Opposing team has 7 players. (USTA)

[Startzel]

The potentially-defaulting captain certainly has more control and responsibility for the situation than the opposing captain.
And again you ignore the scenario where despite best intentions, the default is going to happen.
Out of respect for other forum members, I'm not going to continue this discussion further.

I would hope you wouldn't continue this discussion when you're legitimately trying to argue the defaulting captain has more control over whether or not a match is rescheduled than the opposing captain.

It's a shame we live in a world where people just can't admit they were wrong. It's more common to just run from the conversation than just acknowledge you misspoke.

 

[OrangePower]

But let me pose a variation of this question to those of you who keep insisting on "sportsmanlike play" over trying to win. What if you have a league match where the team score is 2-2 with the #1 singles match yet to finish. Your #1 singles player is getting his butt kicked by a clearly superior player and you are going to lose the court and the team match. Then his opponent trips while charging for a short ball and badly sprains his ankle. He chooses not to default and insists on playing on. Clearly he is badly hobbled and his game greatly diminished. Your player's only chance at winning is to NOT go for winners, but to keep the ball in play and run his injured and hobbling opponent---up and back, side to side, corner to corner---beating away at the injured ankle and picking up cheap points whenever the opponent can't get to balls. Should your player adopt this unsportsmanlike tactic to try to win an otherwise unwinnable match---or should he keep playing as he has all match, trading errors with an opponent who has a huge lead, and losing badly? And don't tell me they aren't the same thing because they are exactly the same thing---you make a choice, within the rules, to be a nice person and loose or you compete with every legal strategy in your effort to win. Maybe some of you would advise your player to change nothing and lose sportsmanlike. I doubt it, but maybe. I wouldn't.

A few thoughts about this:
1. I don't agree that it's a great analogy, because in your example we're talking about on-court playing tactics, versus off the court logistics that impact the "game of winning at team tennis" but don't have to do with actual on-court tennis play.
2. But at any rate, I would agree that it's a judgement call and there is no single answer for each situation. In each case you need to find the right balance between competitiveness and good sportsmanship. In some scenarios, the right answer is very clear, in other scenarios, not so clear.
3. In your specific example, I would not advise my player either way, because coaching is not allowed ;-) But to answer your question, if I was that player, I would try change my style as needed to get the win.
4. Getting back to notifications of defaults, one of the reasons I would be in favor of making it a rule (that defaults have to be made known ahead of time) is to prevent the dilemma you present. Once it's a rule, then one no longer has to make that choice between doing all within the rules to win vs doing the right thing.

 

[OrangePower]

I would hope you wouldn't continue this discussion when you're legitimately trying to argue the defaulting captain has more control over whether or not a match is rescheduled than the opposing captain.

It's a shame we live in a world where people just can't admit they were wrong. It's more common to just run from the conversation than just acknowledge you misspoke.

Clearly I am not wrong; however, I have nothing further to add - I've said all I have to say.
This is the point where both counsel have concluded their arguments, and now we will let the jury decide.

 

[Bluefan75]

Yes, storypeddler, I think your analogy is off for the simple fact that a player took the court. If you're well enough to take the court, you're well enough to deal with whatever comes your way(in terms of shot quality etc.) If a guy turns his ankle huge halfway through a home match and has to retire, yes it sucks for the traveler, but nobody knows when an opponent might get injured. Both guys took the court in good faith to play a match.

That is far different from knowing a couple days before that someone wouldn't show up. I would go so far as to say it's far different from knowing an hour before a match someone won't be showing up.

Like you said though, if you at all can, you would notify. So as much as you are trying to win, you do draw a line as to how far you will go to win.

 

[Startzel]

We played a team last night in 40+. Line 1 singles and doubles were on the court. An extra court opened up and our captain was talking to their captain about starting another match. The other captain said we're defaulting line 4 doubles but could start line 2 doubles. It sucks for our guys that showed up and were looking forward to playing. One guy hadn't played all season and now won't get to.

This example kind of highlights the reason why TT has a skewed perspective of the issue. So we are upset about players coming to matches and not playing, but we aren't upset the captain put winning first instead of playing a player who hadn't gotten to play all season?

Seems like the captain should have shown some courtesy and just played the players who ended up not getting to play.

 

[brettatk]

This example kind of highlights the reason why TT has a skewed perspective of the issue. So we are upset about players coming to matches and not playing, but we aren't upset the captain put winning first instead of playing a player who hadn't gotten to play all season?

Seems like the captain should have shown some courtesy and just played the players who ended up not getting to play.

