was never that to begin with?). They put a graphic on the screen that said the third and all subsequent violations were a game penalty.
The WaPo article is pretty good overall. I also think the idea that Osaka had the match ‘handed to her’ is wrong. Osaka outplayed Serena in all aspects of the game. Was she guaranteed to win without the umpire stepping in?
No - we’ve seen Serena come back; she’s a fierce competitor. But Osaka outplayed her and was the very deserving winner.
Spot on. Staying above it and letting the match be about the two players on the court - that, and keeping score - that’ s literally what the umpire is paid to do. He failed miserably.
Wrong. The umpire is the only person able to escalate the situation. Literally his job is to de-escalate the situation. He didn’t do that.
If he had done his job the racket smash was the caution, and it literally starts and ends there.
What in the world are you talking about - there’s incredible discretion. Whether to assess a violation is 100% at the discretion of the umpire. There’s no discretion in the penalty but that’s not the issue. The umpire also knows what the penalties are, and knows that there is no discretion once he assesses the penalty. You could possibly overlook the first violation (incredibly weird spot to assess it, given context and precedent). No argument on the second one - but again, it’s now a point penalty instead of a caution because of the poor judgement made on the first violation. And knowing that she’s upset at a situation he created by the first violation, you simply cannot give the third game penalty unless it’s truly gregarious. Nothing she said was remotely close to that level.
Controversy aside, US Open Champ Osaka is drop dead gorgeous.
She’s tan and Japanese. Oh, yes she’s tan and Japanese.
I really think so!
gregarious --> egregious.
:smack:
Some umpires are less strict than others. That’s true of ANY sport. This umpire is known for being more strict. It should have factored into how Serena Williams reacted.
I have ZERO tolerance for her behavior, here. She berated the umpire for assessing a penalty for cheating by being coached, making it seem like he was besmirching her reputation. She went so far, if I recall the story correctly, as to invoke the life of her daughter in support of her assertion she wasn’t cheating. And, yet, her coach immediately after the match acknowledged that he was, in fact, cheating by coaching. And while she may not have seen that specific example, he certainly isn’t trying to coach covertly under the assumption she’s not paying attention. So clearly, he coaches her covertly, and she knows it, and uses it.
Which
Is
Cheating
in tennis. Every player knows that. When I coached high school tennis, I was always very careful of when and how I communicated anything, even encouragement, to my players, for this reason. Yet here, a top player clearly intends to cheat, gets caught doing it, and proceeds to berate the umpire for the fact that he has the temerity to actually sanction her for it. No, I have no sympathy for her here, whatsoever.
If coaching is cheating, wouldn’t it make more sense just to not have the coach at courtside?
And she did have a point that males get a lot more leeway to argue with umpires than the females get.
So you’re OK with umpires being different in how they referee the match?
Got it.
That the coach was trying to ‘coach’ (which 100% of coaches in 100% of matches do) is irrelevant. The violation isn’t ‘coaches shall not coach’, it’s ‘players shall not receive coaching’. There zero evidence that Serena saw the coach - she was on the other side of the stadium ffs. The reason the rule is rarely enforced is precisely because it relies too much on inference to penalize the player for the coach’s actions. There is no way the umpire knew the player had received coaching - and as noted, I cannot think of another player less likely to be interested in getting coaching during a match.
Given the context and precedent, there’s no way that violation should be called. Once he started that chain of events, he absolutely needs to be extra aware of the situation - which he created - before assessing the third violation.
I find it hilarious that - in this thread and elsewhere - some people are now claiming that ‘this umpire is known for being strict (except when he wasn’t), Serena should have known that’ - while these same people are blasting the argument that ‘rule is a rule! Context/precedent/player shouldn’t matter’.
Seriously, how do you not choke on your own hypocrisy? :smack::smack::smack:
Some matches - like the finals of the US Open - are more important than others. That’s true of ANY sport. This tournament is known for being more important than many other tournaments. It should have factored into how the umpire acted and reacted.
If male players get away with tantrums and females don’t, the solution is to discipline the male players. It’s not to let the female players off scot-free.
The idea that “They get to be bad, so I should be allowed to be bad” is nonsensical.
Thank goodness it’s sunset for her. I want to see real lady champions.
Imagine if we applied the same logic to the legal system: “White defendants get away with homicide, so why shouldn’t black defendants?”
Having seen a bit of coverage of the events now, and I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her. It’s not like she just shouted at the umpire once, she spent the best part of three games keeping up a stream of complaints. She should have cut it out, and didn’t,and the umpire had to do something.
nonsense.
When did she receive the coaching violation? when did she smash her racquet? What exactly did the umpire do to escalate the situation in the intervening games?
She had plenty of time to shrug off the warning. She didn’t or couldn’t and kept going back to the umpire in that period and I was surprised that he didn’t give her another warning or penalty before the racquet smash.
By giving her time to blow out the umpire did seek to de-escalate but Serena kept on stupidly asking for an “apology” that she wasn’t due and wasn’t going to get. She wound herself up into a fury to the point of the racquet smash and even then she didn’t let it go.
I’m glad that such shitty behaviour gets punished. It should happen more not less.
I disagree. Apply the rules equally. As a showcase seen around the world by millions it is arguably even more important that such dreadful behaviour is clamped down on.
Having watched the match from start to finish, I agree that it was 90/10 percent. With 90 Percent of the blame being to Serena. Because unless the umpire has some mind control powers we are not aware of, it was Serena who smashed her own racket right after she was broken by Osaka. It was her decision to take that action because she was frustrated with her play and with her opponent being tougher than she anticipated.
Also, it is interesting that she thought it was wrong to be called a cheater, and then went on to accuse Ramos of that very same thing. We also don’t know for sure whether she saw the signals her coach was making towards her, and although I am inclined to think she does not need coaching, it is interesting to note that what he was suggesting she should do, is exactly what she started doing right after he made that motion. Serena is smart enough to decide for herself move in, so it probably was coincidence, or a long history of playing, that she had the same thoughts on how to change tactics at that point in the match as her coach had.
When it comes to male players not being warned or penalized for bad behavior, I am sure that Federer, Nadal, Fognini and Kyrgios, all of whom have received warnings and/or fines would disagree. It is true that the rules are inconsistently applied and it does come down to the temperament of the umpire, which is why, and I believe this is true with other sports, players know that if a certain person is in the chair they have to behave differently. Just like lawyers know that certain judges are sticklers on certain points of law, players probably know that the same is true for certain umpires.
The bottom line is that Serena has largely herself to blame for this incident, if she had kept herself better in check, then it would not have gotten to the point it did. I have seen male players and female players lose it (who could forget Hingis at the French) and then they had to get back to work and finish the match.
As to the crowd reaction, I wonder if Arthur Ashe being the biggest stadium in tennis played a part in it. With such a big venue, it is all but impossible for everyone except those in the lowest tiers to be able to see exactly what was happening. Especially when it comes to conduct, which is not something you can assess from far away. Add to it that it was happening to a player that most of the audience wanted to win, and you have a bad mix that resulted in having a largely uninvolved party reduced to tears.
//i\
No one has anything to say about the men’s final?
While it was technically a straight set affair, the pivotal second set was one for the ages.
Certainly a good match and well done to them both but I’m afraid that because they were both men and the umpire was a woman then it…is…errrr, sexist or something. Unless there is a meta-narrative about the subjugation of women in a patriarchal construct then the world is not interested.