Week 35 & 36 - US Open New York, USA - Hard

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Week 35 & 36 - US Open New York, USA - Hard

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I don't think that just because she rejects on-court coaching that that means, q.e.d., she has never accepted secret coaching - in fact, it might be quite the opposite. Many people are quite vocal in their public rejection of what they then turn out to be completely guilty off in secret (lots of politicians spring to mind).

And Patrick might be not being censured because he, at least, has been honest.

Although Serena is right to defend her integrity, the rule doesn't say anything about whether she wanted Patrick to make the gesture or not.

The rules say:

" RULES OF TENNIS 2018 - RULE 30. COACHING

30. COACHING

Coaching is considered to be communication, advice or instruction of any kind and by any means to a player."

Patrick was obviously trying to tell her something when he gestured for her to not get pushed back too deep and move up the court. Any person could understand it, you didn't need to any pre-agreement of "when I gesture move forwards that means - move forward". So the 'no pre-agreed hand signals' argument is meaningless.

She might not have seen it, may well not, but he presumably wouldn't do it unless he thought she would see it - unless it's just over-excitement on his behalf - which unfortunately for Serena still probably flouts the rule above unless you could argue that it is not 'communication' if one person does not receive it - usually though, you only need to put the letter in the post, say, to be in communication - it doesn't need to be read.

telstar · Strong Club Player

AliBlahBlah wrote:
That rather ignores one of my points: Patrick was coaching or attempting to - doesn't mean Serena was being coached. She has long precedent showing that she rejects on-court coaching. It's not reasonable to expect she was expecting or receptive to it on this occasion.
Therefore, the fault is all Patrick's, and it's easy to see why, on multiple fronts, Serena feels betrayed and let down by Patrick over this. He though escapes any form of censure or blame.
Ramos, by his actions accused Serena of cheating, which she knows is demonstrable nonsense, and has the track record to prove it - this is what I imagine Serena thinks in the heat of the moment, and she reacts in that context, exactly because she has made a decades long example of very publicly and demonstrably rejecting and disdaining on-court coaching. To insinuate that she was prty to this is an affront.
Of course, Patrick was trying to coach; for whatever weird random reason he decided it would be a good idea, and then tried to exculpate himself by throwing muck at all other coaches and players rather than owning up to his actions.
In the moment though Serena doesn't know this, she just has the accusation in the face of her long public opposition to what she has been accused of (accused implicitly - charging with coaching contains the idea that both coach and player are guilty, complicit) of.
Ramos applied the rules correctly. He saw Patrick act, and has no means to censure Patrick, the Umprires remit is to penalise the player. It's easy to understand why Serena would not believe that Patrick would coach, they never do, even when available, why start now? And thus be affronted by it. In the stress of the situation, and under the shock of accusations of something which she has never entertained, she over-reacted.
The disingenuous wider agendas being pursued to crucify her from every possible angle, on and on, when many far more reprehensible precedents have been quickly blown over is telling in itself, and almost prove some of what Serena was claiming in the way that the incident itself singularly failed to support.

It is quite extraordinary that anybody with knowledge of the rules of tennis is still supporting Williams in this matter!

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

telstar wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
That rather ignores one of my points: Patrick was coaching or attempting to - doesn't mean Serena was being coached. She has long precedent showing that she rejects on-court coaching. It's not reasonable to expect she was expecting or receptive to it on this occasion.
Therefore, the fault is all Patrick's, and it's easy to see why, on multiple fronts, Serena feels betrayed and let down by Patrick over this. He though escapes any form of censure or blame.
Ramos, by his actions accused Serena of cheating, which she knows is demonstrable nonsense, and has the track record to prove it - this is what I imagine Serena thinks in the heat of the moment, and she reacts in that context, exactly because she has made a decades long example of very publicly and demonstrably rejecting and disdaining on-court coaching. To insinuate that she was prty to this is an affront.
Of course, Patrick was trying to coach; for whatever weird random reason he decided it would be a good idea, and then tried to exculpate himself by throwing muck at all other coaches and players rather than owning up to his actions.
In the moment though Serena doesn't know this, she just has the accusation in the face of her long public opposition to what she has been accused of (accused implicitly - charging with coaching contains the idea that both coach and player are guilty, complicit) of.
Ramos applied the rules correctly. He saw Patrick act, and has no means to censure Patrick, the Umprires remit is to penalise the player. It's easy to understand why Serena would not believe that Patrick would coach, they never do, even when available, why start now? And thus be affronted by it. In the stress of the situation, and under the shock of accusations of something which she has never entertained, she over-reacted.
The disingenuous wider agendas being pursued to crucify her from every possible angle, on and on, when many far more reprehensible precedents have been quickly blown over is telling in itself, and almost prove some of what Serena was claiming in the way that the incident itself singularly failed to support.
It is quite extraordinary that anybody with knowledge of the rules of tennis is still supporting Williams in this matter!