Well in this case as I mentioned our captain didn't get the email from the other captain saying he was forfeiting. So basically the lineup card had already been exchanged, so he couldn't have adjusted his lineup. He just didn't notice the forfeit at line 4 doubles at first glance. To be honest, I wouldn't disagree with what he did had he known. This was an important match and every win counts. If we weren't in contention I feel he certainly would have gotten him in. The guy in question did pull out of a match earlier in the season with a bogus reason. With a big roster, it's been tough enough for the captain to get everyone qualified if we should go to State.

 

[storypeddler]

Okay---last comment on this one.

There is no hard and fast rule about how this MUST be handled, so in the absence of that, there is no cut and dried principle about how it SHOULD be handled. If you deem it unsportsmanlike to not tell an opposing team about a planned default, then tell them. If, on the other hand, you are from the camp that considers USTA league tennis competitive play and the primary goal is to give your team the best chance at a win, then don't tell them and let the chips fall where they may.

I understand both points of view. I just get so sick and tired of hearing people on here moralizing to others about how the game "should" be played. If people aren't breaking any rule of the game, get off their backs and let them play the way they want. If you don't like that, then lobby to get a rule change. But stop denigrating people who happen to see (and approach) the game differently than you do. It's so arrogant.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Guys, here's the thing---people on here tend to come from one of two general schools of thought regarding USTA league matches. One group looks at league play as an organized opportunity to get to play more tennis, and that's really the bottom line for them. The second group looks at USTA league play as a competitive tennis event and the goal is to win your team matches, and try to win your league and advance to district and/or sectional and/or national play. I understand the position of the first group completely---but personally, I am part of the second group. Those who see leagues as "fun" tennis care more about the opportunity to play than about winning. Yes, they try to play well, but the play is the thing. Those of us who look at league play as competitive tennis are more concerned with winning as a team than about everyone having a fun time every match. I don't think either position is wrong---they are just somewhat in opposition because they are seeking two different outcomes.

If you were a high school basketball coach, would you let your opponents know ahead of time that your best player had been sick or has an injury that might prevent him from playing? Would you want them to have lots of time to prepare a different game plan based on that knowledge? No, you wouldn't. If you were playing in a tournament, would you tell your opponent before a match that you had asthma and so your endurance wasn't very good? No, of course not. You wouldn;t reveal a potential weakness if you didn't have to. All that is part of coaching strategy to give you a better chance at winning the game. There is nothing wrong with that.

I fully realize that many on here like to mock and ridicule those of us who take our league play seriously. They always remind us that we are not playing for money or scholarships. I understand that position---and it is their right to hold it. They can play league tennis purely for fun if they wish and there is nothing wrong with that. But there is also nothing wrong with viewing USTA league play as competitive tennis where we place a real value on winning and losing. I play a lot locally for fun---I play with friends and I play in a couple club leagues where is it primarily friendly tennis and people have a beer afterward and sit and talk. But I play USTA leagues purely because they ARE competitive tennis with something at stake---a chance to win and advance to higher levels of competition.

Sometimes people from the first group run into people from the second group in USTA league matches, and when they do, those of the first group can't understand why their opponents take it all so seriously and make winning so important, even to the point of rolling line-ups. They insist they would never do that because it takes away from the fun of the game. Those from the second group, like me, don't understand why we should be demonized for playing by the rules and within the rules to maximize our chances of winning matches. I don't cheat and I would never knowingly take a point from an opponent unfairly. But that's not what we are talking about here. From my perspective, someone who plays primarily JUST for the fun of it should, perhaps, reevaluate whether they want to play USTA league tennis. Those players who play for fun have all sorts of opportunities to do so every day. Those of us who play for the competition and the chance to win have limited opportunities. We take it seriously because that's how we are---we like to compete and the goal is to get the win. Arranging line-ups cleverly and not revealing weaknesses to an opponent ahead of time are part of reasonable strategy and I don't apologize for that. As a captain, if I have an opposing team coming from an hour away, I will typically let them know if I am going to be short a player or two. BUT that is simply a courtesy, not a rule requirement. If my team drives an hour and takes 8 players only to find our opponents only have 7, I am more than happy to take the default win. Personally, I would rather drive the hour and get the sure line win by default than be assured of playing but likely lose that line. That's because to me, this is about the team winning and not about each and every single player having "fun" every time out.

I'm a serious competitor, but when I play "fun" tennis, I relax and don't focus so much on winning or losing but on enjoying the camaraderie. Likewise, if you are a "fun" player who enters competitive league play, you should be aware that many of us there DO care about the winning because that's how we live life. We compete. Hard and seriously. For us, the fun is in the hard fight and coming out on top---or giving everything we have to do so. To mock us or denigrate us for using every legal means to increase our opportunity to win is petty and self-serving. You play for fun---some of us play to win. If your player getting a free default win isn't enough, then he shouldn't be playing in a competitive league where the goal is winning, not how much fun you had. He should play in club social events and have fun.

