Let's end this myth...Serena WAS NOT fined a point because she swore

[joeybee12]

and threatened the linesperson. She was assessed the point because it was her second warning. She slammed her rakcet against the net post after losing the first set and broke the racket and got her first warning. Tennis rules state that it is an automatic pont deduction after the second warning from the chair ump...from whom the warning came, not the linesperson...it is only the chair ump who can can penalize a player or over-rule a point. The second warning happened to come on match point because it happened when she was serving at 15-40, and Kim had a match point. Serena was not thrown out, she did not forfeit or default, she was simply assessed a point that happened to come at macth point, and for which it was painfully obvious she should have been assessed.

Roger only got one warning...besides it being highly different in tone and temprament from Seren'a petulant meltdown...it was only his first warning...no penalty is assessed at this point.

[rockymountaindem]

1. +1

[joeybee12]

2. Thanks...it changes the whole conversation...

...people are comparing apples and oranges and crying racism.

[ieoeja]

3. So was all of this also just "another lie from Kenya"? (nt)

[joeybee12]

4. Hey, I'm just trying to explain tennis rules...to lots of people who

don't understand them.

[redqueen]

5. Thanks for the explanation. (nt)

[taterguy]

6. Is the Sports FOrum Closed?

:shrug:

[joeybee12]

7. Well, since there's a Serena thread here flaming...

I felt obligated to post it here.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. This is in regards to an article in The Nation

Which is posted here in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6574501

[joeybee12]

11. Yes, and there's lots of misinformation being posted there...

if I had tried to explain it there, it would have gotten lost.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

13. I've already had this conversation with a friend

Who brought out a rules book and showed me the difference. Since I don't have a link to post here on DU I stayed out of the argument here.

From what I saw you're correct. Serena was dealt with as the rules said she should have been.

[joeybee12]

16. Yeah, but apparently it's a lot more fun to not look at the entire picture

and the rules and speculate.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. I didn't know the full rules to the game myself

It's not my sport, I was a volleyball player. So I took the time to ask my friend who played in college and she explained it and even gave me the visual of the written rules.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing something. We can't all be experts in everything after all.

What bothered me was how that article left a false implication of sexism/racism on the sport. In the end I'm sure tennis will survive the less knowledgeable fans and go on to be enjoyed another day. It's just the principal of the matter that bugs me.

[joeybee12]

25. That's true, but this incident has been written and discussed about

so much and there is a lot out there in thee articles that explains the rule as it happened...this Nation article is comparing apples and oranges...one warning versus two and making it a white male/black female thing.

[JNelson6563]

38. It's usually the lounge that's closed.

Judging by many posts I see in GD these days.

Julie

[hfojvt]

8. where are you seeing this myth?

Is this about another thread?

I saw the Serena incident on TV as it was happening. So I can verify your account, for whatever that is worth.

I didn't see the first racket slam, having turned on the TV in mid-match (or perhaps changed the channel) but the announcers mentioned that as well.

I still think it is wrong that a 1 point penalty ends up deciding a match, although the footfault itself put her in an almost impossible spot anyway.

[joeybee12]

10. Tjhose are the rules...the ump can't change the rules on the court...

...it's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Mosby]

21. Yes they can if they really want to.

My favourite memory of the Meadows ("meadows" - ha!) remains a second-round match involving Ilie Nastase and John McEnroe in 1979 played under floodlights and in front of an audience imported straight from the Coliseum. At 33, Nastase was a seasoned rabble-rouser, while the 20-year-old McEnroe already had a firm grasp of all the dirty tricks of the trade. Little wonder one fan amongst the 10,000 plus spectators in the grandstands flourished a banner proclaiming: This tennis match has been rated 'R'. No one under 17 admitted without a parent or guardian.

The contest exceeded, if that is the right word, expectations. Superbrat exasperated Nasty with his time-wasting tactics, and the wild man of Transylvania replied by pretending to go to sleep on the baseline with his racket for a pillow. "Warning Mr Nastase," bellowed umpire Frank Hammond above the bedlam.

"Penalty point Mr Nastase," continued the wretched official as brawls broke out in the crowd, beer cans were hurled on court, obscenities aimed at Hammond and both players, until the NYPD were forced to move in and surround the "playing" area.

