Why Carlos Ramos was in compliance with his duty and USTA and WTA are wrong in the case of US Open 2018 women’s final

ABSTRACT

The aim of the article is to point out the problem that started in the 2018 US Open final between Naomi Osaka and Serena Williams. During this final match, there was a conflict between the player S. Williams and the chair umpire C. Ramos, which involved a violation of rules related to coaching during the match. Subsequently, C. Ramos was banned from officiating the Williams sisters' matches at the next 2019 US Open. The authors of the article believe that the tennis organizations USTA and WTA did not judge the dispute between chair umpire C. Ramos and S. Williams in accordance with their rules, as the rules allow for the sanctioning of a player who is coached during a match. While the written rules and their application during play must be taken into consideration, so must the subjective interpretation and application of the rules by a particular umpire. If our arguments are correct, C. Ramos's application of the rules during this game was in no way inconsistent with his past practice or the rules themselves. Thus, C. Ramos was a victim of the entire incident, which was also influenced by the gender narrative after the match.

KEYWORDS:

• Tennis
• Rules
• Gender
• US Open
• Williams
• Ramos

The 2018 US Open women’s tennis final attracted millions of viewers, not only because it was a Grand Slam final, but also because the home superstar Serena Williams (hereinafter referred to as ‘SW’) was aiming for a record 24 Grand Slam titles, equaling Margaret Court and becoming the most successful tennis player in terms of Grand Slam victories. To fans’ dismay, she failed to do so and lost to her opponent Naomi Osaka 6:2 and 6:4 in the final. The match is interesting for us because of the conflict between SW and the chair umpire Carlos Ramos (hereinafter referred to as ‘CR’). CR gave three code violations to SW during the match, the first for coaching, the second for breaking her racket, and the third for verbal abuse. This conflict was widely publicized. SW’s statement at the post-match conference, in which SW accused CR of sexism, contributed substantially to the publicity. The following year (2019), CR was banned by the USTA from officiating the games involving SW and her sister Venus. We believe that the situations was affected by gender bias and those tennis organizations, with the exception of the Referees Organization (ITF), condemned CR.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the actions of referee Carlos Ramos, whether he applied the rules in a biased way towards SW and whether the criticism of SW was justified.

For this assessment, we will need to familiarize ourselves in more detail with the individual incidents, the interpretation of the rules, the role of the referee/umpire, and the player, as well as the function of tennis organizations. Since the incident involves a player with long experience of the US Open, it is necessary to look at her previous troubled matches for better context.

SW incident at the US open

In terms of incidents, SW has three known cases at the US Open that have been raised unfairly against her. The first was in the quarterfinals with Jennifer Capriati in 2004, when chair umpire Mariana Alves overturned the decision of the linesman and marked the ball as out instead of a winner, although later camera footage showed that it was a good ball (Hawk-Eye was not in place yet). In 2011, SW played against Samantha Stosur. During the final match, SW hit a ‘winner’ on the line, which she celebrated by shouting ‘Come on’. Eva Asderaki judged the cheering cry as disrupting Stosur’s play, although Stosur only grazed the ball with her racket frame and was unable to continue the exchange, with the fifteen being credited to Stosur. The most significant incident that SW herself mentions to defend her emotions during the 2018 post-match conference took place in the semifinals against Kim Clijsters in 2009. At the end of the second set, after SW lost the first set 6:4, the lineswoman notified SW that she made a foot fault on her second serve and thanks to this, her opponent gained a double match point. After this incident, SW could not contain her emotions, speaking indignantly and gesticulating to the lineswoman. The whole affair eventually led to another penalty for her unsportsmanlike conduct (Robins 2009). As this was her third violation of the rules, her opponent automatically scored a point and as a result, Clijsters converted her first match point. US Open officials, plus an additional $82,500 and a two-year probation (Clarey 2009) penalized SW with a fine of $10,000. SW subsequently apologized to the referee, the opponent, the USTA, and to the fans for her ‘inappropriate outburst’ (Racquet 2009). One of the few notable voices to side with SW was John McEnroe, who drew attention to the fact that the foot fault was called at an inopportune moment, and that the ‘lineswoman should have cut Williams a little slack’. McEnroe believes that the tennis players should not strictly follow some rules when it comes to the turning points of the match, such as its end. Berman discusses this argument brilliantly in ‘Let’em Play’ (2011) and concludes that the foot fault was announced at an inopportune moment and SW should have been, in McEnroe’s words, ‘cut a little slack’.

