What a mind-numbingly stupid article. Unreal.

Serena’s behaviour has as much to do with gender and colour as John McEnroe’s: nothing.

Human, who enjoyed watching Serena’s sister in Arthur Ashe Stadium a few weeks ago

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 09:48PM by steve benson.

Ridiculous, nothing at all to do with racism or sexism. She was getting her butt kicked out there, tried to bully her way out of it, then turned on the waterworks when her verbal abuse backfired on her. And yes, it is abusive to call someone a liar, a cheater, and a thief for doing nothing more than following the rules as written.

Be fair, Todd: all players are coached from the sidelines, as Serena’s coach admitted and revealed.

The first warning wasn’t warranted.

Serena should have got her shit together, played tennis and complained later, certainly. But I get her outrage. That first warning was absolute bullshit.

how is it bullshit if its clearly a rules violation and the coach admitted it? Just because some referees are willing to look the other way we can't fault another for doing the job properly. Besides, it was just a warning. her decision to subsequently smash her racket (automatic pentaty) and berate an official is 100 pct on her. To try to make it about sexism is pathetic.

Todd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how is it bullshit if its clearly a rules
> violation and the coach admitted it? Just because
> some referees are willing to look the other way we
> can't fault another for doing the job properly.
> Besides, it was just a warning. her decision to
> subsequently smash her racket (automatic pentaty)
> and berate an official is 100 pct on her. To try
> to make it about sexism is pathetic.

I want to know if it was sexism when this same umpire, Carlos Ramos, gave a code violation to Nick Kyrgios for yelling at a ballboy during the 2016 French Open. Was it sexism when Ramos issued a code violation to Andy Murray after he insulted Ramos during the 2016 Olympics? Was it sexism when Ramos issued a code violation to Rafael Nadal for taking too long between serves during the 2017 French Open? Was it sexism when Ramos issued a code violation to Novak Djokovic for throwing his racquet during Wimbledon this year?

This is not about sexism, this is about a chair umpire who is well known for being quick to issue code violations, regardless of the gender of the player.

Good points, im not familiar with his history other than I know he tangled with Nadal. Somebody must think he's doing a good job if he was awarded the final.

I notice nothing in Ramos' history regarding coaching violations given to men.
Just sayin'...

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I notice nothing in Ramos' history regarding
> coaching violations given to men.
> Just sayin'...

Have you looked through his entire record as an umpire? I just pointed out several high profile incidents where he was quick to give code violations to men, but it is by all means not an all inclusive record. If you dig into this just a little bit, you find that Ramos is well known in tennis for being a stickler about little things and for being quick to issue code violations.

alsd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you looked through his entire record as an
> umpire?

I looked through this year's records (before this past weekend's events).
There were 59 coaching violations given out in all sanctioned events this year. 42 were to female players, 17 were to male players. 1 was given by Ramos. It was to a female player.

He does indeed appear to be a "stickler." But only for certain rules. Others, not so much.

It's the inconsistency of the rule violation calls that irk so many of the players, incidentally. Their consensus (despite differing opinions) is that they want the same rules applied to everyone all the time, and that they're not.

There's no question Williams "lost it." And that reflects badly on her. It was a stupid thing to do.

I just think understanding why she lost it matters.

Yes.

What matters is whether the rules are enforced equitably. With regard to coaching violations and dress codes, they are not.

The ref should have understood her fury and have defused it by exercising forbearance, reversing the coaching call and/or issuing an informal warning before imposing the game penalty.

Serena overreacted on the court, but her claims about misfeasance afterwards are not necessarily overwrought. Women are not treated fairly in tennis relative to men.

Yeah. Not sexism at all. ESPN showed all the other controversies of his after showing everything that happened to Williams. Right away I thought how is this sexist if he is a tough umpire on everybody

Steve, i'll take the insult as evidence you don't have an argument.

Williams herself blames sexism and said she will now "fight for women's rights," which I regard as an attempt at deflection from her behavior.

