johnpatrick81 wrote: » Why would she apologize if she didn’t receive any coaching in her mind? Why would she apologize for sticking up for her integrity and honour when that was directly questioned and punished by an umpire in front of the world?
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. 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.
johnpatrick81 wrote: » Her getting falsely punished and accused of receiving coaching when she didn’t receive any. Her getting punished for a rant which many men have gotten away with worse, which was a direct result of the false allegation.
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.
johnpatrick81 wrote: » If I in good faith accused someone of cheating, and could not prove that, I’d apologize until I had proof.
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.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » He never acused her of cheating. He accused the coach of coaching, whcih is still a vilation.
alan partridge aha wrote: » So do you believe the umpire is a liar and a thief?
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.
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.
alan partridge aha wrote: » So if coach gives hand signals, umpire cops it he must then ask player did you see them.
johnpatrick81 wrote: » It’s not
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Bob Harris wrote: » I do believe she's black. Look again and tell me what you think.
The Talking Bread wrote: » Over to you JP81https://twitter.com/ringsau/status/1038626993137377280
alan partridge aha wrote: » Coach nods his head at the end which would appear that the communication was received.
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.
