Kyrgios's problem: skill, not on-court attitude

[Chris Koziarz]

Well, we surely agree then that Murphy should have enforced the rules against Kyrgios (that is my point, or one of my points, since the beggining). But the thing is that they are different umpires. Can you be sure that Murphy would have treated Serena the way Ramos did, and that Ramos would have treated Kyrgios the way Murphy did? Maybe it is not a case of men and women, but a case of different umpires and different criteria (in this case one that enforced the rules and other that didn't).

What I really don't get about the Serena/USO thing is how people missed one very important thing: had Ramos gave her a pass, and then somehow she turned that match around, what about that for interfering with history? People would be able to say -- forever -- that the multi major winners have help from the officials. Wasn't that a match were Serena could have equaled the major record? I think maybe Ramos is exactly the only guy with sense of history in all this story...

According to my knowledge, yes, this is the case of different umpires that Moxie is trying (incorrectly) to turn into a case of men and women. I've seen stats (sorry I don't remember where but they came right after Serena's meltdown against Osaka) that on average, women are treated more leniently than men WRT code violations.

 

[Moxie]

According to my knowledge, yes, this is the case of different umpires that Moxie is trying (incorrectly) to turn into a case of men and women. I've seen stats (sorry I don't remember where but they came right after Serena's meltdown against Osaka) that on average, women are treated more leniently than men WRT code violations.

Have a look at this article from Psychology Today:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/201809/are-referees-unfair-female-players

" the study found that male players displayed twice as many aggressive acts as female players, yet referees penalized the female players more than the male players."

 

[Moxie]

Well, we surely agree then that Murphy should have enforced the rules against Kyrgios (that is my point, or one of my points, since the beggining). But the thing is that they are different umpires. Can you be sure that Murphy would have treated Serena the way Ramos did, and that Ramos would have treated Kyrgios the way Murphy did? Maybe it is not a case of men and women, but a case of different umpires and different criteria (in this case one that enforced the rules and other that didn't).

What I really don't get about the Serena/USO thing is how people missed one very important thing: had Ramos gave her a pass, and then somehow she turned that match around, what about that for interfering with history? People would be able to say -- forever -- that the multi major winners have help from the officials. Wasn't that a match were Serena could have equaled the major record? I think maybe Ramos is exactly the only guy with sense of history in all this story...

Thing is, Ramos started the whole thing by calling her for coaching, when she had her back to Moratoglou, but I know you mean if he'd not docked her later for yelling at him and smashing her racquet.

 

[mrzz]

Thing is, Ramos started the whole thing by calling her for coaching, when she had her back to Moratoglou, but I know you mean if he'd not docked her later for yelling at him and smashing her racquet.

Moratoglou started the whole thing by coaching. Ramos did what he is expected and payed to do. I really, really, really don't understand how people actually want that he did not enforce the rules. I mean, just put yourself in his position: he just spotted the guy coaching her. It is clear for him. You really think that he should just turn a blind eye? He is supposed to watch for coaching, on both players. He spotted and called it. How in the world this is wrong? And, mind it, being a first offense it was just a warning. He should not even warn the player? How in the world is this supposed to work?

There would be a problem if he applied different criteria for each player. As far as I know there is no evidence of that.

Changing sub-topic, thanks for the reference of the article:

A few things:

1) If it is true (more on this bellow) that men and women are treated differently, in tennis this means that rules are better enforced for women than for men. Remember that the rules punish the offender and protect the other player(s), the spectators and the game as a whole.

2) One thing the link (which is not the article) fails to mention is that men (on average) do behave more aggressively than women (this is not bias, it is actually observed behavior, which was an (assumed) basis for Freud's analysis (for example) but later on largely supported by research). So the context for men and women is different.

3) From the article's abstract:

"The results suggest that referees made harsher decisions in female than in male matches. Although more research is needed, this study supported the hypothesis that referees may use the gender of players as a powerful judgmental heuristic for deciding how to respond to aggression." (my emphasis)

First, having 2) in mind, this would not be that surprising. Second, the abstract leaves clear that the research results are not decisive. But pay attention to the last phrase: this shows that an umpire must decide (and this is quite fundamental) if the subject (player) is being or not aggressive, assessing the level of said aggression and then respond to it. So, again, taking into account if it is a man or woman it is part of this judgment -- umpires do not expect women to be as aggressive as men. Well, as I put above, on average men are more aggressive than women. In other words, man will curse more. This is a reasonable bias. It does not give men any "unfair advantage". To assume that this is equal prejudice, and, worst, to assume that this prejudice is behind the decisions on Serena's case is, well, simply wrong. And, as I called attention for at the time, it paints one guy simply doing his job as a racist and misogynist. The unfairness in this really baffles me.