Berman points to the impact of applying the rule at a crucial stage of the game in ‘crunch time’, i.e. in that period when everything matters more. At such times, the referee should take into account that the ‘same’ penalties have different impacts depending on the context of the game. A penalty such as losing a point to the opponent has a different weight if it comes after match point as it ends the match. The potential opportunity to win the match, despite the tight situation, is denied to the player, as opposed to losing a point in the opening game of the match. The judge should also take into account the degree of necessity of the sanction in relation to the degree of potential harm to the opponent. In the event that a player fails to comply with a rule, but the referee does not enforce the rule because the referee believes that the opposing player was not disadvantaged by the infraction against the rules. In the vernacular, ‘No harm no foul’. Berman (2011) believes that touching or even slightly stepping over the baseline now of serving does not disadvantage the opponent. This position is supported by the fact that it is not a so-called underlying athletic challenge. That is to say, an activity is a challenge for athletes playing tennis. It is excellence in such an activity that makes players beat their opponents. In the case of serving, it is the ability to hit the ball into the designated serving area in such a way that it is as difficult as possible for the opponent to return the ball. The bounded area is clearly demarcated, even if the ball is just a ‘hair’ out it either is necessary that the serve is repeated or if it were a second serve, the point would be awarded to the opponent. In the case of a slight touch or crossing of the baseline on a serve, this is not an underlying athletic challenge, but a ‘rulified standard’. It is something that puts the opponent at a disadvantage in the event of a slight misstep, which is why the Hawk-Eye camera system in place checks lines on ball impact, but not baseline missteps.

For the above reasons, SW should have been awarded ‘a little slack’. In the case of a foot foul, Bergman would apply this rule not strictly as written in the rules, but only when the server’s foot is ‘too far’ over the line. The referee would decide what is ‘too far’.

Berman thus opposes the majority opinion, which was well summarized by a letter writer to the New York Times: ‘To suggest that an official should not have called a penalty just because it happens during a critical point in a contest would be considered absurd in any sport. Tennis should be no exception’ (in Berman, 2009).

The problem of applying rules in practice is well summarized by Fred Schauer (1991): ‘the choice of rule-based decision-making ordinarily entails disabling wise and sensitive decision-makers from making the best decisions in order to disable incompetent or simply wicked decision-makers from making wrong decisions’.

In the case if the foot fault reported against SW in the semifinal of the 2009 US Open, we agree with Berman, as the reported violation of the rules was excessively strict, given the situation in which the player was.

Nine years later, a similar controversy arose at the same tournament, but with exactly the opposite reaction from both the leading American media and tennis organizations. This imposed a financial penalty on SW for violating the rules, although in their public announcement they put themselves in the position of defenders of SW. SW’s reaction at the post-match conference, unlike her reaction in 2009, was not in a humble spirit towards the rules and referees, on the contrary, she assumed the position of a women’s rights activist. Her reply to the question: ‘Under the rules, all three violations issued by Carlos were correct. So why do you believe that he’s a thief?’ was ‘Because he took a point from me. He alleged that I was cheating, and I wasn’t cheating’ (Maine 2018). Unlike previous incidents, SW now defended her response to CR. 9 years later, we find ourselves with the same player in an opposite situation compared to 2009.

We believe that the change in the valuation of the 2018 US Open compared to the 2009 US Open is influenced by American society’s greater sensitivity to gender issues and, as a result, the WTA and USTA’s perspective on the application of rules in tennis is changing.

To defend this view, we will first focus on the role and meaning of the rules then put them into the context of the problematic episodes of the match and the role of the chair umpire CR.

The game and the role of rules

A formalist approach to the rules of the game argues that rules seem to be the best means at our disposal to know how to play the game and to ensure a level playing field (Fraleigh 2003). According to Suits (1978, 37), every game has its goal, and this can only be achieved if we follow the rules; the rules create and define the game; without the rules there would be chaos and sport would not be a real game (Shatku, Mema, and Cela 2014). This narrow formalist definition has its legitimate critics. According to a strictly formalist interpretation, winning and cheating are logically incompatible (Morgan 1995, 50), because a person who does not follow the rules does not play a game (Suits 1978). This claim, however, is untenable in practice; players not only play the game and break the rules, or rather play unfairly (Quinn 1975, 80), but a violation of the rules itself can be part of the team’s strategy, for example, a tactical foul in basketball (Mcfee 2004). It means the rules are not everything that the referee is supposed to work with (Russell 2017). One problem is that there will never be rules for all possible game situations, and another problem is the interpretation of the rules, since the rules cannot interpret themselves (Mcfee 2004). Thus, the formulation of the rules creates the illusion of clarity, which in itself is impossible. D’agostino (1995) thus coins the term ‘the ethos of games’, meaning the way rules should be applied in specific circumstances. The ethos of games distinguishes between behavior that is permissible, behavior that might be objected to but might also be acceptable, and behavior that is unacceptable (D’agostino 1995). According to this informal conception of games, permissible behavior is either consistent with the formal rules of the game or only violates those rules in a way that, according to the ethos of the games, does not require the application of sanctions (Mcfee 2004). In certain cases, referees deliberately ignore foul play ‘for the higher good’ (e.g. continuity of the game, an advantage gained by an opponent who did not break the rule). D’Agostino then sees the game as a ‘set of unofficial, implicit conventions which determine how the rules of that game are to be applied in concrete circumstances’ (1995, 17). Rules are then divided into constitutive (those that define action) and regulatory rules (those that lead to punishment) (D’agostino 1995). To assess when a referee should apply regulatory rules in unclear situations, practice should help them (D’agostino 1995), analogously to a judicial precedent. If we look at the U.S. Constitution, a mixture of history, integrity, and practice (Dworkin 1996, 10) determines its correct interpretation. In the world of sports, we speak of a ‘spirit’ or ‘ethos’ that is specific to each sport (Mcfee 2011). The understanding and interpretation of the rules is then influenced by the socio-cultural context (Loland 1998, 6). This is, however, associated with the danger of relativism because, if we delve deeper, different cultures have different interpretations of the same rules, while still playing the same sport. The interpretation of the game rules has many pitfalls, but only one person—the referee, often supervises the ‘correct’ playing of the game during its course. The referee is in a very difficult situation; not only must they know the rules, but they should also be able to interpret them correctly and in a very short time, because neither the players nor the spectators want to wait for hours or days for the verdict, as is the case of judicial practice. For the sake of the game’s attractiveness, the referee must act in seconds or minutes at most.