I'm sorry if some of you very good players disagree, but for many of us, we compete just as hard and just seriously at the 3.5 or 4.0 or 4.5 level as any of you do at your own higher level. We take winning and losing just as seriously as you do---not because there is money or glory attached, but because we have competitive spirits, and that matters to us. The message I have on the bottom of my email and on my voicemail is, "Wherever you go, whatever you face, in all you do today, be a warrior!" That's how I live my life. I don't apologize for it. I would never cheat an opponent, Ever. But I have every right, within the rules, to use every legal strategy to win a match. I don't apologize for that either. Sorry if some of you can't understand that.

Having been on the receiving end of the "drove an hour away, only to find my opponent defaulted my match"... I think you're putting too much value on winning, and need another outlet(s) for winning.
This isn't school tennis.
This is a socially competitive league amongst folks with wives, kids, mortgages, job responsibilities, businesses, etc... It's not trivial for most folks to get to matches... need to leave work early, catch trains, fight traffic, etc...
If someone in my league didn't inform me of a default, and made my guy(s) drive up to them, because they thought they had a chance of getting a double default, I'd boycott every future match I had with them.

 

[Startzel]

Having been on the receiving end of the "drove an hour away, only to find my opponent defaulted my match"... I think you're putting too much value on winning, and need another outlet(s) for winning.
This isn't school tennis.
This is a socially competitive league amongst folks with wives, kids, mortgages, job responsibilities, businesses, etc... It's not trivial for most folks to get to matches... need to leave work early, catch trains, fight traffic, etc...
If someone in my league didn't inform me of a default, and made my guy(s) drive up to them, because they thought they had a chance of getting a double default, I'd boycott every future match I had with them.

If league tennis is that big of a hassle for you, it would probably be better for you just to not play league tennis.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

If league tennis is that big of a hassle for you, it would probably be better for you just to not play league tennis.

It wouldn't be such a big hassle if the defaulting captain informed the other captain in advance. To me, this is common courtesy. Yes, it's MY definition of common courtesy, one with which anyone can disagree.

For example, if I committed to being at a restaurant for dinner and I couldn't make it, I would inform the other party rather than have them show up for nothing. "I'm sorry sir," the maitre'd would inform my intended dinner companion, "but Mr. S&V is defaulting dinner." I assume you would NOT do this but I see a link between the tennis and the restaurant examples. You probably do not see a link.

Yes, I know the counter-argument you're about to make that informing the other team gives them a double advantage of winning a point AND being able to rearrange the lineup [tough luck; stuff happens] and the non-defaulting player should be happy to show up and cheer on his team anyway to build camaraderie [not informing the captain means the player didn't have a choice; if I was the non-defaulting player, I would like to have a choice].

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

This example kind of highlights the reason why TT has a skewed perspective of the issue.

"Skewed" relative to what? Or whom?

I assume you mean relative to you. So all of TT is skewed relative to you. One could also say you are skewed relative to all of TT. And, in fact, most people would place the single sample in the skewed/outlier category rather than the rest of the samples.

Also, do you believe the distribution would be markedly different if asking a broader audience? I have no proof but I don't think so.

So we are upset about players coming to matches and not playing, but we aren't upset the captain put winning first instead of playing a player who hadn't gotten to play all season?

These are 2 separate issues. You appear to be trying to skirt the 1st by bringing up the 2nd [classic strawman] so I'll address them separately.

"we are upset about players coming to matches and not playing"
Yes. Even if I wasn't directly affected it would annoy me that someone knew he wasn't going to show up and the captain did not have the common courtesy to inform my captain. It would bother me even more if I was the one affected. I think most of TT agree with this. [This is independent of your subsequent argument that I shouldn't care because I should just be happy to show up and cheer for my team, etc.]

"but we aren't upset the captain put winning first instead of playing a player who hadn't gotten to play all season"
Whether one gets upset depends on the philosophy of the captain and if it was communicated clearly a priori. If the goal is to win, then nobody should be upset, including the bench rider: he knew what he was getting into. OTOH, if the "just win, baby" concept was not clearly communicated or if captain Dr. Jekyll initially said he would try to play everyone equally but then morphed into captain Mr. Hyde when it looked like they might make it to sectionals, then the bench rider has every right to be upset.

Note that this was never part of the original post. You introduced it.

Seems like the captain should have shown some courtesy and just played the players who ended up not getting to play.

Again, it depends on the philosophy of the team; it's not a black or white scenario, IMO.

 

[Startzel]

"Skewed" relative to what? Or whom?

I assume you mean relative to you. So all of TT is skewed relative to you. One could also say you are skewed relative to all of TT. And, in fact, most people would place the single sample in the skewed/outlier category rather than the rest of the samples.

Also, do you believe the distribution would be markedly different if asking a broader audience? I have no proof but I don't think so.



These are 2 separate issues. You appear to be trying to skirt the 1st by bringing up the 2nd [classic strawman] so I'll address them separately.

"we are upset about players coming to matches and not playing"
Yes. Even if I wasn't directly affected it would annoy me that someone knew he wasn't going to show up and the captain did not have the common courtesy to inform my captain. It would bother me even more if I was the one affected. I think most of TT agree with this. [This is independent of your subsequent argument that I shouldn't care because I should just be happy to show up and cheer for my team, etc.]

"but we aren't upset the captain put winning first instead of playing a player who hadn't gotten to play all season"
Whether one gets upset depends on the philosophy of the captain and if it was communicated clearly a priori. If the goal is to win, then nobody should be upset, including the bench rider: he knew what he was getting into. OTOH, if the "just win, baby" concept was not clearly communicated or if captain Dr. Jekyll initially said he would try to play everyone equally but then morphed into captain Mr. Hyde when it looked like they might make it to sectionals, then the bench rider has every right to be upset.

Note that this was never part of the original post. You introduced it.



Again, it depends on the philosophy of the team; it's not a black or white scenario, IMO.

You should stop using these terms you don't understand. Yesterday you misused non sequitur and now you're incorrectly using the term straw man.

At least you've confirmed you're not actually upset the player didn't get to play. I appreciate that honestly.

 

[Chip 'n Charge]

You should stop using these terms you don't understand. Yesterday you misused non sequitur and now you're incorrectly using the term straw man.

At least you've confirmed you're not actually upset the player didn't get to play. I appreciate that honestly.

Truely you have a dizzying intellect -- I suggest you change your profile to Vizzini.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You should stop using these terms you don't understand. Yesterday you misused non sequitur

Show me.

and now you're incorrectly using the term straw man.

You might have a point. Maybe "red herring" was more apropos. But there were straw man elements in your response also. I was torn between which mischaracterization you used.

At least you've confirmed you're not actually upset the player didn't get to play. I appreciate that honestly.

Which, of course, I did not. I wrote

"Even if I wasn't directly affected it would annoy me that someone knew he wasn't going to show up and the captain did not have the common courtesy to inform my captain. It would bother me even more if I was the one affected."

Not sure where you found anything in that paragraph that leads you to your conclusion. Honestly.

[Actually, I do know: you didn't find anything that supports your conclusion in my post so you just threw that line out there.]

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Truely you have a dizzying intellect -- I suggest you change your profile to Vizzini.

"Wait 'til I get going! Where was I?"

"Australian."

"Yes, Australian! And you must have known I would have suspected the formation's origins, so I can clearly not choose the racquet in front of me."

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

So my captain recently emailed us and said the opposing team will be forfeiting a line on Sunday. What?! Doesn't the other captain know the horrible double penalty he will be subjected to? Why in the world would he tell us he's forfeiting in advance and allow my devious, crafty captain to completely refashion the lineup, thus altering the course of Western Civilization [and possibly even the league standings]? Oh yeah, because it's common courtesy and what most captains would do.

FWIW, my captain is not planning on re-doing the lineup to maximize the chance of victory but to play those who've played the least # of matches this season. What is the world coming to?

 

[Startzel]

Sounds like your captain is a jerk for making the team forefeit instead of rescheduling.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Sounds like your captain is a jerk for making the team forefeit instead of rescheduling.

Not an option in our league. An attempt was made to start 2 hours earlier, which is allowed, but that fell through; I don't know why.

Also, he didn't "make them forfeit": he was informed by the other captain, via common courtesy, that they would be forfeiting a line.

For some reason, you are desperate to prove that the captain receiving the default is the bad guy.

 

[NTRPolice]

It's always nice to inform an opposing team of a default known in advance. However, there isnt any rule i've heard of that requires you to do so. If you do it, you're "nice". If you dont do it, it doesnt make you necessarily evil.

Also, if you tell someone you're going to default a line, you must default that line. It's not nice to tell someone you're going to default, only to not default on the day of.

Because this has happened before, one league here REQUIRES your player to show up if you want to claim the default on that line. If that player doesnt show up, it's a "double default" on that line. Most captains do not observe this rule, but if push comes to shove, they are going to ask which player showed up to decide which team gets the win, regardless of any email exchanges prior to the match. Same thing is done about location/time disputes. The "master schedule" decides who gets the win if there is a "no show", regardless of any changes to location/time made by the captains.