Williams is 36, and holding up amazingly well for an internationally ranked athlete, but 36 is still 36. The Tom Bradys of the sports universe who continue to perform so well in that age bracket are very rare. Williams lost to a 20-year-old who, ironically, idolizes Williams and dreamed of playing her.

Williams, for her part, is not aging gracefully. Playing the victim is woeful camouflage for bad sportsmanship ("sportswomanship?" "Sportspersonship?").

Other players have gotten "coaching" warnings before. So, Serena isn't the first. It isn't uncommon. Up until now, I have thought of it as a reasonable rule.

Now, I am not so sure, since the player is being penalized for the action of someone else. I think it would be better just to allow coaching. I also think that it might result in fewer behavioral outbursts if players had someone to vent to and talk them down.

There is no way that she didn't know that she was going to get called on for breaking the racquet. That was a straight up violation. Open and shut.

I’m more curious if Benson will weigh in or if he’s going to aim first before entering the politics of cartooning.

What does that mean, "aim first"?

I'm thinking that one political cartoonist may understandably not get into the ring against a fellow creator. But I can't read anybody's mind.

It's maybe more a question of the judgement and taste of each artist.

And in some measure the interpretation of the public who see the work.

If it stimulates discussion, well, that's usually a big part of the objectives.

The topic isn't something we should shy away from in general though. Better to talk things through than set up no-go zones. (Within reason and in context for time, place and circumstances).

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does that mean, "aim first"?

I could be wrong, but...

I took it to mean choosing "ready, aim, fire" over "ready, fire, aim" :)

Haha hie.

I get the general concept.

But I was wondering if the comment was meant as a criticism of Mr. Benson's art. As in he doesn't aim first, or something. If so, I thought an example may be in order.

Or not. It was just a detail I noted. And wondered about.

No didn’t have anything to do with his art. I enjoyed his stuff. I think my favorite is the Sarah Palin with a revolver for a mouth.

He’s known for a comment he made once about not aiming to please but just aiming. I couldn’t recall the quote when I made my post but I was trying to reference it. And what I was really saying is are we going to get his honest opinion or will it be somehow more calculated response. I got my answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 11:26PM by jay.

“I'm thinking that one political cartoonist may understandably not get into the ring against a fellow creator. But I can't read anybody's mind.“

I’m curious to see if your thinking is the case in this case.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 07:41PM by jay.

Combined together, this is the poison package you get:

-grossly exaggerated lips

-massively kinky hair

-dark, swarthy skin

-fierce

-savage

-scowling

-raw, coarse caricaturing

-threatening

-terrorizing

-raging

-animalistic

-gorilla-like body

-over-emotionalism

-hysterical

-screaming

-bellowing

-stomping

-temper-tantrum throwing

-wildly out of control

-woman-child mixture

—brash

-misbehaving

-unfeminine

-big

-overbearing

-overweight
——-

All packaged and presented in an uber-hyperbolized, brutal and brutish way to project an African-American woman in the most negative, sexist, racist way possible.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 03:34AM by steve benson.

The cartoonist, Mark Knight, also represented Naomi Osaka - a 5'11" muscular athlete who is Japanese - as petite, blonde, and white.

Actually, half Japanese and half Haitian.

So representing Williams as a raging black woman and Osaka as a petite blonde underscores the stereotypes.

He didnt' portray her as blonde and white. She dyed her ponytail, look it up. Both athletes are portrayed as lighter than their actual shade

Actually, Naomi Osaka is biracial - half Hatian. So why did Knight depict her as petite, blonde, and white?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b967eb3e4b0cf7b004209b5/amp

The clip at the bottom of that article mentions another controversial time when that ref called a coaching violation on an elite player in an elite competition.

The player? Vanessa Williams.

So we can stop worrying that he is misogynistic or racist. He just hates players whose last name is "Williams."

I'm sure you'll stay away from any exaggerations the next time you are drawing our president as a pig, Steve.

-grossly exaggerated lips - cartoonists routinely exaggerate facial features

-massively kinky hair - what? she does have kinky hair, what makes is massively kinky other than your need for hyperbole?

