Yes. Exactly like your opinion. However the facts and reasoning with which I arrive at my opinion are sound and cannot be faulted. And that's what should matter to you. And if it wasn't for your emotionalism and biases they might. Too bad.
What? Let's review this. Serena Williams received three separate code violations which culminated in her forfeiting a game to eventual winner, Naomi Osaka. I say this was a fair and just application of the rules by chair umpire Carlos Ramos. You say Ramos imposed himself on the match with his overly judicious umpiring and he should have backed off and never have given Serena Williams a third code violation, this one for verbal abuse of an official of the match and that he was in the wrong. Ramos DID step in when Serena Williams had a temper tantrum. He DID assess her a penalty. It DID stand. My opinion on how the match should have gone DID win out. Yours did NOT! You are welcome to hold different opinions from mine but you do not get to substitute different facts because they displease you.
i did not substitute any facts. I know the rules and at times the umpire relaxes them, and yes even in tennis. My opinion is that this should have been one of those times. Sometimes the rules can be stretched a little in the interest of the sport. You disagree? You are entitled to disagree. Don’t you tell me to get over myself. You sound like a Trump flocker.
Your little insult there only serves to cement you in place as someone who thinks invective is an accomplished form of reasoning. And that doesn't say a lot for you. Yes, I know what you think about looking the other way and ignoring the childish tantrum of Serena Williams and I think that cheats everyone in the stadium that day and watching at home, with the exception of Williams herself who thinks she should be above the rules. You already know what I think of that.
I have expressed my view of her action. It is you who is doing the insulting with the “get over yourself” Remark, which doesn’t say a lot for you.
That's not an insult. It's good solid advice you should take. And it's nothing like calling me a "Trump flocker" either. Wow, I wish I could have been there at the moment of creation of that clever beaut! How long did it take?
So, he should have tolerated her aggressive almost physical abuse, and ignored it? What sort of message would then be sent to young aspirants?
That is an insult to me. If you want to debate an issue, then do it without little insulting remarks. You wish you.....for that clever beaut? Only a flocker would consider that remark as advice. Do me a favor and don’t give me any of your advice unless I request it. You sound a little arrogant, yes?
You were offended? What a coincidence. So was I. But I'm not going to continue to get in a snit about it all. I would tell you to get over yourself but I remember you don't like my advice.
McEnroe should have been docked a game many times during his career and wasn’t. Nastasy also. Young aspirants have coaches to teach them proper behavior, and this behavior occurs in the Amateurs. My view is that it shows youngsters what not to do because it was so outrageous. In a major final? No, unless she did something physical to the umpire. It is not fair for the other player to have this hanging over her head.
Pretty much it would be saying that he prefers spoiled Black athletes figuratively spitting on him and the rules of tennis to polite and well mannered Asian athletes playing by the rules in a civilized manner. He would have in other words made Asian hating, bigoted or racist, leftists very, very happy.
McEnroe and Nastase? Can you hear McEnroe yelling you cannot be serious? You are talking about a whole other geological era in terms of tennis history and it was precisely because of their antics, and of others like Jimmy Connors, that rules about abusing lines people and chair umpires were considerably revised. McEnroe was told when first starting out that you could call the umpire anything as long as you didn't swear at them.. That went out of fashion with disco records and mullets. Somebody who has played professional tennis for twenty years knows that a first code violation is a yellow light. A second is a red light (you stop the behavior that is getting you in trouble) and a third violation is a ticket or a DUI, depending on where you are in the set being played. It can even get you disqualified, which is like being taken to jail. Williams got caught up in her own anger and craziness and never should have incurred that third strike. You can't scream at the chair umpire on the biggest tennis stage and call him a liar and thief, shaking your finger and demanding an apology, and not expect to get bit. Are you as stubborn and clueless as she is?
Neither stubborn or clueless. The rule should be changed to be at the descretion of the umpire in my view. Enough said because you and I are going to get into a pissing contest again.
It already is up the each chair umpire as to how strictly one wants to adhere to the rules or not. One umpire in the first week of the Open came out of the chair and actually gave Nick Krygios a personal pep talk because he was putting out such a pathetic effort. I found that amazing and haven't seen that before. But the point is chair umpires do have latitude, though if Naomi Osaka had been the one screaming in the umpire's face, crying, pointing her finger in his face and calling him a thief and liar I doubt many would think Osaka should draw no code violation for that. The rules say verbal abuse is a personal attack on an official's character that cause his officiating to come into question. There is no doubt that's what happened. Just as Ramos was free to pretend he didn't notice the long tirade by the hostile unsettled Serena Williams he was also perfectly within his rights to make the call he made. "The International Tennis Federation, the games governing body, issued a statement saying that Ramos’ decisions “were in accordance with the relevant rules.” After Ramos was accused of sexism for handing out code violations that critics say he wouldn’t have given a man, the ITF said: “Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos’ decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules, and were reaffirmed by the US Open’s decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offenses.”
Well said; but on the other hand everyone knows that the leftist defense of Serena boils down to race and gender. The male judge ruled against a Black WOMAN. Of course they need to defend their preference that instead he rule FOR the Black WOMAN against the utterly innocent and playing by the rules Asian WOMAN instead BECAUSE Serena . . . is . . . Black. Ultimately that IS the entire leftist argument no matter how they weasel word things. So why do they despise Asian WOMEN?
I think Naomi Osaka's racial make up neutralized Serena's so at least in this case, the racial angle could not be exploited, to the best of my knowledge though I've seen black media figures react with disdain when they realize that line of argument is shut down. I saw old line leftist Mike Lupica bat down Serena defenses offered by Joe Scarborough so I think even the moderate left realizes Williams' tantrum was out of line and cost her one of her last chances to get the Grand Slam win she so badly wants. There are old time feminists like Billie Jean King, Katrina Adams and Sally Jenkins (the worst of the bunch https://www.thelily.com/how-a-male-...nd-naomi-osaka-of-their-power-at-the-us-open/ ) who actually try to make Carlos Ramos the problem at the US Open. The "he shouldn't have done his job" defense which is just another form of the "he made me do it" defense...a popular favorite among ten year olds. And then there are people like Andy Roddick and Steph Curry who have personal connections to Williams and try to defend her. I notice Venus Williams, who was beaten unmercifully by her sister earlier in the tournament, has stayed very quiet about it all. And then there are just uninformed boobs like Mike Golic jr., Trey Wingo, Mike Greenberg and Max Kellerman of ESPN. But that's ESPN isn't it....always covering the left side of the field.
Of course he was within his rights. My view is that he should not have excercised those rights in a grand slam final. Maybe the infraction should have a 2 game point penalty.
I don't understand this. The umpire has no latitude in the code violation system. First violation a warning. Second violation point penalty. Third violation game penalty. After that, you are disqualified.
Baseball will not allow a player or manager to ceaselessly harangue an umpire. Why should tennis? Calls to change the way tennis is umpired to satisfy the ego of Serena Williams is asinine with a capital A.