If you have a good relationship with another captain you can probably tell them you're going to default as a courtesy. If you're unsure about a captain, I wouldnt consider it a strike against your character to choose the rules over courtesy. There are captains here that I wont give an inch to, because being "nice" to them is only going to create more problems than strictly going by the rules. One time there was a rescheduling dispute, where they wanted to reschedule the match at their location (original match location) which is very far for us. I told them nowhere in the rules does it say we have to reschedule the same place as the original match, which started some fireworks. All I wanted them to do was meet us halfway for the reschedule, since we did drive all the way out there for the original match. This ended up having to be escalated, but, suffice to say, the "showdown" location was halfway between both of us! We show up on the day of (determined by the league coordinator), they're a complete no show. Ever since that day, we go strictly "by the rules" with this team. I make it clear to all team members they must be on site 30 mins before the match starts against this team or I will change the lineup, since the lineup must be exchanged right on time and "late" penalties start counting down immediately.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It's always nice to inform an opposing team of a default known in advance. However, there isnt any rule i've heard of that requires you to do so. If you do it, you're "nice". If you dont do it, it doesnt make you necessarily evil.

Also, if you tell someone you're going to default a line, you must default that line. It's not nice to tell someone you're going to default, only to not default on the day of.

Because this has happened before, one league here REQUIRES your player to show up if you want to claim the default on that line. If that player doesnt show up, it's a "double default" on that line. Most captains do not observe this rule, but if push comes to shove, they are going to ask which player showed up to decide which team gets the win, regardless of any email exchanges prior to the match. Same thing is done about location/time disputes. The "master schedule" decides who gets the win if there is a "no show", regardless of any changes to location/time made by the captains.

If you have a good relationship with another captain you can probably tell them you're going to default as a courtesy. If you're unsure about a captain, I wouldnt consider it a strike against your character to choose the rules over courtesy. There are captains here that I wont give an inch to, because being "nice" to them is only going to create more problems than strictly going by the rules. One time there was a rescheduling dispute, where they wanted to reschedule the match at their location (original match location) which is very far for us. I told them nowhere in the rules does it say we have to reschedule the same place as the original match, which started some fireworks. All I wanted them to do was meet us halfway for the reschedule, since we did drive all the way out there for the original match. This ended up having to be escalated, but, suffice to say, the "showdown" location was halfway between both of us! We show up on the day of (determined by the league coordinator), they're a complete no show. Ever since that day, we go strictly "by the rules" with this team. I make it clear to all team members they must be on site 30 mins before the match starts against this team or I will change the lineup, since the lineup must be exchanged right on time and "late" penalties start counting down immediately.

Yes, I agree with your caveat about having a good relationship with the other captains. Since the group of captains in question have been playing together in the same league for years, there's trust such that the defaulting captain will inform the non-defaulting captain. If I got burned by someone, I'd be wary of them in the future.

 

[OrangePower]

Yes, I agree with your caveat about having a good relationship with the other captains. Since the group of captains in question have been playing together in the same league for years, there's trust such that the defaulting captain will inform the non-defaulting captain. If I got burned by someone, I'd be wary of them in the future.

Agreed. Most of the captains in my league know each other as well. Actually that's another good reason to let the other Captain know in advance of a default - it gives them the opportunity to offer to reschedule. My team had that happen for a match over Memorial Day weekend. The other captain told us he would have to default a line and we ended up rescheduling the match date. On the other hand we had a team show up short to a match without letting us know and in that situation we're not going to offer a reschedule after they have made two of us show up for nothing.

 

[Startzel]

Agreed. Most of the captains in my league know each other as well. Actually that's another good reason to let the other Captain know in advance of a default - it gives them the opportunity to offer to reschedule. My team had that happen for a match over Memorial Day weekend. The other captain told us he would have to default a line and we ended up rescheduling the match date. On the other hand we had a team show up short to a match without letting us know and in that situation we're not going to offer a reschedule after they have made two of us show up for nothing.

I just can't imagine living in an area where they wouldn't allow you to reschedule. This is how it should be done.

 

[OrangePower]

I just can't imagine living in an area where they wouldn't allow you to reschedule. This is how it should be done.

My area does allow for reschedules. And I would happily reschedule for some captains if they tell me with a day or two advance notice that they are short. But not on the day of the match after my players have all already committed their time for the match.

On the other hand there are captains I would not reschedule for - they have a reputation of asking for reschedules when facing stronger teams and their top few guys are not available (but they have plenty of other players available).

Goes back to what others said about having good relationships with other captains - but not all. We all know each other and know which ones play fair and which ones will just take advantage of those who are too nice.

 

[Startzel]

My area does allow for reschedules. And I would happily reschedule for some captains if they tell me with a day or two advance notice that they are short. But not on the day of the match after my players have all already committed their time for the match.

On the other hand there are captains I would not reschedule for - they have a reputation of asking for reschedules when facing stronger teams and their top few guys are not available (but they have plenty of other players available).

Goes back to what others said about having good relationships with other captains - but not all. We all know each other and know which ones play fair and which ones will just take advantage of those who are too nice.

