Delayed DQ?

[TennisOTM]

I was just looking at one of the Sectionals results from SoCal, because @schmke posted about it on his blog:

It happened again, SoCal has an undefeated team sent home from Sectionals

I wrote several months ago that the SoCal section appeared to be running their Sectionals using an unflighted round-robin format that was b...

computerratings.blogspot.com

It was 18+ women's 3.5, and the blog post was about an undefeated team getting sent home because there were five 3-0 teams after an unflighted 3-match round-robin among 18 teams, and only four teams could advance to the semis.

However when I look at the standings in Tennislink now, they look different than what @schmke posted at the time. It looks like the previous 4th-place team (BC) got bumped up the 3rd place, because one of their 3-2 wins was changed to 4-1 after a singles opponent was DQ'ed, and that changed the tie-breakers in the standings.

But BC played the 1st-place team in the semifinals the next day, so it appears the old standings were used as the DQ had not been applied yet. Aren't DQ's supposed to get applied the same day (or later that night) that the offending match occurred? What if the DQ had caused the teams in the top 4 to change?

 

[J_R_B]

Was the third strike *in* the semis or finals? If so, all of the sectionals results would be overturned, but they obviously wouldn't go back and replay the semis if the DQ affected tiebreakers in the round robin standings. This is why all undefeated teams should get a chance to play (in some form, even if it is a shortened format. This situation would suck. Any situation where you win every one of your matches but can't advance because of some stupid tiebreaker is awful for those players.

 

[TennisOTM]

Was the third strike *in* the semis or finals? If so, all of the sectionals results would be overturned, but they obviously wouldn't go back and replay the semis if the DQ affected tiebreakers in the round robin standings. This is why all undefeated teams should get a chance to play (in some form, even if it is a shortened format. This situation would suck. Any situation where you win every one of your matches but can't advance because of some stupid tiebreaker is awful for those players.

No the 3rd strike was in a round robin match, and that defaulted line should have changed the seeding for the semi-finals.

If the DQ had been registered the night that the 3rd-strike match was played, then there could have been time to change the semi-final matchups that were scheduled for the next day. But it seems that didn't happen.

Yes I agree on the awfulness of sending home an undefeated team. 18 teams is way too many to do this kind of unflighted round robin with 3 matches.

 

[schmke]

Some sections elect to let Sectionals play out and only check for strikes/DQs after the event. But from the SoCal regulations:

USTA SoCal will run dynamic calculations after each round of Sectional Championships. Timing will be determined based on competition format.

The last sentence is sufficiently vague. But also this:

USTA SoCal opts to run dynamic ratings after each completed round of play

So I'd expect them to check after each round, but if a strike occurred in the semis they don't go back and change results from round robin as that ship has sailed, but this appears to be a DQ during round-robin. That should have been checked on the 10th, but the DQ'd player shows a DQ date of the 11th. So they just ran it late, or perhaps it wasn't a straight 3-strikes DQ and there was a grievance after the semis started.

I can definitely see how it would have been a 3rd strike though.

 

[J_R_B]

Some sections elect to let Sectionals play out and only check for strikes/DQs after the event. But from the SoCal regulations:



The last sentence is sufficiently vague. But also this:



So I'd expect them to check after each round, but if a strike occurred in the semis they don't go back and change results from round robin as that ship has sailed, but this appears to be a DQ during round-robin. That should have been checked on the 10th, but the DQ'd player shows a DQ date of the 11th. So they just ran it late, or perhaps it wasn't a straight 3-strikes DQ and there was a grievance after the semis started.

I can definitely see how it would have been a 3rd strike though.

Oof. That's a bad mistake if they didn't run the strike reports right after that round of matches even thought their own rules say they should. Middle States does that, but we don't have 18 teams, so there is only a round robin (where all six teams play each other) and no semis or finals. That's the sort of lack of attention to details that could lead to a law suit if people get really salty about it.

 

[TennisOTM]

Some sections elect to let Sectionals play out and only check for strikes/DQs after the event. But from the SoCal regulations:



The last sentence is sufficiently vague. But also this:



So I'd expect them to check after each round, but if a strike occurred in the semis they don't go back and change results from round robin as that ship has sailed, but this appears to be a DQ during round-robin. That should have been checked on the 10th, but the DQ'd player shows a DQ date of the 11th. So they just ran it late, or perhaps it wasn't a straight 3-strikes DQ and there was a grievance after the semis started.

I can definitely see how it would have been a 3rd strike though.

Thanks. Pretty interesting that different sections handle DQs with very different policies. Would be interesting to hear the rationale from different areas on how they chose their rules.

If SoCal make a mistake here, it's not so bad that the only effect was the 3rd/4th seeding. Imagine if the change had put the 5th-place undefeated team into the top 4! Yikes.

At least now from the updated standing the 5th place team got sent home on a reasonable tie-breaker: match W/L record instead of the terrible games lost criterion.

 

[naylor73]

That's the sort of lack of attention to details that could lead to a law suit if people get really salty about it.

USTA has all sorts of loopholes and obscure language written into their rules. Is it accidental or by design?

 

[Moon Shooter]

Suing usta over this? I didn't think you won money for winning nationals. What would you sue them for? A trophy?

So if someone is dqed during sectionals do all the teams that played the dqed person get a 6-0 6-0 win? It would seem to make sense to let it play out for that event. I guess they wouldn’t want the guy who was dqed to lose big to a c rated player or something.

 

[schmke]

Suing usta over this? I didn't think you won money for winning nationals. What would you sue them for? A trophy?

So if someone is dqed during sectionals do all the teams that played the dqed person get a 6-0 6-0 win? It would seem to make sense to let it play out for that event. I guess they wouldn’t want the guy who was dqed to lose big to a c rated player or something.

National gives sections two options for handling DQs during Sectionals.

One is to check strikes after each match and any DQd player has their matches in that phase reversed and standings updated. So if the format is round-robin and the DQ happens during that phase, standings can change. If the format is a playoff bracket or the DQ happens in the semis/final after being seeded from round-robin, just that match in question gets reversed.

Two is to only check for DQs after the event and let all play stand.

Pros and cons of each approach, but IMHO the first is what should be used for a number of reasons I've stated previously here and on my blog.