Adarq.org

Sport Specific Training Discussion => Tennis => Topic started by: adarqui on September 05, 2018, 03:41:05 pm

Title: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 05, 2018, 03:41:05 pm
dsskdgoksdgods
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 05, 2018, 03:41:22 pm
Nadal / Thiem was absolutely incredible.

?taken-by=notafraid2fail
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 05, 2018, 03:51:58 pm
highlights.. man thiem was hitting insane shots, really made nadal dig deep af.

NADAL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HI_LgY4edw
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 08, 2018, 05:10:05 pm
really sucks that nadal was too hurt in the semis :/ that epic match above just wrecked him.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 08, 2018, 05:10:30 pm
watching Serena right now.. man she got destroyed in the first set. Hoping she can get this huge W.

Osaka is damn good but come Serena leggo.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 08, 2018, 05:30:46 pm
serena gets some "coaching violation" .. then breaks her racquet, gets another violation, automatic point deduction, then goes off on the chair.

lots of stuff happens to serena in tennis.

no idea if she received instructions or not from her coach, but i'd take her word for it that she didn't. she was adamant that she didn't receive any instructions. she demanded an apology from the chair. kinda crazy.

she just got broken afterwards, hope she can get back in this :/
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 08, 2018, 05:38:03 pm
this is

absolutely

fucking

insane.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 08, 2018, 10:46:03 pm
sad that it had to end like that.. what a mess :/

to me, the 2nd/3rd violations were justified.. but, it's all based on that first violation (coaching instructions), which was absolute bullshit.

first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

very unfortunate, especially for Osaka.. she played incredible. She looked really distraught over how it turned out :/

never saw anything like that in tennis.. other than maybe serena being ejected after the "threat".. but this was pretty unique, especially because of the fan/crowd reactions.

was painful to watch.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: AGC on September 09, 2018, 07:20:17 am
first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

I feel that's excusing Serena's subsequent behaviour, to blame the umpire for not warning her about a very well-known violation in the game. I disagree with 'warnings' for offences in general. What's the point of the rule if it's arbitrarily enforced depending on context? It's a weird rule anyway (coaches are paid to coach IMO) but I understand that tennis has a gladiatorial spirit where the players should be battling their opponent with no outside influence. If she should be mad at anyone, it should be the coach, not the umpire. Then compounding it by racket-smashing and abusing the ump is just bad situational awareness/brain fade, like not knowing how many fouls you have.

This is the third US Open final where Serena has completely overshadowed the effort of the eventual winner with meltdowns (Clijsters 2009 and Stosur 2011). I think it really sucks to put an asterisk on someone's title like that, i.e. "if the other player hadn't melted down and given a game away, maybe they would have won, but I'll never know etc". This was the worst of the three by a mile though.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: seifullaah73 on September 09, 2018, 12:48:06 pm
sad that it had to end like that.. what a mess :/

to me, the 2nd/3rd violations were justified.. but, it's all based on that first violation (coaching instructions), which was absolute bullshit.

first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

very unfortunate, especially for Osaka.. she played incredible. She looked really distraught over how it turned out :/

never saw anything like that in tennis.. other than maybe serena being ejected after the "threat".. but this was pretty unique, especially because of the fan/crowd reactions.

was painful to watch.

It was painful to watch. I agree the chair should have gave a warning like it is used to doing, I believe her if she says she didn't receive coaching instructions. I think this may have been the reason to cause her to act out of character and throwing the racket.

Also the warning should help if there is any ambiguity in any violation such as advising no communication be made so as to avoid any future doubtful violations.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 09, 2018, 01:57:42 pm
first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

I feel that's excusing Serena's subsequent behaviour,

it's not excusing it at all. but that call set things in motion.

Quote
to blame the umpire for not warning her about a very well-known violation in the game.

well known? that's never called.

Quote
I disagree with 'warnings' for offences in general. What's the point of the rule if it's arbitrarily enforced depending on context?

tennis is all about concrete rules. how do you apply one of the few subjective rules without giving a warning? I've watched tons of tennis, i've rarely seen that rule enforced. Also, i've seen chair umps give warnings more than i've seen an actual violation.

you can only enforce a subjective rule arbitrarily.