Absolutely amazing . And after the way the likes of the Beeb have totally suppressed and prevented people from giving their views on the subject[or any tennis subject for that matter], nothing surprises me any more

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

I repeatedly stated that Patrick cheated. In previous comments, I have said exactly the same, you can ignore that if you want to, if it makes you feel something that you need, but it's right there.

He coached. Serena though is guilty by association. Serena also seems to bear all of the blame for Patrick coaching.
If your coach attempts to coach you, and you neither want it, asked for it, or need it, even if you did not see it or indeed were completely unaware of it, even if you, and you alone on tour, have a long history of empirically rejecting coaching, you are still guilty by their actions.
But you quite conceivably can have done nothing wrong yourself except trust someone to sit in the stands and behave legally.
Patrick coached. I don't think Serena was looking for, recognised, or acted upon that madness.
The rule has to punish you though. You can't actually be innocent - you have to be guilty of someone elses crime.

I suppose the solution is for a player that truly now does not want a charge of any description to be not to trust anyone, as anyone might be prone to a similar stupid outburst as was Patrick. Have your box empty - of there's no one on court to support you, none of them can cause you to be guilty of their crimes. A bit sad, and TV directors will have to find another place to aim their cameras, but I can't see another way for a player to remove all doubt from themselves. When Mirke is nodding and urging Roger on, is that some sort of coaching? Where is the border between support and coaching?

Take Giorgi's father, he pretty clearly to me coaches her all the time, just like Rodriguez used to with Henin. But, Mr. Giorgi is also generally a very boiterous and demonstrative bloke and he speaks generally with his hands in all situations. That he wasn't repeatedly called in Tokyo seems a bit weird, but, also he is the sort of person that would be making all sorts of gestures becasue that's the way he is. Where is that line?
It's all very well piling in on Serena, but the consistency of the rule has very far from been settled. Most of the people involved in the wider discussion in tennis don't really care about the strict delineation of that rule and any grey areas, they just want to settle long held grievances against Ms. Williams.
But, where is that line? Why was Mr. Giorgi not called? Is the answer for the prudent player to have empty player boxes? What if Patrick or another coach denies that they were coaching?

Where Serena is wrong is in her charges against Mr. Ramos, and I wish she would make amends to him. even though, as noted, Ferguson (and many others) never did, in worse situations, and was Sainted for his strength of resolve and unwillingness to compromise or apologise. The rules are different for Serena it seems.
Or, can somenone explain to me how Serena can stick to her assertions the way Ferguson stuck to his, or Bellkichek did, or countless other examples, and not only be readily forgiven, but come out with her reputation enhanced becasue of it. I don't think that's possible. I think the rules are different for her, I think she is treated differently in the aftermath of this event than in those analogues, even though they were worse.

I'll happily take the suggestion that I know nothing of the rules of tennis and wear it with pride. The letter of the law, the rule, parsed in semantic isolation is hardly what people are discussing: it's punishing Serena at every possible turn, as illustrated, far beyond the norms that they have found acceptable for far worse crimes in other similar instances - this is just a convenient peg to hang it all on, becasue she's definitely wrong on some counts here. With that a lot of people are looking to use that to demean her entire careere, her character, here integrity her life - an agenda they have desperately wanted to pursue for many years. It is noticeable the number of people on various forums that never comment on womens tennis, but have an oar to stick in on this one; an oar they singularly fail to stick anywhere else.
Kyrgios? He's a darling character, one of the lads, locker room talk, a paragon... but this Serena, for a few isolated instances of temper and misjudgement? Beyond the pale. But, there's no double standard. Heaven forfend.
etc.

I can write 15000 words (it probably feels like I already have), responses will just reduce it, falsely, to - you support Serena!!!

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

hoots wrote:
telstar wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
[...]
It is quite extraordinary that anybody with knowledge of the rules of tennis is still supporting Williams in this matter!
Absolutely amazing . And after the way the likes of the Beeb have totally suppressed and prevented people from giving their views on the subject[or any tennis subject for that matter], nothing surprises me any more

You've made that point repeatedly now.

Why does it matter that the BBC haven't had HYS on this? They don't have HYS on a lot of contentious stories - the vigilance and monitoring of comments takes too long for too little upside. The last major story on Serena was filled with the usual accusations of drugs, sexuality, animal references etc. Why would the BBC open that up again? - none of those comments are contributing anything worthwhile, it's just a forum for people to slur an individual in the broadest and most reprihensible terms. Whatever useful argument goes on around the hatemongering gets drwoned out anyway.

You can HYS here, but have chosen not to, except about the BBC HYS!

indiana · Tennis legend

I have still to read a single real counter to the point that surely Serena should at least recognise that coaching took place and seems accepted by all here to have taken place however unexpected, unwanted and maybe not even seen. We are now over two weeks after the event and whilst I have said I can understand her initial confusion, not still at this stage re coaching ( and yet again not saying it was in any way wanted or seen so arguably she was not as such "coached" ). As said the message was sent, that's the relevant point and the one still being denied.

Personally, as I say, I have at no time said she in any way expected it or at all wanted it, but I and others have indicated our amazement that she can't just say in whatever way that it took place ( and Ramos has taken so much grief for punishing that breach of the rules ). There's reference above to folk supposedly not responding to points but that was to me a very important and consistent point made in posts in response to the Guardian link.

-- Edited by indiana on Monday 24th of September 2018 06:19:21 PM

the addict · Tennis legend

I'm not going to enter the debate about the right and wrong of the application of the rules. But Serena's rant at Ramos is totally unforgiveable in my book, and I am still surprised that no further action has been taken.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Which is what I thought I was addressing.
Under the letter of the rule, she is guilty, coaching was taking place - Patrick coached.
Given everything I covered, I understand that Serena, or anyone, in context, could still protest their innocence as an individual. They would be unwilling to bear the fault of someone else, especially on a subject where they have made such a long-running and voluble stand; indeed a singular example. They have done nothing wrong themselves.
If they say that coaching went on, that is simply going to be conflated as, "Serena and Mouratoglou conspired to coach at the US Open". That is already happening anyway, but to admit Patrick error will just lead to a tidal wave of agenda driven, 'I told you so', to attack her and everything she ever achieved. On a personal level I can see how one might be reticent to give those that wish you ill that ammunition.
How does Serena acknowledge that Ptrick coached, but she is against coaching, and have it acknowledged that she is, and has been the example in standing against it for her entire career. Also, how does she escape this censure to 'own up' in the way that other leading sports personalities (such as the examples given previously) have not had to? How does she similarly walk away unapologetic but with her reputation respect and admiration somehow increased from the incident? And, if she can not, why is that? What is different in her case to all those other cases, and why should she have to bear that additional burden?
Roy Keane deliberately assaulted a fellow professional on the pitch with the express intent of ending their career, which he did. He then crowed unapologetically about it in his book, adding making money off of it in to the bargain; he is still employed, respected, and considered one of the greatest. His moments of vile vengeance did not stain his reputation. But you have mass groups and individuals seeking to excommunicate Serena for far lesser an offence, and offences (several stinking and unsavoury tantrums over 20 years). How does she get the treatment of Roy Keane/Ferguson/Woods/Bellicheck et al. none of whom apologised (still to this day), and for each the incident was generally over in less than a week?

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

the addict wrote:
I'm not going to enter the debate about the right and wrong of the application of the rules. But Serena's rant at Ramos is totally unforgiveable in my book, and I am still surprised that no further action has been taken.

Very wise evileye
I agree, and repeaet myself in saying that Serena should apologise to Ramos, publicly.
I also find that in doing so, she would hold herself to a different standard than Keane/Ferguson/Bellichek/Woods etc have ever had to, and wonder why that is.

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

AliBlahBlah wrote:
hoots wrote:
telstar wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
[...]
It is quite extraordinary that anybody with knowledge of the rules of tennis is still supporting Williams in this matter!
Absolutely amazing . And after the way the likes of the Beeb have totally suppressed and prevented people from giving their views on the subject[or any tennis subject for that matter], nothing surprises me any more
You've made that point repeatedly now.
Why does it matter that the BBC haven't had HYS on this? They don't have HYS on a lot of contentious stories - the vigilance and monitoring of comments takes too long for too little upside. The last major story on Serena was filled with the usual accusations of drugs, sexuality, animal references etc. Why would the BBC open that up again? - none of those comments are contributing anything worthwhile, it's just a forum for people to slur an individual in the broadest and most reprihensible terms. Whatever useful argument goes on around the hatemongering gets drwoned out anyway.
You can HYS here, but have chosen not to, except about the BBC HYS!

Oh but they do.Just not on tennis and ladies' football.
Your reply shows your own agenda clearly. You have just tarred everybody who may comment on there [pro or con]with the same brush-accusing everyone who posts on there of ''slurring'' the subject is out of order and potentially libellous.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

No, I'm saying that in comments on stories involving Serena it happens with sufficient frequency and volume as to make the exercise pointless.
Of course not everyone does it, that's never the case. But, enough do: why would anyone want the BBC to encourage that? It just costs the BBC time and resource to moderate the forum, and anything useful gets drowned out in the exchanges about the, for wont of a better term, 'trolls' and those commenting on the 'trolls'.

They have regular enough HYS on Johanna's matches - for example her 1st round loss at the US Open had a HYS https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/45336960
As did her first match in the Coupe Rogers: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/45103922

So they do cover tennis and womens tennis; they also do anything involving Andy, tennis related or not.