Chair Umpires in Tennis

Chair umpires are not robots in grey shirts or our enemies. They are human and, like any person, they are fallible. It is their duty to manage the match in the spirit of the rules, so as not to disadvantage or harm any player during the game, and to manage the whole game impartially (Mcfee 2011). Their authority helps them to manage the game properly. This is achieved through good decisions, honesty, impartiality, fairness, integrity, purposefulness, and openness (Brearley 2002). However, how are we to recognize good decisions? What are the criteria? The rules can give a clue but they work in a similar manner to musical notes for a conductor. All conductors have the same musical notes when playing a Beethoven symphony, but the performance is unique to themselves and their personal feeling for music/notes, analogously to each chair umpire and their individual interpretation of the rules. The rules can be divided into ‘Question of Fact’ (whether something occurred) and ‘Question of Law’ (whether something was a code violation). With regard to a ‘Question of Fact’, the chair umpire is the final authority during the match (ITF Rules of Tennis 2019, A6, 27; Official Grand Slam Rule Book 2018, P8, 11). Their verdict is also irreversible. ‘A Chair Umpire may never make an overrule as a result of a protest or appeal by a player’ (ITF Rules of Tennis 2019, A6, 27; Official Grand Slam Rule Book 2018, P8, 11). This part of the tennis rules is very close to that of rugby because the referee cannot be mistaken from a formalist point of view as they are the ‘sole judge of fact and of Law during a match’ (Mcnamee 2010). Otherwise, if the offense concerns a ‘Question of Law’, then the chair umpire ‘makes the first determination on all Questions of Tennis Law arising during the match, subject to the right of a player to appeal to the chair umpire in consultation with the Grand Slam Chief of Supervisors’ (Official Grand Slam Rule Book 2018, P11, 11). ‘Players have the right to call the referee to court if they disagree with a chair umpire’s interpretation of tennis law’ (ATP Rulebook 2019, A6, 278).

The rules related to the problematic episodes of the 2018 US Open final match described below sound clear, but ‘the rules governing games cannot always be relied upon as definitive guidelines for regulating behavior’. Chair umpires thus have more freedom to change the statements and rules of the game than is commonly assumed. It is not enough for the chair umpires to know the rules. They must be able to apply them in the right way. Whether they do it ‘correctly’, is a matter of norms, which are based on habit, i.e. the practice of how the rule was applied previously. If we want to judge a chair umpires and whether or not they acted correctly, it is necessary to take into account, not only the general past practice of applying a particular rule, but also the previous practice of a particular chair umpire. The chair umpire’s past actions indicate how they understand the rules and what sense they make to them. The chair umpires are not obliged to explain why they applied the rule in a certain way but they are obliged to be able to recognize when the rules are broken.

If the chair umpire works in good conscience, without any subjective inclination towards any of the players, and adheres coherently to their own distinctive interpretation and application of the rules, which does not contradict their previous practice, then the criticism should not be directed at them. However, it should be directed at the people who entrusted them with their role, because we cannot punish an individual if their actions do not go beyond their remit. The chair umpire applies the rules at their discretion, which is within their authority. The tennis player then does not play according to their interpretation of the rules, but within the limits of the interpretation of the rules that are permissible for the chair umpire, with the exception of a ‘Question of Law’, in which the chair umpire may be forced by a player to re-evaluate the situation with a tournament referee and supervisor. After their mutual discussion with the player, the final verdict is reached (The ATP Official Rulebook 2018 , 139; 2019, 278).

