. . . the games are played for the spectator at the end of the day. . . . if the crowds like it, which they do, most all forms of utterance will be tolerated. Fair enough, if you're addressing the spectator noise. I'm sure many tennis fans want to cheer more, and at different times. Whether most want to is another question, and I haven't seen any figures on this. For what it's worth, since Davis Cup supposedly lets the crowd do whatever, here's their official take: "During Davis Cup matches each country must control its supporting spectators so that play is not interrupted or disturbed. In the event that the spectators or any individual spectators supporting a country behave in such a partisan manner that play is unreasonably interrupted or the players at any time are unreasonably provoked and/or intimidated, the Referee shall penalise such country’s player in accordance with the following: FIRST Offence WARNING SECOND Offence POINT PENALTY THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT Offence GAME PENALTY However, after the third partisan Crowd violation, the Referee shall determine whether each subsequent offence shall constitute a default." So even they think there ought be limits. As for changing the rules and unwritten codes of the game to fit the spectators' preferences, I can't go along with that. The question should be whether it makes the game itself any better. I'm more inclined to trust the players than the fans on that score. And silly me, I thought [gamesmanship] would add to the sport. How do petty psych-out tactics add to the sport? I think most fans come to watch good old tennis, and even if they enjoy a McEnroe-style headgame now and then, they like their sport even better when the ball's in the air. . . . rules aren't one sided. . . . Last time I checked, a player making a sound when the ball is on said player's racquet is not interfering with the other player preparing to hit and subsequently hitting a return. No hindrance there. Of course rules "support" the claims of one interested party or another. Here's a case in point--from the article you linked: "WTA Tour supervisor Donna Kelso and tournament referee Denise Parnell came on the court to ask Sharapova to lower the volume. Under the sport's "hindrance" rule, a player can be penalized a point for excessive grunting." [equivocation] I admit that my first reaction was that Dechy should have held her tongue, played her best, and gone on with the business of tennis. I still think so. Players who wave the rule book in your face play a pansified version of the sport. The idea is to do your best no matter what, and--a telling point, this--there would have been no dispute had she been winning. [/equivocation]
sammy, keep it down, i'm trying to concentrate. jason, think about why games are televised in the first place and you'll understand why the spectator comes first, and that this discussion has never disputed the legitamacy of crowd noise (US Open makes any tennis fan intimate with the constant reminders fro the ump) I should've qualified the statement with 'from the players'. (see above "tennis demands silence from its spectators, and not the players, no? ") Also, please explain how the rule complained and then penalized the loud player? Rules don't support a view, they state themselves, the complaining from opponent/enforcement by officials is where the bias/agenda enters the equation. It's where wily veterans get that moniker. Doesn't the brush-off inside pitch add tho baseball? Doesn't the hard snap count add to football? I think so. Gamesmanship takes whatever form necessary to get the job done, and adds dimensional depth to a sport. And I couldn't agree more. Complaining about your opponent's noise level is definitely a loser's argument to make.
Okay, okay. Lines of text don't jump out of the rulebook and stomp onto the court, hands on hips, to assert their relevance. Players can make claims or take actions, then cite the rules as a move to support that claim or action. That is, the players support their own claims by citing rules they believe are consistent with their arguments. Sheesh. Semanticsfilter. The spectators' interest is whether they get their money's worth. Their collective decisions in response to what they see, in turn, determine whether a given event succeeds and, finally, whether players have a place to play. So, sure, satisfied spectators are the sine qua non. But players should still have some kind of say in how the game is played, right? I agree that gamesmanship is an essential part of sport as it is played, as opposed to how it is described in rulebooks. At all levels, it does give the game depth, and it admits that personalities, not robots, are at play. As an athlete, I've always loved the small tactics that give me an edgee.g. knocking a guy flat if he tries to set a pick on me. (Somtimes that one backfires, though.) On that score I was preaching against something I don't practice ;-) (I'm turning around a bit on this, Garfield. Thanks for sticking with the issue.)
jason and garfield, you turned this into a great thread! Thanks.