As for womens football, they can't cover everything, they don't have HYS on Snooker or Horse Racing either from what I can see, and those are established sports whereas Womens football is still developing.

As they moderate comments, they can't do every single story. Resource is limited, and they seem to need to have a HYS on every single Brexit story so that both sides can scream at each other, the same old stalemate of accusations and nonsense; apparently that's a good use of money! Of course, people would scream if they had no HYS on Brexit stories and accuse them of censorship and whitewashing etc.

I don't see the problem; they have HYS on a wide range of topics, including those you claim they didn't, and there are other places to sound off, like here.

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

Anyone would think you worked for the Beeb with the ridiculous strenuous lengths you're going to try and justify your point.

There has been NO HYS on anything to do with tennis[Andy ,Johanna or anybody else] since the before the ladies' final of the US Open yet they've started one tonight on Stuart Law the ex Australian cricketer becoming Middlesex's new cricket coach!!!

Trolls will appear on most subjects-the point of a forum is however to encourage a discussion embracing all views no matter how different they are from one another.To stimulate debate not to suppress it.Serena is no different to anybody else in that respect

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

So, no HYS on tennis in the last two weeks is a crisis?
HYS doesn't stimulate much debate it's basically shouting.
If a preponderence of comments left on Serena (or Venus stories) are about Serena's sexuality, allegations of crimes, or comparing her to various animals in deliberately malicious and provactive ways - and they are - what useful purpose is served by that? Just providing a forum for some people to be as wantonly offensive as they can? Seems pretty wasteful an exercise to me.
I don't think BBC resource is well spent opening up a channel for that sort of trolling which they then inevitably have to moderate heavily, and remove a large proportion of comments that clearly fall foul of the laws of the land in hate speech as it is currently written. Being the BBC, they get it both ways, if they leave those comments there, one section of society is up in arms and bang on endlessly about how these comments are hate speech and it's outrageous that they are allowed to stay, if they remove them, another section of society bang on endlessly about freedom of speech and censorship and secret liberal agendas.
Save the trouble and money for something more productive.
I'd suggest that nobody paying their licence fee has HYS as their primary objective for how that enforced fee is disbursed.
I'd do what news organisations in quite a few other nations have, and get rid of the HYS altogether, or comments sections. They never add anything and degenerate into factionalism and tit-for-tat accusations on almost every issue. If you really want to put your two'penneth'orth down somewhere, there's no shortage of places that will let you be as offensive as you want, say what you want, however you want. Not every outlet needs to provide that function. The BBC is hamstrung by the way it is funded though, it has to make effort to accountability in ways that other national broadcasters don't.
I'd much rather the money went towards perhaps covering some tennis, like the US Open, perhaps (no chance of that though)

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

AliBlahBlah wrote:
So, no HYS on tennis in the last two weeks is a crisis?
HYS doesn't stimulate much debate it's basically shouting.
If a preponderence of comments left on Serena (or Venus stories) are about Serena's sexuality, allegations of crimes, or comparing her to various animals in deliberately malicious and provactive ways - and they are - what useful purpose is served by that? Just providing a forum for some people to be as wantonly offensive as they can? Seems pretty wasteful an exercise to me.
I don't think BBC resource is well spent opening up a channel for that sort of trolling which they then inevitably have to moderate heavily, and remove a large proportion of comments that clearly fall foul of the laws of the land in hate speech as it is currently written. Being the BBC, they get it both ways, if they leave those comments there, one section of society is up in arms and bang on endlessly about how these comments are hate speech and it's outrageous that they are allowed to stay, if they remove them, another section of society bang on endlessly about freedom of speech and censorship and secret liberal agendas.
Save the trouble and money for something more productive.
I'd suggest that nobody paying their licence fee has HYS as their primary objective for how that enforced fee is disbursed.
I'd do what news organisations in quite a few other nations have, and get rid of the HYS altogether, or comments sections. They never add anything and degenerate into factionalism and tit-for-tat accusations on almost every issue. If you really want to put your two'penneth'orth down somewhere, there's no shortage of places that will let you be as offensive as you want, say what you want, however you want. Not every outlet needs to provide that function. The BBC is hamstrung by the way it is funded though, it has to make effort to accountability in ways that other national broadcasters don't.
I'd much rather the money went towards perhaps covering some tennis, like the US Open, perhaps (no chance of that though)

You have your own agenda obviously as do the BBC . And that is clearly to stifle any discussion on this subject.

''clearly fall foul of the laws of the land in hate speech as it is currently written'' is just utter tripe.

Many of those comments that they reject are because the poster comments on a slightly different subject[because there is nowhere to post their comments in the relevant place]

I have no wish to have an argument on here with you or anyone else so please stick to the tennis and not trying to force your personal agenda on me or anyone else.