Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Adult League & Tournament Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   The Two-Player Rule (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=121814)

Cindysphinx 03-07-2007 05:51 AM

The Two-Player Rule
 
I'm in the mood to throw a huge hissy fit over the 2-player rule in our section. It is:

Quote:

d. Player limitations. In local leagues of:

1. four or more teams, only two players who are registered on the same team may be members together on any other team in the same Division during the same season.

2. three or less teams, three players may be members together on another team in the same Division during the same season.



In USTA League Tennis terminology, a “Division” is Adult, Senior, or Mixed Doubles.



In other words: Player A, Player B, and Player C can be on the same 7.0 team, but only two of them may be members together on any other Adult League team at any level anywhere in the Mid-Atlantic Section.
One of my 3.0 players and I were planning to play up on the same 3.5 team. The 3.5 captain was holding tryouts and sending me 3.0 players she accepts for her team. This, I figured, was great. These 3.0s who are tough enough to play 3.5 to the satisfication of an experienced 3.5 captain would be wonderful additions to my team. We'd be sister teams!

And then we remembered the 2-player rule.

What difference does it make if more than 2 players from one team join another team? What good does this rule accomplish?

Maybe if someone can make a logical argument in favor of the rule, I would feel better. As it stands, I will probably step aside and let two of my players take the two available 3.5 slots.

So much for playing up this spring. :(

csb 03-07-2007 06:03 AM

two player rule
 
They are probably discouraging too many people from "playing up". While it
may be great for the lower level player is it fair to the 3.5 player in the 3.5 league if they have to play a bunch of 3.0s?
I personally wouldn't have a problem if you were only allowed to play one level
in a usta league. If you're a 3.0 and want to play up fine-but then don't play 3.0.

JSF1 03-07-2007 10:44 AM

I think it probably has to do with the fact if the team(s) from the differing levels that shared the same players would cause a problem if all made it to their state championships....especially if they were all scheduled the same weekend.

10sguy 03-07-2007 11:06 AM

Are you absolutely sure this rule applies to playing at different NTRP levels?



Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx (Post 1297859)
I'm in the mood to throw a huge hissy fit over the 2-player rule in our section. It is:



One of my 3.0 players and I were planning to play up on the same 3.5 team. The 3.5 captain was holding tryouts and sending me 3.0 players she accepts for her team. This, I figured, was great. These 3.0s who are tough enough to play 3.5 to the satisfication of an experienced 3.5 captain would be wonderful additions to my team. We'd be sister teams!

And then we remembered the 2-player rule.

What difference does it make if more than 2 players from one team join another team? What good does this rule accomplish?

Maybe if someone can make a logical argument in favor of the rule, I would feel better. As it stands, I will probably step aside and let two of my players take the two available 3.5 slots.

So much for playing up this spring. :(


raiden031 03-07-2007 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10sguy (Post 1298350)
Are you absolutely sure this rule applies to playing at different NTRP levels?

It has to apply to different levels. You can't play on multiple teams in the same league and NTRP level. Although you can play at the same NTRP level in a different league, with the chance that both your teams meet in the playoffs, and you have to choose which team to represent.

Cindysphinx 03-07-2007 11:50 AM

Yes, I'm absolutely sure this rule applies to people playing different NTRP levels.

The 3.5 captain and I are scrambling to fix this mess. Oy.

JLyon 03-07-2007 11:58 AM

that is a BS rule and hinders adding more teams to a league. there are plenty of strong teams at one level who play up also for better competition.

oldguysrule 03-07-2007 12:01 PM

Important to remember that this is a LOCAL rule and not a USTA rule.

I agree with the sentiment that it is a bad rule. Good luck in your efforts to get it changed.

Cindysphinx 03-07-2007 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiden031 (Post 1298370)
It has to apply to different levels. You can't play on multiple teams in the same league and NTRP level. Although you can play at the same NTRP level in a different league, with the chance that both your teams meet in the playoffs, and you have to choose which team to represent.

