Kevin Graham wrote:Where is an example of this guy penalizing a man for cheating, based on nothing more than his perception that a coach in the stands is somehow "coaching" the player via telepathy or hand signals or whatever. This is really a subjective claim that is on shaky ground. Time violations can easily be measured and justified, as can code violations for screaming and slamming rackets. Saying "you're cheating" is not only insulting, but it is a serious allegation that needs more justification aside from "I saw a guy in the stands sending you signals."
Time violations are interpretive depending on the ump and depending on the day.
Cheating calls are subjective.
Outbursts, which include racket breaking, are interpretive.
I'm not really following your line of reasoning that establishes the case that Ramos is a sexist and treats men and women differently, objectively. I think he's an ump that has a good reputation that was impugned by a frustrated tennis player. Next time it'll be a male that bitches about him. What I have a problem with is that there are a LOT of people that are stating he's a sexist, the tennis circuit is sexist (or racist depending on who you ask), and that there needs to be "equality", whatever the “F” that means when a double standard today exists, but it actually favors women. It's mind boggling.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Yesterday's US Open final resulted in the crowning of a deserving new champion, Naomi Osaka. The WTA applauds Naomi for her tremendous accomplishment.
Yesterday also brought to the forefront the question of whether different standards are applied to men and women in the officiating of matches.
The WTA believes that there should be no difference in the standards of tolerance provided to the emotions expressed by men vs women and is 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.
Well, that's an abstract and impossible request to actually employ. How would someone ensure outbursts are penalized equally to the genders, to include races, ethnicities, nationalities, and genetic makeup?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
She was flagged because the judge said her coach looked at her from the stands? Seriously? The greatest female tennis player ever needs coaching? Everyone speaking with experience on this subject says this happens all the time but no one ever is penalized for it especially in a finals match like this.
It's true that her coach admitted he was coaching. But that's not what Serena argued so hotly on the court. She argued that he wasn't coaching.
The news cycle is also talking about how this female tennis player was penalized for removing her shirt when this never happens to men.
She was penalized for taking too much time or not waiting for a changeover. It wasn't because she removed her shirt.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Lemmie wrote: What is your "intuition that the ump probably wasn't biased (though could have been)" based on?
My intuition? I used the word and everything. Did you miss the part where I also said that I was withholding judgment? I described my intuitive reaction, then said what I intellectually think. The part of my post you keep not quoting says, "But I don’t have confidence in that take, so my real answer is a shrug of the shoulders."
ETA: If you're asking me to justify my intuition, it's just an intuition. My guess it centers on the fact that the penalties were justified on the merits, if a bit harsh, understanding the natural variance in officiating, and knowing that even in environments with a lot of institutional sexism, individual acts can often be not sexist. But, again, I don't really know what was going on there with respect to subtle biases and said as much. I don't think there's enough evidence to call it sexist if that's what you want me to say. But I also don't think we can be confident gender biases played no role either. Such is life.
ajax18 wrote:She was penalized for taking too much time or not waiting for a changeover. It wasn't because she removed her shirt.
Women have been penalized for removing their shirt to change on the open when men are not. That goes to that sexism in tennis issue you were baffled by earlier. There was a major story regarding Williams at the French Open with her cat suit that had sexism all over it, and while that may have informed what happened recently, it wasn't the issue of the day. I think you are mixing up subjects here. Your replying to a comment that is attempt to establish a general atmosphere of sexism in tennis officiating.
Good point. Combined with the Alize Cornet shirt-changing debacle, there were quite a few issues related to sexism that needed to be addressed.
nd therefore Serena is right that she was being penalized because she was a woman?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
There was a major story regarding Williams at the French Open with her cat suit that had sexism all over it, and while that may have informed what happened recently, it wasn't the issue of the day. I think you are mixing up subjects here. Your replying to a comment that is attempt to establish a general atmosphere of sexism in tennis officiating.
To me that's between the WTA and whoever funds the tournaments. It has nothing to to do with men's tennis.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
What set her off was the initial penalty for alleged "cheating."
So why did she wait until she got her serve broken to protest that she wasn't being coached? And why didn't she protest that everyone coaches and that it was inappropriate to call it in this situation? Why didn't she protest that she shouldn't have been warned first? Her on court argument was a lie.
Where is an example of this guy penalizing a man for cheating, based on nothing more than his perception that a coach in the stands is somehow "coaching" the player via telepathy or hand signals or whatever. This is really a subjective claim that is on shaky ground.
How about her coach admitting that he was coaching after the match? Does that make the ground a little more firm?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
and that there needs to be "equality", whatever the ____ that means when a double standard today exists, but it actually favors women. It's mind boggling.
- Doc
Doc do you play tennis? This is what most folks are saying on the tennis discussion boards.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.