|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31919
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| epak wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ChickenStu wrote: | | I'm specifically talking about being 1 MPH over. No one gets a ticket for that, even though you're technically breaking the law and even though, technically, the officer would have every right to issue that ticket. |
But why do you assume that Serena's coach was only 1 mph over the limit? You are essentially assuming your conclusion -- that this was such a trivial violation that no one would get a "ticket" for it. But that's not true. I don't watch as much tennis as some of you, but even I've seen warnings issued for coaching.
Here's what Martina had to say on the subject:
| Quote: | | To recap: The trouble began when early in the second set, Ms. Williams was given a warning for coaching. This one is on her coach: Patrick Mouratoglou was using both hands to motion to Ms. Williams to move forward and got called on it. While it is true that illegal coaching is quite common and that most coaches do it, it’s also true that despite what many commentators have said following Saturday’s events, they are called on it quite frequently and that most of the time, players just shrug it off and know that going forward, they and their coaches now need to behave, because the next infraction will cost them a point. The player is responsible for his or her coach’s conduct. And it is actually irrelevant whether the player saw or heard whatever instructions were given; either way, it is still an infraction. |
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/martina-navratilova-serena-williams-us-open.html |
+1 from me. |
It simply comes down to whether or not you think it's a petty move to call it in the first place, and that's my point. I believe it is, and some do not. Just because a rule is in the books doesn't mean that it needs to be enforced. Seems as if we've taken this discussion as far as it can go, but if another angle to this is introduced, I have no problem with engaging again. Otherwise...on to the next one, for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
saetarubia
Star Player
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 6208
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31919
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saetarubia wrote: | | https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1038690267941953536 |
As it relates to the coaching code violation, there's no reason to assume that Ramos was being sexist, of course. I just think it was the wrong call, and always is. As for the last code violation, well, I am not sure if he would make that same call on a man, and I've shown why I think that. Not gonna re-hash that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | Just because a rule is in the books doesn't mean that it needs to be enforced. |
Inevitably, your argument winds up here. Ramos is petty because he enforced a rule that you didn't think should be enforced, even though match officials are supposed to enforce it and frequently do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Like four times as many code violations were handed out to men at this year's US Open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corey78
Star Player
Joined: 22 Apr 2001
Posts: 1677
Location: Cerritos, California
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ChickenStu wrote: | | Just because a rule is in the books doesn't mean that it needs to be enforced. |
Inevitably, your argument winds up here. Ramos is petty because he enforced a rule that you didn't think should be enforced, even though match officials are supposed to enforce it and frequently do. |
I don't mind this argument. I may not agree with it, but I don't find it offensive. I found the sexism argument offensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two stories from The NY Times today:
| Quote: | [Carlos Ramos Returns to Work at Davis Cup
ZADAR, Croatia — The chair umpire who penalized Serena Williams in the United States Open final was back at work Friday.
Carlos Ramos was assigned to the best-of-five Davis Cup semifinal series between Croatia and the United States.
[...]
U.S.T.A. president and chief executive Katrina Adams, who defended Williams, was overheard apologizing to Ramos on the sidelines of Thursday’s draw ceremony.
Ramos would not go into details over his discussion with Adams, who initiated the conversation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis/carlos-ramos-chair-umpire-davis-cup.html |
| Quote: | Are Women Penalized More Than Men in Tennis? Data Says No
Serena Williams argued that she was subject to a double standard when she was cited for verbal abuse by the chair umpire Carlos Ramos during the United States Open women’s final last Saturday.
“There are men out here who do a lot worse than me, but because I’m a woman you are going to take this away from me?” she protested to Brian Earley, the tournament referee. “That is not right.”
Each situation should be evaluated on its own merits, but according to data compiled by officials at Grand Slam tournaments for the past 20 years, men are penalized more often for verbal abuse.
Those figures, obtained by The New York Times, show that from 1998 to 2018 at the four Grand Slam events, men have been fined for misbehavior with much more frequency than women with one significant exception: coaching violations.
Fines are a result of investigations by the tournament referee and the Grand Slam supervisor into code-of-conduct violations assessed by the chair umpire during a match. The figures from the Grand Slam tournaments are from all matches in qualifying, main-draw singles and doubles for a 20-year period — tens of thousands of matches.
Men have been fined 646 times for racket abuse and 287 times for unsportsmanlike conduct. Women have been fined 99 times for racket abuse and 67 times for unsportsmanlike conduct during that span.
The disparities are similar for audible obscenity fines (344 for the men, 140 for the women) and, most relevant to Williams’s complaint, verbal abuse (62 for the men, 16 for the women).