That's how it was explained to me. If the memberships of the 3.5 and 3.0 teams overlapped too much, this could be a problem at districts and beyond.

I think the rule stinks. If we want to run the risk of defaulting matches because of too much overlap, that's our problem, isn't it? Besides, what are the chances that a 3.5 team with a bunch of 3.0s would make it to districts anyway?

Raiden.Kaminari 03-07-2007 01:05 PM

The way I'm reading the rule, I'm sure it's to designed prevent players from being on multiple teams together at the same level/division.

As an example ... you decide to join 4 teams in different areas with friends. This means, you are limited to one other person who can be on the same 4 teams as you.

So at most, one pair of players can be on 4 teams, which means either two single spots, or one doubles pair. This means that these two players won't determine the match entirely.

Now, imagine if more players were allowed to play on multiple teams at the same time? Then it would be like mercenaries, with the mercenaries playing the most tennis.

pagepa 03-07-2007 03:59 PM

Cindysphinx, I'm in the same section as you. Mid-Atlantic. This is a Mid-Atlantic rule, not a National or District rule. My understanding of this rule is that it is intended to keep the same teams from dominating different leagues. If you look at the geographic area in the Mid-Atlantic section, you can see where this rule came from. 3 Districts (MD, Wash DC and VA / NOVA) are so close together that players can easily play in all 3 Districts at the same time. I imagine it was a problem in the past and that's probably why that rule came to be.

tennis-n-sc 03-07-2007 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx (Post 1298513)
That's how it was explained to me. If the memberships of the 3.5 and 3.0 teams overlapped too much, this could be a problem at districts and beyond.

I think the rule stinks. If we want to run the risk of defaulting matches because of too much overlap, that's our problem, isn't it? Besides, what are the chances that a 3.5 team with a bunch of 3.0s would make it to districts anyway?

More likely than you would think. Here, if you are on more than one team than advances, you have to elect which team roster you advance on. Can't be both if both are playing in the same championship. It would be a nightmare for the directors to try to work around everyone's schedule. If it didn't happen, there wouldn't be a rule about it. Cindy, as involved as you are, why don't you volunteer for local USTA work? They always need people and you obviously have the interest and energy for it.

raiden031 03-08-2007 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pagepa (Post 1298961)
Cindysphinx, I'm in the same section as you. Mid-Atlantic. This is a Mid-Atlantic rule, not a National or District rule. My understanding of this rule is that it is intended to keep the same teams from dominating different leagues. If you look at the geographic area in the Mid-Atlantic section, you can see where this rule came from. 3 Districts (MD, Wash DC and VA / NOVA) are so close together that players can easily play in all 3 Districts at the same time. I imagine it was a problem in the past and that's probably why that rule came to be.

Actually this makes alot more sense than it would restricting teammates playing across different NTRP levels.

I know many people that play in two leagues in MD and one in DC at the same time.

JLyon 03-08-2007 08:56 AM

you do not need the rule. All you need to use is USTA rules that forces you to choose a team once you advance to the sectional level, so you could not play for 3 different sectional level teams.

tennis-n-sc 03-08-2007 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLyon (Post 1300201)
you do not need the rule. All you need to use is USTA rules that forces you to choose a team once you advance to the sectional level, so you could not play for 3 different sectional level teams.

Local, state and sectional rules have the ability to tighten USTA rules and most do to tweak them for their own use. They just can't make them more lax and all changes have an approval ritual they have to go through, including legal clarification.

Raiden.Kaminari 03-09-2007 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLyon (Post 1300201)
you do not need the rule. All you need to use is USTA rules that forces you to choose a team once you advance to the sectional level, so you could not play for 3 different sectional level teams.

USTA should be consistent and make it so that you can only play in one play-off for any given NTRP level. This greatly reduces the chances of the same two (insert number) players on multiple teams always reaching post season play.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse