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."