-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tennis officials shaken by lack of support for chair umpire Carlos Ramos
- Thread starter Squarehard
- Start date
What is the take on the actual call. Did Serena receive coaching signals? Was it caught on camera?
Yes her coach admitted it, but she did not see it. The claim is that this happens all the time and isn't called.
The other part is that many famous male tennis athletes have blown up worse than she did without penalty in the past.
Don't know if already posted, saw this on Reddit again from user https://reddit.com/u/insidemilarepascave
"Hello everyone. As a Portuguese tennis fan and with all this Ramos-Williams controversy, I decided to translate for you guys an interview Carlos Ramos gave to a Portuguese newspaper back in 2015. There's quite a lot of stuff about dealing with short-tempered players. Original interview (in Portuguese). I'm not monetizing this in any way; credit and copyright where it's due. My English if far from excellent, and I did this in a hurry, but I hope it's OK. Enjoy.
[First few questions concern the beginning of his career; I might translate this later if you're interested]
Do you still get nervous and anxious before games?
Yes, of course. There is always a tension and the will to do your job right, besides the risk of not umpiring correctly and that it may give rise to problems. Because we feel the biggest pressure when we resolve problems badly. Mistakes that should be avoidable if we had been more focused. There is also the luck and chance factor, which in my opinion is very present in tennis umpiring.
Luck and chance?
It plays a very important role in the umpire's job. There are matches in which I miss a problem, a glaring mistake caused by my lack of attention or focus. Sometimes, we miss those. The risk of things not going well because of us is always present. And the risk of things not going well due to something that is not in our control is also very much present. This puts us under a lot of pressure, even in less notorious matches. Every match is important, even if there's only ten people watching it. Sure, there are matches with more exposure than others, where the consequences of your performance can be much bigger.
Has it ever happened to you making such a mistake, because of distraction, in a Grand Slam tournament?
Yes, yes, unfortunately it happens many times. It's rare, but, during one day, you may have to sit two matches of ten sets. When I do the first and third match of court #5 in a Grand Slam, for example, this means that I might have to sit twice for four or five hours straight, umpiring. It's a lot of matches during the year and lots of situations to manage. And there were many in which I did not decide well.
For example?
It didn't have any consequences, but last year, when I did the Djokovic Vs Tsonga semi-final, in Wimbledon, I made two mistakes that I shouldn't. They were avoidable, and it felt really bad, even if it didn't have any kind of implication for the match. Error is part of our job, but we try to minimize it. It always feels bad, it's a nuisance. But it's really bad when the mistake has a direct influence in the match's outcome. Those are the ones that really shake your confidence, pride and credibility near players, the media and the public. When the umpire makes a mistake against the player serving, it's 15-0, but he ends up winning the game and there are no consequences for the outcome, then it's OK. Ten minutes later, people are already thinking about something else. But it is not so when there's a match-point in question and the player who should have won ends up losing the match due to an umpire's mistake.
Is the way in which an umpire deals with error as important as how he makes a decision?
Yes, of course. If we know that, at each mistake we make, we are going to lose confidence and deal badly with it, things become hell. There's a lot of matches where things don't go well: players are not pleased, the crowd is not happy, or even the line-umpires are displeased, if we corrected them wrongly, or if they think we are mistaken. The way we digest our mistakes and controversial situations is very important. The umpire must accept his mistakes and learn with them. When we sit a match, we have to be confident and know that, if things don't go well, we will handle it. If we sit a match in fear, everything goes downhill.
Is fearfulness the umpire's worst enemy?
Definitely. An umpire shouldn't be afraid of making mistakes. I don't like bullfights, but I usually do this comparison: if the bullfighter is facing the bull, he should go forward. The umpire has to be like that. If there's a problem, we can't go back, we must face it, not turn our back. If you're arguing with a player, for instance, your body language leans to the player, so that he understands we are going to solve the problem together and there's no ill will.
Do players sense the umpire's fearfulness?
Yes, and they take advantage of it [laughs], even if they shouldn't. Some players are more...
Obnoxious?
