Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by Cindysphinx, Aug 2, 2012.
This made me LOL
I am just astounded that someone is on here saying that as captain their job is to do everything they can to win except for FIELDING A FULL LINEUP.
Huh? Ya lost me.
Spot is pointing out that the argument "I'm not telling my opponents in advance that we are defaulting a line because winning is critical to us" falls flat when the easier solution is to field a full line-up.
Oh geez, you guys sure like to play dumb on this forum. All of a sudden when you're in disagreement with something everyone just seems to go dumb...
1) I'm not a captain of any team, nor have I ever been.
2) We do not have full 15 strong player lineups as you pro-club players always seem to have.
3) It's happened to me, and ive seen it happen to people. I fully understand its importance during a critical match and I dont get all butthurt.
4) Sometimes, because, you know, people have jobs and stuff, so when they're taking family trips, work calls in, they're with the wife who is having a baby, sometimes a team of 12 can end up being short 2 players.
Right now it seems like everyone plays on these super committed Allstar teams that have 15 players all showing up to their league matches in matching jumpsuits. Where im from, this represents very little teams.
Even some of the best teams in the area default sometimes. I guess it never happens to you guys cause you have 15 full time players who show up whether they're playing or not.
And you guys tell me im talking a "rec league" so seriously becase during a critical match we're not going to let them know they dont have to waste players on 3rd dubs.
And apparently, even though this rarely happens, you guys want to pretend like im the guy who is short 2 lines every week wasting peoples time because im an evil captain who cant find players because they hate me.
Paint me like one of your French girls, Jack. lol.
I am glad you are not a USTA League captain. You don't seem well suited for the role.
In addition, there is no need for me to paint you like anything. Your own words have already painted quite a picture of the type of person you are at the moment. There's no need to say anything more.
Where are these "French girls" you guys speak of? I want to see some French girls--Cornet, Lenglen, Mauresmo, (maybe?). Are there some internet pics of them naked or somethin'? Don't be a PT, deliver the French babes, please.
Nope. You were in a position of authority and chose what to me is an unsportsmanlike decision and hiding behind "it was not my team, it was a team decision" line.
We will agree to disagree but to me it was a clear unsportsmanlike decision.
But from " I also consider whether I think the opposing captains have been reasonable and thoughtful, then and in the past."
it sounds like you do not believe in doing the right thing in the absolute sense, but only when you subjectively decide if the other person deserves to be treated in the right manner.
Maybe that is the difference.
Um. Whatever, dude.
And This is what makes you a total Dbag by not telling the other team in advance if you are short a line. The other team also has all that stuff that they are putting on hold in order to play tennis- If your team prioritizes other stuff thats perfectly fine but the least you can do is let the other team know in advance so your opponents can make other plans. For you to completely tie up someone's day for nothing simply because your team can't field a full lineup is ridiculously selfish.
That is how most people do it - shades of gray. Only fundamentalists insist that everything is black and white (for everyone else of course, for themselves it is always shades of gray).
In his zeal to stir up a fight, Spiderman also seems to have forgotten that two of the five courts should have been a default under the rules because the opposing players arrived after the 15 minute default period. Rather than take the default, we took the three-game penalty and played the match, thereby cutting them a break.
Don't want to stir up a fight but the statement that reminded me of that was hypocritical. It gave an impression that you do not like to impose game penalties. Just wanted to set the record straight.
How very generous of you to just let them get away with game penalties? If you imposed penalties ONLY on those two courts as opposed to demanding a default then you have a case, otherwise... that "whatever dude" unsportsmanlike decision when at a position to propagate good-will holds.
As long as people understand that they have shades of grey and don't act as always doing the right thing.
Talking in general of course. Everyone here is perfect.
I don't know that I "like" or "dislike" imposing game penalties, as emotion needn't play a role. If someoneis late for our timed match, the rules impose game penalties. If I am complying with the rules in taking a penalty, I feel I owe no apologies.
That said, I personally am lenient regarding game penalties. I round down, and I consider my history with the opposing captain/player (snakes in the grass do not get breaks). But if I am captaining someone else's team and the players want to impose the game penalties specified in the rules, I don't see why you have such a huge problem with it.
That is so petty. What kind of victory?
Sometimes I think about playing tournaments or in a league again, but then I read about stuff like this and it just so turns me off to the whole idea. Yesterday I went out and hit with buddy (a guy from these boards even). Just competitive rallies, no games or even keeping score. We both hit great, some solid rallies, we both got some winners - it was great.
Most of the top tier 3.5 GOATs in the Central Region have been focused on tourneys and casual GOATing but not league play. It's getting rough out there for mixed 7.0 combo GOATs as well.
Future generations will GOATify this tread with Epic astonishment.
Unreal, what a cruel tennis world we live in.
Makes me wanna burn all my Vapour 6 Oreos and marry Steffi Graff.
Sarah appealed the local league's decision against her. She vehemently denies that she tried to pull a fast one or did anything unsporting.
