I don’t think either rule is stupid. 1. It’s stupid to get caught coaching. There are plenty other ways to coach from the player box without getting caught. 2. If you smash your racquet like an asshole it should be a code violation.
No, the coaching rule is stupid. If you ever go to a professional match, coaching is happening EVERY SINGLE POINT. And no one tries to "hide" it. There is no way hell Rafa gets that called on him because he is getting coached every single point (and this is someone who loves Rafa).I don’t think either rule is stupid. 1. It’s stupid to get caught coaching. There are plenty other ways to coach from the player box without getting caught. 2. If you smash your racquet like an asshole it should be a code violation.
If the coaching call isn’t made (I’ve never seen that called before), the smashed racquet is just a warning, and the subsequent conflict doesn’t happen. Serena’s not a victim here, but the chair umpire didn’t cover himself in glory either.That was crazy, never seen anything like that in 35+ years of watching tennis. I think the ref was probably initially in the wrong for giving the warning since every coach does that and a game penalty at that point of a finals match is just insane, but I get the other perspective also.
I think the umpire made himself into the protagonist in the final. While the rules are the rules, there’s some leniency and discretion, meaning that the situation could have been handled differently.The ESPN post match coverage (Shriver/Mckendry/Chrissie) is painting Serena as a victim. Yes, the coaching penalty call was a joke, but she did herself in with her subsequent actions. She acted like a child. It's Baghdad Bob-esque.
At what point was she child like? Maybe, maybe after the game penalty. But that was it. And at that point, I don’t blame her response. Her saying she doesn’t cheat and calling him a thief are not, “child like” actions. Disrespectful? Sure. But my goodness, you’re the chair umpire of a grand slam match. Grow some thicker skin and let it go.The ESPN post match coverage (Shriver/Mckendry/Chrissie) is painting Serena as a victim. Yes, the coaching penalty call was a joke, but she did herself in with her subsequent actions. She acted like a child. It's Baghdad Bob-esque.
I think what they were saying, was not that she didn't understand that the racquet abuse was a violation. Of course she knows that. She has been on tour for almost 25 years. They're saying she didn't realize the violation carried over since no official warning was announced after the fact. Yes, he did say coaching violation, so Serena should have known that. But please, of course she knows breaking her racquet is a violation.You have to ask yourself, if this happened to Mihaela Buzărnescu, would they be so defensive? Serena is, by far, the greatest women’s player of my lifetime, but she has a history of this kind of behavior. She took the coaching penalty as a personal affront and that’s what led to the game penalty. And the excuse that she didn’t know that the racquet abuse was a violation (which the announcers keep harping on) doesn’t fly with me. I feel really bad for Osaka. She shouldn’t have to apologize for winning a match, especially one in which she was the superior player.
For the purposes of this Rule, verbal abuse is defined as a statement about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or other person that implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive.
Is anyone in this forum saying otherwise?You can criticize his use or lack of discretion in calling the penalty, but there is no doubt she expressly violated the rules by calling him a thief. And she knows the rules.
The racket smashing thing. YMMV on that interpretationAt what point was she child like? Maybe, maybe after the game penalty. But that was it. And at that point, I don’t blame her response. Her saying she doesn’t cheat and calling him a thief are not, “child like” actions. Disrespectful? Sure. But my goodness, you’re the chair umpire of a grand slam match. Grow some thicker skin and let it go.
And having played tennis since she was a kid she should know the code of conduct front and backI think what they were saying, was not that she didn't understand that the racquet abuse was a violation. Of course she knows that. She has been on tour for almost 25 years. They're saying she didn't realize the violation carried over since no official warning was announced after the fact. Yes, he did say coaching violation, so Serena should have known that. But please, of course she knows breaking her racquet is a violation.
In what sense? McEnroe ended up not only winning that match but eventually winning the tournament (Wimbledon) and even ended up calling his autobiography “You Cannot Be Serious”.This may be a “you cannot be serious” moment for Serena.
I understand that it was something unusual, but it was a warning. Serena broke Osaka after that to go up 3-1. Then she double faulted twice in the next game and gave it back and then broke her racquet. Then she totally lost it. The coaching call didn’t seem to be a huge issue until she blew that lead.I agree the ump unnecessarily lit the match on the power keg.
It became a huge issue when the chair umpire gave her opponent a free game in the second set. This is a huge advantage. It's hard enough to break serve once, but whatever chance you have at that point got cut in half.I understand that it was something unusual, but it was a warning. Serena broke Osaka after that to go up 3-1. Then she double faulted twice in the next game and gave it back and then broke her racquet. Then she totally lost it. The coaching call didn’t seem to be a huge issue until she blew that lead.