Quote
It's a weird rule anyway (coaches are paid to coach IMO) but I understand that tennis has a gladiatorial spirit where the players should be battling their opponent with no outside influence. If she should be mad at anyone, it should be the coach, not the umpire.

coaches often "instruct" during the match, doesn't mean the athlete is actually looking at them receiving the instructions. coaches coach, even if the athlete isn't looking at them.

Quote
Then compounding it by racket-smashing and abusing the ump is just bad situational awareness/brain fade, like not knowing how many fouls you have.

imho the racquet smashing isn't even a problem. she never even mentioned it. she knew she'd probably get a violation for it. men smash their racquets all the time, especially guys like Djoko / Murray / Kyrgios / Roddick etc.

I don't like racquet smashing but it shouldn't really be a "bad sign" of anything. It's just a rare sign of extreme frustration. Plenty of the greatest tennis players smash their racquets on occasion. Here's a Djoko racquet smash compilation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derAHAnpelw

Her worst offense (to me) was calling the chair a "thief". That was stupid. But again, i've seen people chew out chair umps all the time and not get violations. Here's Federer dropping F bombs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koTTY3QuLcQ

She lost her composure, that's all on her. However, that first coaching violation was still bullshit.

Serena is probably already on "edge" with some of the treatment of female athletes vs men. She's not someone who can just ignore it. Some of the stuff that happened in this US Open adds context to her meltdown - I mean she even mentioned this incident. Here's a woman receiving a violation for turning her shirt inside out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UIBboqUNo

I've seen men do shirt changes during the changeover TONS of times, especially Nadal/Djokovic etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIAAZS3V4I

Tennis has historically been a "boys club", that shit drives Serena crazy. I think it factors in to some of her blowups.. Boys club & "race" issues are always on her mind, she deals with alot of it.

Quote
This is the third US Open final where Serena has completely overshadowed the effort of the eventual winner with meltdowns (Clijsters 2009 and Stosur 2011). I think it really sucks to put an asterisk on someone's title like that, i.e. "if the other player hadn't melted down and given a game away, maybe they would have won, but I'll never know etc". This was the worst of the three by a mile though.

Some people might be saying "if she didn't melt down you never know", but Osaka was on fire, I doubt Serena wins that match without the melt down. Though, Serena was up 3-1 in the 2nd set when that coaching violation call happened. She went directly to the chair and states she didn't receive instructions and she's not a cheater. That call really messed her up, the idea that she was "cheating". A warning would have been a good idea. A warning would have also been a good idea before taking a game from her, ie: "Serena if you continue I will have to take away a game".

IMHO the foot fault reaction/threat is the worst. This was the biggest meltdown because it played out over several games.. but that foot fault/"threat"/DQ on match point (to her opponent) was the worst IMHO.



Finally. From what i've seen:, most everyone seems to be coming out AGAINST that coaching call violation. Former/current pros, analysts etc, everyone saying that was pure bullshit. Most people don't seem to think the thief comment is a violation either, given that men get away with worse.

That ref abused his power.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 09, 2018, 04:15:54 pm
sad that it had to end like that.. what a mess :/

to me, the 2nd/3rd violations were justified.. but, it's all based on that first violation (coaching instructions), which was absolute bullshit.

first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

very unfortunate, especially for Osaka.. she played incredible. She looked really distraught over how it turned out :/

never saw anything like that in tennis.. other than maybe serena being ejected after the "threat".. but this was pretty unique, especially because of the fan/crowd reactions.

was painful to watch.

It was painful to watch. I agree the chair should have gave a warning like it is used to doing, I believe her if she says she didn't receive coaching instructions. I think this may have been the reason to cause her to act out of character and throwing the racket.