The essence is whether the chair umpire deviates from their previous practice. If that were the case, one of the possibilities would be that they do so out of personal engagement with a particular athlete, that they do so in bad faith, thereby failing to fulfill one of their obligations, i.e. impartiality, which would be an additional reason for subsequently sanctioning them. It is good to realize that in the finals of major tournaments, in which the biggest tennis stars meet, the chair umpire is always under much greater media and audience criticism than in less attractive matches (Brearley 2002).

In this particular case, the final was officiated by the very experienced umpire CR, who had been a referee since 1991, and was the first chair umpire to officiate all Grand Slam finals and also Olympic finals, the second being Alison Dorothy Hughes in 2020. During his career, he earned the nickname Mr. Stickler, which referred to his strict interpretation of the rules, for which he repeatedly clashed with the world’s best players, such as Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, and Serena Williams (Santhana 2017; Steinberg 2019). It is the legacy of CR that communicates to the tennis community how he understands the ethos of tennis, the principles he adheres to and by which he regularly shows that he does not cut players ‘a little slack’. His role in the 2018 finals must be seen in the context of his earlier legacy, because we cannot ask more of a man than he is capable.

Problem episodes of the match in the 2018 us open women’s final

First code violation—coaching

During the match, CR issued SW 3 code violations. SW lost the first set 6:2 and there was no incident during the set. In the second set, from SW’s point of view, at 1:0, at 15:40 the chair umpire CR gave SW an official warning for alleged coaching. The very first code violation was very problematic, and SW repeatedly returned to this decision during the match. The Official Grand Slam Rule Book 2018 states: ‘Players shall not receive coaching during a match’ (A III, L, 44). ‘Communications of any kind, audible or visible, between a player and a coach may be construed as coaching’ (A III, L, p. 44). After the match Patrick Mouratoglou admitted that he coached SW, which was also confirmed by television records (Berman 2018). SW claimed that she did not see the coach’s gestures, but it does not change anything. A player is responsible for her entire team, and it is not the umpire’s duty to determine whether the player saw the coach’s gestures or not. Mr. Mouratoglou said in his defense ‘But I was like 100 percent of the coaches in 100 percent of the matches so we have to stop this hypocritical thing. Sascha [Bajin, Osaka’s coach] was coaching every point, too’ (The Statesman 2018). We do not know if Mouratoglou’s words about coach S. Bajin are true; we only know that Bajin rejected the claims that he coached Osaka and the cameras did not catch him doing anything that would be interpreted as coaching. Therefore, we cannot claim that CR evaluated the code violation with a bias against SW in this case. General practice also confirms that this code violation is enforced. At the 2018 US Open, Dominika Cibulková also received a warning for the same offense in the third round, and in 2018, a total of 22 code violations for coaching were awarded at all four Grand Slams.

Anyway, we can see in practice that coaching is not always punished, and it is understandable for practical reasons. We believe that it is not humanly possible for the chair umpire to be able to notice all the hints and coaching advice, or always distinguish them functionally from mere encouragement. On the other hand, the chair umpire is obliged to follow the rules of the tournament, and coaching is forbidden at the US Open, so the chair umpire has to evaluate the whole situation and not necessarily adhere to a strict interpretation of the rules. A written rule is one thing and its practical application is another; in the words of McEnroe, the chair umpire can cut players ‘a little slack’. CR was in a position to give SW ‘a little slack’. The question is if it was incorrect that he did not give it to her.

Going back to the past to defending the inappropriate calling of SW’s foot fault in the semifinals of the 2009 US Open, Berman (2011) argues that at a turning point in the match, the rules that do not concern the ‘underlying athletic challenge’, but the so-called ‘rulified standard’, should be evaluated less strictly.

First, it is necessary to answer whether the coaching violation was issued in a crucial part of the match. It is almost impossible to clearly define a turning point of a match in the sport as fluid as tennis because small things can have big impacts. To put it simply, we can say that these are break-points, match-points, or what is called Tilden’s game, i.e. the seventh game of the decisive set, the importance of which increases when the opponent’s serve is broken. Generally, we can say that the importance of a single point increases with the possibility of the end of the match. SW received a code violation from her point of view at 2:6, 1:0, and 15:40 during her opponent’s serve. This part of the game does not fall into the category of a turning point of the match. The second thing is that it was the first code violation and therefore the opponent did not get the advantage of any point. It was ‘only’ a warning that the next time SW violated the rules, her opponent would be given the point. In fact, the first code violation had the least possible negative impact on the player who received it.

Second, we need to think about what kind of offense coaching is. Coaching falls into the ‘Question of Law’ category, specifically the category of Code Conduct (Official Grand Slam Rule Book 2018, A III, L, 44). In this category of rules, the player can contact the ITF Supervisor/Referee and then the chair umpire’s verdict can be reconsidered. SW did not take advantage of this rule.

