"I'm only courteous except those times I'm not courteous."
It isn't a incorrect comparison. You're just looking at it in a different perspective to justify your actions.
Opposing team has 7 players. (USTA)
- Thread starter justinmadison
- Start date
"I'm only courteous except those times I'm not courteous."
It isn't a incorrect comparison. You're just looking at it in a different perspective to justify your actions.
OrangePower
Legend
Na, I'm just looking at it in context of the people actually involved. Since I know them and you don't, you're in no position to make that judgment, other than to be contrarian. Nice try though.
What does the other person have to do with your actions?
Congrats on blaming others instead of taking responsibility for yourself.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
You say this as if to imply it's bad/biased/illogical when it is, in fact, what we all do [yes, you too]. I'm not saying Orange is right and you're wrong a priori [although I'm agreeing with Orange based on my own experience and philosophy]. But your accusation re-enforces my view that you are only capable of looking at things through the prism of your experience and not through any other's. And anyone who interprets things differently is obviously wrong.
To wit: "I realize there is a difference of opinion here. It's just that your opinion is wrong."
Recognize that quote? You wrote it. You just repeated it above in the "perspective" quote, albeit worded differently.
There's a saying that you shouldn't criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Not only are you unwilling to walk the mile, you won't even try the shoes on.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
For some reason, Startzel is determined to paint you as the bad guy and give a free pass to the other captains. Not sure why. It would be interesting to post something where you portray yourself as the other captain and see if he still criticizes you [meaning he's biased against anything you post] or whether he criticizes the first captain and is thus at least consistent in his criticism.
I'm betting on the former.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
It's like the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" skit.
"This isn't an argument."
"Yes it is."
"It's just contradiction."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gain-saying of anything the other person says."
"It is not!"
"Yes it is!"
"Look, if I argue with you I must take up a contrary position."
"Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'!"
"Yes it is!"
...
At some point you have to accept the fact that people will be wrong at times.It's just an elementary argument to argue, "I can't be wrong because it's my opinion."
No, I will never intentionally argue an incorrect argument just to be equal. I don't understand with your fascination to argue wrong points of view.
OrangePower
Legend
Our actions with respect to another person are greatly influenced by the relationship / past experiences we have with that person.
If you choose to ignore this for the sake of making your argument, then you are either being disingenuous, or else you are truly completely oblivious to reality.
OrangePower
Legend
I think he is being deliberately provocative (others might categorize it as trolling - it's a fine line).
Of course there is the outside chance that he is truly oblivious and unable to see past his own dogma.
Either way I find it somewhat amusing in small doses, but it does get old.
I understand this, but it's a completely different argument than what we are discussing.
You're arguing, "Officer I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because the guy beside me was speeding as well."
Maybe your past experience shows your opposing captain is a jerk, but why does that give you a free pass to be a jerk as well?
I don't attempt to provoke anyone. I just think it does a disservice to not to tell someone they're wrong when they're wrong.
OrangePower
Legend
Since he has proven to be untrustworthy in the past, my suspicion would be that he is trying to scam me in some way. So I would not be my usual accommodating self towards him. We've been through this already.
I understand why you do it.
What you seem to be missing is that it doesn't make it ok.
kylebarendrick
Professional
The team that is short players is at fault, in the wrong, etc. If you sign up for a league you are supposed to make yourself available to play. As a captain, I know that rescheduling can be tough and late in the season it can be almost impossible. I have no problem accepting a line default from another team. I'm not going to go out of my way to offer to reschedule. They are the ones the screwed up and I don't need the extra work (find a new date where both teams are available and I can find courts, negotiate with my team to create a new lineup, etc.).
That said, I have almost always requested a request to reschedule - although sometimes with some conditions (you guys are bringing beer, we are changing the location, etc.). When I haven't accepted it has been because I have a full team for the original date and I wouldn't if we changed it. That, and the team that asks to reschedule because sectionals for a different league are that weekend. It is always fun to look at their 20-person roster and see that only their 3 top players are on that sectional team. That is when I start asking for serious concessions (you are paying the court fees, bringing the balls, bringing food and beer, shining our shoes, supplying trainers for pre-match massages...)
That said, I have almost always requested a request to reschedule - although sometimes with some conditions (you guys are bringing beer, we are changing the location, etc.). When I haven't accepted it has been because I have a full team for the original date and I wouldn't if we changed it. That, and the team that asks to reschedule because sectionals for a different league are that weekend. It is always fun to look at their 20-person roster and see that only their 3 top players are on that sectional team. That is when I start asking for serious concessions (you are paying the court fees, bringing the balls, bringing food and beer, shining our shoes, supplying trainers for pre-match massages...)
