Agree with most of what you've written, but....in all fairness, "encouragement" is allowed, but not coaching. Even if they look at their box, they look there because it's the whole team - physiotherapists, family, friends. But the same terryfisch would have refuted this argument a few posts ago. I am tired of arguing with someone so biased, and the appeals to some pseudo-authority never impressed me. I trust ITF on this one, end of.

Not really for some reason since he has done this with consistency in the past. Like in any sport, every referee/umpire has their own approach to officiating. Likewise, such a referee/umpire enters into the contest with their reputation preceding them meaning someone who has been on the tour for 20 years has no excuse when it comes to being aware of this.

Also, to be accurate, the umpire was sure of the coaching as he saw Serena's coach signal in a manner that in no way resembled a 'thumbs up' as Serena claimed. Eurosport replays clearly showed the coach signalling so it's irrelevant whether Ramos could be certain the signal was received or not as the violation is about the attempt to do so - which is precisely what happened and was acknowledged by the offender

Moreover, it is not Serena's first time having issues at the US Open as evidenced by this thread

Yes, encouragement would be allowed, but there were no thumbs up - we know that he tried to coach. And it doesn't matter if Serena Williams wanted to get coached or not. The rule is:

(my emphasis)

We know that he was giving instructions. We know that she looked at him at the time. qed

Of course, it's crystal clear but not for terryfisch. Let's move on...:-)

My impression is that they'll try to change the rules instead of reinforcing them on a more consistent basis...:ROFL:

Will someone dare though? Hehe

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/s...fied-_-TWITTER

I think Serena has more of a point after seeing the rule quoted there Scipio.

That rule does not differentiate between coaching, celebrating, consoling, encouraging at all. Even a thumbs up between player and coach is forbidden.

How often do we see the players' boxes doing all sorts of communication towards the player - practically every point of every match. How often is it called by the umpire? Basically never.

Then you can argue that all the stadium is coaching. Clapping your hands and cheering is just that - encouragement. The coach is not allowed to do any signs that can be construed as coaching, it's not even relevant if the player has seen his signs or not, and I guess most are too focused to even think of looking for "signs"...and that's why the rule is formulated in the way that is absolutely clear that the player will be penalised on behalf of his coach's behaviour.

You can't really argue that all of the stadium is part of a player's coaching staff, that's pretty far fetched.

When players are struggling, they look to the box plenty for "divine intervention". When you are struggling and you see you team giving encouragement, that's coaching in its own way as it can buoy your performance.

My point is this though: That rule is written in such broad terms and caveated so heavily as to be worthless. Under that definition, all or nothing can be viewed as acceptable due to the word "construed". One umpire will undoubtely construe things differently to another.

The rule is not fit for purpose and should be reworded to something like "Any communication between the player's box and the player will be penalised with a violation" - nice and easy to understand and enforce. No coaching, no encouragement, nothing. Just two players against only each other, pure sporting endeavour.

I think Serena will be the first one to oppose to such draconian rules... She's known to show up at matches with plenty of people around her. Let's give it a break, the rules are reinforced when it's evident, I don't think we can argue against that. Some umpires might be more easy going, but judging by quite a few cases of "coaching" they try to reinforce them when they think they have a case. Serena was subjected to what most of them have been going through at least once in their career....instead of accepting shit happens, she accused the umpire of sexism. We're going in circles. Again. I would have had more sympathy if she didn't put up that scene that took away Naomi Osaka's joy and clear merits.

Once again, to clarify, I am not justifying Serena's actions at the time nor her excuses after the fact. She should apologise in my opinion for calling the umpire a cheat.

My point, again to clarify, is that the rule is too open to interpretation. I will neither accept nor concede your premise that athletes should accept that "shit happens" - this is professional sport, not me and you knocking up at the local tennis club. They have technology to track balls millimetrically and to sense the slightest touch of ball on net cord, so why are they still persisting with rules that allow huge variation in human interpretation in other areas? It makes no sense.

Why do they have such a stupid rule anyway?

Tom

Ok, one more time then.
We already agreed that this rule has a certain room for interpretation and that there's even a lot more room for improvement in regards with its reinforcing, and by that I mean consistent reinforcing. There's no perfect umpire or referee.
There are cases more evident and others less evident when it comes to reinforcing this specific rule. If there's a clear and audible, even short and insignificant, instruction coming from a coach in the heat of the moment - that's clear. Some gestures can be interpreted, some are clearly construed as coaching.
What Mouratoglou did was one of those (gestures) that didn't leave the umpire any room for interpretation. Serena is not morally responsible for her coach's behaviour, and neither other player. Yet, when their coaches are breaking the rules - they get penalised. This is what I meant by "shit happens". She could have protested the umpire's decision by stating her opinion, even loudly and angrily as long as no insults were thrown, fair enough, but the ultimate call to make was his, not hers. I understand that some of them have such a huge status that they feel they can throw away umpires, stop playing without consequences and so on, but in reality they're still players and the match will go by the rules the umpire sees fit to apply. There's a lot of other things she could do or could have done, post match, including filling a report or a complaint at relevant tennis institutions. On the court, she has to respect her opponent and the public too, and that is not what she chose to do. You can't make it all about you, your daughter, your integrity - none of which being the subjects of the umpire's decisions, and have people believe you were the victim here. OK, "American reality" differs than ours and had read even opinions stating she behaved gracefully. It makes me wonder what some prominent Americans consider "ungracefully". Shuddering...

I personally have ambivalent feelings regarding this rule. I think there should be a few very clear definitions and penalties for on-court coaching but not completely eliminated.

Well, why do you count 15 30 40?? It's a sport that badly needs reform anyways. I say allow them to throw the rackets at each other. Much more exciting for the crowd!

Which is why, by drafting a clear and concise rule, you can take making and enforcing the decision outwith their purview.
I agree 100% with the first bit, but don't understand what you mean by the highlighted second half of the sentence.

Scorers used to use a clock face to score and you needed 4 points to win a game, so originally it went 15, 30, 45, Game. Nobody seems to know why 45 dropped off to 40. Maybe someone's clock was missing IX at some point!

I meant I am not totally against the rule (as in wanting to be eliminated), just to be much more clear and easily to be reinforced.

Yeah, I googled the same; just reiterates my point, that the game is in need of a few changes. Same thing for "umpire"...it's called a ref in practically every other sport.

We cricketers beg to differ, old bean.

Yeah yeah, let's make it more popular! To hell with all this formalism... I'd say allow chicks to take off their t-shirts and show us the goodies. (uhm, not really interested but I can imagine ecstatic males in the public...)

Tennis does have a referee already. It's just a different position from the umpire, and if players feel the umpire does not interpret the rules properly or treaties them unfair they can go to the referee who makes a final decision.

No one knows what Ramos saw. But what typically happens in most tournaments -notwithstanding a Grand Slam Final! - is that the umpire will issue a a soft warning. Let me spell this out for you..."Ms Williams, I suspect your coach is making signals to you".. And then, they/the umpire will give the player the chance to remove their coach from their visual sight (which Martina Navratilova also suggested in her op ed) Ramos did not do that but issued a violation immediately. Therein lies the caveat...and my issue. This umpire did what no umpire has done before in a Grand Slam Final. And that is why many players on the tour are aghast and side with Serena. PS.. Of course the ITF will support their own! Naive to think they would not do so...

Serena's reaction was offensive and odious but the umpire did her nor Osaka and the Grand Slam final no favors. He let the issue escalate and he could have contained it.

Therein lies the problem..or my problem with the officiating...