Ramos did defuse the situation after the 1st warning: lost in the plot

[HouTex]

I love when people like yourself have to blatantly lie to maintain your warped view of reality. It's not like a non-racist caricature of Serena wasn't just posted three comments above your own but sure, "Basically, those folks will not accept any caricatures of black people."

I saw that one and it proves my point. It looks nothing like Serena. The face, hair, body shape and dress are all wrong. The other one looks a lot like her.

 

[Tshooter]

...Actually, unfortunately, I suspect a lot of commentators haven't even watched the match itself, just the newsreel of the "incident".

A bunch of writers that never watch or write about tennis unless and until the next Serena blowup have been generous enough to offer their insightful opinions.

 

[Service Ace]

I saw that one and it proves my point. It looks nothing like Serena. The face, hair, body shape and dress are all wrong. The other one looks a lot like her.

You viewing a decidedly racist interpretation of a character as a more accurate depiction of proves a lot more about you then it is does the subject though I'm not surprised someone from the South would feel the way you do.

 

[HouTex]

You viewing a decidedly racist interpretation of a character as a more accurate depiction of proves a lot more about you then it is does the subject though I'm not surprised someone from the South would feel the way you do.

Now that's discriminatory!! Many people do not think it's racist. Your saying it is doesn't make it so. It offends you and I get it.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

People claiming that a caricature of Serena that doesn’t look like Serena is a decent one do not understand what a caricature is: it is an exaggeration of typical for that person features, and if that person is carrying features typical for her race, unless she can be depicted and recognisable without them, it is absolutely necessary to draw them, if the person needs to be recognised.

The two cartoons: the one with "Serena" looks like a little girl pointing at a man in a chair with an angry face.

It doesn't convey the level of intensity that was visible in the real situation that actually earned the privilege to be drawn, it doesn't say anything about the historical events, it doesn't even tell you why the heck that girl is pointing: in other words, it is a very bad job, and one that doesn’t deserve to be viewed.

The other caricature, if one doesn't know in relative big detail the history behind it, would look like a kid's drawing of a black person, so it is the story that the people link with that image, but since most people know it, it brings racial connotations with it.

However, note that that is not a caricature in the sense that it depicts a historic figure.

It depicts a race, but nothing else.

Again, the story is the one that gives the context.

So, let's for a second review what is the story that gives context to that caricature of Serena that is so controversial: is the story about her race, in which case the context exacerbates her depiction as racial, or is it about uncontrolled behaviour that just happens to be with the outer appearance that can be mistaken for something else.

I am talking only about the image of Serena here to which I see the most objections.

I think that (as cliché as it is) the people that view the caricature as racist solely or predominantly based on Serena's depiction, are either racists themselves, because they put her in a racial context, where there is none, or just people, who don't have a first idea what a caricature is, how it should look like etc

 

[Deleted member 743561]

People claiming that a caricature of Serena that doesn’t look like Serena is a decent one do not understand what a caricature is: it is an exaggeration of typical for that person features, and if that person is carrying features typical for her race, unless she can be depicted and recognisable without them, it is absolutely necessary to draw them, if the person needs to be recognised.

The two cartoons: the one with "Serena" looks like a little girl pointing at a man in a chair with an angry face.

It doesn't convey the level of intensity that was visible in the real situation that actually earned the privilege to be drawn, it doesn't say anything about the historical events, it doesn't even tell you why the heck that girl is pointing: in other words, it is a very bad job, and one that doesn’t deserve to be viewed.

The other caricature, if one doesn't know in relative big detail the history behind it, would look like a kid's drawing of a black person, so it is the story that the people link with that image, but since most people know it, it brings racial connotations with it.

However, note that that is not a caricature in the sense that it depicts a historic figure.

It depicts a race, but nothing else.

Again, the story is the one that gives the context.

So, let's for a second review what is the story that gives context to that caricature of Serena that is so controversial: is the story about her race, in which case the context exacerbates her depiction as racial, or is it about uncontrolled behaviour that just happens to be with the outer appearance that can be mistaken for something else.

I am talking only about the image of Serena here to which I see the most objections.

I think that (as cliché as it is) the people that view the caricature as racist solely or predominantly based on Serena's depiction, are either racists themselves, because they put her in a racial context, where there is none, or just people, who don't have a first idea what a caricature is, how it should look like etc

Agreed.

