Let's go to the text shall we?
So the ruling by the umpire was the Serena deliberately hindered Stosur by screaming "come on." This is absolute bovine excrement and must be reported as such. Why is it deliberate hindrance to scream out "come on!" before an opponent hits an unreturnable ball? If the ball WAS returnable, then I think one could rule it was a deliberate hindrance. Because, the player was deliberately hindered from returning it into play. But the ball was not playable so regardless of what Serena said or did that ball was not coming back into play. The bigger question is, why did the same umpire rule differently at the US Open than two years ago at the Doha 2009 tournament, under essentially the same rules in an identical situation? That umpire, Eva Asderaki like the notorious Marina Alves, should never be allowed to referee a Serena Williams match again.
But the bigger issue is with the ability of umpires and officials to make calls which videotape allows the fans and observers to know are incorrect. That is what used to happen with line call and now (thanks to the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals match with Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams when repeated, obvious line calls were made against Serena by Referee Marina Alves) we have electronic line calling. And tennis is much better for it. Ask Maria Kirilenko!
The ITF rules on "hindrance" state (Rule 26):
"If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).”
The WTA rules (pdf) on "hindrance" state:
If a player hinders her opponent, it can be ruled as either involuntary or deliberate.
1. Involuntary Hindrance
A let should be called the first time a player has created an involuntaryhindrance (e.g., ball falling out of pocket, hat falling off, etc.), and the player should be told that any such hindrance thereafter will be ruled deliberate.
2. Deliberate Hindrance
Any hindrance caused by a player that is ruled deliberate will result inthe loss of a point.My issue is with the interpretation of the rule. In what way did Serena's scream hinder Stosur in returning the ball? How do Azarenka's and Sharapova's shrieks not hinder the player on the other side of the net? If grunting is not involuntary hindrance than neither should screaming "come on!" If one takes the position that screaming out a word right before one's opponent is going to hit the ball is involuntary hindrance then a let should be played. It was very clear that Serena had hit a winner and was screaming out "come on!" as almost all tennis players do at that point. No human in that position was going to get that ball back in the court. Stosur happened to get her racquet on the ball before it bounced twice but no way was she going to get the ball back into play. If it had been some other event which had interrupted play the umpire should rule that Stosur had no play on the ball and give the point to Serena. But umpires often do interpret the rule (wrongly, in my view) that if the player gets a racquet on the ball (or is even in the vicinity of the ball when the incident happens) then the entire point needs to be replayed.
So the ruling by the umpire was the Serena deliberately hindered Stosur by screaming "come on." This is absolute bovine excrement and must be reported as such. Why is it deliberate hindrance to scream out "come on!" before an opponent hits an unreturnable ball? If the ball WAS returnable, then I think one could rule it was a deliberate hindrance. Because, the player was deliberately hindered from returning it into play. But the ball was not playable so regardless of what Serena said or did that ball was not coming back into play. The bigger question is, why did the same umpire rule differently at the US Open than two years ago at the Doha 2009 tournament, under essentially the same rules in an identical situation? That umpire, Eva Asderaki like the notorious Marina Alves, should never be allowed to referee a Serena Williams match again.
But the bigger issue is with the ability of umpires and officials to make calls which videotape allows the fans and observers to know are incorrect. That is what used to happen with line call and now (thanks to the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals match with Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams when repeated, obvious line calls were made against Serena by Referee Marina Alves) we have electronic line calling. And tennis is much better for it. Ask Maria Kirilenko!
What drives us observant followers, fans and players of the game insane is that there are a LOT of these subjective interpretations of the rules in the game of tennis and more often than not they seemed to be interpreted arbitrarily (or to the detriment of Serena at the U.S. Open). My point is that there should be an increased attempt to REDUCE subjectivity in tennis and have all umpire calls appealable by going to an objective source such as videotape (where available) and then a ruling by the tournament referee using the objective source.
Incidents such as "not up," "foot faults," "non-racquet contact with the ball" are all examples of situations which could be resolved by going to the videotape. You can also find multiple examples where umpires have made questionable (and incorrect) rulings against Serena Williams, Venus Williams and James Blake where the video shows pretty clear that the umpire was in error. What do these players all have in common? Hmmmmm.
There are video cameras in the cars of police officers all around the country to prevent incidents of what is known as "Driving While Black or Brown)."
All players need the ability to review video of incidents on the tennis court to substantiate umpire rulings!
Until that time, anyone playing in an official match, especially if they have "dark" skin may be subject to an incident of "Playing Tennis While Black"!