OrangePower
Legend
I readily admit that I am sometimes an unaccommodating jerk towards captains who have repeatedly tried to scam me in the past.
And I have no qualms about it.
Perhaps you are more of a turn-the-other-cheek kinda of guy than I am - although one does not really get that impression from your posts.
But if so, I take my hat off to you.
OrangePower
Legend
Haha that is so spot on!
There are one or two captains in my league who do this - they say they are short and want to reschedule, but in reality it's exactly what you said in the bolded part. They have plenty of availability but their top 2-3 guys are not available. I don't have much sympathy for these captains. We all have weeks where our top players are not available and that why we carry larger rosters. Most of us will just go with whoever we have without whining about it. Why even bother having 20 on the roster if you're going to insist on playing the same guys every single week? And how is it fair to the players 9-20 that they are barely going to get to play.
wow. Trying to pick up a cheap win because the other team's best players are at sectional.
It's funny how you guys try to tell me my assumptions aren't true but they seemingly always end up being proven correct.
OrangePower
Legend
Now you are just being funny
It's a given that not all the players on a team are going to be available for every match, for various reasons - vacations, injuries, sectionals, family commitments, whatever. That's why teams typically have anywhere between 12 (aggressive) and 20 (conservative) players when only 8 are needed per match. Managing around player availability issues is part of the captain's job. And having depth on a team is as important as having a few strong players. Otherwise, why bother having any more than 8 on the roster?
Since you have repeatedly voiced your displeasure at teams who employ ringers, I'm surprised that you would take the side of teams who are top heavy and ride the ringers versus teams who are solid all around and spread matches across the roster.
kylebarendrick
Professional
You have it backwards my friend. I'm merely trying to field a team to play on the date that was scheduled by the league coordinator. It is the other captain that is trying to move the date because they are afraid they might lose. Anyone who knows me knows that I put my players ahead of team wins. I do my best to do the "right thing" with my opponents based on the idea that what goes around comes around - but some captains just take that as an opportunity to take advantage every time they can. As I wrote above, scheduling is a pain in the rear so I don't take reschedules lightly.
Now you are just being funny
It's a given that not all the players on a team are going to be available for every match, for various reasons - vacations, injuries, sectionals, family commitments, whatever. That's why teams typically have anywhere between 12 (aggressive) and 20 (conservative) players when only 8 are needed per match. Managing around player availability issues is part of the captain's job. And having depth on a team is as important as having a few strong players. Otherwise, why bother having any more than 8 on the roster?
Since you have repeatedly voiced your displeasure at teams who employ ringers, I'm surprised that you would take the side of teams who are top heavy and ride the ringers versus teams who are solid all around and spread matches across the roster.
You're surprised I would take the side of fairness?
I just don't know how you can consider sectionals the same thing as a family vacation.
How is rescheduling because your players out of town for sectionals taking advantage of anything?
In my local area teams are required to reschedule for other championships. It's common sense you don't punish a team for another team playing in a championship.
Where i live it is very unlikely to move the match for defaulting a line. It says in the league rules that you can ask but generally must be played on scheduled date. One of the few exceptions is usta events. Decent percent must be granted. People can try and work it out, but generally one migt get 1 a year total.
To expand, we have clubs where there is no league play allowed on week nights and the courts are scheduled fairly full on weekends so getting a time is almost impossible at some places. Ask couple weeks ahead of time,due to known issues people will work with you. Coule days vefore, no luck.
OrangePower
Legend
Fairness would be playing the players on your roster that are available. They signed on to the team, they deserve to get a chance to play, if not regularly then at least when others are not available.
Putting the onus on your opponents and expecting them to reschedule because your 2-3 ringers are not available that week doesn't sound like fairness to me.
So yeah, I'm surprised by your position, which is decidedly not on the side of fairness.
And how is sectionals (which I assume is for another team or league, otherwise the scenario makes no sense) not like a family vacation? If players are not available, they are not available, what difference the reason?
Please enlighten us as to the difference.
lol at comparing an officially sanctioned usta championship to a family vacation.
Now it's pretty obvious why someone wouldn't inform you of a forfeit. If you're truth to take advantage of a usta championship I can't even imagine what else you would try.
OrangePower
Legend
Non sequitur insult notwithstanding, I'm still waiting for you to explain the difference.
If one of your players is unavailable, what difference does it make why?
Why would a player's other tennis-related activities be more worthy of consideration for reschedule than their family commitments?
Is this misdirection all a smoke screen for your new-found support of ringers?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
You and many others view this as common sense…but not Startzel. According to his logic, somehow it's your fault that the other team has to default because they don't have enough [star] players or because evil you wouldn't bend over backwards to reschedule. In the "Flex League Drama" thread, he even tried to keep score with the rescheduling [defaulting team offered 4 alternatives and non-defaulting team only offered 2; ergo, the non-defaulting team was being less flexible and was to blame for the default].