Is not that, but they are contentious. If conflict arises, they sense if the umpire is at ease or not. If [the umpire] shows fear or lack of courage, then [some players] are ruthless. And then, there are situations where there's a lot at stake or there's a lot of nerves, and the umpire has to present a really self-composed attitude. The line that separates a confident umpire from an arrogant one is really thin. The umpire cannot express arrogance to tennis players, that's one of the things they are most reticent to accept. The important thing is to stay confident and convincing.
Expelling in tennis is rare. What has to happened for an umpire to remove a player from the match?
Is happens rarely for a few reasons. One of which is the fact that tennis is an individual sport and, if the player is expelled, the match ends. It's not like football, for example, where many times teams end up with ten or nine players. Tennis players are really careful and know the things they shouldn't say or do. Because, if they do so, the match is over.
Like what?
Everything that is intentionally aggressive. Throwing a ball at the chair-umpire, line-umpire, ball boys/girls, or crowd, with the intention to hurt. Even if he misses, it's game-over. Physical abuse is unacceptable. Then, there's the verbal part. Players have limits when talking to the umpire. A player can't say "fuck you" to the umpire. He can, if it's to himself. If he disagrees with the umpire, looks at him and says that, it's game-over.
Have you heard it?
It happened several times.
And then you expelled the player?
Just once, but not because of that. In fact, he was a well-behaved guy, Alex Radulescu, a Romanian who reached Wimbledon's quarter-finals twice. A really polite player, but that went completely nuts afters the line-umpire made a mistake. He didn't say anything to me. He went crazy, destroyed his racquet, the court bench... It was a sum of many things. When he returned to the court there were bench and racquet pieces everywhere. There was no chance. I called the supervisor who, by chance, was also Portuguese, Carlos Sanches, and the player was expelled. He lost control, but it wasn't because he was rude to the umpire.
Looking at present-day tennis players, is there anyone with a more difficult temper?
There are many. More than difficult players, there are difficult situations, with a lot of tension. Today we have Hawk-Eye [explains what it is] and there are less situations for the players to get crazy with the umpire. [more details concerning Hawk-Eye]
Is it more difficult for a John McEnroe to turn up these days?
I believe so. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray are high-profile players that always knew good umpiring. Some matches go well, others go bad, some umpires they like, others they don't, but they always experienced umpiring at a good level in general. It's not a coincidence that, in McEnroe's and Connor's era, there were a lot of difficult players. The umpires were not to blame, but the truth is umpiring was amateurish for a great part of their careers. Each one of them did two or three tournaments a year, in their country, that was it. But in the last 30 years, umpires are professionals that travel and do as many games as the players themselves. The level really stepped up, so, the relation umpire-player also improved.
In 2007, in the Australian Open, for example, Andy Roddick heavily criticised your decisions, do you remember?
Yes, days like those, out of the ordinary, do happen a lot [laughs]. If you go to a Grand Slam and walk around for the first few days, when there's a lot of singular matches happening, you'll see there's a lot of problems. Especially in the courts where there's no Hawk-Eye. All the more in Australia, where there's a lot of Croatians, Serbs and Greeks [in the this match there were confrontations between Croatians and Serbs]. So, sometimes there are tense situations.
Was Roddick one of the players with worst temper?
For us it was really interesting to umpire his matches. He was a straight-up guy. He would talk what he thought, and he was always testing the umpire. Sometimes, when umpiring mistakes occurred and matches were not favourable to him, we would talk after. Open conversations with no bitterness. We would discuss his situations and he would see where he was wrong or mistaken. But sometimes it was our fault. And in the next day it was as if nothing had happened. He just wanted to be heard, to know he if was right or wrong, that was it. If in the next day I had to umpire his match there was no problem at all. Roddick had that capacity, to start afresh.
But not all tennis players are like that...
There are many players, after having an issue with the umpire, especially if they consider him incompetent, who feel it's difficult to get along with him again. At least for some time.
How are Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic? Are they self-composed, or do they have "Roddick's ticks"?
I don't have the right to individualize. I can't say Nadal is like that, Federer is like such. Players are more and more demanding. Roddick really showed that. Others not so much, but they are all demanding. David Ferrer, for example, who has an image of someone who does not cause trouble, is a really demanding player. In tennis, every player is demanding, but there's no such thing as faking things, penalties, like sometimes happens in football. Tennis players are, in general, fair people. Of course, if the umpire makes a mistake, they rather have the mistake fall on the other side, but they don't provoke the error. The tennis atmosphere is really healthy and there is a considerable feeling of sports ethics amongst the players.