-dark, swarthy skin - drawing a black person with dark skin is racist?

-fierce -- she prides herself on this

-savage - what is savage about it?

-scowling - she was

-raw, coarse caricaturing - your opnion

-threatening - she did threaten him

-terrorizing - what is 'terrorizing' about it?

-raging - debatable, she was angry for sure

-animalistic - what is animalistic about it?

-gorilla-like body - what part of that drawing is gorilla like?

-over-emotionalism - your opinion

-hysterical - what part of the drawing portrays her as hysterical?

-screaming - she doesn't appear to be screaming in this cartoon
-bellowing - she doesn't appear to be bellowing either

-stomping - she is portrayed as destroying her racket, which she did

-temper-tantrum throwing - she did throw a tantrum

-wildly out of control - you got all that from a single frame?

-woman-child mixture - she is a woman and she behaved in childish manner

—brash - she was

-misbehaving - she was

-unfeminine - she isn't particularly feminine, i don't see a problem with that.

-big - she is a large person

-overbearing - she was

-overweight - i don't see her as overweight here. maybe it's the dress?

...who gives a "F"?...high-end cele"BRAT"ties can't take the heat?...people that dwarf our income level jobs, retirements and benefits/pensions? I say if these people still seek the spotlight, and we have to suffer thru THEIR "issues", then F'em...the whole lot of em'.

...sick of celebrity "issues".

I have little patience with elite athletes who verbally abuse or throw tantrums at referees or umpires. Take the call, and if you have an issue with it, take it up later with your sports federation. If there is a larger issue (such as why should coaching from the sidelines be penalized,) take that up as well. I watched one particular federation change a rule that was widely ignored by both athletes and coaches over many years.

Here is the deal: Serena Williams either has, or should have a heck of a lot of clout within her sport. Internal politics is a huge part of elite-level sport, and it is a wise athlete who knows how to manage that.

From Summer, who has watched many, many elite level athletes at very close hand.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 06:38PM by summer.

These are good points, but I would add two others.

First, if a significant refereeing error is made in the Superbowl, the NBA finals, or the last game of the World Series, it would be a big deal. In all of those leagues the refs do their best to avoid becoming important to the outcome of the contest. In this case, however, we have a ref who made an unusual coaching call--probably unique in grand slam finals--and failed to exercise the restraint for which such an occasion calls. It was handled poorly.

Second, there is no question that tennis has a gender problem. Within the last two weeks one woman athlete was told her clothing is inappropriate and another who was cited for changing her shirt. Has a man ever been subjected to such sartorial censure? Of course not.

Serena definitely could have done better. But the umpire failed to exercise the judgment his job requires. I doubt he will ever see a grand slam open again unless it is from the nosebleed rows.

And some of the rules are going to change. Because they are sexist (dress) and subject to capricious enforcement (coaching). Those changes should tell us something about whether there is sexism in professional tennis.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These are good points, but I would add two others.

> First, if a significant refereeing error is made in the Superbowl, the NBA finals, or the last game of the World Series, it would be a big deal. In all of those leagues the refs do their best to avoid becoming important to the outcome of the contest. In this case, however, we have a ref who made an unusual coaching call--probably unique in grand slam finals--and failed to exercise the restraint for which such an occasion calls. It was handled poorly.

If a police officer pulls you over, s/he is going to be unpersuaded by your statement that "everyone else is doing it too." The thing is, you did it and you got caught. If it's a stupid rule (and it sounds like it is,) take it up with your federation. If Serena doesn't have that level of clout, then why doesn't she? Is she too busy making money to work the internal politics of her sport?

> Second, there is no question that tennis has a gender problem. Within the last two weeks one woman athlete was told her clothing is inappropriate and another who was cited for changing her shirt. Has a man ever been subjected to such sartorial censure? Of course not.