 

[Jelenafan]

A few things:

1) If it is true (more on this bellow) that men and women are treated differently, in tennis this means that rules are better enforced for women than for men. Remember that the rules punish the offender and protect the other player(s), the spectators and the game as a whole.

2) One thing the link (which is not the article) fails to mention is that men (on average) do behave more aggressively than women (this is not bias, it is actually observed behavior, which was an (assumed) basis for Freud's analysis (for example) but later on largely supported by research). So the context for men and women is different.

3) From the article's abstract:

"The results suggest that referees made harsher decisions in female than in male matches. Although more research is needed, this study supported the hypothesis that referees may use the gender of players as a powerful judgmental heuristic for deciding how to respond to aggression." (my emphasis)

First, having 2) in mind, this would not be that surprising. Second, the abstract leaves clear that the research results are not decisive. But pay attention to the last phrase: this shows that an umpire must decide (and this is quite fundamental) if the subject (player) is being or not aggressive, assessing the level of said aggression and then respond to it. So, again, taking into account if it is a man or woman it is part of this judgment -- umpires do not expect women to be as aggressive as men. Well, as I put above, on average men are more aggressive than women. In other words, man will curse more. This is a reasonable bias. It does not give men any "unfair advantage". To assume that this is equal prejudice, and, worst, to assume that this prejudice is behind the decisions on Serena's case is, well, simply wrong. And, as I called attention for at the time, it paints one guy simply doing his job as a racist and misogynist. The unfairness in this really baffles me.

If his expectations of how women should behave on court varies from that of men, then the tolerance level of any infractions is also going to vary accordingly. The barometer is different as to what is acceptable for each as a gender so I do think it’s unfair and sexist.

It’s like saying (hypothetically of course) the expectation that male drivers in general are more aggressive than female drivers so if for the same violations women get more citations from traffic officers because it’s culturally expected that they drive at a different standard. However there are not two different sets of traffic laws so the expectations shouldn’t matter in the enforcement of breaking said traffic laws.

 

[mrzz]

If his expectations of how women should behave on court varies from that of men, then the tolerance level of any infractions is also going to vary accordingly. The barometer is different as to what is acceptable for each as a gender so I do think it’s unfair and sexist.

It’s like saying (hypothetically of course) the expectation that male drivers in general are more aggressive than female drivers so if for the same violations women get more citations from traffic officers because it’s culturally expected that they drive at a different standard. However there are not two different sets of traffic laws so the expectations shouldn’t matter in the enforcement of breaking said traffic laws.

This is not a fair comparison, because when you compare drivers, you have male and female drivers on the same environment and, in this case, men collectively would be benefited from the pass they get. In tennis you don't have male and female competing against each other and for every male player getting a pass, there is male player being harmed (not to mention that the quality of the show decreases, harming the ATP as a whole).

As for your bolded part, I disagree that this is sexist and unfair. To acknowledge that, on average, different genders behave differently is not sexist. This is not a question of what is "acceptable". There is no list of "forbidden words" or forbidden attitudes. If there was such a list, then they should be the same in each case. The whole point is that umpires must judge the situation with minimum common sense. If people want to ignore that women and men are different from the start, no common sense is possible. Nobody is saying that men should be allowed this or that, the whole point is that when an umpire (male or female) makes a judgement whether a player is being aggressive or not, he takes gender in consideration. This is blatant and completely obvious common sense.

If Nick Kyrgios asks an umpire "what the fuck was that call" the umpire will instantly understand that this is his "normal" talk and won't read it necessarily as an aggression. If Serena, or Venus, or Osaka (which being someone that seems to be pretty composed makes her a good example) uses the same language, that raises a flag, as the behavior is more distant from the norm. By the same token umpires will use different criteria for different players -- based on known behavior. This is mere common sense. In the end, (among other things) umpires must make a call about wether or not players are offending them. This is by definition subjective. The fact that men behavior is closer to Neanderthals on average naturally interfere in this judgment.

