But in this case the umpire cannot say that it was a clear violation and that serena was receiving coaching instructions, but it is not clear, you don't see a clear cut violation from serena receiving instructions from her coach and it is not 100% clear that the communication between them was coaching instructions, even if it was, let's say, instructions in the form of a sign language, the umpire is not aware of this and so cannot declare a violation based on gut feeling rather it should be based on facts, clear cut violation.
Watch
this. He is clearly indicating something, and given we're all just speculating, it looks as if he's making eye contact with someone and nodding at the end as if the message has been communicated. I doubt he's just staring into space, nodding and making random movements like that. It's ludicrous to say that if it was coded sign language, it's irrelevant as the umpire can't know what it means. What else would it be about? The umpire can absolutely make that call, because the International Tennis Federation (which upheld this violation) validated his ability to judge these situation when they picked him to officiate the match.
The divisive issue here is whether it should a 'soft' warning or a code violation. Unfortunately, that is the umpire's discretion. There's no obligation to provide 'soft' warnings before any code violation. So they may call it straightaway if they deem fit (and this umpire
is a stickler). It's also important to note that after this incident, Serena did change her style of play and win a few points (I didn't see this myself but have read it
here (a few comments down) and
here). So, perhaps he sees this change of play and decides that this is a clear violation and has to call it . There's a lot we don't know about the actual circumstances, because some parts aren't documented (the fact that the coach admitted to coaching is interesting but not relevant at the time). What I'm trying to establish here, is you can't say it was grossly unfair to make that call. Also, it carried no penalty and did not have to decide the match the way it did. It's a tough call in a final, but it's not up to the umpire to predict whether a call will alter the subsequent flow of the match, or the temperament of the players (they might suspect so, but that's context-dependent and shouldn't be part of the assessment).
so what he should have done was give warning to serena and her coach as well as a clarification to the opposing player and her coach as not to communicate with their coaches in any way and if there are any further communication between player and coach in whatever form then they will be penalised for violating that rule (don't know what the name of the rule is, coaching violation?) so that they know in advanced what not to do and cannot argue if it happens again.
Maybe if it was a newly introduced rule, sure. Is it the umpire's job to warn a player for every potential code violation though, as if they've never played the game? According to
Martina Navratilova, it's a well-known rule that
is called. Martina also says it is common to give a warning, and I can see the argument. But if they think the coaching has influenced the score (as the umpire may have concluded here), perhaps they decide a straight violation is warranted if both parties clearly know and understand the rule. It speaks more to inconsistency of applying this stupid rule, which is why I just think that sort of coaching should just be allowed, and I would be stunned if it isn't heavily revised after this.
But when you have certain people, and I have seen this with umpires is that they do not handle criticism very well especially when it comes from players they are over seeing and therefore get offended when they are told you are wrong, then instead of thinking maybe I was harsh, they would go into the 'I am right and you are wrong and nothing you can say will change that' mentality and when race is involved it just makes the situation all the more worse because of supposed superiority of the umpire over the player like LBSS posted.
That situation you described is definitely plausible. But I when I was watching the match, they replayed the discussion between a few games and I couldn't believe how long Serena was berating the umpire for without getting pinged (there was even a break in the dialogue where she said "Don't talk to me", he looked away and seemed to be leaving it, then she launches in again). I thought he handled the criticism well at the time. First it was 'liar' (which normally would get a violation right there based on the clause of implying dishonesty or partiality), he let that go, then borderline threats along the lines of "I can make sure you don't umpire my games again", then 'thief' - this is the last straw and she gets another violation (not a discretionary full game penalty btw: an accrual of three violations gives away a game). I can't see any other reading of the situation apart from that Serena forced another violation from the umpire. I think if the umpire doesn't make that call there, he gets a lot of flack from the officiating organisation for letting a player do that for so long with no penalty.
So, first should be warning if the violation is not 100% clear so as to provide a support to any future arguments of any further doubtful similar situations.
A violation like that will never be 100% clear. But it could definitely impact the game straight away, so the umpire has to be on top of it and in certain situations, it's clear enough to be a straight violation - that's what the umpire decided. I think I'm fighting a losing battle here, but I really just don't get why the umpire is to blame because of lack of a warning for the on-court coaching call.
IMHO serena has more than earned the right to lose her temper when she feels like she's being treated unfairly.
Losing temper in a match = yes. She has been treated awfully by the media and some umpires in the past, and there's definitely possible gender discrimination occurring in tennis and other sports in terms of relative standards of acceptable behaviour (the catsuit banning and Alize Cornet incident, for example). I respect her a lot for coming back so strong after pregnancy and using her influence for activism, which not every megastar athlete does or is obliged to.
Unreasonably sustaining temper, to the point of spoiling the other player's Grand Slam win (and it being the third time it's happened) = that's where I draw the line. Serena's a great player, comfortably amongst the pantheon of all-time tennis players with the Big Three and Steffi Graf. I understand the mitigating factors, I only wish she could have drawn on her experience to control her emotions just a bit better given this was the third time.
