Originally Posted by gbenga
Yes she deserved it. Of the 2 options Asderaki had (a let or forfeit), she chose the harshest so she deserved the harshest response. Nothing new there. It was Serena's first hindrance in the match and it was unintentional. You wouldn't be smiling if your work supervisor fired you because you intentionally spill coffee on your co-worker even if the rule gave her that option. At the FO few months later the same Asderaki chose a let on what she judged as a Razzano hindrance and didn't forfeit the point in Serena's favor why?
Because there are two different categories of hindrance; Asderaki did not have two options - there are separate rulings for deliberate vs. unintentional hindrance. This topic has been beaten to death and the next afterlife on this forum.
A shout of come on is deemed an intentional hindrance because the action (saying come on) is intentional, whether or not the intent to hinder is actually intentional. That's a point penalty. Verbal utterances of pain (in Razzano's case) are treated under the same rule as if a ball falls out of your pocket or something: the first instance is a let and a warning while you're docked a point for each subsequent time.
You can take several seats.