A Game Penalty Is Too Severe

Almost all credit to Naomi Osaka for her first Grand Slam win: 6-2, 6-4 against Serena Williams. This one should prompt a reexamination of code violations and how they're applied, though. That's where part of the credit unfortunately wasn't due to Osaka's excellent play but instead the application of and the code violations themselves.

First the application of the code violations wasn't fair. A code violation for coaching at a critical stage in a Grand Slam event is extreme, especially when coaching from players' boxes is so common, even though Serena unqualifiedly denied she'd ever been coached from the player's box. A code violation for a broken racquet seems fair but not one for calling someone a thief, especially when the comment is made as a throwaway line as the player is walking away and obviously has given up any name-calling and is ready to get back to play. So, since two code violations were wrongly applied, Serena shouldn't have been penalized a point.

But even if there are to be penalties, they should be much more measured. A point penalty should be on the third code violation, not the second. It seems much too abrupt on the second. And a penalty for a whole game on the third violation and every subsequent violation is patently absurd. It's just too much and throws the momentum of the match too much in favor of the other player. A point penalty on the third violation and every subsequent violation would be enough to get the point across to the offending player that he or she is risking throwing away the momentum of the match. An umpire still would need to exercise great discretion in awarding a code violation that results in a point penalty, however, even if the rules were changed to this extent. Otherwise, the umpire still could unduly shift the momentum of the match on some basis other than play.

The tennis establishment can be slow to change its rules though. If a game still will be lost on a third code violation, it has to be done in only extreme circumstances, which simply weren't present in this match. Serena had a passionate exchange, yes. There need to be code violations to end the discussion at some point if it gets too out of hand. But it really didn't. It fell far short of anything John McEnroe did in his heyday. There does, as Serena pointed out to the tournament referee, seem to be a double standard though between how the code violations were applied to her versus how they are applied on the men's tour.

All of that said, it shouldn't be overlooked that Osaka played a great match, showing great poise even with the crowd roaring boos against her in her last service game. She got emotional  at the trophy presentation before Serena graciously got them to hush. It must have been a bittersweet moment for Osaka, beating her idol. All in all though, Osaka showed the poise of a champion. With her winning personality, reminiscent to me in her ebullience in the early rounds at the U.S. Open of Monica Seles when she first came on the scene, one can only hope that Osaka might quickly become a crowd favorite. Regardless, if she can play like she did against Serena Williams consistently, Osaka might look forward to racking up some far less controversial Grand Slam victories. Chris Evert has said she's waiting for the next up-and-coming women's Grand Slam champion who can win multiple Grand Slam championships. Could Osaka be the one?