first, the chair should have simply warned both sides (& perhaps coaches as well). To give Serena a violation like that at such a critical time, without warning, is absolute garbage. That caused Serena to "lose it". ie, "here we go again".
I feel that's excusing Serena's subsequent behaviour,
it's not excusing it at all. but that call set things in motion.
But you're saying that one violation (with no penalty attached at that stage)
caused the subsequent meltdown. It didn't cause anything other than giving Serena a violation at that point in the match. It might have contributed to inflaming her mental state, but placing responsibility on the umpire is too extreme. Put yourself in the umpire's position. He sees the coach give coaching-like signals (picked up on camera). This is the final. How's it going to be for him if Serena then starts blowing the doors off the opponent, and he hasn't penalised the offending player? This is guy is also
an apparent stickler for enforcing rules. Her team should have let her know this. Again, I mostly blame the coach for this, but Serena had to be more professional in that situation, she's experienced enough.
to blame the umpire for not warning her about a very well-known violation in the game.
well known? that's never called.
Yes, it is well-known? It's definitely called occasionally, but as I said, it's a stupid rule that should just be removed. Nadal's coach was infamous for getting away it and I've read tennis forums for years: its always being discussed. I have no inherent problem with coaching from the sidelines, it's a dumb rule, but it's a rule that both players were playing under and that's just the situation.
I disagree with 'warnings' for offences in general. What's the point of the rule if it's arbitrarily enforced depending on context?
tennis is all about concrete rules. how do you apply one of the few subjective rules without giving a warning? I've watched tons of tennis, i've rarely seen that rule enforced. Also, i've seen chair umps give warnings more than i've seen an actual violation.
you can only enforce a subjective rule arbitrarily.
I don't see why, because it's a subjective rule, warnings need be applied in every case. Of course, subjective calls are part of sport; my point was that context shouldn't matter in subjective arbitration. If the umpire sees what they deem as clear on-court coaching, they should pull the trigger whether it's the US open final or a Challenger qualifier, or whether the player has a history of meltdowns. In this case, the footage of the coaching was pretty obvious to me. If the umpire doesn't call that, I don't know when it would be called, and I don't think a warning is warranted just because of the context of the match - the coaching might have already influenced the outcome of the game. I agree that it's stupid rule though, and it should just go because it's too hard to detect and control with the players and coaches being in direct sight of one another, and because coaching is what they're paid to do.
It's a weird rule anyway (coaches are paid to coach IMO) but I understand that tennis has a gladiatorial spirit where the players should be battling their opponent with no outside influence. If she should be mad at anyone, it should be the coach, not the umpire.
coaches often "instruct" during the match, doesn't mean the athlete is actually looking at them receiving the instructions. coaches coach, even if the athlete isn't looking at them.
Well, if they know the rule (and they do)...then they shouldn't be! The major problem with the violation (apart from it existing at all) is that it's a player violation, not a coach violation. It should be: if the umpire sees that sort of signal, the coaching staff are watching the game from the locker room with lighter pockets from that point, and the player doesn't accrue a violation. Serena kept taking it personally because it implies that she was cheating, which I didn't believe, but that's the rule both players are playing under. They just got caught out.
Then compounding it by racket-smashing and abusing the ump is just bad situational awareness/brain fade, like not knowing how many fouls you have.
imho the racquet smashing isn't even a problem. she never even mentioned it. she knew she'd probably get a violation for it. men smash their racquets all the time, especially guys like Djoko / Murray / Kyrgios / Roddick etc.
What I meant is: if you're playing bball on five fouls, you know to not go hacking at the ball, or trying to take a charge on a fast break. In tennis (as you know, for others who don't) it goes: [warning-->point penalty-->game penalty-->default] for each successive violation. So knowing you're already on one violation, keep cool if you get a call you don't agree with, and likely, nothing will come of it (easy to say at the keyboard I know, but these are professional players with a lot at stake).