With tournament referee Mike Blanchard futilely trying to persuade Nastase to resume the contest, Hammond intoned: "Default Mr Nastase - game, set and match, McEnroe."

Cue appearance of Blanchard's boss, tournament director Bill Trabert, on a mission to prevent a riot. Trabert reinstated Nastase, ordered Hammond out of the chair, and McEnroe went on to win in four sets with Blanchard officiating amidst a ring of cops. That's entertainment, Flushing Meadows style.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/usopen/3033902/Meadows-retains-feisty-reputation.html

[NoQuarter]

23. The chair isn't

supposed to change the rules on the fly, but the sometimes 60 second walkabouts Rafa gets between points belies this.

Sadly, selective enforcement is the norm in tennis. One of the reasons there are so many passionate opinions in the case of "high-profile" enforcement.

[joeybee12]

29. When the entire stadium is booing Serena...highly unlikely he's

gonna change the rules.

[hfojvt]

31. the rules are badly written then

a penalty point simply should not decide a match, especially not a match in the semi finals. If a football team is on the 12 yard line and the defense gets called for unsportsmanlike conduct, that 15 yard penalty does not result in a touchdown. I just don't know of many other sports where a penalty will decide the entire match. Perhaps in baseball, if a runner is on 3rd and the pitcher gets called for a balk, then the runner scores even if they are in the bottom of the 9th and that is the winning run.

I also wish there was a camera angle that would show if there really WAS a foot fault. I suspect there might have been, since Serena's lead foot shifted before she served. I also wonder if she normally foot-faults a couple of times in each match, but just does not get called for it. I cannot remember seeing any other player ever get called for a foot fault, but I don't watch as much tennis as my mom.

Also, I saw the other thread, and agree there needs to be an alternative. Sad to see the Nation putting forth such dreck.

[joeybee12]

32. I've heard people claim it was a footfau.lt, I've heard people swear

it wasn't...that said, she is notorious for doing it whether she did it then or not.

[tigereye]

34. she was also called for a foot fault in one of her doubles matches...

in the same tournament - maybe it was a function of the level of scrutiny at the Open. I didn't totally get it, since I don't play tennis, and couldn't really tell.

[LisaM]

12. There was another thread about an article in The Nation

Believe me, the sports forum has re-hashed this a few times.

I subscribe to The Nation, and the sloppiness of the reporting in that article annoys me.

[joeybee12]

14. That's the one this is in response to...

...it's a really bad article.

[blondeatlast]

15. Kicking because even though you thought I was arguing with you in that thread,

I was doing quite the opposite.

She lost ENTIRELY of her own doing.

[joeybee12]

17. You gotta know the rules...

...she probably does but she was on edge that entire match and if she didn't explode then, and the match went on a little longer, she probably would have lost it at some point.

[NoQuarter]

18. Well as long as we're clearing up all the fallacies,

Serena smashed her racquet on the court surface well before she got to the net post. (I actually thought for a second that I saw a piece of the Decoturf come up.) There is too much going on around the net post to get that good of a swing.

And as you correctly point out, the first code violation is a warning, followed by the point penalty which, since it was match point, appeared to be something more than what it was to those not familiar with the rulebook. A third code violation would have meant forfeiture of the match (at whatever point it occurred).

[joeybee12]

19. You're right...and that third violation actually happened to McEnroe

at the Australian Open in 1990...what a putz...the rules had recently been changed from 4 warnings down to three for forfeiture, and he thought he had one more opporunity to be an asshole.

[redqueen]

20. lol

I bet he was even more pissed off when he found out that wasn't the case.

I shouldn't laugh, but oh well.

[joeybee12]

24. Laugh away! he deserves it!

I could never, ever bring myself to root for him...it was always for his opponent, no matter who it was.

[blondeatlast]

26. I missed that one but heard about it. I so wish I could have seen it

just for the look on his face. :rofl:

[joeybee12]

30. Confused! Stunned!

He was shocked because he didn't understand what was going on!

[NoQuarter]

27. Right.

Didn't that 4-strike system include a loss of a game before forfeiture?