Caricatures are unkind. The world at large, however, is a lot more unkind than a parody of an individual's appearance.

People need to get over it already. Everyone in the public eye gets absolutely lambasted these days.

 

[Bobby Jr]

The only thing Ramos could really have done better here, which might have helped diffuse Serena's mood, would be to have pointed out something along the lines of: "I am not accusing you of cheating, nor questioning your integrity. However, the rules state you incur the penalty for your coach attempting to coach you during a match."

This way she might have at least accepted it wasn't a personal accusation of cheating - which is the root cause of her fury. It's hard dealing with people flying off the handle but in cases like this it might be worth the effort - if anything to not detract from the match.

And it might have then ended at the point penalty for the racquet break.

 

[Bartelby]

As I said earlier, I would guess that at least two-thirds of you would have acted the same or worse than Williams if penalised for cheating.

The coach is considered an agent of the player, so if he cheats then you cheat because it is you who receive the penalty as the principal.

 

[Bobby Jr]

As I said earlier, I would guess that at least two-thirds of you would have acted the same or worse than Williams if penalised for cheating.

The coach is considered an agent of the player, so if he cheats then you cheat because it is you who receive the penalty as the principal.

But if Ramos had stopped her accusations of him calling her a cheat in its tracks from the outset by saying something similar to what I suggested above then some of the sting could have been taken out of the situation.

The warning itself was not what irked her most. It was her interpretation that the warning came with the suggestion she was a cheat. An interpretation he could have quickly clarified to (attempt to) set her straight. From the comments he made you could hear he didn't do that - he just explained that he saw Patrick giving hand signals.

Her reaction to this are all on her, but Ramos could likely have avoided her ongoing rants if he gave her a clear, discussion-ending explanation (as above) and said "no more or you'll risk getting another warning." (even though I'm not a fan of the soft warning idea except in some first instances of misbehavior - but certainly not the third)

 

[veroniquem]

A bunch of writers that never watch or write about tennis unless and until the next Serena blowup have been generous enough to offer their insightful opinions.

Yeah, we're now down to psychologists' opinions that Serena is a symbol of how women's anger is frowned upon while men's anger enhances their status.
I'm like hum... well... oh... Nobody cares about what happened. Everyone is gleefully taking advantage for pushing whatever agenda. Tabloid sensationalist type of news is gonna be all we have left pretty soon. Investigative journalism bye bye. Social media are accentuating the process.
Anyway, I'm considering messaging Kyrgios to ask him what it feels like to have his status enhanced in such gargantuan proportions (it doesn't seem to feel that good judging by his results )

 

[veroniquem]

As I said earlier, I would guess that at least two-thirds of you would have acted the same or worse than Williams if penalised for cheating.

Well, two-thirds of us could never become pro athletes because we could not withstand the pressure but more to the point, two-thirds of Serena's colleagues do NOT act like her (or not as bad as she does) , do not threaten to shove balls down line judges' throats for instance whenever they lose a match. How do THEY do it? Maybe Serena should ask them. Djokovic got a time violation during the final. You know what he did? Nothing (although I must confess that him shaking his finger at the female ump and screaming in her face that he has kids and he never cheats and he demands an immediate apology- preferably on her knees- would have been extremely entertaining, as would have been the subsequent reactions . Can we please not praise women for acting like babies? Immaturity- as in throwing tantrums- is not more of a quality in a woman than it is in a man and it should not be indulged or excused in a woman more than it is in a man. Equality for the win! )

 

[Matheson]

As I said earlier, I would guess that at least two-thirds of you would have acted the same or worse than Williams if penalised for cheating.

The coach is considered an agent of the player, so if he cheats then you cheat because it is you who receive the penalty as the principal.

I love this argument. The old "Someone else has done way worse!", or "I bet you would have acted the same or probably even worse!". So pathetic.

 

[celito]

BS.

Serena said “don’t talk to me” just before she called CR a thief. Had she left it at that and didn’t talk any further she wouldn’t have got the game penalty. CR accepted it and was no longer talking to her. Straightened his head and did not turn round any more to talk to her. Serena is the one that then crossed the line and called him a thief and stealing her point for a second time questioning his integrity - automatic verbal abuse under ITF rules. He had actually let the liar call go unpunished.

CR did nothing wrong under the rules and was lenient. This one is all on SW.