Sounds exactly like what I argued this thread. If a captain actually would not inform you of a forefeit it's probably more a sign you are an issue than the other captain.

 

[OrangePower]

Sounds exactly like what I argued this thread. If a captain actually would not inform you of a forefeit it's probably more a sign you are an issue than the other captain.

I wouldn't go that far... I would always inform the other captain of a default, even if he is a jerk. Out of respect for the other players if not the captain.

What would be different is how I react if I'm notified of a default. For some captains I'd offer to reschedule but not for others, based on past experience of whether or not there is likely gamesmanship involved.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Sounds exactly like what I argued this thread. If a captain actually would not inform you of a forefeit it's probably more a sign you are an issue than the other captain.

I can't see the logic that allows you to draw this conclusion; perhaps you will explain in more detail.

Orange said there are 2 types of captains:
- Those with whom he'd happily try to reschedule because of mutual respect and a presumed quid pro quo
- Those with whom he'd not reschedule because either A) they give no advance notice [they just show up and announce they are short]; or B) they do it because they happen to be missing some strong players

This seems logical. I would imagine there are several on this board that would agree; I do.

So how exactly does this make Orange the bad guy when faced with a captain in category 2? From the description, it sounds like the defaulting captain is the problem, not the non-defaulting captain. I don't see that Orange has done anything wrong or even unreasonable. The category 2 captain seems to be, based on what I've gathered of your past posts on gamesmanship/cheating, exactly the type of captain that you despise. So it's unclear to me why you go to such lengths to defend this hypothetical captain and blame the other guy.

 

[Startzel]

I can't see the logic that allows you to draw this conclusion; perhaps you will explain in more detail.

Orange said there are 2 types of captains:
- Those with whom he'd happily try to reschedule because of mutual respect and a presumed quid pro quo
- Those with whom he'd not reschedule because either A) they give no advance notice [they just show up and announce they are short]; or B) they do it because they happen to be missing some strong players

This seems logical. I would imagine there are several on this board that would agree; I do.

So how exactly does this make Orange the bad guy when faced with a captain in category 2? From the description, it sounds like the defaulting captain is the problem, not the non-defaulting captain. I don't see that Orange has done anything wrong or even unreasonable. The category 2 captain seems to be, based on what I've gathered of your past posts on gamesmanship/cheating, exactly the type of captain that you despise. So it's unclear to me why you go to such lengths to defend this hypothetical captain and blame the other guy.

If Orange is willing to reschedule when would he ever have a captain just show up without enough players?

 

[NTRPolice]

If Orange is willing to reschedule when would he ever have a captain just show up without enough players?

Because some captains are willing to "roll the dice", not announcing they are short to see if the other team is even more short. If it appears they are "losing the roll" (other team not defaulting more lines; playing super weak players, ect.) then they might ask for a reschedule.

Orange basically doesnt want to give them "two chances to win". If they are willing to tell him they're short, he is more likely to consider a reschedule vs. making all his players show up on the day of, then obliging a reschedule.

 

[OrangePower]

If Orange is willing to reschedule when would he ever have a captain just show up without enough players?

A few scenarios where this has happened (the other team shows up short handed):

1. Unintentional. As in, the other captain thought he had a full lineup, but there was miscommunication or something, and a player(s) did not show up. Usually this happens as a result of incompetent captaining, but once in a while it's due to a player issue. Obviously no default to announce in advance in this scenario.

2. Other captain let me know of a potential default in advance, and I was willing to try reschedule, but we could not make it happen. Sometimes there is just no availability of courts (ours or theirs) for another date that works for both teams, especially late in the season and where there are already other make-up matches to be scheduled.

3. Other captain let me know in advance but I suspect gamesmanship and decline to reschedule. Typically then the other team shows up with a full lineup after all - fancy that! But sometimes they are legitimately short. Tough - that's what happens when you cry wolf too many times and develop a reputation.

4. Other captain is one of the few jerk / highly disorganized captains who just shows up with a short lineup without even thinking to call me ahead of time.

 

[OrangePower]

Because some captains are willing to "roll the dice", not announcing they are short to see if the other team is even more short. If it appears they are "losing the roll" (other team not defaulting more lines; playing super weak players, ect.) then they might ask for a reschedule.

Orange basically doesnt want to give them "two chances to win". If they are willing to tell him they're short, he is more likely to consider a reschedule vs. making all his players show up on the day of, then obliging a reschedule.

Exactly.

 

[Startzel]

Because some captains are willing to "roll the dice", not announcing they are short to see if the other team is even more short. If it appears they are "losing the roll" (other team not defaulting more lines; playing super weak players, ect.) then they might ask for a reschedule.

