Let's go to the text shall we?
So the ruling by the umpire was the Serena deliberately hindered Stosur by screaming "come on." This is absolute bovine excrement and must be reported as such. Why is it deliberate hindrance to scream out "come on!" before an opponent hits an unreturnable ball? If the ball WAS returnable, then I think one could rule it was a deliberate hindrance. Because, the player was deliberately hindered from returning it into play. But the ball was not playable so regardless of what Serena said or did that ball was not coming back into play. The bigger question is, why did the same umpire rule differently at the US Open than two years ago at the Doha 2009 tournament, under essentially the same rules in an identical situation? That umpire, Eva Asderaki like the notorious Marina Alves, should never be allowed to referee a Serena Williams match again.
But the bigger issue is with the ability of umpires and officials to make calls which videotape allows the fans and observers to know are incorrect. That is what used to happen with line call and now (thanks to the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals match with Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams when repeated, obvious line calls were made against Serena by Referee Marina Alves) we have electronic line calling. And tennis is much better for it. Ask Maria Kirilenko!
The ITF rules on "hindrance" state (Rule 26):
"If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).”
The WTA rules (pdf) on "hindrance" state:
If a player hinders her opponent, it can be ruled as either involuntary or deliberate.
1. Involuntary Hindrance
A let should be called the first time a player has created an involuntaryhindrance (e.g., ball falling out of pocket, hat falling off, etc.), and the player should be told that any such hindrance thereafter will be ruled deliberate.
2. Deliberate Hindrance
Any hindrance caused by a player that is ruled deliberate will result inthe loss of a point.My issue is with the interpretation of the rule. In what way did Serena's scream hinder Stosur in returning the ball? How do Azarenka's and Sharapova's shrieks not hinder the player on the other side of the net? If grunting is not involuntary hindrance than neither should screaming "come on!" If one takes the position that screaming out a word right before one's opponent is going to hit the ball is involuntary hindrance then a let should be played. It was very clear that Serena had hit a winner and was screaming out "come on!" as almost all tennis players do at that point. No human in that position was going to get that ball back in the court. Stosur happened to get her racquet on the ball before it bounced twice but no way was she going to get the ball back into play. If it had been some other event which had interrupted play the umpire should rule that Stosur had no play on the ball and give the point to Serena. But umpires often do interpret the rule (wrongly, in my view) that if the player gets a racquet on the ball (or is even in the vicinity of the ball when the incident happens) then the entire point needs to be replayed.
So the ruling by the umpire was the Serena deliberately hindered Stosur by screaming "come on." This is absolute bovine excrement and must be reported as such. Why is it deliberate hindrance to scream out "come on!" before an opponent hits an unreturnable ball? If the ball WAS returnable, then I think one could rule it was a deliberate hindrance. Because, the player was deliberately hindered from returning it into play. But the ball was not playable so regardless of what Serena said or did that ball was not coming back into play. The bigger question is, why did the same umpire rule differently at the US Open than two years ago at the Doha 2009 tournament, under essentially the same rules in an identical situation? That umpire, Eva Asderaki like the notorious Marina Alves, should never be allowed to referee a Serena Williams match again.
But the bigger issue is with the ability of umpires and officials to make calls which videotape allows the fans and observers to know are incorrect. That is what used to happen with line call and now (thanks to the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals match with Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams when repeated, obvious line calls were made against Serena by Referee Marina Alves) we have electronic line calling. And tennis is much better for it. Ask Maria Kirilenko!
What drives us observant followers, fans and players of the game insane is that there are a LOT of these subjective interpretations of the rules in the game of tennis and more often than not they seemed to be interpreted arbitrarily (or to the detriment of Serena at the U.S. Open). My point is that there should be an increased attempt to REDUCE subjectivity in tennis and have all umpire calls appealable by going to an objective source such as videotape (where available) and then a ruling by the tournament referee using the objective source.
Incidents such as "not up," "foot faults," "non-racquet contact with the ball" are all examples of situations which could be resolved by going to the videotape. You can also find multiple examples where umpires have made questionable (and incorrect) rulings against Serena Williams, Venus Williams and James Blake where the video shows pretty clear that the umpire was in error. What do these players all have in common? Hmmmmm.
There are video cameras in the cars of police officers all around the country to prevent incidents of what is known as "Driving While Black or Brown)."
All players need the ability to review video of incidents on the tennis court to substantiate umpire rulings!
Until that time, anyone playing in an official match, especially if they have "dark" skin may be subject to an incident of "Playing Tennis While Black"!
You've got to broaden your video research to see what bad calls & how many are being made against white players, and also women vs mean players. That gives you something to compare to. Only then can you have any idea that the calls against black players are biased.