In this case, we cannot state that CR acted badly; he just applied the rules of the tournament in a way allowed by the rules.

In D’Agostino’s words, CR assessed the situation that the behavior of coach Mouratoglu was beyond the ethos of the game and therefore a warning had to come. For the sake of the argument, we can concede that they were both coaching, but the degree with which Mouratoglu was doing it was significantly greater than the degree with which S. Bajin was doing it. By analogy with the baseline crossing on the serve, the SW coach went too far ‘over the line’ according to CR and that’s why the penalty was given. The chair umpire may leave this violation unpunished but they have the right to do so. CR did not contradict his previous practice.

Whether this rule makes sense and whether it would not be more sensible to abolish it is another question. This question, however, is not related to the role of the chair umpire during the match. The chair umpire’s role is to apply the rule if they think it is necessary to use it in the current circumstances.

Coaching rule

The code violation for coaching sparked a pitched debate as to whether this rule makes sense at all, when it is extremely common to coach during a match in other sports. After all, it is for coaching that the player pays her coach. The second problem is the ability of the umpire to enforce compliance with the rule fairly. If the referee is unable to do so, the rule lacks its element of fairness. It can be a big problem for the umpire to distinguish coaching from mere gestures of encouragement. Theoretically, the player and the coach could have pre-arranged signals that would be indistinguishable from encouragement, and thus the rule would become unenforceable. Another problem of modern times is the possibility of communication between the player and the coach via smartphone, which was criticized by German tennis player Alexander Zverev, who claimed that his opponent Tsitsipas received coaching via mobile phone during the Greek player’s break between sets (Staff 2021). Italian player Fabio Fognini also complained about the same player, criticizing Tsitsipas at the net for receiving coaching from his coach during their match, which Tsitsipas won (VIDEO 2021). Thanks to modern technology, recognizing coaching has become a very difficult and often impossible task for the umpire. It is often argued that tennis players are coached during the match and the umpires usually let the players get away with it unless the coaching is blatant. On the other hand, there are players who clearly dislike the coaching of their opponents and want this rule to be enforced by the umpires. This creates a problem, as players who follow the rule call for enforcement of the rule that is not followed by their opponents. However, the general trend is that umpires neglect this rule. Thanks to this, players who do not follow the rule gain an advantage over those who play by the rules. That is why I believe that it is necessary to create such conditions that the rule is either respected or abolished.

What is the point of this rule?

Tennis is an individual sport, and the fact that coaching during a match is forbidden increases the pressure on the player themselves, thereby supporting the individual philosophy of the sport. If they follow the rules, the players cannot seek advice from anyone else; they are only there for themselves. The role of the coach is to prepare their player before the match in the best way they can, to come up with the right strategy to win against their opponents. During the match, it is not only a clash of the two specific styles of each player, but also a clash of the strategies of the whole teams. The coach only adopts the role of an observer. However, thanks to their position, where they are not a direct participant in the game, they watch the whole match from above and can get valuable statistical information from the current match via a mobile phone because statistics on backhand strokes, the baseline, serve points won, etc. are available on the internet. Thanks to this information, which the player does not have, the coach can provide the player with valuable advice that will change the style of play of the player and thus, theoretically, the course of the whole match. The coach’s advice during the match has an indisputable impact on the match, which is why some players are also upset that this coaching ban is not being followed. If this rule prohibiting coaching during a match were abolished, players who follow the rule would not be disadvantaged. If this rule remained valid, a greater emphasis on the individual philosophy of tennis would be maintained. However, as written above, this would only be the case if conditions were created that not only allow for effective compliance with this rule, but also require the practical enforcement of this rule. Under the given conditions, in our opinion, the umpire is not able to apply the rule well in practice. The 2018 US Open final provides clear evidence, as the umpire applied this rule correctly in practice, but many for doing so, because after all, everyone coaches, criticized him.

We believe that the change in coaching rules that the WTA has made in 2022 is a step in the right direction (ATP Tour 2022). It is a departure from the individual philosophy of the sport, but we do not see a better solution under the circumstances.

Second code violation—breaking a racket

The second code violation was called for breaking a racket, which SW did at 2:6, 3:2 (from SW’s point of view) after she did not hold her serve, and her opponent thus started the game with a 15:0 advantage. The rules here are clear. ‘Players shall not violently or with anger hit, kick or throw a racket or other equipment within the precincts of the tournament site’ (Official Grand Slam Rule Book 2018, O. 45). This incident itself is not problematic; SW did not question the code violation for breaking the racket, but returned to the previous code violation for coaching, telling CR: ‘You stole a point from me’ (Abad-Santos 2018). The chair umpire, however, could not change their verdict in the light of SWʼs suggestions, because ‘A Chair Umpire may never make overrule as a result of a protest or appeal by a player’ (Official Grand Slam Rule Book 2018 U, Lii. 15). Since it was a second code violation, it automatically led to the loss of a point.