What they really want is justice?
That's right. But when they think a decision is not fair, they demand. They don't press the umpire to err, they press him to decide correctly. They don't want him to rob, they just want him to not make any mistakes.
[Question regarding his Grand Slam finals appearances; Wimbledon is the hardest tournament to umpire because the ball does not leave any mark on the court; Details concerning calling shots when the ball hits near the line. I might translate this later]
A chair umpire is always sitting. In physical terms, it doesn't demand much. Is there a retiring age for tennis officials?
No, nor should you impose any age limits. In the US, for example, basketball and baseball umpires don't have that anymore, I think. We are tested all the time, we have examination marks, and if they are not good, our level drops.
So, that means your results have been good, right?
Yes, they are good in general, but they won't be forever. A time will come when I'll have to retire because my vision will weaken, and the speed of my decision making will slow down. Tennis umpiring is based on speed. Not only good vision. Your sight needs to react and focus quickly. Our confidence really hinges on that. If we can't see the ball properly, we are not confident.
How many years do you think you have ahead of you as a Grand Slam umpire?
I don't know. I'm really self-critical and I don't want, in any way, to umpire for too long. I assess myself and ask competent people for their feedback. In the day I'm no longer doing a good job, I'll be the first to say stop. It won't be imposed [by other people]. But it depends. Some umpires, at 50 years old, are declining, others maintain their level for much longer.
Do you see yourself umpiring at 65 years old?
65?! I don't think so [laughs]. Only if there's a miracle of science. I think that's difficult. It's not only about confidence, but also about credibility.
If some mistake is made by a 30 year old umpire and by a 50 year old, is it different?
I think yes. I'll be 44 this year, if I make a mistake, I make a mistake. If I'm wrong, it's because I did a bad job or was distracted. But if I'm 60, it would be because of my age. More than age, it's important that a working assessment system exists, so that those who are umpiring well stay at the top, and those doing badly start to go down. I do what I can to maintain my qualities.
Physical exercise?
Yes, I practice sports. I also do something few umpires do: eye gymnastics. Not long ago, I did some eight sessions.
Do you notice any difference?
I think so. Maybe it's a psychological thing, but I do everything I can to maintain my eyes' longevity. If you don't exercise them, they get lazy and less capable.
How much money does an umpire make yearly on the tennis world tour?
In 2015, we are 27 umpires with the Gold Badge certificate. Some work for the ATP, others for the WTA, other for the ITS/Grand Slams, which I integrate, and for Grand Slam tournaments. All of them have independent contracts. I know how much I make, but I don't know how much my colleagues make, though I have an idea. I won't disclose our earnings, but I can tell you it's not a fortune.
Is it enough to build a nest egg so you won't have to do anything else after you retire?
No, no, if it were today I would have to keep working for many years. I couldn't live the rest of my life with what I saved. Even tennis players, only the ranked top-ten earn a lot of money. Players have a lot of expenses. It's travelling, hotels to pay, everywhere. Careers are short, we think tennis is a sport for rich people, but that's not true, not at all. There's a lot of players between the 150 and 200 best that have a hard time in terms of financial situation. And being ranked like that is really really high level."
"Hello everyone. As a Portuguese tennis fan and with all this Ramos-Williams controversy, I decided to translate for you guys an interview Carlos Ramos gave to a Portuguese newspaper back in 2015. There's quite a lot of stuff about dealing with short-tempered players. Original interview (in Portuguese). I'm not monetizing this in any way; credit and copyright where it's due. My English if far from excellent, and I did this in a hurry, but I hope it's OK. Enjoy.
[First few questions concern the beginning of his career; I might translate this later if you're interested]
Do you still get nervous and anxious before games?
Yes, of course. There is always a tension and the will to do your job right, besides the risk of not umpiring correctly and that it may give rise to problems. Because we feel the biggest pressure when we resolve problems badly. Mistakes that should be avoidable if we had been more focused. There is also the luck and chance factor, which in my opinion is very present in tennis umpiring.