I don't know, has a man ever appeared on a tennis court for competition dressed entirely in black spandex? If so, I would love to see it. I thought her outfit was inappropriate, but my knowledge of tennis is sketchy at best. All sports have dress standards. Sometimes athletes test those standards, but when that happens the federation sorts it out over time. And at the elite level, saying that you have to break the dress code for you "health" is ludicrous.

> Serena definitely could have done better. But the umpire failed to exercise the judgment his job requires. I doubt he will ever see a grand slam open again unless it is from the nosebleed rows.

He's been doing it for a number of decades, so maybe not.

summer Wrote:


> If a police officer pulls you over, s/he is going
> to be unpersuaded by your statement that "everyone
> else is doing it too."

Traffic rules are a good example inasmuch as they are subject to judgment, as anyone driving on a freeway at 56+ miles an hour knows. Likewise, if one category of people (say, certain minorities) gets pulled over a lot more than other categories, it doesn't matter what the police officer says. The courts will intervene and hold the officer/s responsible for the misbehavior. It matters whether the rules are enforced reasonably and uniformly.



> The thing is, you did it
> and you got caught. If it's a stupid rule (and it
> sounds like it is,) take it up with your
> federation.

The possibility that a rule might be changed after the fact doesn't help during the finals. That is why athletes and coaches in such situations get furious with bad calls--or bad judgment calls.



> If Serena doesn't have that level of
> clout, then why doesn't she? Is she too busy
> making money to work the internal politics of her
> sport?

That's the thing. Serena doesn't need to interfere at this point. The rule will change because the ref demonstrated how absurd, and arbitrary, it is.



> And at the elite level,
> saying that you have to break the dress code for
> you "health" is ludicrous.

Two points. There is no element of the dress code that ruled out the catsuit. Second, anyone who thinks that spandex or tights are "ludicrous" in sports for health reasons has evidently been fortunate enough to have no experience with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Williams, however, was not so lucky.



> LW: The umpire failed to exercise the judgment his job
> requires. I doubt he will ever see a grand slam
> open again unless it is from the nosebleed rows.
>
> Summer: He's been doing it for a number of decades, so
> maybe not.

Well, he hasn't been doing it for decades. His first finals was eleven years ago. But in any case, in this instance he did his sport a disservice and will pay for it the same way other officials do when they exercise terrible judgment in major events.

I've seen really bad/sketchy/questionable calls made in Olympic finals with gold medals on the line. So yeah, it happens.

If the catsuit is allowed under the dress code for tennis, then fine. If not, then she needed to sit out for health reasons (In my opinion she should have done that anyway.) Not make excuses.

IMO Serena acted like a spoiled brat. I think she needs to start a wider discussion about why she evidently does not have the clout to help steer the kinds of changes that she wants to see in her sport.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen really bad/sketchy/questionable calls
> made in Olympic finals with gold medals on the
> line. So yeah, it happens.

Ah, the East German judge. . . Yes, the late Cold War was the high water mark for arbitrary officiating.



> If the catsuit is allowed under the dress code for
> tennis, then fine. If not, then she needed to sit
> out for health reasons (In my opinion she should
> have done that anyway.) Not make excuses.

The dress code only says generic stuff, which is why Williams was not prevented from competing in the catsuit. I don't have a problem with the federation clarifying its interpretation of the rule after the fact, as it did, though I do think some accommodations should be offered prospectively for health reasons.

On the need for compression clothing, I don't agree that she should have sat out the competition. There are lots of athletes in lots of sports who wear compression gear for injuries; and once a person has had a DVT or a PE, the risk of recurrence is permanently elevated. So athletes (usually older athletes, but yes some moms as well) just learn to live with the risk and to manage it with anticoagulants and compression clothing when competing. It's that way for the rest of one's life.



> IMO Serena acted like a spoiled brat.

Agreed. She may, however, simultaneously have been correct. I am not saying she behaved reasonably--I don't know enough to offer such a statement--just that the ref was wrong.



>I think she
> needs to start a wider discussion about why she
> evidently does not have the clout to help steer
> the kinds of changes that she wants to see in her
> sport.