Tennis racket breaking rule

Compliance with this rule did not cause any controversy in itself. The purpose of this rule is to emphasize the historical legacy of this game and its ethos (D’agostino 1995), which includes subtle non-aggressive manifestations, and therefore deliberately smashing things such as rackets is a social offense against good morals. The purpose of the rule is to sanction inappropriate behavior on the court.

Third code violation—verbal abuse

The third code violation occurred when SW lost her serve in Tilden’s game (2:6 and 3:4 from SW’s point of view), with the advantage of Naomi Osaka’s serve. During the break between games, SW began an emotional discussion with CR and told him: “You are a liar. You will never be on a court of mine as long as you live. When are you going to give me my apology? Say you are sorry… “. The rules are clear on this: ‘Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse any official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or other person within the precincts of the tournament site’ (The ATP Official Rulebook 2018 , 45). This third code violation, verbal abuse, is again a Question of Law. Again, we ask, did CR make a mistake by calling this code violation and what is the point of this particular rule?

Verbal abuse rule

For good management of the game, the chair umpire’s authority is crucial (Brearley 2002). The greater the umpire’s authority and respect, the less likely it is that their verdicts will be challenged by a player, accompanied by inappropriate attacks on them, thus ensuring the smooth running of the game. This authority is also underpinned by the ‘verbal abuse’ rule, which directly protects the referee from verbal attacks by players. SW called CR a thief because, in her words, he stole a point from her. This assessment was not only false, but also offensive. Next, SW stated that CR was a liar, again an unfounded insult to the umpire. Further, she threatened him that she would never be on the court with him again in her life. All these statements fall into the category of ‘verbal abuse of the chair umpire’. The chair umpire may consider the circumstances and not award a code violation to a player if they evaluate it as not being ‘over the edge’; unfortunately, there is no clear boundary indicating when it is appropriate to forgive verbal abuse and when it is necessary to apply a sanction. Given the application of the rules by CR, it is not surprising that he assessed the situation as ‘over the edge’ and therefore awarded a code violation, but since the violation was a ‘Question of Law’, not a ‘Question of Fact’, the player had the option of calling the tournament head referee (The ATP Official Rulebook 2018 , 278). SW used this rule and addressed the tournament head referee, Brian Earley, and WTA supervisor Donna Kelson. It is the duty of the tournament head referee to listen to the whole situation, both from the chair umpire and from the player, and the same role applied to the supervisor Donna Kelson. ‘The Supervisor shall review briefly the applicable rules with the player and the chair umpire and either affirm or reverse the ruling’ (The ATP Official Rulebook 2018 , VII, ii, 139). After a conversation between the chair umpire, referee, player and supervisor, the final decision on all questions of tennis law is up to the tournament head referee—in this case Brian Earley—and this decision is final (ATP Rulebook 2019 A VI, 278). After a discussion with his fellow supervisor Donna Kelson, Brian Earley did not change anything about CR’s decision. There are situations where a player is under enormous pressure and is not able to manage their emotions well enough, which can lead to violations of the rules, and therefore there are people whose role is to manage this situation as best as possible, without emotions, and with the help of rules. These people make a decision, and that decision is arbitrary. Two other authorities evaluated the behavior of SW and they approved CR’s decision, so the sanction were rightfully imposed. We find it important to emphasize that when Donna Kelson and Brian Earley were involved in the decision they became co-responsible for awarding the third code violation.

Reactions of the USTA, WTA, and ITF

The WTA (Woman’s Tennis Association) is an organization founded on the principles of equal opportunity for women in sports by Billie Jean King in 1973. The WTA is the world’s leading organization sponsoring the most prestigious women’s tennis tournaments around the world. The USTA (United States Tennis Association) ‘is the national governing body for the sport of tennis and the recognized leader in promoting and developing the sport’s growth on every level in the U. S’. (USTA 2022a, 2022b) and the organizer of the fourth Grand Slam of the year—the US Open.

The head of the WTA, Steve Simon, said: ‘The WTA believes there should be no difference in the standards of tolerance provided to the emotions expressed by men vs. women and is committed to working with the sport to ensure all players are treated the same. We do not believe this was done last night’ (Simon 2018). Katrina Adams, CEO of the USTA said, ‘We watch the guys do this all the time, they’re badgering the umpire on the changeovers. Nothing happens. There is no equality. There has to be some consistency across the board. These conversations will be imposed in the next weeks… I know what Serena did and her behavior was not welcome, a line could have been drawn, but when you look at Carlos in this situation, it is a judgement call to give that last penalty because she called him a thief. They have been called a lot more… Serena Williams showed a great deal of class and sportsmanship’ (BBC News 2018).