Exactly. And she was actually OK even up to the point she said "you stole a point from me". The line was crossed when she labelled him a thief which is a personal attack.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I’d say that the crucial mistake Serena made was the racquet smash. An official warning followed by a racquet smash results in a point penalty pretty much 100% of the time. If she had kept yapping, or her box was caught coaching again, she might have just gotten another (unofficial) warning. The racquet smash boxed her in and forced Ramos’ hand.

Another thing, I think the people crying foul about Ramos not showing discretion in regards to the first warning aren’t even in the position to make that call. No telling if he had witnessed other instances of coaching which he decided to gloss over.

 

[kramer woodie]

So, Osaka is white ?

terribleIVAN

What I find the most amusing is: Obama, mixed white and black, called black by the media. His white mother totally left out of the equation. According to the media Obama IS BLACK. Do they think I and others are stupid, they must or are trying to deceive me and others?

Osaka is black (father's side of family), her mother is Japanese. How can the media call Osaka Japanese? Since, a precedent was set with
the description of Obama being only black and the white mother left out of the description. Therefore, Osaka should be called black by the
media. However, the media and WTA get better press, if they ignore the precedent and call Osaka Japanese. O'well.

In my case, all I see is one smart, determined, tough female tennis player, who does not know the meaning of the word quit!!! I look forward to seeing Osaka kick-a*s for many years to come, especially SW's.

Aloha

 

[Bobby Jr]

Osaka is black (father's side of family), her mother is Japanese. How can the media call Osaka Japanese? Since, a precedent was set with...

Fool. She is called Japanese because she was born in Japan and is a Japanese citizen.

Americans are among the few who get hung up on identifiers the way you've done here. The correct equivalent to your "Obama is black" analogy would be "Osaka is Asian". Not that she is Japanese (unless you want to get more granular about sub-groups of regions). I highly doubt you go around saying "Obama is a Bantus origin black" to distinguish him from the many other ethnic groups.

 

[SQA333]

Hopefully one day when her daughter starts getting sassy with her and Serena tries to discipline her, her daughter can let her know that . . . you know . . . other kids have said much worse.

Nope.

"Mom, YOU have said much worse!"

 

[terribleIVAN]

terribleIVAN

I look forward to seeing Osaka kick-a*s for many years to come, especially SW's.

The 100 dollars question now is will Serena's fanbase forgive the despicable bullying attempt of a principled official, or will it throw her under the bus for crossing the line no respectable superstar should ever cross?

We might witness a fans backlash on the drama queen on the next slams, especially the 3 abroad.

 

[kramer woodie]

The 100 dollars question now is will Serena's fanbase forgive the despicable bullying attempt of a principled official, or will it throw her under the bus for crossing the line no respectable superstar should ever cross?

We might witness a fans backlash on the drama queen on the next slams, especially the 3 abroad.

terribleIVAN

There is talk of an umpire boycott, not wanting to umpire SW's matches. A umpire boycott does not hold much water because there will
always be someone wanting the position of umpire. The only hope is the current crop of umpires get really strict with enforcing the rules
and enforcing the rules on everyone, so that the players understand the umpires are the boss.

As for a fan backlash, who knows? What might be better is a fan boycott of SW's future matches. No fans in the stands send a loud message.
I don't see this happening either.

Aloha

 

[kramer woodie]

Fool. She is called Japanese because she was born in Japan and is a Japanese citizen.

Americans are among the few who get hung up on identifiers the way you've done here. The correct equivalent to your "Obama is black" analogy would be "Osaka is Asian". Not that she is Japanese (unless you want to get more granular about sub-groups of regions). I highly doubt you go around saying "Obama is a Bantus origin black" to distinguish him from the many other ethnic groups.

Bobby Jr

You can't call Obama a Bantus. He is an American, just ask him. As for Osaka, heard she moved to the U.S. at the age of three. Does she
hold dual citizenship? The media does not have any problem stating she is Japanese. Maybe you should school the media that she is "Asian".

Aloha

 

[BorgCash]

I'm not sure anyboy could make any sense of this series of rather lame insults.

This post is for you not to "anyboy" or anybody. Watch yourself and do not let you make "lame insults" yourself.

 

[BorgCash]

I already linked you one.

She's too pretty and light color here. It's sexism and racism.