You can forget about supplying more logic or explaining things more clearly or making analogies; they will do you no good vs Startzel. Been there, done that. And, to be fair, surely Startzel will opine the same about me.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
What would/do you do in such a situation? Do you give the benefit of the doubt every time to someone who has used gamesmanship scheduling tactics in the past? I doubt it, given that it seems to go against human nature and your specific aversion to such gamesmanship, but if you say you do, I'll take it at face value.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I wouldn't call that being an unaccommodating jerk; I'd call that human nature.
I wonder if, similarly, Startzel loans money to people who never pay him back or loans stuff to neighbors who never return it? Wouldn't that be analogous to what he's implying you should do as captain [ie be accommodating when you highly suspect they're trying to game you]? Note that Startzel never actually said he would be accommodating. He's just criticizing YOU for not being accommodating.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't see how your assumptions are being proven correct. You're concluding something that others disagree with. That's not proof.
As to your first statement, looked at from the other side of the coin, you could say that the defaulting captain is trying to have his cake and eat it too: to have star players on the team that rack up wins but never to suffer the downside of them being away at Sectionals.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think your ticket analogy is accurate. In your scenario, both speeders are legitimately subject to a ticket because both are breaking the law.
In the example under discussion, the defaulting captain is breaking the law by not fielding a team; Orange is not breaking any law. I'm having a hard time coming up with an analogy for Orange's behavior in the ticket scenario: maybe the defaulting captain is complaining that Orange refused to claim that he [Orange] was speeding and not the defaulting captain so Orange gets penalized instead?
Also, Orange is not being a "jerk" to everyone: only to the ones that have tried to game the system in the past. Again, it's human nature to differentiate people this way [these guys are cool; those guys are gamesmanshippers]. I'd be highly surprised if you also didn't differentiate people this way [ie your tirades against sandbaggers: do you treat someone who you know is a sandbagger the same as any other opponent? I highly doubt it.].
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Now you are just being funny
It's a given that not all the players on a team are going to be available for every match, for various reasons - vacations, injuries, sectionals, family commitments, whatever. That's why teams typically have anywhere between 12 (aggressive) and 20 (conservative) players when only 8 are needed per match. Managing around player availability issues is part of the captain's job. And having depth on a team is as important as having a few strong players. Otherwise, why bother having any more than 8 on the roster?
Since you have repeatedly voiced your displeasure at teams who employ ringers, I'm surprised that you would take the side of teams who are top heavy and ride the ringers versus teams who are solid all around and spread matches across the roster.
My suspicion is that he's only taking his position because you're on the opposite side.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Interesting: you made the identical argument in the "Flex League Drama" thread. Something like
"I just don't know how you can consider a job-related trip the same thing as a child's choral concert."
It was irrelevant in that thread just as it is now, IMO.
OrangePower
Legend
Probably, but I'm not taking it personally... My guess is he just likes to be contrarian in general... I'm sure he's a blast at dinner parties
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Careful, Orange: Startzel will accuse you of using fancy Latin phrases that you don't understand [but then fail to explain how you mis-used them].
As to him explaining the difference, that will be like Waiting for Godot.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Probably, but I'm not taking it personally... My guess is he just likes to be contrarian in general... I'm sure he's a blast at dinner parties
Every idea should pass through the gauntlet of an intelligent contrarian: it sharpens the focus and challenges weak logic. OTOH, the boorish contrarian adds little.
winchestervatennis
Hall of Fame
In my area I'm fairly certain other usta sanctioned post season league play is a valid excuse for a reschedule. I know it's not worded that way, but I'm not going through the trouble of looking it up.
This came into play when an entire match had to be rescheduled and a few specific dates were out because some of the slides on the other team had mixed districts that weekend.
This came into play when an entire match had to be rescheduled and a few specific dates were out because some of the slides on the other team had mixed districts that weekend.
It's the same thing here.
You're even allowed to be "late" if you have a match in an earlier time slot, to compensate for travel time and matches that go over 1.5 hours.
However, the "grey" area is whether or not it's "ok" to force a match to be played without those players if a lineup of different players can be played on schedule. I dont think there is an absolute line here. Sometimes I think it's appropriate to force an on schedule match and sometimes it's ok to reschedule.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
But in that hypothetical, what if the team going to post-season play proposes dates that are unacceptable to the other team, for one reason or another? It's not like you're going to weight different reasons as Startzel implied in the "Flex League Drama" thread [ie job-related travel is worth more points than child's choral concert] and determine a "winner". It would seem to me that if a date acceptable to both teams can't be found, the team going to post-season has to forfeit. Is that how you interpret it?
winchestervatennis
Hall of Fame
It wasn't a hypothetical, this really happened. And the league coordinator was involved because it was getting very close to the end of the season. The opposing captain pointed out the mixed district conflict and the LC cited the rule and said that date was out of the question as a result.