Also the warning should help if there is any ambiguity in any violation such as advising no communication be made so as to avoid any future doubtful violations.

x2 ^^

also, this seems to be the opinion of most current/former pros i've seen interviewed. For a subjective rule like that, and the verbal abuse one he levied later, warn first.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: LBSS on September 10, 2018, 12:47:35 am
it's also important to keep in mind that serena has been on the butt end of racist and sexist treatment for her entire life, and as a tennis pro for 23 years (had to look that up but holy shit). a lot of the backlash against her - e.g. from ross tucker, which really disappointed but maybe shouldn't have surprised me - has been nakedly sexist.

it sucks for osaka because she's such a fan and it must have been unpleasant for her to be crushing her idol as her idol melted down and the spotlight shifted away from her greatest professional achievement to this drama. and of course serena is an adult who is responsible for her own behavior. but to paraphrase someone on twitter: women are held to a higher standard of "decorum" than men. black people are held to a higher standard of "decorum" than white people. black women are held to the highest standard of "decorum." IMHO serena has more than earned the right to lose her temper when she feels like she's being treated unfairly. 
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: AGC on September 10, 2018, 02:05:54 am
first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".

I feel that's excusing Serena's subsequent behaviour,

it's not excusing it at all. but that call set things in motion.

But you're saying that one violation (with no penalty attached at that stage) caused the subsequent meltdown. It didn't cause anything other than giving Serena a violation at that point in the match. It might have contributed to inflaming her mental state, but placing responsibility on the umpire is too extreme. Put yourself in the umpire's position. He sees the coach give coaching-like signals (picked up on camera). This is the final. How's it going to be for him if Serena then starts blowing the doors off the opponent, and he hasn't penalised the offending player? This is guy is also an apparent stickler for enforcing rules (http://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/umpire-carlos-ramos-history-code-violations-serena-williams/463180). Her team should have let her know this. Again, I mostly blame the coach for this, but Serena had to be more professional in that situation, she's experienced enough.

Quote
to blame the umpire for not warning her about a very well-known violation in the game.

well known? that's never called.

Yes, it is well-known? It's definitely called occasionally, but as I said, it's a stupid rule that should just be removed. Nadal's coach was infamous for getting away it and I've read tennis forums for years: its always being discussed. I have no inherent problem with coaching from the sidelines, it's a dumb rule, but it's a rule that both players were playing under and that's just the situation.

Quote
I disagree with 'warnings' for offences in general. What's the point of the rule if it's arbitrarily enforced depending on context?

tennis is all about concrete rules. how do you apply one of the few subjective rules without giving a warning? I've watched tons of tennis, i've rarely seen that rule enforced. Also, i've seen chair umps give warnings more than i've seen an actual violation.

you can only enforce a subjective rule arbitrarily.

I don't see why, because it's a subjective rule, warnings need be applied in every case. Of course, subjective calls are part of sport; my point was that context shouldn't matter in subjective arbitration. If the umpire sees what they deem as clear on-court coaching, they should pull the trigger whether it's the US open final or a Challenger qualifier, or whether the player has a history of meltdowns. In this case, the footage of the coaching was pretty obvious to me. If the umpire doesn't call that, I don't know when it would be called, and I don't think a warning is warranted just because of the context of the match - the coaching might have already influenced the outcome of the game. I agree that it's stupid rule though, and it should just go because it's too hard to detect and control with the players and coaches being in direct sight of one another, and because coaching is what they're paid to do.

Quote
It's a weird rule anyway (coaches are paid to coach IMO) but I understand that tennis has a gladiatorial spirit where the players should be battling their opponent with no outside influence. If she should be mad at anyone, it should be the coach, not the umpire.

coaches often "instruct" during the match, doesn't mean the athlete is actually looking at them receiving the instructions. coaches coach, even if the athlete isn't looking at them.

Well, if they know the rule (and they do)...then they shouldn't be! The major problem with the violation (apart from it existing at all) is that it's a player violation, not a coach violation. It should be: if the umpire sees that sort of signal, the coaching staff are watching the game from the locker room with lighter pockets from that point, and the player doesn't accrue a violation. Serena kept taking it personally because it implies that she was cheating, which I didn't believe, but that's the rule both players are playing under. They just got caught out.

Quote
Then compounding it by racket-smashing and abusing the ump is just bad situational awareness/brain fade, like not knowing how many fouls you have.

imho the racquet smashing isn't even a problem. she never even mentioned it. she knew she'd probably get a violation for it. men smash their racquets all the time, especially guys like Djoko / Murray / Kyrgios / Roddick etc.