The ITF was the only world organization that stood up for CR in its official statement: ’Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos’ decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open’s decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offenses. It is understandable that this high profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity’ (Mitchell 2018). How is it possible that the opinions of the WTA, USTA and ITF leaders are so diametrically opposed in a questions of the application of the CR rules in the US Open final?

What changed since the 2009 US open semi-finals—the context?

Unlike in 2009, SW was now not criticized for her unsportsmanlike conduct by both tennis celebrities and tennis organizations, which clearly stood up for the referee back then, but instead adored by the words of the CEO of the USTA, ‘Serena Williams showed a great deal of class and sportsmanship’ (BBC News 2018). How is it possible that a ‘similar’ situation was viewed in a diametrically opposite way? Had the rules or their interpretation changed? Had the role of the umpire changed? Had the role of the player changed? We can ask a number of similar questions, and yes, we can always argue that each match has its own specifics and thus a specific way of interpreting the rules, but we believe that the biggest change is the increased sensitivity of Western society to gender and racial issues. It influences the view of the application of tennis rules to the detriment of CR. It is worth emphasizing here that the sporting world with its rules does not exist in some illusory vacuum outside the culture, but is a direct part of it. The values of any culture, which is constantly evolving, also directly influence the interpretation of the rules (Edgar, 2013).

Racism and gender issue

SW as a black woman has been subjected to very inappropriate gender and racial stereotypes many times during her career. As Martin (2018, 92) writes: ‘Being black and a woman in tennis means one is more likely than white women and white men to be chastised in a public way, including for violations you’re unaware are taking place’.

When SW and her older sister came to professional tennis in the 1990s, they found themselves in a predominantly white culture (Douglas Delia 2012, 132). Most of her career has been marked by unfair stereotypical and racist views, as an aggressive player with a lack of respect for authority (Khalil 2010; Tredway 2019). Both spectators and commentators perceive Serena as aggressive and violent, as evidenced by the analysis of Twitter sentiment, which revealed mostly negative statements towards her (Spencer 2012, 128). If we take her previous incidents at the US Open into account, it is understandable that she often rightly feels that she is being judged unfairly and her level of trust in the umpires is thus lower. SW fights not only with her opponent, but also with her feeling that she is being punished unfairly, which leads to higher levels of stress. In the US Open final, she was under enormous pressure as she wanted to tie a record 24 Grand Slam titles, and the home crowd drove her to do so. As Naomi Osaka (final opponent) said, ‘O.K. Because I know that, she really wanted to have the twenty-fourth Grand Slam, right. Everyone knows this. It’s on the commercials, it’s everywhere’ (We are tennis 2018). With such enormous pressure, it is understandable that when her goal is slipping away from her, as her opponent is playing beyond her, frustration and emotional expressions occur, which are intensified by her previous experience with unfair umpires. This is evident in a dialogue with tournament head referee Brian Earley, whom she told: ‘This is not fair. This has happened to me too many times…’ It is then quite understandable that a player in such a position is not able, or at least it is very difficult for them, to see the situation objectively (Ratcliffe 2002).

Furthermore, SW continued on to the second level of the whole problem, the topic of gender: ‘… There’s a lot of men out here that have said a lot of things, and because they are men, that doesn’t happen’ (Skysport 2018). The topic of gender is a big topic today, similarly to racism in Western society, which is good, because women are still discriminated against in many respects, and public discussion then contributes to addressing these inequalities. The whole of America has been shaken by the Me Too case, which is a movement against sexual harassment and assault (Lee 2018). In addition, equal opportunities and many other important matters in gender issues, in which we as a Western society need to improve, are being addressed. On the other hand, it is beneficial to realize that it is customary to search for new boundaries during a period of change to determine what is still socially permissible and what is already beyond that imaginary boundary. Society is thus sometimes unduly sensitive to signs of inappropriate behavior (recall the period of McCarthyism of the 1950s in the USA, when often only a hint of pro-communist thinking was grossly smeared) (Storrs 2015). In such a social atmosphere, it happens that a different meaning is given to actions. Society can then judge very harshly, as an illustration can be following tweet by former US Open champion Andy Roddick: „Worst refereeing I’ve ever seen… The worst! “Tennis history is unfortunately full of inequality and racism, but that does not justify attacking CR and his alleged sexism, or simply a job poorly done. These sensitive topics need to be well analyzed before reaching a verdict that may not be clear-cut. As Dostoevsky beautifully wrote: ‘Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him’.

