That was almost 10 years ago and this is everyone’s go to. If she continued to behave that way I’d understand a trend or pattern of behavior.
Demanding an apology isn’t verbal abuse at all.
Serena Williams
- Thread starter emmuna
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
That was almost 10 years ago and this is everyone’s go to. If she continued to behave that way I’d understand a trend or pattern of behavior.
Demanding an apology isn’t verbal abuse at all.
Certainly not. It was a ridiculous demand (along with the equally ridiculous demand that he make an announcement to the stadium that she wasn't cheating) but it didn't constitute verbal abuse.
But do you really think none of us here are aware of everything else she said during her three separate and lengthy screaming sessions at the umpire?
I definitely didn’t say no one here wasn’t aware of what transpired. I’m not sure how my comment gave that impression.
I don't follow tennis and I haven't followed this story closely but just from what I'm aware of as a non-sports person, men have gotten away with plenty of temper tantrums in tennis. So I think she has a legitimate gripe.
Pretending that all she did was demand an apology is pointless obfuscating since those of us with an interest in the topic know that's not what happened, is what I'm saying.
She absolutely met the code criteria for verbal abuse, both by the letter of the law and the spirit of it - even though it was a bad decision on the part of the umpire to enforce the code at that particular time.
As I was watching the argument in real time, I was admiring her maturity and restraint, but that's mostly because I was comparing it in my head to the confrontation with the lineswoman, which is one of the most appalling things I've ever seen. Upon rewatch...it's hardly the worst thing I've ever seen, but it wasn't ok either.
She absolutely met the code criteria for verbal abuse, both by the letter of the law and the spirit of it - even though it was a bad decision on the part of the umpire to enforce the code at that particular time.
As I was watching the argument in real time, I was admiring her maturity and restraint, but that's mostly because I was comparing it in my head to the confrontation with the lineswoman, which is one of the most appalling things I've ever seen. Upon rewatch...it's hardly the worst thing I've ever seen, but it wasn't ok either.
My intent wasn’t to say that’s all she did, and I’m newer to tennis, but the whole thing seems excessive. Even the WTA said the application was sexist. Starting with the coaching violation and it escalated from there. Why didn’t it start with a warning? She was in the middle of a huge match, I can see how it could escalate when you’re already pumped up, etc.
I'm sorry but the McEnroe thing is irrelevant. It's not equivalent because that was over 20+ years ago and both the times and the rules of tennis have changed since then. And also, people saying he never got penalised really need to take a look at his record
- The All England Club refused to give him honorary membership because of his behaviour.
- He was disqualified from an event in 84' for his outburts
- Suspended from playing for 21 days for exceeding a fine limit, given because of his atrocious on-court antics.
- When the new Code of Conduct came in, in 1990 at the Australian Open he was booted from the tournament for swearing at the umpire, supervisor, and referee.
- He was warned by the umpire for intimidating a lineswoman, and then docked a point for smashing a racket.
- McEnroe was apparently unaware that a new Code of Conduct, which had been introduced just before the tournament, meant that a third code violation would not lead to the deduction of a game but instead would result in immediate disqualification; therefore, when McEnroe unleashed a volley of abuse at umpire Gerry Armstrong, he was defaulted. He was also fined $6,500 for the incidents
It did start with a warning.
-First offense (receiving coaching) - warning
-Second offense (breaking her racket) - automatic 1 point penalty
-Third offense (verbal abuse of the umpire) - game deduction
The umpire did not determine the penalties. The penalties were determined by the rules based on the number of violations. All the umpire did was call the violations, and one of the three (racket breaking) was automatic. People who don't know tennis and who didn't watch the match seem to think that the umpire decided to make an unprecedented move and take a game away from Serena just because she backtalked him, which is not what happened at all, and perhaps people should inform their opinions more before weighing in.
Ramos had the leeway to give her a "soft warning" (i.e., tell her to cut it out or get a violation) before giving out the third violation, and pretty much everyone agrees that it was his mistake not to have done that. But Serena legitimately racked up three violations, and she absolutely should have known she was risking a verbal abuse violation when she went at the umpire three separate times and screamed at him that he was a liar and a thief who would never officiate at one of her matches again.
-First offense (receiving coaching) - warning
-Second offense (breaking her racket) - automatic 1 point penalty
-Third offense (verbal abuse of the umpire) - game deduction
The umpire did not determine the penalties. The penalties were determined by the rules based on the number of violations. All the umpire did was call the violations, and one of the three (racket breaking) was automatic. People who don't know tennis and who didn't watch the match seem to think that the umpire decided to make an unprecedented move and take a game away from Serena just because she backtalked him, which is not what happened at all, and perhaps people should inform their opinions more before weighing in.
Ramos had the leeway to give her a "soft warning" (i.e., tell her to cut it out or get a violation) before giving out the third violation, and pretty much everyone agrees that it was his mistake not to have done that. But Serena legitimately racked up three violations, and she absolutely should have known she was risking a verbal abuse violation when she went at the umpire three separate times and screamed at him that he was a liar and a thief who would never officiate at one of her matches again.
In listening to her talk to the ref what I thought I heard was someone who came on a mission, maybe part of the pressure was self inflicted, trying to prove something one year after the birth of her daughter, back on the court, to win the US open, some message of triumph for all girls. To get so close and know she was losing, polite desperation and frustration set in. Some ego, wanting some deference from the ref with his calls, not saying he should not have made any of them, but how about not all of them.
Serena did not rehearse a gracious defeat, I think we were hearing part of a speech she already had in her head, realizing that moment to speak from a position of victory was not coming. There was a meltdown and some on the spot processing, then adjusting.
As much as I love Serena, I think she robbed Naomi Osaka of her winning moment and another community of basking in a first. I was watching MSNBC when Naomi won the match and Richard Lui interrupted a political commentary from his guests to ask if they followed tennis (both said no) and then he proclaimed Ms. Osaka's victory on the air.
Serena did not rehearse a gracious defeat, I think we were hearing part of a speech she already had in her head, realizing that moment to speak from a position of victory was not coming. There was a meltdown and some on the spot processing, then adjusting.
As much as I love Serena, I think she robbed Naomi Osaka of her winning moment and another community of basking in a first. I was watching MSNBC when Naomi won the match and Richard Lui interrupted a political commentary from his guests to ask if they followed tennis (both said no) and then he proclaimed Ms. Osaka's victory on the air.
If all the umpire did was call the violations why didn’t he call all of them? Why didn’t he call both players for their time violations?
I felt really bad for the girl who won. This taints her winning this Grand Slam forever.
Must you troll every single thread on this board?
I didn’t watch the game, but wondered if Osaka won due to penalties or if she would have ultimately beaten Serena. Is she Osaka as good as Serena? Competitively. What are the consensus? I would hate to win this way as a player.
She beat her because her game was better on the day, point deduction or not.
I think Osaka would have won regardless. She was playing an outstanding match. Serena was slower to adjust to what Osaka was doing well, and even when Serena made adjustments, Osaka would adjust to those quickly and get back to dominating. It was suggested upthread that the true source of a lot of Serena's emotions may have been her frustration / surprise over just how well Osaka was playing and I think there is a lot of merit to that theory.