I should have been clearer in my post. Initially, the referee issued Serena a warning for coaching that resulted in a code violation, the first of three, that ultimately lead to a game point awarded to Osaka. My argument is that the referee could have chosen to issue a “soft” warning for the coaching infraction as well as being called a theif, in an effort to diffuse the situation. Both incidents were relatively minor imo. The racquet destruction was pretty flagrant, and impossible to ignore.
Umpire is at fault !
There really isn't anything worse than calling a referee "a thief". One is in essence calling them a "cheat". Calling them incompetent, and idiot, blind, a jerk, etc. is one thing, but to question their integrity is a big old line to cross. In some sports that's a direct dismissal right there.
I played and coached for many years, and believe me their are far worse things you can call a referee. In A League of Their Own I believe the worst word started with a “c”.
No, the referee could announce over the loudspeaker a general warning, “There is to be no coaching from the players box”, just like she does when the fans get a little rambunctious when the players are trying to serve. At the same time the referee should call in both players and advise them of the soft warning.
Curious to see how the ESPN coverage analyzed it. Took until 8:20 on Golic & Wingo to discuss since Week 1 football dominated everything.
I generally like Golic and Wingo in discussing matters of this type because I feel they are very even handed and I think their discussion was generally spot on.
The points they made (very close to Patrick McEnroe) are as follows
1) The ref had every right to give the warning for coaching but where the ref really mishandled it was when she started to say. "I am not a cheater. I rather lose than cheat", the ref should have moderated this by saying. "I am not accusing you of cheating. I simply need to react when I see questionable behavior from your coaching box. This is only a warning to them, not you'). I agree strongly with this statement.
2) The game penalty should only have been made under the most extreme abuse and the language (by itself) was not sufficient to warrant that. I agree in general with this statement.
3) Serena plays a big part in the escalation of events. In their words, Serena should have been able to control her emotions and "let it go". Basically, unlike most of the abuse on the mens's side where they curse the officials out in language that can be harsher then Serena's, they do not generally persist over multiple points or games. They curse the official out, then they get back to the business of tennis. I generally agree with this statement although it should be pointed out that there can never be a scientific formula for what is too much and different officials may have different levels of tolerance. Welcome to the human condition and consequences for your actions.
4) No real mention of the gender inequity accusations. Agree that this is not a serious (i.e systemic) issue.
5) Saved the best for last. Naomi handled herself beautifully and was by far the better player. She earned the championship and it is a shame her victory should have this blemish on it. Totally agree and reiterate that her performance under such difficult and I may add hostile conditions makes the achievement even more impressive.
I have reffed for many years, and no, the worst thing is to question their integrity.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
It is an official's opinion as opposed to a coach's or player's opinion. And seeing as they are the ones making the decisions on what level the insults are....and how they should be dealt with.....hmmm?
It is one official’s opinion. I’ve had other officials tell me that they consider other types of remarks far more egregious: specifically racist, homophobic, sexually inappropriate, demeaning family members , etc.
So I don't completely overreact to you're third guess - it implies it is unprintable!