That's the heart of the problem, I think. Williams had no way of knowing the ref would make that call, so she couldn't have pre-emptively gotten the rule changed.

What is more important is that the rule will now go away, and it isn't just because of her. It's because there is something approaching unanimity in the sport that it is ridiculous and potentially ruinous to competition.

Re the dress code: Wimbledon (in England) has a dress code from long tradition that players must wear all white. Of course, in our day that seems archaic and restrictive. Other major tournaments either don't have a code (eg: France) or it's a lot more permissive than England's.

Because of what Williams wore during the French Open this year ("cat suit") France has announced a new code for future tournies (to include no cat suits!).

I thought the same thing as summer mentioned: If Serena's outfit in France was selected due to health concerns (DVT), fair enough I guess, but primarily why was she playing if she was at risk of such a big health risk.

I love watching tennis. I detest, though, elite athletes showing bad temper. My first strong dislike, as mentioned above by others, is abuse of officials (which all too many players do). My second is racket tantrums. Serena did both in one tournie. It's too bad that this incident isn't clearcut, as many people feel that the official was out of line and perpetrated a grave miscarriage. Rather, the issue is murkier due to Serena losing her cool (which you do see a lot with many top athletes, unfortunately).

I agree that officials strive to avoid becoming the story, as in intervening to an extent that they affect the outcome, as happened here. His decisions did play a big part.

You'd have to examine the standard to determine more decisively whether Serena was treated differently. Tennis experts (commentators, former players) are saying that they were shocked when she was given the first violation as "coaches coach from the sidelines all the time and the players are not penalized". Of more import is the common agreement that Serena does not take the coaching from the side (which is not allowed); in fact, doesn't take it even at times when there's a break and it is permitted. They say she is also particularly known for refusing to do anything that may constitute cheating. So they feel (the ones I've heard discussing this) that she was unfairly treated because in most cases no players are penalized for the coaching violation. As one informed commentator/former player said, that's where the whole thing started - that the ref showed bad judgement in giving the first point violation. Then apparently Serena asked to have that reversed and she thought it had been. She only realized her error when she got the second violation for the racket abuse. When she spoke to the ref about it again that is when she got the third violation, as I understand it. The former player said no way would Serena have done anything else to get another penalty; she must have thought she had only received one in total, not two.

That's my understanding of it, anyway. I'm unclear on when she used the strong words against the ref (cheat, etc).

There is obviously a lot of what went on that is on her. If she had been less intemperate, hence receiving fewer penalties (certainly the second and third) then of course she could have continued to play unhindered and, as the commentators said, it is well within her powers to come back and win a couple of games in a row, breaking the other player's serve, to have a good shot at winning the second set and at least getting herself to the third set with a big chance of winning the tournament. That is likely what was so hard for her to take. I can see that.

One thing you can say is that she summoned whatever generosity of spirit she needed to be gracious to the other player.

It's so too bad that the ref, Serena's actions and words, and this controversy will forever colour the great win for her opponent. And they say that Serena is her idol too. She got to play against her in a huge tournament and won. Should have been all sweet.

I felt sorry too for the fans who were obviously looking forward to seeing three sets or at least a great match but it was abruptly over. I winced at the thought of the expense of the tickets and then they wuz robbed of a third set.

I can understand if Serena feels singled out as she's had several occasions lately to think so. But she isn't able to claim complete innocence in this case due to her violations and displays of temper. And that interferes with her overall concern about potential sexism and other negatives in a sport she loves.

I would hope she could keep the two things separate - what happened at this tournament and any action she wants to take re her belief that sexism is at play. It's an important issue. She could create a big impetus for future improvements. This wouldn't be the hill to choose to die on due to the racquet thing and the name-calling which detracts from what should be the central issue, if it's true. I'm not clear on that. But it's certainly possible, given all the other areas in life where such inequities are still alive and well.

I generally agree with you. I am not comfortable with Serena's behavior.