What I meant is: if you're playing bball on five fouls, you know to not go hacking at the ball, or trying to take a charge on a fast break. In tennis (as you know, for others who don't) it goes: [warning-->point penalty-->game penalty-->default] for each successive violation. So knowing you're already on one violation, keep cool if you get a call you don't agree with, and likely, nothing will come of it (easy to say at the keyboard I know, but these are professional players with a lot at stake).

Her worst offense (to me) was calling the chair a "thief". That was stupid. But again, i've seen people chew out chair umps all the time and not get violations. Here's Federer dropping F bombs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koTTY3QuLcQ

She lost her composure, that's all on her. However, that first coaching violation was still bullshit.

Serena is probably already on "edge" with some of the treatment of female athletes vs men. She's not someone who can just ignore it. Some of the stuff that happened in this US Open adds context to her meltdown - I mean she even mentioned this incident. Here's a woman receiving a violation for turning her shirt inside out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UIBboqUNo

I've seen men do shirt changes during the changeover TONS of times, especially Nadal/Djokovic etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIAAZS3V4I

Tennis has historically been a "boys club", that shit drives Serena crazy. I think it factors in to some of her blowups.. Boys club & "race" issues are always on her mind, she deals with alot of it.

Yes, you could see it was a confluence of different emotional issues that Serena has been subjected to over the years coming out. I don't necessarily disagree with what she believed was happening, but it was just unprofessional to let it completely derail and overshadow the match. That's what the post-game press conference is for.

(I'm not in disagreement with any of the gender discrimination stuff raised by this, mostly because I can't find any data on whether there are umpiring discrepancies apart from anecdotal stuff, and drawing broad conclusions from these insular cases is tricky).

Quote
This is the third US Open final where Serena has completely overshadowed the effort of the eventual winner with meltdowns (Clijsters 2009 and Stosur 2011). I think it really sucks to put an asterisk on someone's title like that, i.e. "if the other player hadn't melted down and given a game away, maybe they would have won, but I'll never know etc". This was the worst of the three by a mile though.

Some people might be saying "if she didn't melt down you never know", but Osaka was on fire, I doubt Serena wins that match without the melt down. Though, Serena was up 3-1 in the 2nd set when that coaching violation call happened.

That bolded hypothetical part is exactly what I'm talking about - there's a seed of doubt now. Maybe Osaka is not thinking about it right now, but in 20 years, she might look back at this match, and that seed of doubt will be there. Rather than a positive memory of blitzing her idol off the court, they'll most likely be bittersweet memories. I've had that happen to me when I was a junior in aths ("you only won because x switched to soccer/football/rugby") and it's a crappy thing to do, even indirectly. That's the major problem I have with this. I wish they could have just played the match out without the drama.

She went directly to the chair and states she didn't receive instructions and she's not a cheater. That call really messed her up, the idea that she was "cheating". A warning would have been a good idea. A warning would have also been a good idea before taking a game from her, ie: "Serena if you continue I will have to take away a game"

I just don't know why you need to coddle a player like Serena (or any player really, they're all professionals and should know the rules) - she's as experienced as they get. I watched the match live and they replayed her going at the umpire between games. It was prolonged dialogue, threatening to get him off her games and the liar/thief comments. She should know better at that point - it's playing with fire to do that on two violations, even if one was questionable. I think a warning at that stage is too generous for any player, a newbie or a veteran. In that Federer example, I don't think he abused the umpire to the degree that Serena did, but he swore and for sure, that's a violation. This speaks more to inconsistency between umpires' interpretation of violations. I think the umpire here made the right call based on the rule:

Quote
d) Verbal Abuse
 i) Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person within the precincts of the tournament site. Verbal abuse is defined as any statement about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person that implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive.

Finally. From what i've seen:, most everyone seems to be coming out AGAINST that coaching call violation. Former/current pros, analysts etc, everyone saying that was pure bullshit. Most people don't seem to think the thief comment is a violation either, given that men get away with worse.

That ref abused his power.

