It has been three days since the debacle at the 2018 US
Open. Many people have jumped in the fray and many opinions have been
expressed, some defending Serena Williams; while some profess their admiration
for her talent and athleticism, yet also taking her to task for reacting the
way she did, calling her out for having a reaction.
Three things became of interest to me.
First there is the lukewarm defense of the umpire, Carlos
Ramos. There is the touting of his credentials as a tennis official, and there
are small but spirited few who admiringly commending him for being fair to players
of both genders because he is strict in his interpretations of the rules. The
most common defense narrows the field down to the fact that his interpretation
of the rules is strictly by the book, that there can be no fault to be found in
his rulings. People who resort to strict and narrow reading of the rules are
usually the same people who have a moral dilemma on their hands, or they have
been called out by someone for not doing enough in a particular situation:
witness the by-the-book defense of Paterno and of Urban Meyer. He walked right
up to the minimal limits of his responsibility without doing an extra ounce
more. The sign of someone who hasn’t done enough to meet his responsibility as a
citizen of their society.
In the case of Carlos Ramos, it isn’t quite as serious but
the logic is the same: he applied the rules as if he was a role model for
future AI based tennis droids, strictly by the book, no interpretation allowed.
Yet, in the any world where rules and laws are necessary for smooth operations,
the rules demand interpretation because we cannot reasonably anticipate all
situations and contingencies. The strictness of the interpretations is left up
to the adjudicators. Interpretations that are too strict and too loose ill
serve the greater good of the endeavor, but interpretations must be allowed. In
this case Ramos hewed closely to the limit and it ill served the tennis world.
Texualists are those in the legal world who hold that only
the original intent of the laws as written are the only interpretations that
should be allowed. Of course the orthodox original intent of the laws are only those
that are interpreted by the texualists and no one else. How convenient.
The other issue that interested me is the coaching rule itself.
I am not so interested in whether Serena’s coach admitted to coaching or not,
she was on the other side of the court and probably did not see his hands,
which is where the looser interpretation of the coaching rule should have
applied but wasn’t, thereby averting the controversy. This is important because
this is the fuse that lit the situation into an unrecoverable mess.
I am not a regular tennis fan but by what I gather this is a
rule that is difficult to enforce. What constitutes coaching? It seemed that coaches
are expected to sit stock and live in fear of lifting a pinky finger for fear
of being called for coaching. The other part of this coaching rule morass is that
the rule is an open secret that everyone does it and it is rarely invoked. People
on the broadcast talk about this rule as if it is an open joke amongst the cognoscenti,
that this is one of these rules that exists as some kind of anachronism and that
people ignore it with a wink and a nod. If this is the case, why even have it
in the books? Why have a rule that is so ridiculous that no one knows how to
deal with it? Why have a rule that is so broad and so difficult to enforce that
the possibility of abuse by a very broad interpretation is very real. I think
that Ramos in his zeal to be seen as strict and fair official abused this rule
by so strictly interpreting this innocuous and arcane rule.
Now, the second and third penalties called by Ramos seem to
follow his strict interpretation to a t, and I don’t have much to argue about
those rulings, but the penalties that accrued are based on his original and
humorless interpretation of the rules and what he thinks he saw.
Finally, the debate continues regarding what caused Serena
to have her outburst and whether she had a right to be so indignant by equating
the coaching ruling to being called a cheater. The ugliness blew up from that
point on. Many electrons were sacrificed to that debate, but that doesn’t
interest me.
What interest me is in observing the reactions of some of
the people who have thrown themselves into the discussion. Those who take Serena
to task for reacting the way she did. Many have pointed out that the best of
the athletes who compete in the arena of public sports get incredibly personal,
insulting, abusing, potty-mouthed, and childish when the ruling goes against
them. They pout when things don’t go their way. Some have brought up the fact
that there is a double standard when it comes to the male athletes versus the
female athletes. The argument in response that just because men get ugly and
cuss and swear doesn’t mean that women should be given the carte blanche to do
the same. Indeed, that would be a sad and erroneous interpretation. The irony
that people miss is that their reaction to what Serena exactly mirror the gender
inequality in the way we view male and female athletes.
Why is it that our first reaction to a woman being combative
and fierce is to call her out for being combative and fierce? Why is it that we
do not react the same way or to the same degree when it is a male athlete
acting inappropriately? Why is it that we hold female athletes to a higher
standard of conduct than men? Does this have to do with your own inherent bias?
Some have advanced the slippery slope logical fallacy, that if we allowed women
to behave in the same way then all of society would slip down the slippery
slope towards aggressive incivility. My contention is: if we find the rude
behavior so unattractive, why not hold the male athletes to the higher standard
that you are holding the female athletes? Why has this NOT been the norm in all
the evolution of our society? Why are we such hypocrites when it comes to civil
behavior? Why do we put the onus on the female athlete to behave differently
from men? Why do we hold female athletes to a much higher standard? Why do we
excuse male reactions as being passionate and a good quality to have while we
condemn the female athlete for the same behavior? Why are men considered a get
getter and a woman a pushy broad? Why not apply the same standards to both
genders?
In the end, the one good thing that comes out of this, I
hope, is that we can use the ugly
incidence to open minds and change attitudes, because if we let the ire and
disgust with the inequality to just fade away, as the powers that be are
wishing for, the anger will simmer and then explode in a more emotional and uglier
form later. This discussion isn’t going away.