It was a shame because that date worked best for my guys.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
So what happened? Did the match get rescheduled to a mutually-acceptable date? And what would have happened had there not been a mutually-acceptable date?
winchestervatennis
Hall of Fame
Curiosity got the best of me so I looked it up.
4) match rescheduling
A) match schedules are firm. Matches are to be played on the scheduled date with the following exceptions, and at the discretion of the local league coordinator.
I) facility issues or weather.
Ii) usta local playoff or post season championship (regionally, sectionals, nationals).
Iii) local league coordinator sponsored tennis events.
That's in the mid Atlantic section regs under local league play.
4) match rescheduling
A) match schedules are firm. Matches are to be played on the scheduled date with the following exceptions, and at the discretion of the local league coordinator.
I) facility issues or weather.
Ii) usta local playoff or post season championship (regionally, sectionals, nationals).
Iii) local league coordinator sponsored tennis events.
That's in the mid Atlantic section regs under local league play.
winchestervatennis
Hall of Fame
If I recall correctly we really only had about a week to get the matching because the LC had a deadline to report the winner for districts. I'm fairly certain the LC ended up dictating the time and date. I think my team had to default a line because we didn't have enough guys to field a full team on the make up date.
I'm ok with the OP calling someone's bluff if they're just trying to postpone the point for a better player.
However, if it gets to the point where they forefeit the point, it's hard to accuse them of gamesmanship.
Because it is more worthy of consideration for a reschedule.
I don't know what else there is to say. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face they should get an unfair advantage because the other team has players playing at sectionals.
I actually had a similar example happen this year in mixed. Our local league rules state you get a mandatory reschedule for players representing the local league at state.
The other team had every girl but one representing a local women's only area. So they technically weren't eligible for the mandatory reschedule.
Would it really have been acceptable to make them forefit and get them kicked out of the league for a team default?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't get it: why WOULDN'T the other team have been eligible? Is it because every girl wasn't absent but only n-1?
Stuff happens. You do your best to be accommodating and assume that everyone else will reciprocate. Sometimes, even that's not enough and someone ends up forfeiting. That's life. But if someone else is not reciprocating, as Orange put forth is his example, I think it's perfectly reasonable for him not to be accommodating.
I was not aware of the mandatory reschedule rule. However, I'm assuming experienced captains are and they should be structuring their team accordingly.
I'm not sure your area but if you default an entire match your team is disqualified from further competition. And yes, with only one girl they wouldn't have been able to field a legal team.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
What if she quit? Then the entire team is eligible.
It's a balancing act between making allowances for things like post-season play [allowing more defaults] and successfully completing a season [allowing fewer defaults]. Your area doesn't allow any. I'm sure if it allowed one, someone under some circumstances would find themselves on the losing end. The problem would never go away, it would just resurface in a different guise. So you make some rules and stick by them, realizing that every now and then stuff will happen. You take your lumps and move on.
This is definitely one of the dumbest arguments I've seen on here, even considering Startzel's history of ridiculous trolling. Here are Middle States league rules. They seem perfectly logical:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ustaassets/assets/649/15/2015_section_regulations_final.pdf
4. Postponements: Matches may be rescheduled for the following reasons only:
*Rain or Snow
*Unexpected court availability issues
*USTA league playoff matches. Local league matches will be rescheduled upon request if a team has 4 players in a 5 court program, 2 players in a 3 court program involved in a district, section, or national championship. Teams should play as many courts as possible on the scheduled day. Players that are unavailable because of the championship must play in the remaining rescheduled courts. The championship must be within Middle States – district or section. Six days notice in writing (email) to the opposing captain is suggested.
*Teams may reschedule on their own if both captains agree. Agreement in writing is recommended (E-mail) for your own protection.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ustaassets/assets/649/15/2015_section_regulations_final.pdf
4. Postponements: Matches may be rescheduled for the following reasons only:
*Rain or Snow
*Unexpected court availability issues
*USTA league playoff matches. Local league matches will be rescheduled upon request if a team has 4 players in a 5 court program, 2 players in a 3 court program involved in a district, section, or national championship. Teams should play as many courts as possible on the scheduled day. Players that are unavailable because of the championship must play in the remaining rescheduled courts. The championship must be within Middle States – district or section. Six days notice in writing (email) to the opposing captain is suggested.
*Teams may reschedule on their own if both captains agree. Agreement in writing is recommended (E-mail) for your own protection.