Luck and chance?
It plays a very important role in the umpire's job. There are matches in which I miss a problem, a glaring mistake caused by my lack of attention or focus. Sometimes, we miss those. The risk of things not going well because of us is always present. And the risk of things not going well due to something that is not in our control is also very much present. This puts us under a lot of pressure, even in less notorious matches. Every match is important, even if there's only ten people watching it. Sure, there are matches with more exposure than others, where the consequences of your performance can be much bigger.
Has it ever happened to you making such a mistake, because of distraction, in a Grand Slam tournament?
Yes, yes, unfortunately it happens many times. It's rare, but, during one day, you may have to sit two matches of ten sets. When I do the first and third match of court #5 in a Grand Slam, for example, this means that I might have to sit twice for four or five hours straight, umpiring. It's a lot of matches during the year and lots of situations to manage. And there were many in which I did not decide well.
For example?
It didn't have any consequences, but last year, when I did the Djokovic Vs Tsonga semi-final, in Wimbledon, I made two mistakes that I shouldn't. They were avoidable, and it felt really bad, even if it didn't have any kind of implication for the match. Error is part of our job, but we try to minimize it. It always feels bad, it's a nuisance. But it's really bad when the mistake has a direct influence in the match's outcome. Those are the ones that really shake your confidence, pride and credibility near players, the media and the public. When the umpire makes a mistake against the player serving, it's 15-0, but he ends up winning the game and there are no consequences for the outcome, then it's OK. Ten minutes later, people are already thinking about something else. But it is not so when there's a match-point in question and the player who should have won ends up losing the match due to an umpire's mistake.
Is the way in which an umpire deals with error as important as how he makes a decision?
Yes, of course. If we know that, at each mistake we make, we are going to lose confidence and deal badly with it, things become hell. There's a lot of matches where things don't go well: players are not pleased, the crowd is not happy, or even the line-umpires are displeased, if we corrected them wrongly, or if they think we are mistaken. The way we digest our mistakes and controversial situations is very important. The umpire must accept his mistakes and learn with them. When we sit a match, we have to be confident and know that, if things don't go well, we will handle it. If we sit a match in fear, everything goes downhill.
Is fearfulness the umpire's worst enemy?
Definitely. An umpire shouldn't be afraid of making mistakes. I don't like bullfights, but I usually do this comparison: if the bullfighter is facing the bull, he should go forward. The umpire has to be like that. If there's a problem, we can't go back, we must face it, not turn our back. If you're arguing with a player, for instance, your body language leans to the player, so that he understands we are going to solve the problem together and there's no ill will.
Do players sense the umpire's fearfulness?
Yes, and they take advantage of it [laughs], even if they shouldn't. Some players are more...
Obnoxious?
Is not that, but they are contentious. If conflict arises, they sense if the umpire is at ease or not. If [the umpire] shows fear or lack of courage, then [some players] are ruthless. And then, there are situations where there's a lot at stake or there's a lot of nerves, and the umpire has to present a really self-composed attitude. The line that separates a confident umpire from an arrogant one is really thin. The umpire cannot express arrogance to tennis players, that's one of the things they are most reticent to accept. The important thing is to stay confident and convincing.
Expelling in tennis is rare. What has to happened for an umpire to remove a player from the match?
Is happens rarely for a few reasons. One of which is the fact that tennis is an individual sport and, if the player is expelled, the match ends. It's not like football, for example, where many times teams end up with ten or nine players. Tennis players are really careful and know the things they shouldn't say or do. Because, if they do so, the match is over.
Like what?
Everything that is intentionally aggressive. Throwing a ball at the chair-umpire, line-umpire, ball boys/girls, or crowd, with the intention to hurt. Even if he misses, it's game-over. Physical abuse is unacceptable. Then, there's the verbal part. Players have limits when talking to the umpire. A player can't say "fuck you" to the umpire. He can, if it's to himself. If he disagrees with the umpire, looks at him and says that, it's game-over.
Have you heard it?
It happened several times.
And then you expelled the player?