[joeybee12]

28. Not sure, but you're probably right...

...McEnroe was up 2 sets to 1, and ahead in the fourth...he was going to win...I'll have to check who his opponent was...someone I recall I'd neevr heard of before.

[joeybee12]

40. This is what i found about the 1990 incident...

...doens't mention the previous rules where the third was a default of a game...

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=57420

On January 21, 1990, at the Australian Open in Melbourne, American tennis player John McEnroe becomes the first player since 1963 to be disqualified from a Grand Slam tournament for misconduct.


A left-handed serve-and-volleyer with a masterful touch, McEnroe was a dominant force in professional tennis in the early 1980s, winning three Wimbledon and four U.S. Open titles between 1979 and 1984, against such formidable opponents as Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl. Over his career, he would win 17 total Grand Slams, including nine in men’s doubles and one in mixed doubles. His Davis Cup record was 41-8 in singles and 18-2 in doubles, and he helped the United States win five Cups. McEnroe’s masterful play was often overshadowed, however, by his explosive temper. Always a fan favorite, McEnroe was dubbed "Superbrat" by the British tabloids at the age of 20 and was famous on the tour for his constant arguments and badmouthing of umpires and linesmen.


At the 1990 Australian Open, the 30-year-old McEnroe was trying to win his first major tournament since the 1984 U.S. Open. On January 21, he took on Sweden’s Mikael Pernfors, a two-time National Collegiate Association of America (NCAA) champion, in the fourth round. McEnroe won the first set easily, but Pernfors lifted the level of his game to win the second set. After the players traded service breaks in the third, McEnroe led 2-1. During the changeover, he stopped in front of a lineswoman he thought had made a bad call, glaring at her while bouncing a ball on his racket. The chair umpire, Gerry Armstrong, gave McEnroe a conduct code violation for unsportsmanlike conduct.


Bigger trouble began in the seventh game of the fourth set, with McEnroe leading overall 6-1, 4-6, 7-5, 2-4. Hitting a forehand wide to go down 15-30, McEnroe threw his racket to the ground, where it bounced on the court’s hard surface. Another wide McEnroe forehand prompted another racket smash, this one cracking the racket’s head. Armstrong called another code violation, for racket abuse, and McEnroe started swearing at him, demanding the intervention of Ken Farrar, the Grand Slam chief of supervisors. Farrar arrived and spoke with McEnroe, whose continued complaints and swears were audible to spectators and TV viewers. With Farrar’s authorization, Armstrong called a third and final code violation: "Default Mr. McEnroe. Game, set, match." The crowd of 150,000 rose to their feet, booing and chanting their support for McEnroe, as McEnroe himself stood with his hands on his hips, stunned. The last player to be disqualified from a Grand Slam for misconduct had been Willie Alvarez of Spain, in the 1963 French Open, 17 years earlier.


In a press conference following the match, a subdued McEnroe explained that he had misunderstood the rules, and was unaware that the previous year’s four-step process to default had been changed to a new three-step rule: first a warning, then a point penalty, then a default.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. You are absolutely correct.

Is it true that any part of your foot touching the line is a foot fault? Someone said that your foot had to be completely over the line. I don't believe that is correct. See even you and I can find something to agree about.

[blondeatlast]

36. In tennis, even the slightest touch on the edge of the line is a foot fault.

When it comes to the ball being out, it's in if it glances the outside edge of the line. Yes, it's that delicate a distinction.

I played junior competitive tennis; I stood a solid inch beyone the service line for that reason. Big servers like Serena and most of the men nudge it as much as possible; it's integral to their game.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. That's what I thought.

One analyst said Serena did it quite often but was rarely called for it.

[tigereye]

35. she was very gracious in congratulating Clijsters, though

As intense as she sometimes seems, I really think she respects the rules.

[paulsby]

39. roger also did not THREATEN

a judge. and the people who think this is some sort of racist conspiracy against black or female golfers keep ignoring this.

if one can point to a similar incident where somebody was given a warning and where somebody THREATENED a judge and got kid glove treatment , then i';d love to see it. i'll happily admit i am wrong.

but i have yet to see it. the "but john mcenroe" type arguments have yet to cite (that i have seen) an incident where he threatened a judge and after a warning even