The never-ending search for the limits of the correct application of the rules

As we wrote above, culture affects the interpretation of the rules. Because culture is a constant evolution of values, rule interpretation is also a never-ending process. Searle (1969) argues that conventions are the product of a complex interpretation of brute facts and one of the functions of institutions is to create and control this brute fact (p. 131). According to Searle, the constitutive rules of sport can then be converted into a form where rule ‘X’ (brute fact) counts as ‘Y’ in the context of ‘C’. Translated to our particular case, then, ‘X’ is SW’s actions against the rules, ‘C’ is the cultural milieu of tennis (in terms of gender and race), and ‘Y’ is the after-the-fact application of the CR rules. As we noted earlier, CR was within his rights in terms of the rules to apply SW’s punishment, and his actions were not in derogation of his earlier decisions, but it is questionable whether he was sufficiently sensitive to the context. There is a complex interplay between the rules, and their interpretation in context. Neither is superior to the other. Just as the rules constitute the context, the context mediates the interpretation of the rules (Edgar, 2013). The chief executive officers of both the USTA and the WTA evaluated CR’s actions as unreasonable in the context of the game. While claiming that SW’s behavior was not desirable, CR’s punishment was too severe. Thus, their interpretation of the rules of tennis strongly deviates from their written nature and appeals for a more lenient interpretation of the rules, as they argue that such acts would be forgiven in the case of a men’s final and therefore CR’s actions were gender biased. In effect, they are saying that the ‘Ethos’ of men’s tennis is judged differently than the ‘Ethos’ of women’s tennis. In this particular case, the aggressive behavior of the female player towards the chair umpire, which in the case of male aggression towards the chair umpire, would not necessarily have been unpunished, but certainly would not have been punished as severely. While this is only conjecture and we cannot say how CR would have behaved if SW had been a man, the question that comes to mind is more where WTA and USTA officials place the line on the proper application of the rules given the context. Rather, would not it be more appropriate to enforce these rules that protect the chair umpire against aggressive verbal attacks even in the men’s category if this is not the case? Would it not be more appropriate to bring the ‘male ethos’ of rule application closer to the female one? After all, tennis was considered a man’s game (Tredway 2019) and verbal attacks on the main authority of match management are not part of such behavior. Anyway the USTA and WTA in this particular case are moving the imaginary line of applying punishment significantly further away from the formalist concept of the rules of the sport than the ITF. For the ITF, brute fact (the written rules of the game) carry more weight than the context of the entire situation. The ITF adheres more to a formalist conception of the game, which is understood to mean that the more we deviate from the written rules of the game, the less we play the game (Edgar, 2013). As Oakeshott (1983) argues, there is no criterion of fairness outside the rules of the game.

Conclusion

From a formalistic point of view, Carlos Ramos did nothing in the US Open final for which he should be criticized. Former chair umpire Richard Ings describes this point of view, ‘Carlos was composed, effective, and knowledgeable of the rules and applied them absolutely correctly in each of those three situations … . He saw violations, he had the courage of his convictions to call them when he saw it and I support him 110%. It’s one of the best officiating jobs I’ve seen in years’ (BBC News 2018). The overall assessment becomes problematic in the moment it is turned from a debate about the interpretation of the rules, to the hot topic of nowadays—gender and race. While we do NOT find any objective evidence to suggest that CR managed the US Open final in a substandard manner in the context of his previous way of managing matches, the moment we accentuate the topic of gender to evaluate the application of the rules, the evaluation becomes ambiguous. We are not able to rule out with certainty a gender (or racist) influence on CR’s management of the match, but neither are we able to rule out with certainty the USTA and WTA’s misplaced criticism. These organizations may have uncritically adopted this ideologically popular theme, thereby substituting the substance of objective offenses against the rules for the unfair judgment of women, despite the lack of evidence for this claim. It is very challenging to find the limits of the correct application of the rules in such sensitive topics, in the words of 22 Grands Slame champion Rafael Nadal: ‘It is a very sensible thing today in this world, talking about men or women. We arrived to the moment that you cannot even have an opinion because anything that you say is going against you so I will not be the one who is gonna tell you anything in this moment, you know’ (Nadal 2019 Even though these are sensitive topics, it is a philosophical mission not to turn our backs but to face them head-on. Therefore, it is important to reflect on how cultural changes affect the view of sports rules, to ask whether things are changing in the right direction. In this specific case, we should be particularly cautious, as it involves a relationship between a player of significant stature and a head referee. This player threatens the referee after he has given her a third code violation: ‘You will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live’ (Fuller 2019). The USTA subsequently banned CR from officiating SW’s matches and those of her sister Venus Williams at the 2019 US Open, a decision that heeded SW’s threat. Would the USTA have acted in the same way had it not been for a player of such prominence? We do not know, but it is worth pondering, lest, paradoxically, these changes lead to double standards, not equal opportunism for all women and men in a sport, as tennis superstars may subsequently be punished less severely than their less famous and less successful tennis colleagues ponder.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.