What I’m saying is that in the moment it didn’t seem like a big deal. She was warned, then broke Osaka, then things seemed fine until she was broken back and then it all went to shit. How did she not let that go after she went up 3-1? It seems like a bit of a crutch. If she couldn’t let that go and it was on her mind for the next several games that’s on her.It became a huge issue when the chair umpire gave her opponent a free game in the second set. This is a huge advantage. It's hard enough to break serve once, but whatever chance you have at that point got cut in half.
It ended up being a big deal because the racquet abuse would have just been a warning instead of a point loss. And while I agree it's on Serena, of course she is going to get pissed again (I think most people would) because of a "bs" first call.What I’m saying is that in the moment it didn’t seem like a big deal. She was warned, then broke Osaka, then things seemed fine until she was broken back and then it all went to shit. How did she not let that go after she went up 3-1? It seems like a bit of a crutch. If she couldn’t let that go and it was on her mind for the next several games that’s on her.
McEnroe’s antics overshadowed just how good of a player he was. Today’s events won’t do that for Serena but it will be part of her legacy, which is too bad. I’ve been a fan of hers but didn’t like how she acted today.In what sense? McEnroe ended up not only winning that match but eventually winning the tournament (Wimbledon) and even ended up calling his autobiography “You Cannot Be Serious”.
Not being snarky here, but what exactly bothered you about her actions? After the initial warning, I thought she handled it perfectly. After the point warning, I still don't see anything bad (do you?). After the game warning, that made the set in a Grand Slam Final go to 5-3... that is huge. And yes, she lost it. But never once swore, threatened etc. I understand before this calling him a thief, but even now that doesn't seem that bad. Maybe my bias is blinding, but I have seen Brady lose her cool much more than this and not really be called out on it for affecting his legacy.McEnroe’s antics overshadowed just how good of a player he was. Today’s events won’t do that for Serena but it will be part of her legacy, which is too bad. I’ve been a fan of hers but didn’t like how she acted today.
But she didn’t get the racquet abuse call because she was pissed about the coaching call. She got it because she was being outplayed and double-faulted. Just own that your emotions got the best of you. It was a huge game for her, with the chance to tie Court for majors and Evert for Opens (or take the lead, I’m not sure). Don’t rail on the ump.It ended up being a big deal because the racquet abuse would have just been a warning instead of a point loss. And while I agree it's on Serena, of course she is going to get pissed again (I think most people would) because of a "bs" first call.
How about the part when she was accusing him of being sexist?Not being snarky here, but what exactly bothered you about her actions? After the initial warning, I thought she handled it perfectly. After the point warning, I still don't see anything bad (do you?). After the game warning, that made the set in a Grand Slam Final go to 5-3... that is huge. And yes, she lost it. But never once swore, threatened etc. I understand before this calling him a thief, but even now that doesn't seem that bad. Maybe my bias is blinding, but I have seen Brady lose her cool much more than this and not really be called out on it for affecting his legacy.
And with that said, I thought post match, she was absolutely perfect. She was able to stir the moment back to Osaka.
You're not following what I am saying. If she didn't get the coaching violation she could have broken her racquet like she did and NOTHING would have happened. So of course that is going to make her upset. She had already "used" her warning but didn't know it. So when she got the 2nd violation, she was still thinking it was her first.But she didn’t get the racquet abuse call because she was pissed about the coaching call. She got it because she was being outplayed and double-faulted. Just own that your emotions got the best of you. It was a huge game for her, with the chance to tie Court for majors and Evert for Opens (or take the lead, I’m not sure). Don’t rail on the ump.
I feel it a little justified to be honest. I mean, for christ sakes, Nick Kyrgios has the ump come down and give him a pet talk when he was throwing the set in the same tourney. I don't believe he was being sexist, but I also hold the belief that he would not have the balls to make that same coaching call if it was Roger or Rafa playing.How about the part when she was accusing him of being sexist?
You thought she handled “perfectly”? Cmon. You owe me an apology? Where’s my apology? You’ll never work one of my games again. He would never do that to a man, etc. She lost her focus and it was tough to watch as a fan of hers.Not being snarky here, but what exactly bothered you about her actions? After the initial warning, I thought she handled it perfectly. After the point warning, I still don't see anything bad (do you?). After the game warning, that made the set in a Grand Slam Final go to 5-3... that is huge. And yes, she lost it. But never once swore, threatened etc. I understand before this calling him a thief, but even now that doesn't seem that bad. Maybe my bias is blinding, but I have seen Brady lose her cool much more than this and not really be called out on it for affecting his legacy.
