By Charles Bricker
Wimbledon took its traditional middle Sunday off, but there was still plenty of buzz about the anger Rafael Nadal directed at chair umpire Cedric Mourier for warning him and his uncle, Toni Nadal, for illegal coaching during the third-round match Saturday against Germany’s Philipp Petzschner.
I’ve never seen Rafa like this — finger pointing and glowering during a match. Indeed, finger pointing and glowering at any time. Had it happened early on in this difficult match, things might have been more amiable. But it was 2-2 in the fifth set with Nadal serving at 15-all, a much more crucial stage.
Nadal wasn’t trying to claim his uncle/coach adheres at all times to the non-coaching rules, but that he was on this occasion. “Not today, in my opinion,” said Nadal. “But, yes, sometimes in the past Toni talk maybe too much. And when it happened, and the referee or the umpire give me an advice, and if it is continuing, later a warning. But not today, in my opinion.”
Nadal was beginning his service motion when Maurier issued the warning. With the crowd quieted, there was no mistaking what he was saying. What did Maurier hear and how critical was it? Who knows. It is, in some respect, a judgment call, but it raises one of the thorniest questions in men’s tennis and demands a more complete discussion about the unfairness and difficulty of the non-coaching rule.
There have undoubtedly been hundreds of coaching warnings issued since Maria Sharapova won the U.S. Open in 2006, a victory that was diminished by a few uninformed reporters who claimed, ridiculously, that she had been given illegal coaching when her hitting partner, Michael Joyce, stood up in the players box and waved a banana at her.
But that incident and this, involving Nadal, because of the high-profile of the players and the high profile of the event at which they were playing, puts the coaching issue back into focus and requires more discussion.
The ITF (Grand Slam) rule on coaching is simple and confusing. “Coaching is considered to be communication, advice or instruction of any kind, audible or visable.” That’s it. Period.
It’s pretty clear that if Uncle Toni called out, “Hit your backhand down the line!” that that would be coaching. But what about, “Beautiful shot, Rafa.” Or, “Vamos, Rafa!” Is anyone shallow enough to think that that should fall under the purview of “communication. . .of any kind” and that the player should receive a warning.
In the Sharapova match at the U.S. Open, against Justine Henin, her coaches were trying to get her to remember to keep up her potassium level by eating her bananas on changeovers. Thus, there was Joyce standing up, waving a banana at her. Coaching? Silly.
I spoke after that match with USTA official Brian Earley, who, along with a couple assistants, had been monitoring the final on closed circuit TV, in part looking for just what we’re talking about — illegal coaching.
“We didn’t feel there was any coaching going on there,” Earley said. “What we’re looking for is patterns of play. When someone sends what looks like a signal from the players box, does the player then change the patterns on the court.” In one of the memorable remarks uttered at any tennis tournament, Earley concluded: “We don’t care whether someone is waving a banana or any other kind of fruit.”
The ITF and ATP rules on coaching are about the same. One sentence. The simplicity of the rule has allowed tennis jurisdictions to massage the rule so that it doesn’t get completely ridiculous — as in the banana incident. The WTA, which is way ahead of everyone else on this issue, has gone to a coach-on-the-bench rule, allowing advisors to come down on court on selected changeovers to speak with players.
The biggest problem with coaching violations is that it’s fairly unenforceable. OK, the coach in the players box stays absolutely quiet, but he places a colleague in a seat behind the baseline, communicates with him by telephone and asks HIM to do the coaching. So there’s someone who looks like just another fan sitting in the front row behind the baseline, calling out, “Don’t get into anymore backhand cross-court to cross-court rallies with him.”
How do you enforce that? Or some fan — not someone associated with the player — yelling, “Challenge.” Or, while a player with his back to the net is chasing down an offensive lob, someone yells, “He’s crowding your forehand side” — sort of being the eyes of a player who is busy chasing a ball. Are we going to start throwing fans out of the stadium for getting involved in the play and isn’t this exactly what we want — fans getting involved in the match, even to the point of calling out advice?
Or up in the players box, the coach folds his arms with the right hand on top of the left arm and the left hand tucked under the right arm. This means serve wide. Whereas, if he folds his arms the other way, it means serve down the line. The chair umpire might recognize Toni Nadal’s voice, but he can’t be watching him while a point is about to get underway. Then, again, what if the chair sees a coach scratch his ear or pick his nose? Coaching? Warning? How about point penalty?
As for this specific incident involving Toni and Rafa . . . I doubt very seriously whether Toni had any short advice he could utter in one sentence that would have any meaning for Rafa. As if Rafael Nadal needs to be told, “Hit to this guy’s backhand because his backhand is starting to go off.” It’s laughable to think that Nadal needs that sort of advice in the middle of a fifth set.
Any real coaching that Toni or any other coach would do would involve sitting down to look at tape of an opponent or to examine in great detail patterns of play that might leave an opponent vulnerable. Maybe that sort of simplistic advice would be beneficial to an 18-year-old rookie, but it hardly has any meaning to a veteran player.
There’s only one sensible solution to what happened to Nadal on Saturday and that’s to do away with the non-coaching rule entirely. It’s silly, useless, unenforceable and somewhat hypocritical. The ITF, as you may know, is the same tennis jurisdiction that runs Davis Cup and Fed Cup, in which coaches are allowed to sit on the changeover bench and coach players every two games.
Charles Bricker can be reached at nflwriterr@aol.com