It's clearly a very polarising and complex issue because most of the coverage here in Aus was fairly mixed; I just don't buy that the umpire is the bad person here. One bad call can get shrugged off. Serena went the other way and, for the third time, overshadowed the victor. She's obviously established amongst the greats of tennis and it will be a minor blemish when it dies down (although the gender issues will be ongoing I think). I mostly just feel for the winner being deprived of their celebration. It was sickening to see her getting booed like that.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: LBSS on September 10, 2018, 06:25:12 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tennis/at-us-open-power-of-serena-williams-and-naomi-osaka-is-overshadowed-by-an-umpires-power-play/2018/09/08/edbf46c8-b3b4-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.3a5d0c35c3c9

Quote
Chair umpire Carlos Ramos managed to rob not one but two players in the women’s U.S. Open final. Nobody has ever seen anything like it: An umpire so wrecked a big occasion that both players, Naomi Osaka and Serena Williams alike, wound up distraught with tears streaming down their faces during the trophy presentation and an incensed crowd screamed boos at the court. Ramos took what began as a minor infraction and turned it into one of the nastiest and most emotional controversies in the history of tennis, all because he couldn’t take a woman speaking sharply to him.

and from 2015: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-meaning-of-serena-williams.html

Quote
There is a belief among some African-Americans that to defeat racism, they have to work harder, be smarter, be better. Only after they give 150 percent will white Americans recognize black excellence for what it is. But of course, once recognized, black excellence is then supposed to perform with good manners and forgiveness in the face of any racist slights or attacks. Black excellence is not supposed to be emotional as it pulls itself together to win after questionable calls. And in winning, it’s not supposed to swagger, to leap and pump its fist, to state boldly, in the words of Kanye West, ‘‘That’s what it is, black excellence, baby.’’

Imagine you have won 21 Grand Slam singles titles, with only four losses in your 25 appearances in the finals. Imagine that you’ve achieved two ‘‘Serena Slams’’ (four consecutive Slams in a row), the first more than 10 years ago and the second this year. A win at this year’s U.S. Open would be your fifth and your first calendar-year Grand Slam — a feat last achieved by Steffi Graf in 1988, when you were just 6 years old. This win would also break your tie for the most U.S. Open titles in the Open era, surpassing the legendary Chris Evert, who herself has called you ‘‘a phenomenon that once every hundred years comes around.’’ Imagine that you’re the player John McEnroe recently described as ‘‘the greatest player, I think, that ever lived.’’ Imagine that, despite all this, there were so many bad calls against you, you were given as one reason video replay needed to be used on the courts. Imagine that you have to contend with critiques of your body that perpetuate racist notions that black women are hypermasculine and unattractive. Imagine being asked to comment at a news conference before a tournament because the president of the Russian Tennis Federation, Shamil Tarpischev, has described you and your sister as ‘‘brothers’’ who are ‘‘scary’’ to look at. Imagine.

The word ‘‘win’’ finds its roots in both joy and grace. Serena’s grace comes because she won’t be forced into stillness; she won’t accept those racist projections onto her body without speaking back; she won’t go gently into the white light of victory. Her excellence doesn’t mask the struggle it takes to achieve each win. For black people, there is an unspoken script that demands the humble absorption of racist assaults, no matter the scale, because whites need to believe that it’s no big deal. But Serena refuses to keep to that script. Somehow, along the way, she made a decision to be excellent while still being Serena. She would feel what she feels in front of everyone, in response to anyone. At Wimbledon this year, for example, in a match against the home favorite Heather Watson, Serena, interrupted during play by the deafening support of Watson, wagged her index finger at the crowd and said, ‘‘Don’t try me.’’ She will tell an audience or an official that they are disrespectful or unjust, whether she says, simply, ‘‘No, no, no’’ or something much more forceful, as happened at the U.S. Open in 2009, when she told the lineswoman, ‘‘I swear to God I am [expletive] going to take this [expletive] ball and shove it down your [expletive] throat.’’ And in doing so, we actually see her. She shows us her joy, her humor and, yes, her rage. She gives us the whole range of what it is to be human, and there are those who can’t bear it, who can’t tolerate the humanity of an ordinary extraordinary person.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: seifullaah73 on September 10, 2018, 09:31:41 am
As I already mentioned in my previous post, but to clarify as a response to the long response by acole is that if there is no doubt that serena had been receiving coaching instructions, then fair enough she should deal with the consequence of such an action. But in this case the umpire cannot say that it was a clear violation and that serena was receiving coaching instructions, but it is not clear, you don't see a clear cut violation from serena receiving instructions from her coach and it is not 100% clear that the communication between them was coaching instructions, even if it was, let's say, instructions in the form of a sign language, the umpire is not aware of this and so cannot declare a violation based on gut feeling rather it should be based on facts, clear cut violation. so what he should have done was give warning to serena and her coach as well as a clarification to the opposing player and her coach as not to communicate with their coaches in any way and if there are any further communication between player and coach in whatever form then they will be penalised for violating that rule (don't know what the name of the rule is, coaching violation?) so that they know in advanced what not to do and cannot argue if it happens again.