Just once, but not because of that. In fact, he was a well-behaved guy, Alex Radulescu, a Romanian who reached Wimbledon's quarter-finals twice. A really polite player, but that went completely nuts afters the line-umpire made a mistake. He didn't say anything to me. He went crazy, destroyed his racquet, the court bench... It was a sum of many things. When he returned to the court there were bench and racquet pieces everywhere. There was no chance. I called the supervisor who, by chance, was also Portuguese, Carlos Sanches, and the player was expelled. He lost control, but it wasn't because he was rude to the umpire.
Looking at present-day tennis players, is there anyone with a more difficult temper?
There are many. More than difficult players, there are difficult situations, with a lot of tension. Today we have Hawk-Eye [explains what it is] and there are less situations for the players to get crazy with the umpire. [more details concerning Hawk-Eye]
Is it more difficult for a John McEnroe to turn up these days?
I believe so. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray are high-profile players that always knew good umpiring. Some matches go well, others go bad, some umpires they like, others they don't, but they always experienced umpiring at a good level in general. It's not a coincidence that, in McEnroe's and Connor's era, there were a lot of difficult players. The umpires were not to blame, but the truth is umpiring was amateurish for a great part of their careers. Each one of them did two or three tournaments a year, in their country, that was it. But in the last 30 years, umpires are professionals that travel and do as many games as the players themselves. The level really stepped up, so, the relation umpire-player also improved.
In 2007, in the Australian Open, for example, Andy Roddick heavily criticised your decisions, do you remember?
Yes, days like those, out of the ordinary, do happen a lot [laughs]. If you go to a Grand Slam and walk around for the first few days, when there's a lot of singular matches happening, you'll see there's a lot of problems. Especially in the courts where there's no Hawk-Eye. All the more in Australia, where there's a lot of Croatians, Serbs and Greeks [in the this match there were confrontations between Croatians and Serbs]. So, sometimes there are tense situations.
Was Roddick one of the players with worst temper?
For us it was really interesting to umpire his matches. He was a straight-up guy. He would talk what he thought, and he was always testing the umpire. Sometimes, when umpiring mistakes occurred and matches were not favourable to him, we would talk after. Open conversations with no bitterness. We would discuss his situations and he would see where he was wrong or mistaken. But sometimes it was our fault. And in the next day it was as if nothing had happened. He just wanted to be heard, to know he if was right or wrong, that was it. If in the next day I had to umpire his match there was no problem at all. Roddick had that capacity, to start afresh.
But not all tennis players are like that...
There are many players, after having an issue with the umpire, especially if they consider him incompetent, who feel it's difficult to get along with him again. At least for some time.
How are Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic? Are they self-composed, or do they have "Roddick's ticks"?
I don't have the right to individualize. I can't say Nadal is like that, Federer is like such. Players are more and more demanding. Roddick really showed that. Others not so much, but they are all demanding. David Ferrer, for example, who has an image of someone who does not cause trouble, is a really demanding player. In tennis, every player is demanding, but there's no such thing as faking things, penalties, like sometimes happens in football. Tennis players are, in general, fair people. Of course, if the umpire makes a mistake, they rather have the mistake fall on the other side, but they don't provoke the error. The tennis atmosphere is really healthy and there is a considerable feeling of sports ethics amongst the players.
What they really want is justice?
That's right. But when they think a decision is not fair, they demand. They don't press the umpire to err, they press him to decide correctly. They don't want him to rob, they just want him to not make any mistakes.
[Question regarding his Grand Slam finals appearances; Wimbledon is the hardest tournament to umpire because the ball does not leave any mark on the court; Details concerning calling shots when the ball hits near the line. I might translate this later]
A chair umpire is always sitting. In physical terms, it doesn't demand much. Is there a retiring age for tennis officials?
No, nor should you impose any age limits. In the US, for example, basketball and baseball umpires don't have that anymore, I think. We are tested all the time, we have examination marks, and if they are not good, our level drops.
So, that means your results have been good, right?
Yes, they are good in general, but they won't be forever. A time will come when I'll have to retire because my vision will weaken, and the speed of my decision making will slow down. Tennis umpiring is based on speed. Not only good vision. Your sight needs to react and focus quickly. Our confidence really hinges on that. If we can't see the ball properly, we are not confident.