But she knows the sport and the history a lot better than I do (which is very little). There are many athletes who have in the past taken a stand on racial issues, for instance, and looked bad to (many, not all) observers at the time only to become recognized over time for having contributed to social progress.

What sports are most likely to be informed by atavistic biases? Tennis would have to be close to the top of the list. So while I am uncomfortable with what Williams did at Flushing Meadows, given her experience in the sport I wouldn't bet against her accusations quite yet.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are many athletes who have in the past taken a
> stand on racial issues, for instance, and looked
> bad to (many, not all) observers at the time only
> to become recognized over time for having
> contributed to social progress.

Agreed.

It takes courage to be among the first to make a stand. Easier to jump on the bandwagon after the fact. But still, some of us aren't trailblazers; however, we can be partners and cheerleaders along the path.


>... while I am uncomfortable with what Williams did at Flushing Meadows, given her experience in the sport I wouldn't bet against her accusations quite yet.

Yes, even those on her side are saying that it would be better to separate the two issues; what was occurring in the match, and the issues in the sport (i.e., sexism).

Easy to say though. In the heat of the moment (which passes so quickly) more difficult. I have read that Serena is intense, as is the case with most elite athletes. Without that drive they would likely not be at the top of their game, literally. Given her age, which is against her in her sport (not surprising nor unique) and the fact that it was the US Open (her home country) and her intense drive to win it's easy to see why she would be highly strung at the time. She must have already been anxious after losing the first set. Then she got a violation call for something that the refs usually let go (plus she apparently didn't see her coach and is known to never cheat anyway). I think it's fairly uncharacteristic of her to lose control. And, as I said, some of the knowledgeable commentators say no top player would ever knowingly, willfully, give cause for the third violation. Serena looked so shocked like she totally did not realize she had two already (apparently misunderstanding and thinking the ref had recalled the first penalty).

So I can understand her approach, somewhat. Away from the heat of the moment, of course it's obvious that it's better to keep issues arising during play separate from off-court campaigns against injustices. I do believe she and others have spoken up previously against sexism, recently in her case (re the French kerfluffle about her dress choice there - and ha, the French can talk - they have often pushed the frontier of fashion). So it's not like out of the blue Serena slyly switched to a topic she had never before broached just to put herself in a better light.

In terms of the unfortunate match, it's well accepted that coaching from the sidelines (not allowed) "always happens". Many tennis experts are saying the ref could have given Serena a "soft" warning rather than that first penalty that led to the unfortunate downhill slide from there. Also, apparently the ref, Ramos, has not given the same penalty to any male player for the same transgression (i.e., potential sexism/favouritism).

Billy Jean King, tennis icon, stated that she sees it as sexism. Ironically, the match was at the Billy Jean King stadium. And BJK knows something about suffering discrimination.

It leads to a larger discussion of how women are often viewed negatively where men are admired for doing/saying the same thing. For instance, if a woman speaks up she is "mouthy" (negative). If a man does so, he is "assertive" (admirable).

Back to the match, it seems that what is tolerated from men is not so much from females. Specifically re Serena, people are asking why the ref had to influence the game/match so much. Usually they try to de-escalate a situation. That is what leads to the unknowable: would Osaka still have won? If so, a sweeter victory for her. If so, at least Serena could have gone down fighting (for herself, not against the ref).

The standard should be what is right vs wrong, not male vs female.

Better to be strategic though. Play through adversity, from whatever source. Address wrongs after the game. Justified personal criticism will derail the issue.

Be right. Be seen to be right.

I hope good things come for Serena out of this and for other players and for the sport.

>>I have read that Serena is intense, as is the case with most elite athletes. Without that drive they would likely not be at the top of their game, literally.I have read that Serena is intense, as is the case with most elite athletes. Without that drive they would likely not be at the top of their game, literally.

From what I've observed, they all have drive, some more than others. It expresses in different ways. IMO most are not what I would call high-strung or temperamental.

Just putting that out there for the "Well, why was she playing?" crowd.

