Author Topic: 2018 US Open  (Read 317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

seifullaah73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2992
  • Respect: +1072
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2018 US Open
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2018, 09:31:41 am »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 09:38:37 am by seifullaah73 »
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note for self:
A
>>    Jump Squats
>>    Half Squats
>>    Partials at the bottom: 3-5 x 15 (very controlled)
>>    Calf Raises
>>    RDL
>>
>> B
>>    Jump Squats
>>    Half Squats
>>    Squat singles x 10, reset between reps, just working on hitting
>> depth comfortably with moderate loads
>>    Calf Raises
>>    RDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring reminder:
5 toe to heel steps = 148cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

�Strength comes from the legs, Power comes from the torso and Speed comes from the arm.� � Al Vermeil

My Progress Log
A Journey to Running fast and Jumping High

acole14

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
  • Respect: +1009
    • View Profile
Re: 2018 US Open
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2018, 02:24:52 am »
+1
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. 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). 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) and here). 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, 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.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28964
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +6630
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2018 US Open
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2018, 09:55:14 am »
+1
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

seifullaah73

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2992
  • Respect: +1072
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: 2018 US Open
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2018, 10:15:33 am »
+1
/\ +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.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note for self:
A
>>    Jump Squats
>>    Half Squats
>>    Partials at the bottom: 3-5 x 15 (very controlled)
>>    Calf Raises
>>    RDL
>>
>> B
>>    Jump Squats
>>    Half Squats
>>    Squat singles x 10, reset between reps, just working on hitting
>> depth comfortably with moderate loads
>>    Calf Raises
>>    RDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring reminder:
5 toe to heel steps = 148cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

�Strength comes from the legs, Power comes from the torso and Speed comes from the arm.� � Al Vermeil

My Progress Log
A Journey to Running fast and Jumping High

vag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4911
  • Respect: +2537
    • View Profile
Re: 2018 US Open
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2018, 12:53:15 pm »
+1
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.
woot

acole14

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
  • Respect: +1009
    • View Profile
Re: 2018 US Open
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2018, 12:12:23 am »
+1
^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. Wtf?