Why did she contact Diana and say she was defaulting Court 3?
"As a courtesy," is her entire explanation.
Is that your pic, if you don't mind me asking?
No...now let's back to discussing snakes and grass. The real heart of the matter.
This hasn't died yet? Are key marks on cars and flat tires imminent?
No, it is still quite alive.
There was a telephonic "hearing" with the two captains and the appeals committee, apparently presided over by an official with Mid-Atlantic. Both captains said their piece and then were asked to drop off the call. The matter is apparently under consideration.
I hope that doesn't mean some cheesy verdict where the cheater gets to 'save face' (I love Asia but hate that saying and philosophy).
All right. We have a decision. All credit to Mid-Atlantic Section for getting this right.
Here's the complete decision. I have changed the parties' names.
DECISION OF THE SECTION GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
[Diana] filed a grievance against [Sarah] and [DC league coordinator Jones]. Both [Diana]
and [Sarah] are senior league captains, and the grievance concerned a match their teams
played against each other. One portion of the grievance stated that [Sarah] would not agree
to a lateness penalty when one of her players arrived 7 minutes late for a match. The
other portion stated that [Sarah] advised [Diana], by email, that she would be defaulting
the #3 position. At match time, [Sarah] would not agree to [Diana]’s team winning that
court by default. She stated that inasmuch as [Diana]’s players were not present at
the site, it would be a double default since parties had to be present in order to claim a
[Jones] is the Senior League Coordinator, and he agreed with and supported the
comments made by [Sarah], therefore the grievance was also filed against him.
Both [Sarah] and [Jones] received the Grievance and a request was made for them to file
On Saturday, August 25th at 1 p.m., the Committee held a conference call. [Diana],
[Sarah and Jones] were on the call, and invited to explain their position to the Committee.
The Committee asked any questions they had, and the participants were asked to hang up.
Prior to the call, the Committee had been forwarded all materials, including but not
limited to the Grievance, Responses and D.C. League Rules. There was much discussion
after the participants hung up.
As far as the lateness penalty issue, they did not feel the rules clearly state there is no
lateness penalty, and they only refer to a 15 minute default rule. National Regulation
1.02 Governance states the Friend At Court Handbook shall apply to all matches played
in USTA Leagues. In that handbook, the lateness penalties are spelled out and therefore
should have applied to the match in question.
The Committee wondered why [Sarah] would advise [Diana] of a default prior to the
match, if it was expected that [Diana] would still bring a full team. Once again, the
Committee felt this issue was not clearly spelled out in the D.C. League Rules. The rules
did not state that players had to be present in order to claim a default. The National Q&A
covers this exact issue:
How should “known defaults” be handled both at the local level and at
In the spirit of good sportsmanship and fair play, the opposing team(s)
should be advised of a known default. The defaulting captain will still
be able to designate at what position (2nd singles or 3rd doubles) a
known default will occur.
The Committee was unanimous in granting the Grievances filed by [Diana], and
agreed that the defaulted court should be awarded to [Diana]’s team. They further stated
that in the future, the league rules should spell out the lateness penalties in accordance
with Friend at Court.
Dated August 27th, 2012
It's bloody obvious and spelled out in the national rules, yet took a grievance, "much discussion" by the committee, and an overrule of the league coordinator to get right... !!!
Kinda like congress, except that at least USTA did get it right in the end
Well, I think the confusion was due to the peculiar DC rules.
The rule at issue on the default says there is a 15 minute default period, and players must stay on site to claim the default. Sarah read that as meaning players must come to the site or they cannot claim a default.
What it actually means is that you cannot walk off the court 1 minute after match time and say you are claiming a default. Gotta wait for the default period, duh.
What it also means is that the DC rules are jacked up, their administration of those rules is jacked up, and I will look to play elsewhere until they get themselves sorted.
Cindy, I wish I could say, I can't believe this, but after what I have seen lately on the courts, I believe it. I am so sorry this had to happen.
Cindy, this totally is horrible. I can't believe someone could do this to your team, but what I have been seeing lately, I DO believe it. This person has no honor for their team, your team, or the game of tennis. It shows you what kind of person they are. Believe me, if they are doing this in women tennis leagues, can you imagine what they are doing in their business and private life? Disgusting. I'm so sad for you and your team. Take heart. There are still some good people out there playing this wonderful game. Tennis is pure, it's what we bring to it that isn't. Stay strong.
Sarah can't just let this result stand; there must be an avenue of further appeal? ITF? Federal court? A team's record is at stake.
They always say there was much discussion, even if there wasn't. I wish committee's wouldn't say that, because it makes the people involved feel that their lame actions that caused the grievance have merit. Sigh......
In this case the whole thing was indeed disgraceful.
So I was right - a saving face ruling. Enough weasel words so Sarah and Jones can blame the rulebook... right...
If Sarah's smart she'll join Lance Armstrong and 'let go' - maybe she can sell colored plastic bracelets to raise money for a cause - for her I'd suggest: Adult Illiteracy...
Separate names with a comma.