Now, if there was a strict conduct code for players (there is, but it is not that detailed), obviously it should be exactly the same for both genders. The fun thing is that in the Serena/Ramos case, everything she did would be treated exactly the same for a male player (coaching is forbidden, players that call the umpire a thief in their face are punished, players that smash rackets on court are mostly punished -- Kyrgios got away with that, as I was complaining about, but he wen to the locker room to do it, precisely because he knew he would be punished).

 

[Jelenafan]

As for your bolded part, I disagree that this is sexist and unfair. To acknowledge that, on average, different genders behave differently is not sexist. This is not a question of what is "acceptable". There is no list of "forbidden words" or forbidden attitudes. If there was such a list, then they should be the same in each case. The whole point is that umpires must judge the situation with minimum common sense. If people want to ignore that women and men are different from the start, no common sense is possible. Nobody is saying that men should be allowed this or that, the whole point is that when an umpire (male or female) makes a judgement whether a player is being aggressive or not, he takes gender in consideration. This is blatant and completely obvious common sense.

If Nick Kyrgios asks an umpire "what the fuck was that call" the umpire will instantly understand that this is his "normal" talk and won't read it necessarily as an aggression. If Serena, or Venus, or Osaka (which being someone that seems to be pretty composed makes her a good example) uses the same language, that raises a flag, as the behavior is more distant from the norm. By the same token umpires will use different criteria for different players -- based on known behavior. This is mere common sense. In the end, (among other things) umpires must make a call about wether or not players are offending them. This is by definition subjective. The fact that men behavior is closer to Neanderthals on average naturally interfere in this judgment.

Now, if there was a strict conduct code for players (there is, but it is not that detailed), obviously it should be exactly the same for both genders. The fun thing is that in the Serena/Ramos case, everything she did would be treated exactly the same for a male player (coaching is forbidden, players that call the umpire a thief in their face are punished, players that smash rackets on court are mostly punished -- Kyrgios got away with that, as I was complaining about, but he wen to the locker room to do it, precisely because he knew he would be punished).

So you’re saying that umpires who chair both women’s and men’s matches will use the known behavior of said players to decide what is tolerable.

Add to that that “common sense” dictates that the cultural expectations that men are on average more aggressive then women would inform what the umpire tolerates in a tennis match.

So overall cursing in a male player might be more tolerated because by gender he’s expected to be more aggressive? Seems to be based on cultural assumptions which puts female tennis players at a disadvantage as far as being penalized for offensive behavior on court.

I dunno.....

 

[mrzz]

So you’re saying that umpires who chair both women’s and men’s matches will use the known behavior of said players to decide what is tolerable.

No. This is an important distinction. Not was is tolerable, but to judge whether or not the player is being aggressive towards them. I had the article cited by Moxie in mind.

See, I am not trying to say what should or not be done, I am just trying to give my opinion about what actually the umpires need to do and judge on their jobs, day in and day out. And I think that it is only natural to expect that they (or any other human being) will use past behavior as a factor. Again, compare for example Kyrgios and Nadal. Nadal never uses foul language in English to address an umpire. The moment he uses it, said umpire will surely be alert for any verbal aggression coming towards him from then on. Kyrgios... maybe they will find it strange if he doesn't use that kind of language. My point is that this is only natural.

Now, the moment there is a strict conduct code, then it should be enforced exactly the same for both. However, apart from majors we have two different tours, so it could well be the case that the umpires are instructed by the governing bodies to have different approaches. It is a big leap of faith to credit everything on sexism.

 

[Jelenafan]

With Kyrgios I agree with you if he was quiet and softspoken in a match the chair would worry if he’s OK.

Sorry if it was unclear I set my criteria to umpires who chair both men’s and women’s matches.

No argument from me that umpires make subjective calls on what is aggressive to them. All I’m saying is that if the subjectivity is also colored by what that umpire expects culturally how men and women behave on a court as a gender, it would seem they are setting one bar for men, and one bar for women.

“Common sense” or not, there is an element of sexism there that could unfairly penalize the female player because by gender the umpire would have a lower threshold of what subjectively they feel is female aggression towards them.