 

[2good4U]

Please let this lead to a split and the WTA have their own GS events earning 60% of what they do on the back of the Men's game. Then we'd have much easier scheduling and wouldn't have to listen to any sexist nonsense.

And all the sub-par Tennis, watching which woman can hit the least unforced errors.

They should have their own tour, period. (men's doubles too)

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/o...t/news-story/bff3c329c6c706b966636620bcb21be7

Mark Knight’s cartoon depicting Williams destroying her racquet and jumping up and down, with a dummy spat nearby, mocked the star player for her behaviour.

Indeed, such was the gravity of her angry remonstration it later left Osaka, who became Japan’s first player to win a Grand Slam singles title, in tears.

But Knight’s critics have focused on what they wrongly claim is some sort of inherent racism and sexism.

Williams herself claimed her treatment by Ramos was sexist and the penalty amounted to theft — and the ensuing debate seems to have heightened a critical but faulty radar for anything Williams’ supporters may see as supporting that racism or sexism.

Knight, like almost every cartoonist, mocks the powerful and famous when required; whether it be prime ministers like Malcolm Turnbull or presidents like Donald Trump.

Regardless of race or sex, they are lampooned because of their behaviour.

A tidal wave of ill-informed critics, from author J.K Rowling to rapper Nicki Minaj and a barrage of twitter users, have accused Knight’s drawing of being racist, with a number pointing to stature and colour distinctions between Williams and Osaka, who is of mixed Japanese and Haitian descent.

She was drawn with a blonde ponytail because she has a blonde ponytail.

To argue the Williams drawing is racist is an attempt to defeat cartooning — and satire — with a politically-correct barrage.

There is a valid and urgent need to continue the march toward true and real racial and sexual equality in all walks of life.

But those who seek to prosecute their antiracial agenda by identifying racism in the Knight cartoon — where it does not exist — completely miss the point of the drawing.

It rightly mocked Williams for her dummy-spit and unsporting performance, which ultimately robbed Osaka of her chance to truly celebrate a terrific, inaugural triumph against a woman she described as her personal hero.

Good for the editorial board at the newspaper for backing up their cartoonist.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I’d say that the crucial mistake Serena made was the racquet smash. An official warning followed by a racquet smash results in a point penalty pretty much 100% of the time. If she had kept yapping, or her box was caught coaching again, she might have just gotten another (unofficial) warning. The racquet smash boxed her in and forced Ramos hand.

Another thing, I think the people crying foul about Ramos not showing discretion in regards to the first warning aren’t even in the position to make that call. No telling if he had witnessed other instances of coaching which he decided to gloss over.

Exactly.

 

[DRII]

Why doesn't a single journalist point the fact Carlos Ramos was very courteous to Williams during the change-over at 1-1 and did in fact defuse the situation ?

One can hear the exchange "I know you didn't mean it".

This fact completely destroys the MSM narrative of an intentional escalation.

It was instead Williams who after losing her break at 3-2 went completely berserk at being penalized a second time, and then chose to make a mockery of the rules and good behavior because she couldn't handle being bested.

Ramos should have gave Williams a warning during the changeover exchange that if Serena continued with her verbal rebuttal that he would have to dock her a game! he did not!

his "i know you didn't mean it" probably led Serena to believe that the first coaching violation (which was stupid to begin with) was not really one.
at least in her mind.

point is, he used his discretion extremely unwisely!

 

[terribleIVAN]

Ramos should have gave Williams a warning during the changeover exchange that if Serena continued with her verbal rebuttal that he would have to dock her a game! he did not!

his "i know you didn't mean it" probably led Serena to believe that the first coaching violation (which was stupid to begin with) was not really one.
at least in her mind.

point is, he used his discretion extremely unwisely!

You know what ?

With more time to reflect on this, all reconsidered, i think you nailed it.

Ramos baited Serena into smashing her racket then verbally abuse him.

This is now very clear in my mind.

The proper conduct to adopt after the smashed racket/ point penalty would have been to rescind the first warning then apologize for attempting to maliciously harm her reputation.

Then, in order to once and for all bring closure to this incident, Ramos should have come down his chair, kiss Serena's feet, and then kneel, bend over, drop his pants and invite her to user her racket's grip end on him.

Certainly, that would have been the responsible and sensible thing to do.

Thanks for clarifying the situation for everyone.