[...]
Some of the disparity between the men’s and women’s fines can be explained by the fact that men play more tennis at Grand Slam tournaments. They play best-of-five-set matches in singles at all four majors and also best-of-five in men’s doubles at Wimbledon while women play best-of-three-set matches in all instances.
To take one example, at the 2018 U.S. Open, men played a total of 460 sets or partial sets in the main draw in singles. Women played a total of 283 sets or partial sets in singles, which amounts to 61.5 percent of the men’s figure.
There are also simply more men at Grand Slam tournaments because, in the qualifying event, there are 128 spots in singles for men at the Australian Open, the French Open and Wimbledon, and only 96 for women.
But even accounting for those factors, men appear to be fined proportionally more often than women for a variety of offenses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/sports/tennis-fines-men-women.html |
So women are called more for coaching because they’re allowed coaching at non-GS events, get used to doing it, and then it’s not allowed in GS events; men are penalized proportionally more often on everything else, and the USTA president apologized to Ramos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^^^
The problem with that statistical argument is that the relevant question is not whether code violations are evenly assessed between men and women. The relevant question is whether code violations are assessed proportionately to the number of violations by men and women. Do men smash their rackets more often? Do men engage in verbal abuse more often? If so, are the code violation calls proportionate to the volume of violations by men and women? (The three set vs. five set argument strikes me as a red herring, by the way. I doubt that the length of a match -- or more accurately, the potential length -- correlates strongly with the number of code violations.)
This reminds me of some of the old FT arguments. Team A gets 40 FTs while Team B gets 10 FTs. Therefore, the refs must have wanted Team A to win. There is an implicit, and false, assumption that the FTs should be even and that both teams are committed equal numbers of shooting fouls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17249
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don’t know if anyone keeps track of “potential” code violations, so I’m not sure it’s something anyone can argue on with any authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31919
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | I don’t know if anyone keeps track of “potential” code violations, so I’m not sure it’s something anyone can argue on with any authority. |
I don't have stats to back this up, just my educated guess based on watching a lot of tennis over the years, but I think it's safe to say that men definitely engage in more verbal abuse and racket breaking than women do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vanquish
Star Player
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1561
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ChickenStu wrote: | | Just because a rule is in the books doesn't mean that it needs to be enforced. |
Inevitably, your argument winds up here. Ramos is petty because he enforced a rule that you didn't think should be enforced, even though match officials are supposed to enforce it and frequently do. |
I would prefer that officials enforce the rules no matter how silly the rules might seem. The correct procedure - for me - is for questionable rules to be regularly reviewed by a rules committee outside of tournaments and struck off if necessary.
I prefer strict enforcement because the alternative would be like in the case in basketball where the decision of whether minor infractions such as travelling is called or not is often left to the discretion of the official on game day. Even if travelling is not routinely called, officials still technically retain the option of calling it if they so please because the rule is still a valid one. How many times have we seen the course of a game change in the 4th quarter, because some ref suddenly decides to get tough and call a travel. Absent strict enforcement, we give tremendous power to the refs to influence games. I think this makes it easier for refs to get away with fixing games. Wasn't there a ref fixing scandal a few years ago in the nba? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | DuncanIdaho wrote: | | I don’t know if anyone keeps track of “potential” code violations, so I’m not sure it’s something anyone can argue on with any authority. |
I don't have stats to back this up, just my educated guess based on watching a lot of tennis over the years, but I think it's safe to say that men definitely engage in more verbal abuse and racket breaking than women do. |
Just in general, the video review system at major tournaments ended a lot of verbal abuse, as compared to the age of McEnroe and Connors. But I think your educated guess is correct. On the other hand, I witnessed two incidents of verbal about at the US Open (admittedly from a small sample, because I don't watch all that much). Both incidents involved women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Thief
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 735
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Finally got around to watching this. Pretty silly on Serena's part to continually hound the umpire. If he had penalized her a game after a small rant then I could see the issue but Serena was relentless in her tirade. The umpire was extremely patient from what I saw but she just wouldn't stop. It's not like Serena was out of the match so I don't understand why she let her emotions get the better of her. Should have channeled that energy into making a comeback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31919
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Thief wrote: | | Finally got around to watching this. Pretty silly on Serena's part to continually hound the umpire. If he had penalized her a game after a small rant then I could see the issue but Serena was relentless in her tirade. The umpire was extremely patient from what I saw but she just wouldn't stop. It's not like Serena was out of the match so I don't understand why she let her emotions get the better of her. Should have channeled that energy into making a comeback. |