 

[Moxie]

You both make very good points, @mrzz and @Jelenafan. One point I would make is that I don't agree that we're talking about "sexism," per se. I think what the article is talking about, and I agree with, is an acculturated view of norms of behavior assigned to women vs. those assigned to men. And I think female umpires could be susceptible to them, as well. (The study only looked at male umpires.) Also, I don't think we're only talking about aggression towards the umpire, but displays of anger, in general. I think it's reasonable to believe that there is a higher threshold of tolerance for displays of aggressive behavior/anger in men than there is for women, as Jelenafan says above. Even though it is unfair. I don't think it's consciously unfair, just something that needs to be recognized and addressed. This is why diversity training exists.

That said, the rules are pretty clear. To address Mrzz's example, Nadal really doesn't swear much on court, even in Spanish. But a couple of years ago he dropped the F-bomb during a match and the umpire gave him a code violation. I think he was appalled at himself, and said to the chair, "but I never do that, you know that." And the ump said, "But you did now, and I heard it." Fair enough. And Nick doesn't get a pass, just because it's a regular occurrence. So I don't think that's a great example. The bigger problems come in the finer points, the subjective decisions, at least in terms of how the players feel they are being treated/singled-out, etc. and how it is perceived by fans, as well. The discussion we've been having here, after the Cincy match with Kyrgios and Khachanov is about two things: 1.) Most of us, I think, believe that Nick was clearly in the wrong, and maybe was treated too leniently; conversely, 2.) some, or at least Front, felt that Nick's complaining that the umpire was calling the scores too quickly, i.e., applying a fast shot clock, was the more cogent point, because, at least Nick and Front think that the shot clock isn't enforced evenly across the board. As always, there is still subjectivity and that's why there is a chair umpire, and for that reason, there will still always be reasons to complain. You can't eliminate every variable and make calls completely clear and even-handed. I like Mrzz's point that the best case is even-handedness within a match, between the chair and the two players. Where there is a human element, there will always be varying styles and choices.

 

[mrzz]

We all made our points, so instead of repeating ourselves I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a few aspects -- given that we do have common ground to some extent at least. I just want to reply to one thing:

To address Mrzz's example, Nadal really doesn't swear much on court, even in Spanish. But a couple of years ago he dropped the F-bomb during a match and the umpire gave him a code violation. I think he was appalled at himself, and said to the chair, "but I never do that, you know that." And the ump said, "But you did now, and I heard it." Fair enough. And Nick doesn't get a pass, just because it's a regular occurrence. So I don't think that's a great example

Well, your Nadal example illustrates exactly my point: he deviated from his expected behavior and got punished for things other players do regularly. And Kyrgios does get a pass, a lot of times. The fact that he is constantly punished is because he is a constant offender. And exactly because of that he ends up "escaping" more than occasionaly, as it was the case in the KK match, or in the famous case with Lahyani. He is constantly pushing the boundaries.

 

[Moxie]

We all made our points, so instead of repeating ourselves I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a few aspects -- given that we do have common ground to some extent at least. I just want to reply to one thing:



Well, your Nadal example illustrates exactly my point: he deviated from his expected behavior and got punished for things other players do regularly. And Kyrgios does get a pass, a lot of times. The fact that he is constantly punished is because he is a constant offender. And exactly because of that he ends up "escaping" more than occasionaly, as it was the case in the KK match, or in the famous case with Lahyani. He is constantly pushing the boundaries.

I disagree. When Kyrgios swears, he gets sanctioned, too. However, I do agree that the umpires don't quite know what to do with Kyrgios when he's not exactly violating, but pushing the boundaries, which he does a lot.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Have a look at this article from Psychology Today:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/201809/are-referees-unfair-female-players

" the study found that male players displayed twice as many aggressive acts as female players, yet referees penalized the female players more than the male players."

Your study analyses how aggression from men & women is penalised in all kinds of sports.
However here were are talking about tennis only. Further, ATP & WTA tournaments are different in some aspects so it's difficult to compare officials' judgements in the 2. For starters coaching is allowed in WTA (which started Serena's meltdown) bur not allowed in ATP. The only tournaments where rules are identical for men & women are GS, so GS stats should be used. And said stats show that men have been punished about 3 times more often than women for various code violations (except coaching for obvious reasons).
https://www.tennis365.com/us-open/r...-williams-was-wrong-to-cry-sexism-at-us-open/
Now, you (or your study) may ask if the rate of punishment is higher for women vs men (i.e. umpires are more lenient towards men). For example, you might argue that men behave badly/aggressively on court, say six times more often than women do, yet are penalised only 3 times more often. Ergo, umpires are twice as lenient towards men. This is hard to measure because there is no objective metric showing if a given behaviour warrants a violation. So the umpire decision to qualify a violation is at their discretion, so is subjective, as mrzz extensively explained. If we don't have such metric, we must admit umpires will be applying cultural or other judgements, so their rulings will be statistically biased by said judgements. This is not sexism. Accusation of sexism are even more wrong when coming from someone like Serena who is in the middle of this controversy and who has a history of USO behaviour so bad (e.g. 2009 "I'll shove that ball into your throat!") that even men aggression (including that of Kyrgios) pales in comparison.