How many years do you think you have ahead of you as a Grand Slam umpire?
I don't know. I'm really self-critical and I don't want, in any way, to umpire for too long. I assess myself and ask competent people for their feedback. In the day I'm no longer doing a good job, I'll be the first to say stop. It won't be imposed [by other people]. But it depends. Some umpires, at 50 years old, are declining, others maintain their level for much longer.
Do you see yourself umpiring at 65 years old?
65?! I don't think so [laughs]. Only if there's a miracle of science. I think that's difficult. It's not only about confidence, but also about credibility.
If some mistake is made by a 30 year old umpire and by a 50 year old, is it different?
I think yes. I'll be 44 this year, if I make a mistake, I make a mistake. If I'm wrong, it's because I did a bad job or was distracted. But if I'm 60, it would be because of my age. More than age, it's important that a working assessment system exists, so that those who are umpiring well stay at the top, and those doing badly start to go down. I do what I can to maintain my qualities.
Physical exercise?
Yes, I practice sports. I also do something few umpires do: eye gymnastics. Not long ago, I did some eight sessions.
Do you notice any difference?
I think so. Maybe it's a psychological thing, but I do everything I can to maintain my eyes' longevity. If you don't exercise them, they get lazy and less capable.
How much money does an umpire make yearly on the tennis world tour?
In 2015, we are 27 umpires with the Gold Badge certificate. Some work for the ATP, others for the WTA, other for the ITS/Grand Slams, which I integrate, and for Grand Slam tournaments. All of them have independent contracts. I know how much I make, but I don't know how much my colleagues make, though I have an idea. I won't disclose our earnings, but I can tell you it's not a fortune.
Is it enough to build a nest egg so you won't have to do anything else after you retire?
No, no, if it were today I would have to keep working for many years. I couldn't live the rest of my life with what I saved. Even tennis players, only the ranked top-ten earn a lot of money. Players have a lot of expenses. It's travelling, hotels to pay, everywhere. Careers are short, we think tennis is a sport for rich people, but that's not true, not at all. There's a lot of players between the 150 and 200 best that have a hard time in terms of financial situation. And being ranked like that is really really high level."
He gave her a warning, she took it to the next level because she was getting pounded.
From the International Tennis Federation:
This is the definitive take on the play. Ultimately Carlos Ramos didn't do anything wrong, and he acted as he should have according to the USTA rulebook at all times.
That's why this is so chilling. He did everything RIGHT and he still gets painted as a monster. How can any umpire properly enforce rules now?
Eh. Tennis will be all right. It's a hot button news issue now but it's not as if Serena's behavior, even taken out of context, is uncommon. The sport will March on and games will continue to get officiated.
I'm team Carlos Ramos. Good on him for sticking by the rules and doing his job.
Now he has to face all this abuse from both fans and players but he did the right thing. I hope official tennis organisations will come out and stand behind him, because it's ultra shitty what happened to him.
On another note his pay of £370 for the match is so minuscule compared to Serena William's millions she'll get. That this guy has to face this abuse from ultra rich people makes this more sour. Though what he said up above about only the top 10 being rich is true.
Now he has to face all this abuse from both fans and players but he did the right thing. I hope official tennis organisations will come out and stand behind him, because it's ultra shitty what happened to him.
On another note his pay of £370 for the match is so minuscule compared to Serena William's millions she'll get. That this guy has to face this abuse from ultra rich people makes this more sour. Though what he said up above about only the top 10 being rich is true.
The chair umpire has an important role to play in tennis matches. Perhaps you should understand professional sports before you come up with snide remarks like that.
Comment of the year, some admin should put it next to the resetera logo on the websiteI mean, if they want to boycott?
Nobody's paying to see them. Know your roles.
I mean, if they want to boycott?
Nobody's paying to see them. Know your roles.
Good point. They can get even worse umpires who have no idea what they are doing. By all indications, Ramos has been very consistent in how he has called matches.
First call was technically correct, but if it really happens all the time then it maybe shouldn't have been called. Maybe he was just trying to be protective of the younger player. On its own, it wouldn't have meant much though, just a warning no penalty.