But when you have certain people, and I have seen this with umpires is that they do not handle criticism very well especially when it comes from players they are over seeing and therefore get offended when they are told you are wrong, then instead of thinking maybe I was harsh, they would go into the 'I am right and you are wrong and nothing you can say will change that' mentality and when race is involved it just makes the situation all the more worse because of supposed superiority of the umpire over the player like LBSS posted.

So, first should be warning if the violation is not 100% clear so as to provide a support to any future arguments of any further doubtful similar situations.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: AGC on September 11, 2018, 02:24:52 am
But in this case the umpire cannot say that it was a clear violation and that serena was receiving coaching instructions, but it is not clear, you don't see a clear cut violation from serena receiving instructions from her coach and it is not 100% clear that the communication between them was coaching instructions, even if it was, let's say, instructions in the form of a sign language, the umpire is not aware of this and so cannot declare a violation based on gut feeling rather it should be based on facts, clear cut violation.

Watch this (https://twitter.com/TennisNerdPod/status/1038540441568927744). He is clearly indicating something, and given we're all just speculating, it looks as if he's making eye contact with someone and nodding at the end as if the message has been communicated. I doubt he's just staring into space, nodding and making random movements like that. It's ludicrous to say that if it was coded sign language, it's irrelevant as the umpire can't know what it means. What else would it be about? The umpire can absolutely make that call, because the International Tennis Federation (which upheld this violation) validated his ability to judge these situation when they picked him to officiate the match.

The divisive issue here is whether it should a 'soft' warning or a code violation. Unfortunately, that is the umpire's discretion. There's no obligation to provide 'soft' warnings before any code violation. So they may call it straightaway if they deem fit (and this umpire is a stickler (http://larrybrownsports.com/tennis/umpire-carlos-ramos-history-code-violations-serena-williams/463180)). It's also important to note that after this incident, Serena did change her style of play and win a few points (I didn't see this myself but have read it here (a few comments down)  (https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/comments/9e7ruz/the_movement_that_caused_everything/)and here (http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/09/serena-williams-2018-us-open-code-violations/76875/)). So, perhaps he sees this change of play and decides that this is a clear violation and has to call it . There's a lot we don't know about the actual circumstances, because some parts aren't documented (the fact that the coach admitted to coaching is interesting but not relevant at the time). What I'm trying to establish here, is you can't say it was grossly unfair to make that call. Also, it carried no penalty and did not have to decide the match the way it did. It's a tough call in a final, but it's not up to the umpire to predict whether a call will alter the subsequent flow of the match, or the temperament of the players (they might suspect so, but that's context-dependent and shouldn't be part of the assessment).

so what he should have done was give warning to serena and her coach as well as a clarification to the opposing player and her coach as not to communicate with their coaches in any way and if there are any further communication between player and coach in whatever form then they will be penalised for violating that rule (don't know what the name of the rule is, coaching violation?) so that they know in advanced what not to do and cannot argue if it happens again.