 

[Jelenafan]

Well I do think we all agree more than disagree in that there should be consistent standards where umps work on.

Moxie, I agree with Mrzz that Kyrgios sometimes gets away with stuff or at least is tolerated. Here’s my thing about the Aussie; I think that his outbursts as a release are so ingrained that at this point it’s nigh impossible not to have them flare up sporadically .

Johnny Mac knew that his outbursts were detrimental in the long run to his career but they had been tolerated/ indulged for so long that he just couldn’t stop.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Well I do think we all agree more than disagree in that there should be consistent standards where umps work on.

Moxie, I agree with Mrzz that Kyrgios sometimes gets away with stuff or at least is tolerated. Here’s my thing about the Aussie; I think that his outbursts as a release are so ingrained that at this point it’s nigh impossible not to have them flare up sporadically .

Johnny Mac knew that his outbursts were detrimental in the long run to his career but they had been tolerated/ indulged for so long that he just couldn’t stop.

I agree especially on the emphasised part. Kyrgios fires up his tantrums when he's loosing the match and uses them to shake up the atmosphere in hope of turning the momentum. The latest instance shows his intentions very clearly. Umpires kept tolerating his outburst up to this point, because they naturally wanted to give him the benefit of doubt (thinking the motivation might be different) or out of sympathy. But after the latest incident, they should just lose all sympathy just like I lost it, and enforce the code violation rules more strictly. Such enforcement might actually "help" Kyrgios to become more level-headed player, more than any psychotherapy would help. Kyrgios is smart enough to understand the rules and how to go round them (e.g. by smashing racquets "in a toilet"), so he performs his tantrums on a calculated purpose, not out of uncontrollable emotions. So he needs a law enforcement lesson, not psychotherapy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I disagree. When Kyrgios swears, he gets sanctioned, too. However, I do agree that the umpires don't quite know what to do with Kyrgios when he's not exactly violating, but pushing the boundaries, which he does a lot.

No I'm with Mrzz on this one. Kyrgios violates the rules so much that it becomes almost impossible NOT to give him a pass otherwise he'd never get to finish a match (obviously that's an exaggeration but you know what I mean). And we're kidding ourselves if we don't think he knows that, and takes advantage of it too. It's not that he's only punished when he violates and gets a pass when pushing the boundaries.

 

[Moxie]

No I'm with Mrzz on this one. Kyrgios violates the rules so much that it becomes almost impossible NOT to give him a pass otherwise he'd never get to finish a match (obviously that's an exaggeration but you know what I mean). And we're kidding ourselves if we don't think he knows that, and takes advantage of it too. It's not that he's only punished when he violates and gets a pass when pushing the boundaries.

I get that. We're not on opposite sides of this question. That's what I meant about pushing the boundaries in my above. If he swears or smashes a racquet, the umpire knows what to do, but when he just pushes and pushes around the edges, it's less clear, and so, yes, as you say, they get a bit inured to him, or at least they do what they can to steer the match to a natural conclusion.

 

[Moxie]

There is a long way to go in this match tonight, but this is an example of when Nick can just play and not make a nonsense out of it, playing Steve Johnson tonight. He actually is capable of it. Let's see if he blows up. But the most egregious behavior I have seen so far in this match is Stevie's mustache.

 

[Moxie]

Uh-oh...I spoke too soon. He dropped the F-bomb, got a violation, and is trying to involved the crowd. Which is likely half-drunk. Hmmm....

EDIT: and as they were going to commercial, Nick seemed to be arguing with the umpire. OK, forget what I ever said. Nick pushes it at all times, and he's a jerk and a tool and a crazy SOB. He's ahead, FFS.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Now is the time for Nick to make a deep run at a major, and I actually think he will. The draw opened up for him, and he really should be beating everyone in his path, overrated or not.