Lots of controversy at the US Open this week about umpiring decisions.
Firstly, the decision to issue a warning to Alizé Cornet for turning her top around which revealed her sports bra. (The US Open have since apologised for this)
And now Lahyani's decision to come down from his chair and try and chivvy Kyrgios into playing better and making an effort (and Nick then going on to win).
Even for the annual sloppy shambles of the administration and organisation of the US Open each year, they're outdoing themselves this year.
There was also the farc of the media day, sprung as 'Superbowl' style at the last minute, without realising (or probably more accurately caring) that an international press pool probably had no idea what that was or how it worked, and even then the technical set-up failed them. Also the new Armstrong Court is getting a lot of flack for it's design, accessibility, and the positioning of the cameras.
The Cornet thing is reflective of the idiotic prudishness that rules America: renknowned film critic, Pauline Kael, once observed that in films if you shot a womans breast off it would get an R certificate, but if you kissed or caressed the breast, it would be X rated. Same in video games, which routinely show fountains of blood or detailed dismemberments to no concern, but show a naked body like GTA:San Andreas, or MAss Effect did, and you get the full force of the Evangelical right calling for bans, boycotts and criminal procedings.
Lahyani was inexplicably stupid, and unprofessional, and that's not the fault of the US Open. However, the statement they then released which said that Lahyani was just asking whether a doctor was required, and which contradicts what was clearly heard on the audio, well, that's all down to them, and smacks of the alternative facts landscape of the States these days.
In counterpoint, the US Open Kids Day is routinely fantawsticly well run, and is often the highpoint of the event (for activities that the players can't effect on court). Wimbledon should do something similar, and it's a shame on them that they don't.
In a related, but unrelated tangent, I see today that Costa Coffee, a British built, held and run business success (albeit one that routinely avoids tax) is to be sold to Coca-Cola. I'm sure there will be guarantees and assurances of jobs protected, and investment; just like there were at Cadbury.
When are we going to ever stop wholesale gifting the country to America for short term profits? Why do we do this, and are so supine in our deferrence? And then turn around and split the country in two over how Europe has too much say in the running of things, and we need to take our country back. If America didn't (ostensibly) speak English, we would never stand for the amount of influence and control of the country we have ceded to them, but, they look like us, and sound like us, and so we just merrily open the gates for them to officially make us the 51st state...
Very good that rectification has quickly followed regarding the Cornet incident ( well the umpire made it an incident with the assistance of antiquated guidelines being taken to the letter )
I was initially dumbfounded but then quickly realised we were in the US where values and at times common sense are indeed so mixed up, although still ...
The Lahyani one is interesting. He is clearly well respected and recognised as a good umpire. Although he clearly wasnt coaching Nick in the way we would recognise it, nonetheless he clearly said some along the lines of "come on, this isnt you, lets see you try harder" (paraphrasing there) which clearly had an impact on Nick's psyche and it is clear the match turned around from that point.
Sometimes something or someone unrelated, not even an expert can have a massive impact - their words just hit the spot - and I think clearly these did on this occasion. Clearly it was very poorly judged therefore by the umpire, however well meant the words where and it did change the match direction.
As to what the punishment should be - it is very hard to say. I dont think he should lose his job, everyone makes a mistake in life and this was something he did with good intentions at heart, but whether he should be suspended for a period (rest of the event perhaps?) and undergo some retraining, not sure.
Costa coffee are actually pretty good at paying their tax, certainly compared to Starbucks or Nero. How much longer that will continue with coke in charge is debatable.
I dislike Lahyani, always have.
Little things - I dislike how he announces the score in such theatrical fashion (rather like the darts guys doing their one-hundred-and-eighty).
Often he says it with added inflections as though to add suspense or surprise or whatever. It's like Lahyani himself wants to be the centre of attention.
And I think this incident is consistent with that - utterly inappropriate, taking the law into his own hands, trying to impose his own character....
Although, as mentioned above, PHH has a point when he says the main criticism should go to the authorities who, somehow, try the 'fake news' tactic to claim what happened never happened.
Going back some, Davydenko was under suspicion for unusual betting during a match in which he retired. Whilst the matter was under investigation, in another match he got the yips with his serve and could hardly get one in and the umpire seemed to suggest he was not using his best efforts. When Davydenko said he would definitely get a serve in if he was able to, the umpire told him to just try rolling one in. It was a really weird episode and I'm fairly sure it was Lahyani in the chair. If so he has form!! If anyone remembers that long ago and thinks it was a different umpire, please correct me.
Going back some, Davydenko was under suspicion for unusual betting during a match in which he retired. Whilst the matter was under investigation, in another match he got the yips with his serve and could hardly get one in and the umpire seemed to suggest he was not using his best efforts. When Davydenko said he would definitely get a serve in if he was able to, the umpire told him to just try rolling one in. It was a really weird episode and I'm fairly sure it was Lahyani in the chair. If so he has form!! If anyone remembers that long ago and thinks it was a different umpire, please correct me.
I think everyone understands that what Lahyani did was in the best interests of the game, the paying audience, and everyone generally, but though, to quote Elvis Costello, 'his aim was true', the way he went about it was all wrong, and strictly and explicitly forbidden by the rules of cinduct for umpires. He should have said something like, 'You're in danger of incurring a penalty for not giving best effort', and if pushed, consulted the referee. You simply can't do what he did, even though it was probably altruistic.
Lahyani is a bit like the cricket umpire Billy Bowden was, but I doon't have CD's level of animus towards him, just a bit irritating, but a good umpire. I don't see how he can continue though: what if you're an unfashionable player that people wouldn't generally think was 'good for the game'? You don't get any special intervention.
It's interesting how, yet again, Kyrgios essentially escapes any criticism here, he's done this nonsense enough times that everyone seems to just shrug it off - he'll be nice to a ball kid soon, or play a few flashy shots, give some money to charity, and they all just sigh, all swoonsome, and say, 'Aw! that's our Nicky. He's such a character, such a talent, so good for tennis, he's a complicated guy, so sensitive once you get to know him..." and all other manner of excuses to further enable his behaviour over and over and over, and as they're still uttering the last excuse, he'll be back on Twitter slut-shaming Vekic again, or something else. And he'll delete it, and say he was sorrry, and maybe wrong, and he'll be excused again. Then he'll do it all over again, exactly the same, with callow malice of forethought, and be instantly forgiven again, without consequence. The Tennis Podcast take included the likeness to the naughty disruptive kid at school that all the teachers nevertheless fawn over in preference to the blameless kids caught in the maelstrom, and that seems about right to me. I simply don't understand what makes everyone so irrationally defensive of him time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time...
Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I remember when Lahyani had a similar incident with tomic a few years ago, and I thought that was inappropriate at the time.
Following the spat between Andy and Ferdasco, the lack of officiating during the 10-minute heat breaks has been confirmed by neutral other players.
And not only that coaches were allowed in and could talk to the player but that the players had no idea about the time left because there were no supervising officials there anywhere to be found (all contrary to the rules).
This is an indictment of the umpiring system, the power behind the scenes, the lack of transparency and the old boy network of the whole umpiring pyramid:
What's shocking is how unshocked I am by it. Most of us like to think that we live in a fair world and that we wouldn't do anything like that, but the stories I hear from women/BAME/disabled says clearly that there is prejudice, privilege and abuse going on the whole time. Some is conscious, and other unconscious bias which favours the most powerful demographic.