Second call was obvious, no way to not call that.
Third call shouldn't have come so quickly. He should have been more aware of the effect that it would have on the whole match, and how much it would take away from Naomi's success. He should have at LEAST given Serena an extra warning/reminder that she would face a game penalty if she didn't cool down.
I'd say he shares equal blame with Serena for ruining the match
Second call was obvious, no way to not call that.
Third call shouldn't have come so quickly. He should have been more aware of the effect that it would have on the whole match, and how much it would take away from Naomi's success. He should have at LEAST given Serena an extra warning/reminder that she would face a game penalty if she didn't cool down.
I'd say he shares equal blame with Serena for ruining the match
My main takeaway is that the coaching signal rule needs to be eliminated or enforced 100% of the time. There should be no gray area. Everything else about this is a complete mess. Serena and her coach are definitely in the wrong. Her argument that men are allowed to disparage and harass umps more freely than women without being penalized may well be true, but unless she knows of history with this particular umpire I think she should have saved the discussion for a WTA or ITF meeting. This umpire was just doing his job and appears to have followed the rules. She is a very powerful figure in tennis and if she were able to get him fired or tarnished somehow that would be sad.
Correct.
And here we go again with the stampede of tennis "experts" on Era, who, like the poster above mentioned never watch the sport, coming to impugn Serena Willams' character. Not sure why this couldn't have gone in the other thread.
Yet it's quite telling that those that were fully backing Serena including female ex-players are starting to back-pedal and at least apportion some blame towards Serena. I think that tells you everything.
The take is that each code violation given was appropriate and each of the punishments was appropriate.
Everyone has their moments of overreaction and immaturity in the sport.
Ivan Lendl upset about a hurt ball kid stalling his match.
Andre Agassi spitting towards a chair umpire.
McEnroe being McEnroe.
It doesn't mean they are terrible people(though it's debatable for a few).
I don't see many saying Serena is a garbage person, just that she was wrong.
If they say she is from this, then they better look in the mirror.
I'm just gonna throw this out there.... that officials are talking of boycotting Serena matches only really helps her argument.
If the umpires want to be more accepted maybe they should just not call any violations on the rulebook, at least against the most popular players.
"Nadal also doesn't like Ramos, so that means Serena is right and Ramos is wrong and you're all a bunch of haters who don't know tennis like I do!!"
Yup, pretty much this. She has done incredible things for women of all colors and for tennis as a whole but she was wrong in this instance though and the umpire should have got more protection than he did.
Out here talking about everybody but the winner. I know why, I get it. But poor whatever-her-name-is.
That's not their job.
Plus, if they let it slide for the major players, how do you think the up and comers or others will see them???
Oh, sarcasm.
You're certainly correct in that assessment.
At the same time, the other thread is filled with a high volume of posters that aren't only referring to this incident and are calling her "entitled", "arrogant", a "cheater", a "spoiled brat" and someone who is a "sore loser" and now a "doper" among many other things.
Well speak up then, Tennis-Era is free to step in with their consensus instead of posters trying to twist the narrative to fit their agenda.
Yeah, they made her be abusive and break her racket because she got caught cheating.
No, wait, they didn't. Mmmm.
Yeah, they should stand silent when they are abused. Otherwise they are helping the other side of the argument, duh.
Tennis (and its culture) has a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. Get in line buddy.
Lol, dont be so dramatic. Refs in most sports get abused for making the calls the rulebook says they should. If Tennis can survive a US Open championship being idiotically scheduled against Week 1 of the NFL, it can survive a debate on whether Tennis regulations in general are applied unevenly (not just that refs are daring to make calls).
Right. Tennis regulation has been inconsistent as hell for years.
Story at 11, people don't like umps or refs, dont expect people to be on your side even of you've got a case.
Refs get yelled at and harshly criticized all the time and they don't start wanting to organize a fucking boycott of every player.
I definitely can't get behind that, she worked her ass off to get where she is.
Did they boycott after Pliskova smashed her racquet on the umpire's chair? Imagine if Serena smashed her racquet on an umpire's chair even at a smaller event like Miami Open LMAO.
I don't see why this warranted another thread though.
I don't see why this warranted another thread though.
Last edited: