Skip to main content

The Rules, as They Apply to Serena



Well, she DID break the rules,” some people are saying.

This past Saturday, Serena Williams was penalized in ways that were unprecedented for a Grand Slam final. Some want to spin the narrative that technically Serena deserved what she got. That is an oversimplification that needs more careful thought.

Her first warning for coaching was justified, technically, by the fact that her coach was indeed gesturing for her to go to the net. Set aside for now the fact that men are rarely, if ever, called for similar behavior. Her second infraction, resulting in a point deduction, was for smashing her racket. She did. The Grand Slam rulebook defines “verbal abuse” as any statement about an official that “implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive.” So for her third infraction -- calling Ramos a “liar” and a “thief” -- she technically broke that rule resulting in a game deduction late in the second set.

What people need to acknowledge is how sexism and racism lurk beneath these oversimplifications; sexism and racism love technicalities. Ramos did not technically say “Woman, how dare you speak that way to me,” before stealing a point and then a game from Serena. Technically he was just officiating.

But, what about the men? The men, technically, deserve those deductions for code violations as well. They just don’t get them. They don’t get them despite throwing f-bombs along with their rackets.

In a Washington Post op-ed tennis legend Billy Jean King asks a rhetorical question: “Did Ramos treat Williams differently than male players have been treated?” The consensus is that he did. “Ultimately,” King continues, “a woman was penalized for standing up for herself.”

People who are focused exclusively on Williams’ behavior are missing the point. The point is not that she lost her cool and verbally vented her frustration. The point is she was not treated like the men on the tour who have lost their cool and verbally (often much more aggressively) vented their frustration.

As King pointed out in a tweet, “When a woman is emotional, she’s ‘hysterical’ and she’s penalized for it. When a man does the same, he’s ‘outspoken’ and there are no such repercussions...” These semantics speak to the obvious double standard at play on that court and all over our society.

Well, she DID break the rules,” people reiterate. “Yes, but which rules?” I wonder.

When people say that Serena broke the rules, we must remind them that beyond the technical rules, she broke more subtle ones: women should be polite; women should be deferential; women should just control their emotions; white men hold the power.

“Ramos took what began as a minor infraction,” writes Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post, “and turned it into one of the nastiest and most emotional controversies in the history of tennis, all because he couldn’t take a woman speaking sharply to him.”

In an interview with ESPN the next day, Katrina Adams - president of the USTA, said, “We have to have consistency, because when you look at what the women, in this case Serena, is feeling, we watch the guys do this all the time. They are badgering the chair umpires on the changeover. Nothing happens.”

“There should be no difference,” says WTA chief executive Steve Simon, “in the standards of tolerance provided to the emotions expressed by men vs. women and [we are] committed to working with the sport to ensure that all players are treated the same. We do not believe that this was done last night.”

As an interesting juxtaposition, we have Nick Kyrgios. Playing in the men’s draw of this same tournament he started to have a bit of an emotional meltdown in his match against Pierre Hugues Herbert. Instead of penalties, the chair umpire, Mohamed Layhani, came down from his chair and calmed him down. “I want to help you,” he said. Kyrgios went on to rally and win the match.

Lahani and Ramos broke the cardinal rule of officiating sports by making it about them. There are two players in a tennis match, and they made it so there were three. Still, the intrusion into the men’s match had a sense of brotherhood, one man helping another. In the women’s match there was a sense of chastisement, one man putting a woman in her place.

Serena will never have that chance to rally and win. She was robbed of it by Carlos Ramos, just as Naomi Osaka was robbed of the joy of her first Grand Slam title. The blame cannot fall on Serena for an emotional outburst similar to those we see in countless sporting events. The blame is on a system that views an emotional outburst from a woman as different from that of a man.

Which rules were the cause for her unprecedented in-match discipline? The rules of tennis, or the rules of history?

Gillian White writes in The Atlantic, “To see Williams’s comeback after a traumatic birth stymied over seemingly minor infractions seems unnecessary and malicious. To see the devastation that those penalties wrought on two women of color at the top of their sport, during what should have been a joyous time, is heartbreaking.”

This is not just about one call or one match. It is about systems of power that still hold back women and people of color. Serena has spoken for years about the double standards that impact her as a woman of color playing this game. At the U.S. Open alone she has been the recipient of outlandish calls in 2004 against Jennifer Capriati, and even more egregious calls in 2009 against Kim Clijsters. Analysts questioned those calls when they happened. Serena still questions them today.

Serena’s outburst on the court can’t be looked at in the isolation of one match. To do so would be like analyzing the Black Lives Matter movement without acknowledging the police brutality of the civil rights movement or slavery. Williams has a history that she brings with her to each match.

She and her sister Venus were frequently heckled and taunted as they first entered the tour because of their race. Serena has faced excessive scrutiny of her body type that men would never face. After wearing a form-fitting bodysuit to the French Open, officials took the unprecedented step of banning her clothing in future matches. Serena said that black suit made her feel like a “warrior princess.”

It appears the officials don’t like the image of her as a warrior, or as a princess. “One must respect the game and the place,” a male spokesman said explaining the ban. Even when that openly disrespects the women playing it by applying archaic concepts of modesty to a modern game.

Toby Oredein, writing for the UK’s Independent, sums it up best. “Some have been quick to say,” she writes, “that Williams’ confrontation with Ramos was because she is a sore loser and a bully; typical knee-jerk criticism that comes from the stereotype of the angry black woman. However, this lazy assumption ignores [the facts].”

I am a middle-aged white guy, so technically this isn’t my problem. Still, I am angry. I am troubled by the obvious double standard. I am saddened that I could not watch the greatest tennis champion of all time try to fight her way back into the match.

She DID break the rules,” people say. Yes, she did, and like countless other women and people of color, she has been punished.

Comments

  1. I was watching it when it happened and it was unbelievable. Great blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Had I behaved like that on a tennis court, I would have expected to get everything that happened to Serena,” said Martina Navratilova, who won 18 Grand Slam singles titles and a record nine Wimbledon titles, and has been a longtime advocate for equality in the sport. “ It should’ve ended right there with the point warning, but Serena just couldn’t let it go.”

    She added, “She completely had the right message about women’s inequality, but it wasn’t the right time to bring it up.”

    The referee should understand the magnitude of the game and should have given a warning. He did not handle things appropriately, but Serena was not the victim in this instance. She is an amazing champion for Tennis and for women in general, but she was out of line in this instance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t dispute that she behaved poorly. I wish she had let it go. Still, I don’t think she would have been penalized the same way if she were a man. A man would not have lost a game for that same behavior. I don’t agree with how she reacted, just struggle with the double standard.

      Delete
  3. Some Google Searches offer a better response than I could come up with:

    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.”

    Lígia Melo
    Lígia Melo, studies Chemistry at Stanford University (2022)
    Answered 3d ago · Upvoted by Laurence Shanet, Former College/Satellite Tennis Player, Tennis Coach, USRSA Certified Stringer

    Serena was given a game penalty not only because of what she said to the umpire but because that was her third code violation in the match. In tennis, you get a warning for your first code violation (Serena was warned for receiving illegal coaching—a rule that, albeit not always accordingly emphasized, does exist), a point penalty for the next one (Serena was given one for racket abuse, which is pretty standard punishment for both women and men), and a game penalty for a third one (Serena was punished for verbally abusing the umpire—repeatedly telling him “you owe me an apology” after he simply enforced the rules and calling him a “thief”).

    Carlos Ramos umpires predominantly on men’s matches and is known to be one of the most coherent and consistent umpires on tour. In the French Open men’s semi-final, for instance, he gave coaching warnings to both Novak Djokovic and Marco Cecchinato. The difference is, neither of them went on to destroy a racket and verbally abuse the chair umpire afterward. Similarly, when men offend umpires, they are given code violations and, in case of more serious offenses, punished more harshly afterward, such as when Fognini called a female umpire a “whore” or when Kyrgios told Wawrinka “Kokkinakis banged your girlfriend”—both being blatantly sexist remarks, but that is another story.

    I’m a feminist and a big women’s tennis fan, but Serena went way overboard and blaming this on sexism sends the wrong message, as though women were incapable of taking responsibility for their actions.

    and finally, a veteran McEnroe summary:
    September 1986 - Received fines totalling $3,500 at U.S. Open after he and partner Peter Fleming were disqualified for arriving late for men's doubles match. Fine broke down to $750 for being late and $2,750 for saying what he thought about the disqualification.

    April 1987 - Fined $2,000 for time-wasting during match at WCT event in Dallas.

    May 1987 - Fined $4,000 for walking off court during World Cup in Dusseldorf.

    September 1987 - Suspended two months and fined $10,000 for various offenses at U.S. Open.

    July 1988 - Warned for racket abuse during defeat against Australian Wally Masur at Wimbledon.

    July 1989 - Australian John Fitzgerald, a fourth-round loser to McEnroe, accuses him of using tantrums to put off opponents.

    January 1990 - Thrown out of Australian Open and fined $6,500 after receiving third warning for misbehavior against Mikael Pernfors.

    April 1991 - McEnroe admits own behavior on court "sickens me" after receiving a code violation and point penalty during defeat by fellow American Todd Witsken in Hong Kong.

    July 1991 - Fined $10,000 for swearing at linesman in Wimbledon loss against Stefan Edberg, picked up by television microphone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure the first example of McEnroe is a good one. According to the information you cited, he was repeatedly cursing at the chair umpire. I don't think that is a good parallel to Serena's calling Ramos a "liar and a thief." She never cursed.

      The Chemistry student from Stanford makes some good points, but again cites examples of men calling officials a "whore" and saying that someone "banged your girlfriend." I think you would agree those are a bit more offensive than the terms "liar" and "thief".

      As for the long list of McEnroe offenses, I would just point out that he was the single most volatile player to ever play the game. Needing to use him as proof that men face censure might just prove my point. Sure, he faced consequences. Still, he never faced a game penalty for a level of language similar to what Serena said. His language was always far beyond that before getting serious consequences.

      There is no perfect comparison, but I just don't believe a man would have received a game penalty in a Grand Slam Final for "liar" and "thief".

      Delete
  4. After reading comments above I'm curious, can we find any examples from the 2000's? And are there any examples of a man getting a 3rd warning (game penalty) for behavior that is similar to Serena's (not from cursing or calling someone a whore)?

    Of course her behavior was not ideal, but that just isn't the point. The debate is whether comparable behavior is being addressed equally between the men and women. At this point in our growth as a society, it's really important to look at the big picture and determine whether actions carry bias with them. I don't know what the official's motives were, maybe he was just having a bad day and was in a foul mood, maybe he decided to follow the rules strictly in this match, but it's important that when someone is in a postion of power they don't let their emotions or pride guide their decisions. It is their job to be consistent. I'm not sure that with Serena at this match, this was the case. I believe the head of the USTA agreed as well that the official was out of line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. don't know why it reads "unknown" above, it's Jenn Knoll:)

      Delete
  5. It is difficult to compare different situations. Take for example the point penalty Djokovic received for this play https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCc6s0FWGao

    Novak actually caught himself before throwing his racquet or smashing a ball, and still received the penalty.

    I am not defending Ramos, because he handled the situation badly. Ramos broke the cardinal rule of sports. People should never remember the referee. I am not criticizing Serena, because she got caught up in the heat of battle and her emotions go the better of her...not uncommon with incredibly competitive, top level athletes. In my opinion, Serena behaved in a way that warranted a code violation. That doesn't make Ramos right. A warning the violation was coming would have been a more appropriate response.

    I also don't denie the fact that Serena has in the past, and MAYBE did in this instance, face discrimination. If 85% of the men who acted this way would have received a code violation (just my opinion), and 100% of the African descendant women would have been penalized, there is a societal problem.

    All of that being said, I would have liked to see this article focused on a more defined issue...

    For example, the reaction of hatred towards Serena for behaving the way most top level athletes have behaved at some point in their career in the heat of competition - see Mika Brzezinski.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree with your assessment that "a warning the violation was coming would have been a more appropriate response." I think that very well may have prevented all that followed. I also agree that it is "difficult to compare different situations." Certainly there are lots of examples of men being penalized. Still, I can't find a single example of a man being penalized a full game for similar language in such an important match. It is not about whether men get penalized. It is about whether or not the penalties for men and women are equal.

      While I think your estimate of 85% of men receiving the same penalty is far too high, you are right in saying that there is a "societal problem" even at that threshold. I don't want 15% of the women in my life to be discriminated against. In reality, I think that number is much higher, and only grows when issues of race compound it.

      I am not sure why you think the article lacked a defined issue, but here it is: Serena was the victim of discrimination in a call that would have never happened to a man at such a crucial time in a Slam Final.

      As for Mika Brzezinski, I watched her comments about what happened. She conceded that "you wonder if it happens to more to women or more to Serena than it does to male players and there's an issue there." So, she is openly saying it IS an issue. "There is a place for debate on that," she continues. She then seems to say the match was not the place to engage in the debate.

      To that I would say, Ramos making what I believe was a discriminatory call made it the place for that debate. He brought the inequality into play.

      She goes on to say that it is indeed "possible that [Serena] is being treated unfairly, possibly being treated differently than the way male players get treated." Still, she advocates that Serena stay quiet, rather than voicing her opposition at the moment. It is silences like the one she proposes that allow sexism and racism to continue. It is not Serena's job to not address sexism when it arises in a match. It is the sport's job to remove sexism from her workplace.

      Brzezinski ends by saying to women: "Don't take it personal [personally]. It's not personal." Maybe she is right. Maybe it is not personal. Maybe what happened to Serena isn't about Serena herself, but about women in general. And, that is exactly the point.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Farewell to My Seniors

It has been years since I first assigned commencement speeches to my seniors to end their high school experience. The stories they have told year after year always reaffirm why I keep doing this job. It has become a tradition for me to deliver a speech of my own to end the year. Here is this year's edition. I n his book Fablehaven Brandon Mull writes, “Smart people learn from their mistakes. But the real sharp ones learn from the mistakes of others.” That’s one thing I hoped to accomplish with these speeches to conclude the year. I hope Maddi’s statement that being cat-called makes women feel unsafe prevents all the young men sitting here from making that mistake. I hope Ryan’s mistake of not getting involved right away in high school inspires you to jump right into things in college. I hope the cautionary tales people have shared about addictions and eating disorders prevent you all from making the mistake of ignoring warning signs and encourage you to ask for help when you need

An Open Letter to My Seventh-Grade Flag Football Team

Boys, I have coached most of you for years now, and I want you to know that I have never been more proud than when you lost 16-60 this past weekend.  You heard that right.  When the opposing coach, up by more than forty points, told his team to play “without restraint” you continued to play with it. That is more important than any win.  Quick vocab lesson since I am an English teacher: Restraint is a noun. It means self-control. Staying under control is one of the most important lessons games like flag football can teach you. Not exercising control is what leads to penalties in games and all sorts of bad things in the real world.  While the other team continued to launch passes to the endzone, and comments across the line of scrimmage, you maintained control. The one moment it boiled over, you immediately apologized. You showed restraint, and that is why I am proud.  You are going to face stuff like that your whole lives. You are going to come across people who think winning is more im