Orange basically doesnt want to give them "two chances to win". If they are willing to tell him they're short, he is more likely to consider a reschedule vs. making all his players show up on the day of, then obliging a reschedule.

This doesn't make sense. If a captain is rolling the dice at best he's going to get a double default. This scenario would also require both captains to intentionally withhold their defaults.

Orange has already stated he wouldn't do that.

Your last scenario doesn't make sense either. If an opposing captain shows up without enough players why would you reschedule at that point? A captain has to know he's going to **** off the opposing captain in that scenario. So the likelihood of a reschedule would be minimal.

These two examples aren't realistic.

 

[Startzel]

A few scenarios where this has happened (the other team shows up short handed):

1. Unintentional. As in, the other captain thought he had a full lineup, but there was miscommunication or something, and a player(s) did not show up. Usually this happens as a result of incompetent captaining, but once in a while it's due to a player issue. Obviously no default to announce in advance in this scenario.

2. Other captain let me know of a potential default in advance, and I was willing to try reschedule, but we could not make it happen. Sometimes there is just no availability of courts (ours or theirs) for another date that works for both teams, especially late in the season and where there are already other make-up matches to be scheduled.

3. Other captain let me know in advance but I suspect gamesmanship and decline to reschedule. Typically then the other team shows up with a full lineup after all - fancy that! But sometimes they are legitimately short. Tough - that's what happens when you cry wolf too many times and develop a reputation.

4. Other captain is one of the few jerk / highly disorganized captains who just shows up with a short lineup without even thinking to call me ahead of time.

None of these examples fit with what's being discussed.

#3 highlights probably why #4 doesn't bother to tell you.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

If Orange is willing to reschedule when would he ever have a captain just show up without enough players?

Asked and answered:

"On the other hand there are captains I would not reschedule for - they have a reputation of asking for reschedules when facing stronger teams and their top few guys are not available (but they have plenty of other players available)."

You either
- didn't read this part of his post
- didn't understand this part of his post
- read but dismissed as irrelevant this part of his post because it doesn't fit within your worldview

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

None of these examples fit with what's being discussed.

#3 highlights probably why #4 doesn't bother to tell you.

Odd: I interpreted #3 and #4 to be separate issues. I believe that's also what Orange intended [correct me if I'm wrong, Orange]. You see an interconnectedness where I do not.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

This doesn't make sense. If a captain is rolling the dice at best he's going to get a double default. This scenario would also require both captains to intentionally withhold their defaults.

Orange has already stated he wouldn't do that.

Your last scenario doesn't make sense either. If an opposing captain shows up without enough players why would you reschedule at that point? A captain has to know he's going to **** off the opposing captain in that scenario. So the likelihood of a reschedule would be minimal.

These two examples aren't realistic.

I think this is where you are obviously wrong: I believe Orange posted examples that actually have happened. Therefore, they, by definition, are realistic. Maybe not in your neck of the woods or under your philosophy but those don't dictate reality for other people, try as you might to argue this way [that what you think is realistic determines what others think is realistic].

 

[Startzel]

Asked and answered:

"On the other hand there are captains I would not reschedule for - they have a reputation of asking for reschedules when facing stronger teams and their top few guys are not available (but they have plenty of other players available)."

You either
- didn't read this part of his post
- didn't understand this part of his post
- read but dismissed as irrelevant this part of his post because it doesn't fit within your worldview

Can you please explain why a captain would show up without enough players and forefeit a point if he had enough players available to play?

 

[J_R_B]

I think this is where you are obviously wrong: I believe Orange posted examples that actually have happened. Therefore, they, by definition, are realistic. Maybe not in your neck of the woods or under your philosophy but those don't dictate reality for other people, try as you might to argue this way [that what you think is realistic determines what others think is realistic].

"Wrong" is a relative concept to trolls.

 

[Startzel]

Odd: I interpreted #3 and #4 to be separate issues. I believe that's also what Orange intended [correct me if I'm wrong, Orange]. You see an interconnectedness where I do not.

The fact you're oblivious doesn't make you right.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Can you please explain why a captain would show up without enough players and forefeit a point if he had enough players available to play?

I have no idea. That's not what Orange's quote refers to. He posted that the other captain would ask for a reschedule. He also said in a later post that, come match time, this same captain would magically have enough people show up if Orange declined the reschedule request, implying that he had enough players to begin with but was jockeying for the reschedule so his stronger players could play.

OTOH, he did mention category #4:

"Other captain is one of the few jerk / highly disorganized captains who just shows up with a short lineup without even thinking to call me ahead of time."

I have no idea why someone would do that.

At least, that's how I interpreted it. Am I correct, Orange?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The fact you're oblivious doesn't make you right.

Doesn't make me wrong, either!