And with that said, I thought post match, she was absolutely perfect. She was able to stir the moment back to Osaka.
I’ll admit I don’t follow tennis closely, but she didn’t know a coaching violation was a knock against her in that regard? With all her years on tour? Is that something obscure?You're not following what I am saying. If she didn't get the coaching violation she could have broken her racquet like she did and NOTHING would have happened. So of course that is going to make her upset. She had already "used" her warning but didn't know it. So when she got the 2nd violation, she was still thinking it was her first.
Maybe the timeline is different, but I think the apology demand didn't come until the racquet abuse?You thought she handled “perfectly”? Cmon. You owe me an apology? Where’s my apology? You’ll never work one of my games again. He would never do that to a man, etc. She lost her focus and it was tough to watch as a fan of hers.
I think she thought it was a warning and not a violation.I’ll admit I don’t follow tennis closely, but she didn’t know a coaching violation was a knock against her in that regard? With all her years on tour? Is that something obscure?
Okay, but in the grand scheme of things, whose fault is that, hers or the chair umpire’s?I think she thought it was a warning and not a violation.
The penalty for a first violation IS a warning. It has been that way forever.I think she thought it was a warning and not a violation.
100% hers. From what I see her argument was that once they talked and she clarified she wasn't being coached and him saying, "I know, I know," she figured it wasn't a violation. And The Needler, trust me, I know the rules inside and out. My wording was awful though.Okay, but in the grand scheme of things, whose fault is that, hers or the chair umpire’s?
Coaching is allowed in all WTA events, but not in the grand slams, which are run by the ITF. Serena absolutely knows this, but it is something that is basically never called, generally not even alluded to unless an opponent complains. I have literally never seen a coaching violation given as an actual call, and I watch a lot of tennis.I’ll admit I don’t follow tennis closely, but she didn’t know a coaching violation was a knock against her in that regard? With all her years on tour? Is that something obscure?
In many if not most instances, when the decision is down to a judgement call (coaching) or sometimes even for time violation, the umpire usually warns the players first during a changeover by telling them they need to watch it before making it official. Nadal gets it all the time, Novak gets it all the time, but they don't always get an officially announced code violation unless they persist. That's why people are saying it's unfair because for what most male top players get the benefit of the doubt.The penalty for a first violation IS a warning. It has been that way forever.
Well, he announced it as a code violation. And I don’t buy the male player business whatsoever. Ramos has a history of being a quick trigger, men and women, including multiple incidents with Djokovic, including at this year’s Australian (coincidentally, one would think, against Nishikori), where Djokovic complained about a “double standard.”In many if not most instances, when the decision is down to a judgement call (coaching) or sometimes even for time violation, the umpire usually warns the players first during a changeover by telling them they need to watch it before making it official. Nadal gets it all the time, Novak gets it all the time, but they don't always get an officially announced code violation unless they persist. That's why people are saying it's unfair because for what most male top players get the benefit of the doubt.
How much do you watch tennis? Not being rude, but coaching happens all the time. All the time. And Serena is probably one of the few players who uses it the least (if at all). I don’t know why it’s that wild? The crowd was pro Serana (it was the US Open). Don’t you think Fenway cheered for Papi (or Tito) when they were doing the exact same thing?The funniest part is her coach in post match coming out and telling the truth that he was absolutely giving her a coaching signal when she was warned.
"I'm honest, I was coaching , I don't think she looked at me, so that is why she didn't think I was, but I was like 100% of coaches..."
Just a wild thing the crowd roaring support for her as she was berating the official. At least she didn't threaten to kill him
It’s funny because she threw a tantrum about how she would never accept coaching, that by giving her a warning, Ramos was attacking her character, and demanding an apology. It’s absurd.How much do you watch tennis? Not being rude, but coaching happens all the time. All the time. And Serena is probably one of the few players who uses it the least (if at all). I don’t know why it’s that wild? The crowd was pro Serana (it was the US Open). Don’t you think Fenway cheered for Papi (or Tito) when they were doing the exact same thing?
Probably 200+ hours a year. Yes coaching happens. It is pretty pathetic.How much do you watch tennis? Not being rude, but coaching happens all the time. All the time. And Serena is probably one of the few players who uses it the least (if at all). I don’t know why it’s that wild? The crowd was pro Serana (it was the US Open). Don’t you think Fenway cheered for Papi (or Tito) when they were doing the exact same thing?