There's not much of a debate. He writes at too great a length on matters I consider speculative at best.
I just looked at the rule book, and although it is not a killer point, the rule does state that:
a referee
may construe ...
In other words, and to continue the point I've made before, Ramos chose to interpret it as coaching.
He wasn't obligated to do so by the rules. He was only obligated to consider it.
This is why, as Navratilova pointed out, he could have given her a soft warning as to how he might consider future gestures from her box.
Given the situation as he knew it at the time then Ramos could have taken a safer course of action.
His argument that the tennis rules are not 'a la carte' also tends to ring a little hollow.
And this is before we get to the following:
Communications of any kind, audible or visible,
between a player and a coach ...
So naturally enough the two had a conversation about the message and whether it was received.
This of course raises the semiotic question of what constitutes a message ...
And then back again to tennis_hands and myself.
Are we ever really in any kind of communication with each other given that emission and reception never correspond?
@Tennis_Hands hands
@Bartelby
You should both check the timelines of your posts. Either you live in the same time zone and normally post at the same time, or you both took a break at roughly the same time then reengaged many hours later.
What did you do - go to sleep to recharge, to begin the same debate again?