She has a bad history at this tournament, some of which is her own doing, but a lot of it not of her doing. And we had an instance where a coaching code violation was called, something that rarely gets called, let alone in a Grand Slam final, and considering that Serena wasn't even looking at her coach at the time the call was made, she probably felt like Ramos had just given her a warning, as opposed to the actual code violation that was issued. (Again, the very fact that there is ambiguity in what I would argue is a crappy rule to begin with just shows you how awful the rule is.) Then when she broke the racket and got the point penalty because it was the second code violation when I'm sure she believed it to be her first, she lost it. And I'm sure all those old feelings of "they're screwing me again" came back into her mind. I agree with you that she just wouldn't let up on the umpire, but, once again, I think that Ramos should have used some discretion here. Even if you put aside the fact that I've seen men do much worse and not get a code for it, Ramos should have realized the gravity of the situation, the importance of the match he was officiating, the fact that the player already had two codes, and at least given her a warning. Something. "Look, OK, that's enough, if you continue this I'm going to have no choice but to issue you another code violation, which would result in a game penalty." He didn't do that, and, as other players pointed out, chair umpires will often do that. Essentially, Ramos handled everything as punitively as he possibly could have, and given the context, I think he did a really lousy job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Thief
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 735
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: |
She has a bad history at this tournament, some of which is her own doing, but a lot of it not of her doing. And I'm sure all those old feelings of "they're screwing me again" came back into her mind. |
I guess I'm not really familiar with the bad history but I don't see how in today's tennis game you can really get screwed over. Tennis is pretty straight forward either the ball is in or out. Don't see how a match could be swayed even remotely to the point of it causing one player to have an advantage without that player falling on the sword. In this instance even if the original call was unwarranted, which I get is debatable, the racket abuse was a no brainer call and the umpire gave her more than enough leeway with her complaining. An extra warning isn't required by the umpire and the way she was attacking him personally I can't blame him for not giving her the courtesy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31919
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Thief wrote: | | ChickenStu wrote: |
She has a bad history at this tournament, some of which is her own doing, but a lot of it not of her doing. And I'm sure all those old feelings of "they're screwing me again" came back into her mind. |
I guess I'm not really familiar with the bad history but I don't see how in today's tennis game you can really get screwed over. Tennis is pretty straight forward either the ball is in or out. Don't see how a match could be swayed even remotely to the point of it causing one player to have an advantage without that player falling on the sword. In this instance even if the original call was unwarranted, which I get is debatable, the racket abuse was a no brainer call and the umpire gave her more than enough leeway with her complaining. An extra warning isn't required by the umpire and the way she was attacking him personally I can't blame him for not giving her the courtesy. |
At the US Open in 2004, Serena played an infamous match against Jennifer Capriati. On a rally, Serena hit a backhand down the line while standing slightly in the doubles alley, and the ball landed inside the sideline for what should have been an easy winner. So imagine the optics of that...the ball is coming back towards the line and goes inside the line. That's basically the easiest call to see, as opposed to a ball heading full crosscourt from one sideline to the other on the opposite side. Anyway, the ball is well inside the line. Not on an overhead smash or a serve where maybe you can understand how someone could miss it. A normal backhand. So the linesperson inexplicably calls it out, and the chair umpire, even more inexplicably, doesn't issue an overrule. No one was in the linesperson's line of sight or anything. Feel free to watch it on YouTube if you'd like. I can't remember a line call that has ever been this blatantly missed in all my years of watching tennis, and if you watch this incident you simply have to ask yourself if the call (and failure to overrule) was intentional.
It was this incident that eventually led to the implementation of Hawkeye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Thief
Starting Rotation
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 735
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | The Thief wrote: | | ChickenStu wrote: |
She has a bad history at this tournament, some of which is her own doing, but a lot of it not of her doing. And I'm sure all those old feelings of "they're screwing me again" came back into her mind. |
I guess I'm not really familiar with the bad history but I don't see how in today's tennis game you can really get screwed over. Tennis is pretty straight forward either the ball is in or out. Don't see how a match could be swayed even remotely to the point of it causing one player to have an advantage without that player falling on the sword. In this instance even if the original call was unwarranted, which I get is debatable, the racket abuse was a no brainer call and the umpire gave her more than enough leeway with her complaining. An extra warning isn't required by the umpire and the way she was attacking him personally I can't blame him for not giving her the courtesy. |
At the US Open in 2004, Serena played an infamous match against Jennifer Capriati. On a rally, Serena hit a backhand down the line while standing slightly in the doubles alley, and the ball landed inside the sideline for what should have been an easy winner. So imagine the optics of that...the ball is coming back towards the line and goes inside the line. That's basically the easiest call to see, as opposed to a ball heading full crosscourt from one sideline to the other on the opposite side. Anyway, the ball is well inside the line. Not on an overhead smash or a serve where maybe you can understand how someone could miss it. A normal backhand. So the linesperson inexplicably calls it out, and the chair umpire, even more inexplicably, doesn't issue an overrule. No one was in the linesperson's line of sight or anything. Feel free to watch it on YouTube if you'd like. I can't remember a line call that has ever been this blatantly missed in all my years of watching tennis, and if you watch this incident you simply have to ask yourself if the call (and failure to overrule) was intentional.