She almost died of PE while she was in the hospital after giving birth. Good article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/sports/tennis/serena-williams-baby-vogue.html

My heart goes out to Naomi Osaka.

And yeah, that cartoon is racist.

Hi Beth.

I didn't mean to be/sound judgemental re the DVT, if it came across that way. More I was remembering how I winced and feared for her when I heard she wore the suit for DVT prevention. That's gotta be scary.

I see the question asked a lot, and I just happened to post under your comment.

All is well.

"From Summer, who has watched many, many elite level athletes at very close hand."

"I've seen really bad/sketchy/questionable calls made in Olympic finals with gold medals on the line. So yeah, it happens."

I'm curious if you have a relative or close friend in a professional sport - or if you just follow some sports very closely. I get the impression from your statements that you have some connection. Do you?

My thoughts: I can understand losing your cool. It's intense competition. I don't hold it against her at all. I also think she earned the penalties. (She did deny ever being coached - but her coach said he was coaching her. If she doesn't come clean on this, then it sounds like she's being dishonest). But, maybe given what was on the line - the Finals - the ref could have given her more leeway and let the play decide the outcome rather than allowing the ref to possibly influence the outcome.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These are good points, but I would add two
> others.
>
> First, if a significant refereeing error is made
> in the Superbowl, the NBA finals, or the last game
> of the World Series, it would be a big deal. In
> all of those leagues the refs do their best to
> avoid becoming important to the outcome of the
> contest. In this case, however, we have a ref who
> made an unusual coaching call--probably unique in
> grand slam finals--and failed to exercise the
> restraint for which such an occasion calls. It
> was handled poorly.
>
> Second, there is no question that tennis has a
> gender problem. Within the last two weeks one
> woman athlete was told her clothing is
> inappropriate and another who was cited for
> changing her shirt. Has a man ever been subjected
> to such sartorial censure? Of course not.
>
> Serena definitely could have done better. But the
> umpire failed to exercise the judgment his job
> requires. I doubt he will ever see a grand slam
> open again unless it is from the nosebleed rows.
>
>
> And some of the rules are going to change.
> Because they are sexist (dress) and subject to
> capricious enforcement (coaching). Those changes
> should tell us something about whether there is
> sexism in professional tennis.

Women are not the only ones subject to dress codes. Just last year a male player was required to change his underwear at Wimbledon because they were blue and could be seen through his white shorts. Andre Agassi avoided playing Wimbledon for several years because he did not want to follow the dress code. Roger Federer was forced to change his shoes during Wimbledon in 2013 because they were in violation of the dress code.

Often if you scratch the surface of a controversy, you can see that the controversy is not as one sided as you like to think. But too many people are far too lazy to scratch the surface.

Clearly there is a gender problem in tennis, particularly with a pay gap. But the issues Serena is complaining about are not as prevalent as she is making them out to be. High profile male players have been issued code violations by this umpire, Carlos Ramos, for outbursts. High profile male tennis players have been subject to penalties and warnings for dress code violations, or have skipped high profile tournaments altogether because of dress codes. These issues are not unique to female tennis players, no matter how many high profile female tennis players like to think they are.

Yeah, and white drivers get pulled over sometimes, too, and white renters are sometimes denied housing.

The issue isn't whether men and women, minorities and majorities, are penalized for violating a particular code. It is whether the penalties are disproportionately imposed on one group relative to another. If so, and absent better explanations, it is reasonable to conclude that there is systemic prejudice.

So I ask, did your research (I read the Wikipedia article on that "stickler" Ramos, too) reveal penalties against other players for coaching violations in the finals of a grand slam tournament? Because that is the right comparison.

And regarding the dress code, did you find any cases in which men were penalized for changing their shirts on the court? Because that is the apt reference point for a woman who was cited for doing that.

I don't think you have anywhere near the level of information necessary to conclude that Williams's concerns about sexism are overwrought.