Maybe if it was a newly introduced rule, sure. Is it the umpire's job to warn a player for every potential code violation though, as if they've never played the game? According to Martina Navratilova (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/martina-navratilova-serena-williams-us-open.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage), it's a well-known rule that is called. Martina also says it is common to give a warning, and I can see the argument. But if they think the coaching has influenced the score (as the umpire may have concluded here), perhaps they decide a straight violation is warranted if both parties clearly know and understand the rule. It speaks more to inconsistency of applying this stupid rule, which is why I just think that sort of coaching should just be allowed, and I would be stunned if it isn't heavily revised after this.

But when you have certain people, and I have seen this with umpires is that they do not handle criticism very well especially when it comes from players they are over seeing and therefore get offended when they are told you are wrong, then instead of thinking maybe I was harsh, they would go into the 'I am right and you are wrong and nothing you can say will change that' mentality and when race is involved it just makes the situation all the more worse because of supposed superiority of the umpire over the player like LBSS posted.

That situation you described is definitely plausible. But I when I was watching the match, they replayed the discussion between a few games and I couldn't believe how long Serena was berating the umpire for without getting pinged (there was even a break in the dialogue where she said "Don't talk to me", he looked away and seemed to be leaving it, then she launches in again). I thought he handled the criticism well at the time. First it was 'liar' (which normally would get a violation right there based on the clause of implying dishonesty or partiality), he let that go, then borderline threats along the lines of "I can make sure you don't umpire my games again", then 'thief' - this is the last straw and she gets another violation (not a discretionary full game penalty btw: an accrual of three violations gives away a game). I can't see any other reading of the situation apart from that Serena forced another violation from the umpire. I think if the umpire doesn't make that call there, he gets a lot of flack from the officiating organisation for letting a player do that for so long with no penalty.

So, first should be warning if the violation is not 100% clear so as to provide a support to any future arguments of any further doubtful similar situations.

A violation like that will never be 100% clear. But it could definitely impact the game straight away, so the umpire has to be on top of it and in certain situations, it's clear enough to be a straight violation - that's what the umpire decided. I think I'm fighting a losing battle here, but I really just don't get why the umpire is to blame because of lack of a warning for the on-court coaching call.

IMHO serena has more than earned the right to lose her temper when she feels like she's being treated unfairly. 

Losing temper in a match = yes. She has been treated awfully by the media and some umpires in the past, and there's definitely possible gender discrimination occurring in tennis and other sports in terms of relative standards of acceptable behaviour (the catsuit banning and Alize Cornet incident, for example). I respect her a lot for coming back so strong after pregnancy and using her influence for activism, which not every megastar athlete does or is obliged to.

Unreasonably sustaining temper, to the point of spoiling the other player's Grand Slam win (and it being the third time it's happened) = that's where I draw the line. Serena's a great player, comfortably amongst the pantheon of all-time tennis players with the Big Three and Steffi Graf. I understand the mitigating factors, I only wish she could have drawn on her experience to control her emotions just a bit better given this was the third time.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: adarqui on September 11, 2018, 09:55:14 am
i dno..

acole you really go by the book. applying the book verbatim to subjective/discretionary rules, as if Serena is thinking about the rule book word for word in an extremely competitive/passionate grand slam tennis final.

if a ball is out, it's out. if there's a foot fault, it's a foot fault. if there's the appearance of coaching....... ??? just call it? if someone is going off, losing composure, just hold back and give them a penalty when you feel they've crossed the line?

the last two deserve warnings or at least some effort to get the situation under control without altering the course of the match.

the fans/sponsors pay big money to see the athletes perform, not the ump. The ump could have given clear warnings in this situation. Had he done that, and had Serena continued, everyone would be on his side. But he didn't do that. He made two calls apparently "by the book". The first call threw gasoline onto a good match, and then also lit it on fire. The last call was him just flexing his power. Sure Serena was out of line, but let her know she's out of line and about to get a game penalty. Instead he flexed his muscle and took a game away, because he's read the rule book 1,000 times and Serena is out there competing passionately.

He handled the situation like absolute garbage IMHO. He abused his power. Instead of trying to get what he found was coaching under control, he just gave a violation. Instead of being very direct with Serena and telling her, as a matter of fact, that she will lose a game if she continues, he just took the game.

He made himself bigger than the match & the athletes. He's not there for that.

