Was Serena Williams right or wrong? Three former tennis referees explain

More: The US Open controversy of Serena Williams boils down to these two questions

More: Instead of triumphing, Serena Williams is muted with the behavior at the US Open

Ramos gave three violations of code to Williams, who raged at the chair umpire during his 6-2, 6-4 loss to Naomi Osaka and after the match accused Ramos of sexism.

Two retired chair referees who have worked in many US Opens and other Grand Slam tournaments said Ramos was fair and had followed the rules during the match. But both referees also said Ramos may have been able to counter the controversy if he had better communicated with Williams.

"That's what it was all about," said Cecil Hollins, the first African-American to earn the coveted gold badge status in tennis. "What could he have said that would have alleviated the (tension)?"

It is unlikely that the public will get answers from Ramos in the near future, if ever. It is generally forbidden for tennis officials to address the media without the permission of the four major organizations that employ them.

"I'm fine, considering the circumstances," said Ramos Tribuna Expresso in his native Portugal on Tuesday. "It's a tricky situation, but" à la carte "arbitration does not exist. Do not worry about me! "

Three referees who spoke at USA TODAY Sports addressed three main issues, including:

► How the rule that Ramos issued a code violation for forbidden coaching is not clear even among experienced officials.

► Why was Williams confused after suffering a second infraction of the code for breaking his racket, which resulted in a penalty point.

► And if anything could have been done to defuse the situation before Williams called Ramos a "thief," Ramos would have committed a third violation of the code, for "verbal abuse," resulting in a total penalty for Williams.

Magdi Somat

Somat is an Egyptian referee and why he no longer officiates in professional tennis.

He was fired for reporting to ATP that a woman working with the tennis organization had been sexually harassed by ATP employees, including other chair umpires.

But in a copy of a letter posted by Somat, the ATP accuses him of being insubordinate, aggressive and disrespectful to a supervisor and out of court, rude, aggressive and arrogant with a touch judge.

Somat, who said he was mostly cashed by major professional tennis organizations, said he considered Ramos a "good" referee with exceptional concentration powers. But when evaluating the US women's final, Somat did not praise Ramos, who holds the gold status.

"He was like a robot," said Somat, adding that Ramos had "a zero feeling for the game".

The problems, according to Somat, go back to the 2009 US Open, when Williams, in the semifinals, was called for a foul and then approached the linesman who made the call. lower your throat (explosive). "

At a future tournament, said Somat, he earned "total respect" for Williams when he saw her apologize to the representative. But, according to Somat, Williams' bad temper infiltrated among other chair umpires and proved on Saturday when Ramos awarded Williams the first code offense, due to a banned practice.

"(Ramos) was eager to launch this warning without even thinking for a second to make sure Serena saw her coach and received the information or not," said Samot.

Although Williams coach Patrick Mouratoglou later admitted that he was trying to use hand signals for Williams coach, Somat said it would have been impossible for Ramos to confirm the rule violation. . The article reads in part as follows: "Communications of any kind, audible or visible, between a player and a coach may be interpreted as an accompaniment."

Williams contests receiving signals from her coach – "I'm not cheating to win, I'll lose instead," she told Ramos. Mouratoglou said he did not think Williams saw him trying to give him signs.

"A terrible judgment," said Somat about Ramos. Somat added that Ramos should have approached the subject with Williams the next time the players change sides and "everything will be fine after that and we can all attend a great match and a good party."

Cecil Hollins

Hollins has officiated at several Grand Slam tournaments, but has sued the USTA for discrimination. In 2006, he signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of a settlement.

Although Hollins stated that the non-disclosure agreement prohibited him from discussing race issues related to USTA, which heads the US Open, Hollins spoke freely about Ramos' work during the controversial final. the simple feminine.

"There are no referees who want to be in the papers or talk about them," said Hollins, 62. "Every referee makes an honest effort to do a great job every game.

"From the point of view of an arbitrator, Carlos passed by the book. If you see coaching, you can not see it. If that means you are giving a code violation for that, then you give the code violation for that. It's like that. He saw it, he gave it. "

Nevertheless, said Hollins, Ramos could have better communicated with Williams and said that she seemed confused during the process.

In particular, Hollins said that Williams looked surprised when he was awarded a points penalty and a second code violation after breaking his racket. He traces it to the first violation of the code when Williams continued to point out that she was not cheating.

"I know it," said Ramos.

"Thank you very much," replied Williams.

Hollins speculates that Williams thought the first violation of the code had been overturned and his anger intensified as a result of the second violation of the code, costing him one point.

"Sometimes I felt it was necessary, or the referees feel it's necessary, to give a full explanation and let the chips fall where they can," said Hollins. "All this could have happened in a quiet conversation with Serena when she said," I did not cheat ".

"I do not believe that Serena has fully understood the code and that the code clearly indicates that the first violation is a warning, be it coaching, racquet abuse, ball abuse, obscenity audible, a warning. Her second code violation is a points penalty, no matter what she is. "

These are among the points that Ramos could have clarified, according to Hollins.

"If he could go back, I'm sure he would have understood the words that he would have said to prevent any escalation," Hollins said, "because it was the last one. something he hoped for. "

Norm Chryst

Norm Chryst, a retired chair referee who said he officiated at six men's finals in the United States, could not be clearer with his assessment of Ramos' performance in the controversial match.

"I thought Carlos Ramos had done a great job," said Chryst, 62. "I thought he was applying the rules, I thought he was not intimidated, I thought he was communicating well, he kept his cool."

But in hindsight, said Chyrst, Ramos could have tried to signal to Williams that she was in danger or was losing a point or a match.

"I do not think it would have been the right time after the first code (violation) because it was so emotional," he said. "After the second code (violation), I thought that he might have been able to say something at that time. "You have to calm down because if you get another code (violation), it will be a gambling penalty."

"Now, whether she would have heard it or not, I do not know, or if it would have increased even more, but I thought it was the only time he could have communicated with her, saying," Gee whiz, you have to you calm down.

"I tended to say something after the second (code violation) or when the guys got really pissed off. "It's enough" or "You have to be careful now." And it was two lines I used when the guys lost control. "