 

[Startzel]

I have no idea. That's not what Orange's quote refers to. He posted that the other captain would ask for a reschedule. He also said in a later post that, come match time, this same captain would magically have enough people show up if Orange declined the reschedule request, implying that he had enough players to begin with but was jockeying for the reschedule so his stronger players could play.

OTOH, he did mention category #4:

"Other captain is one of the few jerk / highly disorganized captains who just shows up with a short lineup without even thinking to call me ahead of time."

I have no idea why someone would do that.

At least, that's how I interpreted it. Am I correct, Orange?

You have no idea because no captain would intentionally forfeit a point he didn't have to forfeit.

It's a shame you just can't admit you were wrong.

 

[Startzel]

Doesn't make me wrong, either!

It doesn't work that way. Even if you don't realize you're wrong, you're still wrong.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You have no idea because no captain would intentionally forfeit a point he didn't have to forfeit.

I have no idea because I wasn't the one who posted the scenario.

However, I did read what Orange did post:

"4. Other captain is one of the few jerk / highly disorganized captains who just shows up with a short lineup without even thinking to call me ahead of time."

Apparently, Orange outlined a scenario describing exactly what you said wouldn't happen.

It's a shame you just can't admit you were wrong.

Aah, I was waiting for you to employ this particular line. No thread is complete without you lamenting about other people's inability to see how they are wrong and you are right.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It doesn't work that way. Even if you don't realize you're wrong, you're still wrong.

According to you, yes. According to me, no.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I have no idea because I wasn't the one who posted the scenario.

However, I did read what Orange did post:

"4. Other captain is one of the few jerk / highly disorganized captains who just shows up with a short lineup without even thinking to call me ahead of time."

Apparently, Orange outlined a scenario describing exactly what you said wouldn't happen.



Aah, I was waiting for you to employ this particular line. No thread is complete without you lamenting about other people's inability to see how they are wrong and you are right.

Oops, I mis-interpreted what Orange said: Nowhere in his 4 scenarios did he mention a captain intentionally forfeiting when he didn't have to. So you are arguing a non-existent point.

My bad for the mis-interpretation.

 

[Startzel]

Oops, I mis-interpreted what Orange said: Nowhere in his 4 scenarios did he mention a captain intentionally forfeiting when he didn't have to. So you are arguing a non-existent point.

My bad for the mis-interpretation.

You were arguing his scenario #3.

 

[Startzel]

I have no idea because I wasn't the one who posted the scenario.

However, I did read what Orange did post:

"4. Other captain is one of the few jerk / highly disorganized captains who just shows up with a short lineup without even thinking to call me ahead of time."

In this scenario why would the captain inform OrangePower if OP isn't going to work with him to reschedule?

It's OP's fault in that scenario for not working with his other captain.

 

[OrangePower]

All of my examples are scenarios that have happened multiple times.

What I meant by #3 is where a captain tells me he is short, I don't really believe him (because of previous examples of gamesmanship by that captain) and so decline to reschedule, but as it turns out it was legit in this case and he really was short.

Then #4 is the other team just showing without a full lineup (and they knew that they were going to default, as opposed to some last minute emergency or mix-up, which was #1).

I think Startzel is saying that if the other captain suspects that I don't trust him and thus would treat him as #3, he has no incentive to let me know of the default, thus resulting in #4.

The error in this reasoning is two-fold:

1. The other captain should not need the incentive of me potentially rescheduling as a carrot for doing the right thing. You let the other captain know because you respect the time of the players on the other team. If it leads to a reschedule, that's a bonus.

2. The captains I don't trust have earned my distrust (and the distrust of other captains). If they want to regain our trust, the way to do it is to start doing the right thing. Continuing to be a jerk is not going to help their reputation any long term.

 

[Startzel]

1. The other captain should not need the incentive of me potentially rescheduling as a carrot for doing the right thing. You let the other captain know because you respect the time of the players on the other team. If it leads to a reschedule, that's a bonus.

So you expect to other captain to be courteous but you don't want to be courteous?

That's the crux of the argument...

 

[OrangePower]

So you expect to other captain to be courteous but you don't want to be courteous?

That's the crux of the argument..

I am courteous, other than to captains known within our league to take advantage of others' courteousness.
The onus is therefore on those captains to demonstrate that they are trying to change their spots, not on me and other captains to keep extending them courtesy in the hope that they will change.

Regardless, you keep making the incorrect comparison between "offering to reschedule" and "let opposing team know of defaulting lines" as equivalent courtesies. They are not. "Let opposing team know of defaulting lines" is like offering your bus seat to an infirm person who is standing. "Offering to reschedule" is helping them off the bus when they reach their stop. I would expect everyone to do the former, unless they are a jerk. I would think highly of someone doing the latter, but would not necessarily expect people to do it.