Serena's meltdown

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I'm done with you! Clear what you are at at this stage.

Peter Denham

Can't believe the fallout over this. The umpire acted appropriately and has the full support of US Open officials.

If she really believed she was up against a sexist and corrupt umpire why, as a professional, would she repeatedly give him the opportunity to punish her?

She couldn't handle that her fairlytale return wasn't going to materialise. Complete narcissist.

The Talking Bread

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Thanks, that video says it all really. Hilarious how someone can get penalized for that!!

I'm done with you! Clear what you are at at this stage.

il_340x270.1309544555_bhlg.jpg

Bob Harris wrote: »

I wouldn't have a clue what that meant but Serena clearly did despite denying any arranged signals being discussed. Bit of smoke coming off her pants I think.
Be engulfed in flames soon.

And tell me again, what colour is her skin?

Rubberchikken

Painful woman.
Youd think she was the only female to ever give birth. The only female in sports to ever give birth. The only female who should ever win a women's grand slam.

Her appallingly petty unprofessional bad-loser outbursts drew attention away from the winner.

Shes badly behaved. A bloody diva. Not all that talented. And boring to boot.

And plating the sexist card is tooo painful for words.
This woman needs to go away.

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Coach nods his head at the end which would appear that the communication was received.

When he scratches is chin that means “work on her backhand”

And then later he scratches his balls which means “they’re on to us”

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Coach nods his head at the end which would appear that the communication was received.

I wouldn't have a clue what that meant but Serena clearly did despite denying any arranged signals being discussed. Bit of smoke coming off her pants I think.
Be engulfed in flames soon.

Coach nods his head at the end which would appear that the communication was received.

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Over to you JP81

https://twitter.com/ringsau/status/1038626993137377280

Thanks, that video says it all really. Hilarious how someone can get penalized for that!!

Bob Harris wrote: »

I do believe she's black. Look again and tell me what you think.

Not sure why you felt the need to bring her skin colour into the debate though.....

The Talking Bread

Over to you JP81

https://twitter.com/ringsau/status/1038626993137377280

The Talking Bread wrote: »

What did he accuse her of......................

He penalised her because her coach "coached her". Something he admitted. It matters not one iota, under the letter of the law if she claims she didn't see him, in fact it doesn't matter if she didn't see him at all.

She bares the penalty for her coaches actions. Them's the rules. You seem to be very ignorant to this rule.

Well if that's the rule, the defence of Serena's actions is idiotic.

The Talking Bread

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

There’s as much chance of him being a liar and a thief as there is of her being a liar and a cheat.

He cast the first stone.

She defended herself.

If someone falsely accuses me of something, you’re damn right I’m gonna defend myself all guns blazing.

What did he accuse her of......................

He penalised her because her coach "coached her". Something he admitted. It matters not one iota, under the letter of the law if she claims she didn't see him, in fact it doesn't matter if she didn't see him at all.

She bares the penalty for her coaches actions. Them's the rules. You seem to be very ignorant to this rule.

For someone who has continuosly blabbed on about your knowledge of the game, I am surprised you can't get your head around the "coaching" rule.

Signore Fancy Pants

Roids sure do make people emotional.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

You’ve dropped the race card at least, that was a weird detour you took in your last post. Told a lot about you though.

I do believe she's black. Look again and tell me what you think.

manual_man

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

No.. no its not. If she believes that an injustice was carried out that she should be listened to. The amount of sexism and racism in this thread sickens me to my stomach. Im old enough to remember John McEnroe and how he was lauded for throwing temper tantrums

McEnroe was regularly disciplined for his outburts. The exact same should happen to Serena Williams. She has effectively brought the sport in to disrepute with horrible behavior and horrible accusations. The tennis authority should throw the book at her, and to hell with her if - which is likely - she tries to use manufactured victimhood as some kind of defense.

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

It’s not

It most certainly is. Page 343
http://wtafiles.wtatennis.com/pdf/publications/2018WTARulebook.pdf

On-court coaches shall only provide advice during the on-court
coaching period and are not permitted to bring any articles (i.e.,
food, drinks, tennis equipment, or medical supplies) onto the court
to provide to their player(s), unless any such articles have been seen
and approved by the Chair Umpire. Notes and official WTA authorized
electronic devices may be brought onto the court but may not
be left with the player.
g. On-court coaches must leave the court immediately upon the Chair
Umpire announcing “Time”.
h. On-court coaches may not provide coaching or communicate with a
player outside of the court.

alan partridge aha wrote: »

So if coach gives hand signals, umpire cops it he must then ask player did you see them.

And like Arsene Wenger did for years they'll say 'no'.

So if coach gives hand signals, umpire cops it he must then ask player did you see them.

chicorytip wrote: »

These are diversionary tactics she is employing to distract her opponent. She is very old to still be playing and her body is failing her. Her opponents are, in some cases, less than half her age. Mc Enroe employed similar tactics in his time. The tantrums always occurred, notably, when he was losing matches and were a deliberate ploy to interrupt play and cause his opponent to lose focus. It was a tactic that usually seemed to work in his favour, regrettably.

No doubt about it. Win and she equalled the record for Grand Slams. A lot on the line and when things began to slip away she resorted to a baseless rant about sexism.

chicorytip

Bob Harris wrote:

Ironically in the end by declaring herself a crusader for women's rights she showed a distinct lack of integrity and honour herself by deflecting away from the matter at hand.

Bob Harris wrote:

Unfortunately it was the integrity and honour of her coach she paid a price for. You seem to be wilfully ignoring this key element.

These are diversionary tactics she is employing to distract her opponent. She is very old to still be playing and her body is failing her. Her opponents are, in some cases, less than half her age. Mc Enroe employed similar tactics in his time. The tantrums always occurred, notably, when he was losing matches and were a deliberate ploy to interrupt play and cause his opponent to lose focus. It was a tactic that usually seemed to work in his favour, regrettably.

alan partridge aha wrote: »

So do you believe the umpire is a liar and a thief?

There’s as much chance of him being a liar and a thief as there is of her being a liar and a cheat.

He cast the first stone.

She defended herself.

If someone falsely accuses me of something, you’re damn right I’m gonna defend myself all guns blazing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He never acused her of cheating. He accused the coach of coaching, whcih is still a vilation.

It’s not

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

One, she was proven wrong - COACH ADMITTED COACHING. And if she didnt; see it, how does she know it didn't happen?
Two, the voilation was totally warranted.

What you're ultimately asking is for umpires to not uphold the rules of the game.

Coach made mistake not her. She didn’t see it so by the laws of the game she should not have been punished

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

If I in good faith accused someone of cheating, and could not prove that, I’d apologize until I had proof.

He never acused her of cheating. He accused the coach of coaching, whcih is still a vilation, whether she sees it or not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If I, in good faith, called someone a thief and was ultimately proven wrong, I'd feel the need to apologise.

If I in good faith accused someone of cheating, and could not prove that, I’d apologize until I had proof.