It was this incident that eventually led to the implementation of Hawkeye. |
Yeah that was pretty horrible blown call. Thankfully we have Hawkeye to prevent those from happening anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drifts
Retired Number
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 28374
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Serena got a freaking "warning" for a violation his coach admitted to committing
wtf ... she didn't have to go the way she did over a "warming" ... it makes her petty.
_________________
"Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31919
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Drifts wrote: | Serena got a freaking "warning" for a violation his coach admitted to committing
wtf ... she didn't have to go the way she did over a "warming" ... it makes her petty. |
Well, not exactly. She got a code violation for the coaching call. Chair umpires have the discretion to just warn the player for that and to not actually issue a code violation. There's a big difference. Had the code violation not been issued, then when she broke her racket later on, that would not have been a point penalty, but merely the first code violation.
I realize that it's confusing for many, because the first code violation does act as a warning to the player, in the sense that they don't get anything taken away from them if they don't commit another one. But you can actually give a warning to a player without issuing a code violation, and this very same umpire (Carlos Ramos) actually made a coaching violation call on Venus Williams in a match a few years ago, yet he did NOT issue her a code violation, merely giving her a warning for it.
I've said it many times in this thread, but it's a stupid rule when the chair umpires can issue different penalties for the same call. I mean, logically speaking, if a rule is broken, the penalty should be the same every single time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | Serena got a freaking "warning" for a violation his coach admitted to committing
wtf ... she didn't have to go the way she did over a "warming" ... it makes her petty. |
Well, not exactly. She got a code violation for the coaching call. Chair umpires have the discretion to just warn the player for that and to not actually issue a code violation. There's a big difference. Had the code violation not been issued, then when she broke her racket later on, that would not have been a point penalty, but merely the first code violation.
I realize that it's confusing for many, because the first code violation does act as a warning to the player, in the sense that they don't get anything taken away from them if they don't commit another one. But you can actually give a warning to a player without issuing a code violation, and this very same umpire (Carlos Ramos) actually made a coaching violation call on Venus Williams in a match a few years ago, yet he did NOT issue her a code violation, merely giving her a warning for it.
I've said it many times in this thread, but it's a stupid rule when the chair umpires can issue different penalties for the same call. I mean, logically speaking, if a rule is broken, the penalty should be the same every single time. |
That's just semantics. The first code violation is a warning because it has no consequences. I understand that you don't like the coaching rule. That's fair enough. But it is a rule, it is not an obscure rule, and it is not a rarely enforced rule. Serena's coach admitted that he violated the rule. If the tennis authorities decide that they want to get rid of the rule, I wouldn't care. But that is not what this is about. This is about Serena melting down on national television.
It was fascinating to see how polarizing this argument became. Some people got enraged because Serena is their hero. Other people got enraged because they didn't like the chair umpire, or because they jumped on the sexism accusations by Serena (or the racism allegations that inevitably got thrown at Serena's critics). Other people, including me, saw a petutant, self-absorbed, and transcendently entitled child throwing a temper tantrum on national television because she wasn't allowed to do whatever she wanted because, you know, she's Serena and you're not. She's got a daughter!
As time as gone by, and as the emotions of the moment have faded, I get the sense that a lot of the people in the tennis community have come around to the view that Serena was out of line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | Serena got a freaking "warning" for a violation his coach admitted to committing
wtf ... she didn't have to go the way she did over a "warming" ... it makes her petty. |
Well, not exactly. She got a code violation for the coaching call. Chair umpires have the discretion to just warn the player for that and to not actually issue a code violation. There's a big difference. Had the code violation not been issued, then when she broke her racket later on, that would not have been a point penalty, but merely the first code violation.