IMHO, he deserves even more blame than he's getting.

Obviously boxing is a different sport, but look at how those refs handle matches. I'm sure there's alot in the rule book, word for word, that a ref could leverage to DQ/deduct points against a fighter. Instead, they often give them tons of warnings. Sometimes they stop the match temporarily just to address a fighter, giving them a very hard warning. In basketball, refs T up athletes to get the game under control. But, that happens alot in basketball. What refs don't do, is give them a 2nd T too easily. Refs hold back, especially in playoff/final settings, from giving that 2nd T or that 6th foul. They try really hard (usually) to let the athletes decide it, not themselves. Anyway, bad reffing can happen in any sport. I guess it usually happens when critical calls are missed, incorrect calls are made, when a ref exerts too much power over an event, when a ref lets an event get out of control / doesn't exert enough influence. I didn't see any critical calls missed in this match, I did see the middle latter two. In a way, I also saw the last one: not using enough influence prior to giving penalties.

Refs are there to ensure fair play, not to become part of the outcome of the match. They should avoid the latter as much as possible.

That's why I hate this idea of just executing the rule book as if there's no other option.

For the coaching violation, the goal was to get Serena's coach to stop providing signals. He could have achieved that without applying the rule book. I doubt Osaka would have cared if Serena's coach was simply warned instead of receiving a violation.

For the verbal abuse violation, the goal was to get Serena to stop verbally abusing him, OR to flex his power on her (what I saw). For the former, he could have done that with a hard warning of what will come if she continued. I doubt Osaka would have complained about Serena not getting a game penalty, she'd have been fine if Serena had been given a warning instead.

The ump did what power tripping control freaks love to do. He injected himself in to a great match and made himself part of the eventual result.

He did not try to get control of the situation without punishing Serena. He punished first, then let her react, repeat. That's why I find him at most fault.

pc
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: seifullaah73 on September 11, 2018, 10:15:33 am
/\ +1000

So many great points. I like the point you made about when it comes to enforcing rules and giving out penalties. The more major the competition is you don't want to have the ref come in at the slightest of a hint of a rule break, he can come to warn them 'if you continue that way you will be penalised' and as the game plays on,  the ref would like to reduce the amount of time he has to step and 'let the athlete decide it' and if there is no sign of avoiding breaking the rule then the ref steps in again.

So in this case even if the umpire felt serena was getting instructions he should warn them and set them straight no communication will be accepted, there will be no harm in that and no one will hate him, but rather out of being in position of power and thinking that he will call it a violation instead because 'he can' and he is in power to do so. But rather he is there to overlook the match and avoid getting involved too much and let the players themselves avoid violating any rules and if there is umpire warns as to not avoid future violations especially when it is a grand finale.

No harm in giving a warning.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: vag on September 11, 2018, 12:53:15 pm
no.
bending/flexing the rules is subjective. What adarq describes as what he should have done sounds right, but we will never learn if the coaching would stop, if that would have affected the opponent and serena's performance and finally the  outcome of the game.
It is this eternal discussion, we call it here "the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law". The spirit feels more right, but in the end we tend to see it/evaluate it through our own likes prism. Not giving a penalty would feel more 'just' but what about Osaka seeing a rule not being applied while her opponent gets a (whatever) advantage from that?
My final view is this. Not just for athletics : Rules are rules, instead of arguably and subjectively flexing them, since we can never 100% guarantee the noble motives of the... flexor,  I  prefer 1000 times applying them by the book, even if that is too harsh, that is more fair.
Title: Re: 2018 US Open
Post by: AGC on September 13, 2018, 12:12:23 am
^Hear hear.

No harm in giving a warning.

The harm is that an unfair advantage given to one player over another isn't penalised accordingly. I don't get why a soft warning is considered reasonable if the player (or coach in this instance) has knowingly violated the rule, just because of the player, or stage of the tournament. That's all.

Also, if you want something to be really outraged about: apparently, the US Open organisers made the wheelchair finalists play in an indoor court with no room for spectators (http://www.everyaustraliancounts.com.au/dylan-alcott-wins-sixth-grand-slam-no-one-allowed-watch/). Wtf?