Reply to Serena is a bully and a crybaby

Forum Index » Sports General Discussion

Reply to "Serena is a bully and a crybaby"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don't know if this has been mentioned but there was a sports commentator on the radio and she mentioned a video that is circulating. The video is of this official and his reactions to men who have acted out. The video apparently shows men behavior that was as bad and worse than Serena but no foul/penalty was called. Not one.

There have been tennis players, men and women, who have come to her defense. This is not to excuse all of her behavior. But the fact is that she was treated differently.

I am frankly tired of women being labeled as loud, obnoxious, hysterical, bitchy, etc. when they act in a manner other than a doormat. She stood up for herself as male players have. She was penalize and they were not (by this official). I'm guessing this guy did not like this little lady challenging him. That's sexism plain and simple.[/quote]

I'm a long time tennis fan and  have an honest question for others who have followed the sport for decades.  I'm sure you can find plenty of clips of men behaving badly and not getting a code violation. I also understand that being penalized a game is harsh and I don't recall ever seeing it in a Grand Slam final.

However, my question is whether the behavior by male players in the examples being cited occurred immediately after the call or whether it took place games after the questioned call?  From my experience, male players often behave badly after a call goes against them and rarely get assessed a code violation when they argue after the call or during a changeover. However, once the temper tantrum has ended, play resumes and that it is the end of it.  Only the worst instances of bad behavior immediately after a code violation would result in a second code violation.  It is sort of like you get a code violation and you get to argue without any other penalty.

But that's not what happened here. Serena continued to argue and berate the referee about the initial coaching warning at different intervals throughout the match.  Ramos wasn't a liar and a thief when she broke Osaka to go up 3-1.  She only became irate when her play put her in a hole, and it was then that she resumed arguing about the call.  And frankly, we don't know what words they exchanged. She may have been warned to stop arguing or else he would penalize her.

Are there examples of a male player having persisted in arguing a call throughout a match (or a set)?  Those would be very helpful in assessing whether there was some sort of bias.

I saw an interview with Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post last night in which she was talking about her column claiming sexism.  She said that assessing a third code violation for abuse in a Grand Slam final was unprecedented, and argued that the fact that it was assessed against Serena shows bias.  Does anyone recall any other Grand Slam finals when a player continually harassed the referee about a single call through the match?

Also, Ms. Jenkins and others seem to suggest that the full game penalty was too harsh based on the behavior.  My question is this:  If Serena had not broken her racket, but all of the other events transpired as they did, would there have been this much outcry about assessing a second code violation when Serena called the umpire a liar and a thief several games after the call was made?  In that case, Serena would have lost a point, not a game.  If you wouldn't have a problem assessing a violation if her arguing was a second violation, then there is nothing wrong with calling the violation as a third.  It was justified based on the behavior.  People are acting as if a higher standard applies when an umpire assesses a third violation simply because it carries a higher penalty. But that's not what the rules say.  A violation is a violation, whether it is the first, second, third or fourth.  The penalties are mandatory, not standards for the violations.   Ms. Jenkins made it sound as if a third violation must be extra, extra, extra bad simply because it carries a game penalty.  But that's not what the rules say. The official did not have discretion to call another code violation and assess only a warning or a point.

For the researchers, how many of the cited examples of bad behavior by men occurred when the man already had two code violations?  How many occurred several games after the disputed call and after a changeover?  If such evidence exists, that would be helpful in evaluating whether the treatment was unfair or otherwise biased.

Another interesting aspect of this debate involves the fact that this was a Grand Slam Final. Ms. Jenkins and others have suggested that because this was a Grand Slam final, the official should have not have called the third violation because the penalty was so severe and it interfered with the match  In an early round match, maybe it wouldn't matter as much. But for a Grand Slam final, when it involves Serena, the penalty never should have been called because it was too severe.  But isn't the reverse true as well?  With the stakes higher, shouldn't players be held to the highest standards of professionalism and sportsmanship so that the focus is on the players and their play? Yes, it was a Grand Slam final involving Serena. But Naomi Osaka won the right to be there too. Why is allowing behavior that continually distracted from and disrupted the match less harmful to the integrity of the match and the sport than having the official, as a means of ending the bad behavior, decide a a single game by way of a penalty?  Serena was not going to stop arguing.  She could have overcome that game penalty and come back to win if she had played better.  The penalty should have been a wakeup call. Instead of distracting from the match, the penalty shifted the focus back onto the match and both players. But Serena wouldn't let that happen.

And let's be honest.  If, after all her arguing, Serena had come back to win, wouldn't her victory have been marred too?  Whether you call it unprofessional and unsportsmanlike behavior or an impassioned defense of women's rights, Serena's arguments could had unnerved Osaka and taken her out of her rhythm leading to a Serena victory.  Is that fair?  There was another strong women competing in the match who, like Serena, is entitled to respect and had a right to show what she can do on the court.  In the name of feminism everyone seems to support Serena's right to trample all over another women's rights, which I just don't understand. Serena wasn't arguing on behalf of women; she could have done that after the match. She was arguing because she was angry, she wasn't playing well, and she wanted to win.  She's a great competitor, but on Saturday, she selfishly disrespected a fellow woman in the biggest match of her life.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics