Chris Rattue: Serena's gobsmacking MacAttack

It had long been assumed that if anyone was to out-brat John McEnroe, it would be a bloke. Cartoon / Rod Emmerson

Tennis eh. It's full of surprises.

Take the Serena Williams blast at the US Open in New York.

Why does someone crack like that? What was simmering underneath?

I've looked at the incident a thousand times - okay, I've looked at it about six times on TV and YouTube - and still can't see any good reason for it.

What on earth got into that woman's head. If only you could have that moment again.

There was nothing in your history, no lead up, no extreme provocation.

Yet despite having what you could term a faultless career, you suddenly screamed "FOOT FAULT".

The "un-named lineswoman" who called the infamous foot fault on Williams created rather than found a short fuse in the tennis player and the 2009 Open will be remembered for Williams' subsequent explosion.

She either suggested the line judge ingest a tennis ball, or that she, Williams, might force feed it to her. (The lineswoman, perhaps in another bad call, may have interpreted this as a threat to kill her rather than a violent suggestion that she stop making ridiculous calls.) This saga had 'Record YouTube Hit' written all over it.

Williams' outburst was a major surprise because it had long been assumed that if anyone was to out-brat John McEnroe, it would be another bloke. At the time McEnroe was turning his racket into firewood and screaming so hard it looked like his bandanna might pop off his frizzy head, the most dangerous thing in the women's game was Chrissy Evert's smile.

Holy moly, it's the old switcheroo. Roger Federer is the new Chris Evert, a fair call, while Serena Williams is the reincarnation of MacAttack, which is a very unfair call. McEnroe had serious form, and if a line judge had made a similar call on the wiry wonder they'd still be trying to put the stadium back together.

If screaming is the issue, then chuck Maria Sharapova out of the game before Serena Williams. What Sharapova does is really an abusive racket because her yelling on every shot is not only a premeditated annoyance that ruins the game, it is also very likely an attempt at cheating by creating a distraction.

There was nothing pre-meditated in what Williams did. She just blew a fuse when hit by a shock at an intense moment, and it contributed to her disqualification.

Whatever Williams' outward reaction, that knuckleheaded call would probably have caused enough internal confusion and strife to finish any hope she had of mounting a fightback.

It wasn't only the lineswoman who got a shock as Williams descended upon her, racket in the fully cocked position.

The rest of us could only stare, as tennis history came alive.

It had been assumed - and we have now been disabused of this idea - that such extreme abuse had been eradicated from tennis. We'd also assumed, again wrongly, that such outright bad officiating - the bane of poor McEnroe's tortured life - was also a thing of the past.

In a way, Williams' meltdown has allowed tennis to escape dissection of such a crucial and wrong call.

Foot fault calls are almost as rare as wooden rackets. You have to understand the extreme rarity of any foot fault call, let alone an incorrect one on the second serve of a mega-important US Open match, to get this picture. What happened to Williams may be unheard of in the history of the game.

Second serves are virtually foot fault free, because players rein back their lurch for maximum power and - unlike a first serve - a dubious call leads to the automatic loss of the point. To many players, what happened to Williams would feel like a personal attack. The fight response would kick in. Unlike line calls, there is no chance to ask for a review.

It was a very, very weird call that got a very, very weird response. It was like a moment in the Twilight Zone, before normal transmission resumed. So let it be.

Line judges are, presumably, paid and highly trained officials who must meet certain standards. If the people making line calls at the semifinal of the US Open aren't paid and highly trained, then they should be. And part of the training should involve the instruction not to blurt out "FOOT FAULT" whenever you feel like it.

This may have had an effect on tennis, as spectators made their own calls during the later men's final. Perhaps unruly spectators felt if an official could scream out nonsense, so could they.

As for a remedy, there is a lot to like about Serena's idea. She wants to give the line judge a "big ol' hug" and such unique sporting restorative justice would fit a unique situation. As is often the nature of these things, the two women could become fast friends because they have already skipped the pleasantries which hamper new relationships. Whether they like it or not, they are also bound together in history. And why make an oddity any uglier.

After the big ol' hug, Williams might learn the difficult areas of the woman's job, and the woman might get to understand how an athlete under great pressure breaks to an unreasonable degree when suddenly and inexplicably hit with something sudden and inexplicable. This might do real good, instead of a grandiose suspension which only appears to do good. It could teach kids something real, about good communication and the ability to fix things in a healthy, uplifting way. I'm even reasonably sure the line judge wouldn't want to be part of Williams being banned from next year's Open.

Either that, or they will argue forever and a day about it. But the big ol' hug is still worth a try.

What Williams did is not right. But if she behaves from here on, then what's wrong with a bit of forgiveness. She doesn't have a history of abusing officials.

Banning Williams from next year's Open, a possibility, would achieve zilch, while robbing fans of seeing the greatest attraction in the women's game and perhaps hastening a world superstar's departure from the hardcourts for greener pastures. Some community tennis coaching work would be a more appropriate punishment with a positive edge.

If Williams is to be scratched out though, I also want to know what happens to that lineswoman. (It's very un-American not to name her. In America, everyone not only gets named, they all want to appear on Larry King's TV talk show.)

The 2009 US Open will also be remembered, forever, for that successful between-the-legs shot by the extraordinary Roger Federer, to take him to match point in his semifinal.

It was like taking millions of playground dreams and plonking it on centre court. This column's prediction: The tennis version of the soccer nutmeg will sweep the world. Kids don't take these things lightly. There are going to be a lot of broken windows, and perhaps even toes and ankles.

Tennis coaches are in for one hell of a ride now. When mummy and daddy take their precious bundle of precociousness down to a new coach, they'll ask: Do you teach the Federer Nutmeg?

Tennis will never be the same.

The biggest surprise was saved for last and yet again, the true star of a Grand Slam event was a final involving the Swiss master Federer.

Federer is the best player in history to many eyes, and rightly so although it is not a clear-cut issue. His remarkable style brings out the best in people - he has been in too many long and sensational Grand Slam finals involving Rafael Nadal, Andy Roddick and now the Argentinian Juan Martin del Potro for it to be a coincidence. Federer loses with disappointment and grace, and accepts in public he has been beaten by a better man on the day.

The young del Potro engineered an unlikely turnaround with nerve and fine shots to win in five exceptional sets before a singing crowd. With any luck there will be more of these Federer classics to come. (And oh, to actually get to a US Open in New York one day.)

The 2009 US Open will be remembered for curios. But the real deal came through in the end. What wonderful sport. And for those worried about Serena Williams, I doubt she'll do what she did again.