Sports Ethics: Osaka v Williams 09/25/2018 Was it Sexism or Just Following the Rules? Well it looks like Naomi Oaska is human after all. She lost in the finals in the Pan Pacific tournament in Japan last Sunday to Czech Republic's Karolina Pliskova 4-6 and 4-6. We saw a different Osaka in the US Open final two weeks ago. Unlike her match with Pliskova where mistakes were made, Osaka seemed to play a perfect match against Serena Williams in the US Open. But this blog is not about tennis scores. It’s about reflecting on the Williams’ behavior. The drama started when Carlos Ramos, the chair umpire, handed Williams a coaching violation early in the second set because of hand gestures made from the stands by her coach Patrick Mouratoglou. He later admitted to coaching, which is an offense in the sport, though one rarely called. When the violation was announced Williams approached Ramos to say she never takes coaching and would rather lose than “cheat to win”. Things seemed to settle down as Williams went on to break Osaka for a 3-1 lead, but she gave the break right back in the next game with a pair of double faults, prompting the former champion to smash her racquet on the court. That resulted in a second violation, meaning Osaka was awarded the first point of the sixth game. Williams, who was under the impression the first violation had been rescinded, returned to Ramos to seek an apology for saying she had received coaching earlier. During a changeover, Williams resumed her argument with the umpire, this time saying he was attacking her character and was a “thief”. That triggered a third violation, which resulted in a game penalty that gave Osaka a 5-3 lead. From there, Williams summoned the tournament referee to the court and said male tennis players were not punished for similar offenses. Of course, he didn’t, and shouldn’t have reversed Ramos’ decision. Williams states that Ramos’ decisions reflected sexism in that when women argue during a match they are labeled emotional while when men do it, they are – well, just being men. In other words, there is a double standard in the form of sexism. Women tennis legends seem divided on the justification for Williams’ behavior. Tennis great Billie Jean King wrote on Twitter: “When a woman is emotional, she’s “hysterical” and she’s penalized for it. When a man does the same, he’s “outspoken” and there are no repercussions. Australian Margaret Court, whose tally of Grand Slam singles titles is being chased by Williams, had little sympathy for the 36-year-old American former world number one. “We always had to go by the rules. It’s sad for the sport when a player tries to become bigger than the rules.” My view is that Ramos should have issued a warning for the coaching incident. It was a grand slam event and erring on the side of caution was called for. This happens in the NBA finals where if a player argues with a referee’s call, the referee is more likely to provide some leeway for the player, maybe give a warning, or just use better common sense in a finals event where the competitors are playing for the penultimate achievement of the sport. Some may criticize me for my own double standard. Is it right for chair umpires to treat players differently in non-grand slam events/finals than when grand slam matches are played? Isn’t this a glaring example of situational ethics rather than having competitors play by the same set of rules? There is some truth to these arguments. Still, the counter-view is fairness. If, as Williams contends and other men have admitted, men are treated differently, then there is a fairness issue that speaks to whether Ramos’ decision was just. We can add to that some good old common sense which should have dictated that a first warning in such a critical match is warranted. This also might occur in the NBA finals. In conclusion, two wrongs never should make a right and those who believe Williams got what she deserved have a valid point. The sad part is how it totally robbed Osaka of her moment of glory: her first grand slam win and the first Japanese player to win a grand slam. She deserved better and while it’s understandable that Williams didn’t think about these matters during her tirade and whether her behavior was over the top, she did act out of selfishness and, dare I say, entitlement. Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on September 25, 2018. Sign up for Steve’s newsletter on his website. Follow him on Facebook. Like his page. w