Her worst offense (to me) was calling the chair a "thief". That was stupid. But again, i've seen people chew out chair umps all the time and not get violations. Here's Federer dropping F bombs:
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koTTY3QuLcQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koTTY3QuLcQ</a>]]>
She lost her composure, that's all on her. However, that first coaching violation was still bullshit.
Serena is probably already on "edge" with some of the treatment of female athletes vs men. She's not someone who can just ignore it. Some of the stuff that happened in this US Open adds context to her meltdown - I mean she even mentioned this incident. Here's a woman receiving a violation for turning her shirt inside out:
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UIBboqUNo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UIBboqUNo</a>]]>
I've seen men do shirt changes during the changeover TONS of times, especially Nadal/Djokovic etc.
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIAAZS3V4I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIAAZS3V4I</a>]]>
Tennis has historically been a "boys club", that shit drives Serena crazy. I think it factors in to some of her blowups.. Boys club & "race" issues are always on her mind, she deals with alot of it.
Yes, you could see it was a confluence of different emotional issues that Serena has been subjected to over the years coming out. I don't necessarily disagree with what she believed was happening, but it was just unprofessional to let it completely derail and overshadow the match. That's what the post-game press conference is for.
(I'm not in disagreement with any of the gender discrimination stuff raised by this, mostly because I can't find any data on whether there are umpiring discrepancies apart from anecdotal stuff, and drawing broad conclusions from these insular cases is tricky).
This is the third US Open final where Serena has completely overshadowed the effort of the eventual winner with meltdowns (Clijsters 2009 and Stosur 2011). I think it really sucks to put an asterisk on someone's title like that, i.e. "if the other player hadn't melted down and given a game away, maybe they would have won, but I'll never know etc". This was the worst of the three by a mile though.
Some people might be saying "if she didn't melt down you never know", but Osaka was on fire, I doubt Serena wins that match without the melt down. Though, Serena was up 3-1 in the 2nd set when that coaching violation call happened.
That bolded hypothetical part is exactly what I'm talking about - there's a seed of doubt now. Maybe Osaka is not thinking about it right now, but in 20 years, she might look back at this match, and that seed of doubt will be there. Rather than a positive memory of blitzing her idol off the court, they'll most likely be bittersweet memories. I've had that happen to me when I was a junior in aths ("you only won because x switched to soccer/football/rugby") and it's a crappy thing to do, even indirectly. That's the major problem I have with this. I wish they could have just played the match out without the drama.
She went directly to the chair and states she didn't receive instructions and she's not a cheater. That call really messed her up, the idea that she was "cheating". A warning would have been a good idea. A warning would have also been a good idea before taking a game from her, ie: "Serena if you continue I will have to take away a game"
I just don't know why you need to coddle a player like Serena (or any player really, they're all professionals and should know the rules) - she's as experienced as they get. I watched the match live and they replayed her going at the umpire between games. It was prolonged dialogue, threatening to get him off her games and the liar/thief comments. She should know better at that point - it's playing with fire to do that on two violations, even if one was questionable. I think a warning at that stage is too generous for any player, a newbie or a veteran. In that Federer example, I don't think he abused the umpire to the degree that Serena did, but he swore and for sure, that's a violation. This speaks more to inconsistency between umpires' interpretation of violations. I think the umpire here made the right call based on the rule:
d) Verbal Abuse
i) Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person within the precincts of the tournament site. Verbal abuse is defined as any statement about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person that implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive.
Finally. From what i've seen:, most everyone seems to be coming out AGAINST that coaching call violation. Former/current pros, analysts etc, everyone saying that was pure bullshit. Most people don't seem to think the thief comment is a violation either, given that men get away with worse.
That ref abused his power.
It's clearly a very polarising and complex issue because most of the coverage here in Aus was fairly mixed; I just don't buy that the umpire is the bad person here. One bad call can get shrugged off. Serena went the other way and, for the third time, overshadowed the victor. She's obviously established amongst the greats of tennis and it will be a minor blemish when it dies down (although the gender issues will be ongoing I think). I mostly just feel for the winner being deprived of their celebration. It was sickening to see her getting booed like that.