These athletes should be role models. A lot of people look up to them. They all seem to be pushing the line, as far as what they get away with nowadays. If no one puts their foot down and dont draw the line with this type of behaviour, they’ll try to get away with breaking more rules.
They’re pros and are being paid to act professionally, as well as playing it

I'm wondering when athletes did not push the line. There were Charles Barkley and Dennis Rodman in basketball, and even earlier John McEnroe in tennis. If you include coaches, have there been any worse since Bob Knight?

I'm not defending what Serena did. I think she could have handled things a lot better, particularly when she broke her racket. But, frankly, professional athletes are really only "role models" when their police records are sealed.

That's only a partial exaggeration.

;)

“But, frankly, professional athletes are really only "role models" when their police records are sealed.“

Whoa. Is that some unconscious racism or a bad generalization?

My role model growing up was O.J. Simpson! Great man, with just a couple of flaws! Did I mention I played golf with The Juice?

Don't you wonder at times on why some people are alive and Athur Ashe got that bad transfusion?

Professional athletes are humanity's finest people and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a prejudiced racist apologist extremist anti-vaxxer!

. . . you wrote of golfing with OJ Simpson. It was before they found a way to make you stop posting.

If I recall correctly, someone yelled to him "are you guilty?"

To which he replied, "a jury said I'm not!"

Jay,

I know a lot of serious athletes and coaches. One of the coaches with whom I am good friends is a specialist who has trained dozens of high-profile athletes, several of whose names I am confident you would know, in a cluster of sports. In one sport in particular he consults on drafting decisions, and criminal records are a routine part of such decisions.

In answer to your other intimation, race isn't a part of those evaluations. To the best of my knowledge, the prevalences of legal problems in the major sports are not related to ethnicity or culture. It's more a question of the mentality that the sports require. So I do not consider my sentence either a reflection of subconscious prejudice or an unfounded generalization.

It was, however, a jocular sentence and, perhaps, inappropriate in this thread. Suffice it to say I believe Williams may well be right. She surely experienced racism as a little girl in Florida, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she faces a combination of that and sexism as a pro.

More broadly, I don't think professional athletes are, or should be, role models.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 12:40AM by Lot's Wife.

“criminal records are a routine part of such decisions.“

I think the same is true for potential renters, even those who don’t work out.


“In answer to your other intimation, race isn't a part of those evaluations”

I don’t think I intimated anything about these evaluations you speak of.

But, it’s easy to stick a label on someone.

I really am amazed at how easily people pass judgment on a few words and actions. I sit and wonder if somebody was racist or sexist, but most the time I’m just not sure. So, I am astounded how adept some people are at figuring out who is racist. ( aside from my personal thought that we all are). And often based on just a few words.

I’ve even read things about Serena’s opponent being portrayed as having blond hair. I had to go look at some images and saw that she in fact did die her hair.

Anyways, I can’t figure these things out. I mean, I thought Al Gore had charisma so that may give you a little insight into my ability to pick up on some of the cues out there.


P.s. “Hey Jim, when you’re done running these guys through some bench press and squats, can you come in and take a look at these records that the sheriffs office just faxed over. I think you’ll see some interesting trends. We’d like to know what you make of it.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 01:03AM by jay.

I am told that in the big-ticket sports--football, basketball, baseball, hockey--teams routinely consider criminal history before deciding whether to invest in a new player. It makes sense. Aggression is a valuable commodity if it can be contained.

But if a player has serious problems with impulse control, he may disappear from practice, be arrested for DUI or domestic violence, or otherwise embarrass the team and the league. The money invested in that player, and the salary cap room, then vanish even as public relations expenses increase.

And yes, the final decisions are made by committee: scouts, coaches, psychologists. Every hire requires balancing potential versus risk. The better the player, the more risk a typical team will take.

It's cynical, to be sure, but those sports are about money and not sentiment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 01:17AM by Lot's Wife.

Don’t we all consider criminal history when making decisions?

Except for Elderdog. I’m sure he’d still golf with O.J.

Was it sexism when John McEnroe was ejected from the 1990 Australian Open for three code violations, including insulting the chair umpire and smashing a racquet?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 01:40PM by alsd.