I realize that it's confusing for many, because the first code violation does act as a warning to the player, in the sense that they don't get anything taken away from them if they don't commit another one. But you can actually give a warning to a player without issuing a code violation, and this very same umpire (Carlos Ramos) actually made a coaching violation call on Venus Williams in a match a few years ago, yet he did NOT issue her a code violation, merely giving her a warning for it.
I've said it many times in this thread, but it's a stupid rule when the chair umpires can issue different penalties for the same call. I mean, logically speaking, if a rule is broken, the penalty should be the same every single time. |
You make a good point about consistency, but this incident will always come back to the questions "Did Serena earn every one of those code violations, did Ramos use the discretion given to him?"
Yes and yes.
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drifts
Retired Number
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 28374
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | Serena got a freaking "warning" for a violation his coach admitted to committing
wtf ... she didn't have to go the way she did over a "warming" ... it makes her petty. |
Well, not exactly. She got a code violation for the coaching call. Chair umpires have the discretion to just warn the player for that and to not actually issue a code violation. There's a big difference. Had the code violation not been issued, then when she broke her racket later on, that would not have been a point penalty, but merely the first code violation.
I realize that it's confusing for many, because the first code violation does act as a warning to the player, in the sense that they don't get anything taken away from them if they don't commit another one. But you can actually give a warning to a player without issuing a code violation, and this very same umpire (Carlos Ramos) actually made a coaching violation call on Venus Williams in a match a few years ago, yet he did NOT issue her a code violation, merely giving her a warning for it.
I've said it many times in this thread, but it's a stupid rule when the chair umpires can issue different penalties for the same call. I mean, logically speaking, if a rule is broken, the penalty should be the same every single time. |
generally, umpires can't issues a warning unless there was a violation.
what happened was, the umpire caught William's coach red handed, the violation being illegal coaching from the stands... the penalty - just a warning.
Serena broke the rules, her coach violated a rule, plain and simple... Serena got a tap on the wrist with just a warning... instead of being graceful, she went the non-classy route and acted like a spoiled brat. end of story.
_________________
"Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67702
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Drifts wrote: | | ChickenStu wrote: | | Drifts wrote: | Serena got a freaking "warning" for a violation his coach admitted to committing
wtf ... she didn't have to go the way she did over a "warming" ... it makes her petty. |
Well, not exactly. She got a code violation for the coaching call. Chair umpires have the discretion to just warn the player for that and to not actually issue a code violation. There's a big difference. Had the code violation not been issued, then when she broke her racket later on, that would not have been a point penalty, but merely the first code violation.
I realize that it's confusing for many, because the first code violation does act as a warning to the player, in the sense that they don't get anything taken away from them if they don't commit another one. But you can actually give a warning to a player without issuing a code violation, and this very same umpire (Carlos Ramos) actually made a coaching violation call on Venus Williams in a match a few years ago, yet he did NOT issue her a code violation, merely giving her a warning for it.
I've said it many times in this thread, but it's a stupid rule when the chair umpires can issue different penalties for the same call. I mean, logically speaking, if a rule is broken, the penalty should be the same every single time. |
generally, umpires can't issues a warning unless there was a violation.
what happened was, the umpire caught William's coach red handed, the violation being illegal coaching from the stands... the penalty - just a warning.
Serena broke the rules, her coach violated a rule, plain and simple... Serena got a tap on the wrist with just a warning... instead of being graceful, she went the non-classy route and acted like a spoiled brat. end of story. |
Yeah she was getting her hat brought to her and she flew off the handle. As I said before I didn't see her coming back. Namoi was the better player that day.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31919
Location: Anaheim, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To AH and others, the chair umpire does NOT have to issue a code violation for coaching when they make that call. They can issue a warning, which is different from a code violation. This isn't about the first code violation not technically resulting in a penalty, since, if you don't get any more codes, you don't lose a point or anything like that. The first code violation puts you on a path to losing a point if you get another one. It is within the chair umpire's discretion to NOT issue a code violation when they make a coaching rule violation call.
If I am wrong about that--and I'm going to attempt to look that up right now--then I will completely stand corrected. I don't want to keep arguing a point if it's actually incorrect. But I have been operating under the assumption that the chair does not have to actually issue a code for coaching. And if that is the case, I will always maintain that he did not use his discretion wisely in giving her the code, given the circumstances of Serena not even looking at her coach at the time, and, you know, the whole "it's a Grand Slam final" thing. And I'll again point out that if there's two different ways that the chair umpire can handle the same rule, it's a bad rule, regardless of whether or not you think they should allow coaching or not. But yeah, I'm going look it up right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