ReplyDeleteYou'd need to tally calls against ALL paties for purposes of cmparison, befroe you could claim bias. Not just a few black players, but eveyrone.Then it might get interesting, but only then.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Azarenka and Sharapova... their grunts are happening as they hit the ball and not as their opponents are hitting the ball...
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Serena she would have been ok if she had waited until the point was completed... which is what she normally does...
ITF Rules of Tennis; USTA publication, with USTA comments:
ReplyDelete"Deliberate means a player did what the player intended to do, even if the result was unintended. An example is a player who advises the player’s partner in such a loud voice that their opponents are hindered. Involuntary refers to an act over which a player has no control, such as a hat blowing off or a scream after a wasp sting."
I see no way one could view Serena's call as involuntary based on this definition.
Everyone talks about "interpreting" the rules; the rules in fact are made to avoid interpretation as much as possible, to prevent impression of bias. How should an umpire judge the chance a player had of making a good return? Or whether the player was hindered or not? Ask her?
Your view on the purpose of these rules is exactly the opposite of what they are meant for! There is no objective way to judge hindrance or intention. That's why the rules say exactly what players cannot do. No discussion about why you did it or whether it changed the outcome, you know it's not allowed and what the penalty is.
Venus faced the same rule in 1999 with her beads. First time they came off a let was called and she was warned, second time it happened she lost the point, like the rules say ("..and the player should be told that any such hindrance thereafter will be ruled deliberate.").
About the grunting. After Navratilova's complaints following her loss in the semi-final against Seles in 1992, the umpire didn't allow any grunting in the final against Graf and Seles lost badly. With trainers having kids scream when hitting the ball to learn the right breathing technique, it's becoming difficult to ban it without handicapping some of the players. This one was warned for her really long screams:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLFUGX083DI
Wrong calls are nothing new to tennis. Every match has a few. If McEnroe hadn't been so reliably wrong most every time he protested, he would perhaps be seen as victim of the officials. Instead we can't remember the times he was right (at least I can't, and I was a fan)
With five bad calls in a match, most people would call the judging biased if four or all five of them were in favor of one player. If these calls happen randomly, odds of that are 37.5%, so more than one third of such matches would look biased purely by chance.
Hawk-Eye introduction may have been a direct result of the 2004 match. But it's hardly the first match where bad calls favoring one of the players have occurred. Would a game between a Russian and a Slovak player have had the same impact? Serena fans use the introduction as a sign something was wrong, as if Hawk-eye was needed to stop Serena-hating line judges and empires. Maybe stopping prejudiced claims against judges was also a factor.
Of course there are racists in tennis, just like anywhere else. But people are subject to confirmation bias, see and remember things selectively, and interpret them in ways that confirm their established beliefs.
And that happens to black people, white people, those who do and those who don't like Serena. You see injustice, someone else sees a bad attitude. And both sides see how the other side reacts, with opportunists fanning the flames, as more evidence ... And so it continues.
Bit long, I know..
I feel I must reposnd to the last (long) comment but I am glad this post has sparked a conversation.
ReplyDelete1) I completely disagree that the rules of tennis do not have "interpretation" built into them. If not, then why is the referee there? There is the 20-second play rule (which no one abides by) there is the question of whether a player has a play on a ball when a bad call is made, etc etc. To say that the determination can be made just from reading the rules is laughable.
2) My position is that Stosur was not hindered by Serena's outburst. No human was going to get the ball into play. Yes, she delibrately shouted but the hindrance rule should not apply to those situations if it does not also apply to the caterwauling sounds Sharapova and Azarenka (et alia) make.
3) My main goals is to have video replay instituted for ALL CALLS made by the umpire which the player can use to appeal to the tournament officials when they feel the need. There needs to be an objective source of "truth."
People used to say the "call was the call" and the lines person and the umpire were the law of the land. Now with Electronic Line Calling (thanks to an egregious situation involving Serena Williams being DELIBERATELY CHEATED at the very US OPEN where this latest incident occurred) we know that is not true.
Once we get to video replay I will be content.
Absolutely wonderful Blog detailing the bias against Serena by the USTA/US Open that history and video clearly documents specifically in 2004, 2009 and 2011! Not to mention the fact that Serena's match the night before the final did not even start until around 10:30pm; then press duties further delayed her departure from the stadium until 2:00 AM.
ReplyDeleteA testimony to the strength of Serena, Venus and the entire Williams Family is that they continue to endure with dignity the ugliness of racism in the tennis world! They obviously love the game of tennis and have multiple Grand Slam Titles as well as Olmypic Gold as proof!
Williams Sisters Rock