Players forget to play a set tiebreaker

[JavierLW]

I wasnt involved in this match but a friend told me about it.

This was a 3.0 match indoors. My friend had just finished his match when he walked up to the viewing area where the opposing captain was watching and noticed that his #Doubles team was serving the 3rd set with the score 7-6.

This surprised him because how the heck can the score but 7-6?? He asked the opposing captain and he said that they forgot to play a tiebreaker so now they have to play it out.

My friend said "no way, that extra game doesnt count, they need to play a tiebreaker, those are the rules", but the other captain strongly disagreed.

He also claimed if they did play the tiebreaker his team would be up in it 4-0 since they had won that extra game, my friend didnt believe this either.

In the actual match they ended up tying it at 7-7, and then they played the tiebreaker (my friends team won). I think had my friends team lost they definately could of filed some sort of grievence.

But Im not totally sure what happens in this situation. Since it's deciding the match on one hand I think you need to go back and play by the rules, but there are plenty of other precedents in tennis where points played in good faith stand. (like if the wrong person serves or you accidently switch sides returning in doubles) There is even a procedure for what to do if you were supposed to play a supertiebreaker but you started playing a 3rd set instead.

Has this happened to anyone else? What do you think they should of done at the point when it was at 7-6? Also consider that the two people arguing are not in the match and they would of had to have gone down and told these players what to do. (my friend's captain was still in his singles match)

 

[Caswell]

IMO, it would fall under the "points played in good faith stand".

I've seen players who were supposed to play best two out of three sets mess up and play a third set supertiebreak. I've seen players who were supposed to play a supertiebreak only play up to seven points. I've actually seen a combination of the two (seeing a set score of 7-3 in Tennislink makes you scratch your head). I've never seen players sent back to play the match the "right" way, as long as the match was played in good faith.

I think they did the right thing by playing to 7-7 and then moving on to the tiebreak.

 

[JavierLW]

IMO, it would fall under the "points played in good faith stand".

I've seen players who were supposed to play best two out of three sets mess up and play a third set supertiebreak. I've seen players who were supposed to play a supertiebreak only play up to seven points. I've actually seen a combination of the two (seeing a set score of 7-3 in Tennislink makes you scratch your head). I've never seen players sent back to play the match the "right" way, as long as the match was played in good faith.

I think they did the right thing by playing to 7-7 and then moving on to the tiebreak.

I didnt think what they did sounded that bad as well because of the outcome. But if they had won 8-6, it wouldnt of sounded nearly as good.

When I used to run a 3.0 team, I had a situation where my players played a supertiebreaker once instead of an actual full 3rd set like they were supposed too. To this day I think in that case I should of stepped in and made them play the 3rd set (the other team at the time disagreed because they had already started it).

But instead I went along with it, and we entered the score as 7-6 in tennislink.

In either case the match is still going on and maybe something can be done about it. (Like I said I know of at least one procedure for what to do if you start playing a 3rd set but were supposed to play a supertiebreaker) Once the match is over and they walk off the court then i definately agree with you, they are not going to replay it or anything.

 

[volklite]

forget the rule, but there is a point where a 3rd set must be played, if they have finished a certain number of games. Don't have my Friend at Court here with me.

 

[Caswell]

I didnt think what they did sounded that bad as well because of the outcome. But if they had won 8-6, it wouldnt of sounded nearly as good.

Think of the alternatives though.

You can stop them at 7-6 and force them to play the tiebreak, taking away the game that was played in good faith and won at 6-6.

Spotting the player who gave up their won game a 4-0 lead in the tiebreak isn't a good solution either, since that's not just four points but two mini-breaks.

In the end, what happened was the most elegant way to complete the match.

 

[JavierLW]

Think of the alternatives though.

You can stop them at 7-6 and force them to play the tiebreak, taking away the game that was played in good faith and won at 6-6.

Spotting the player who gave up their won game a 4-0 lead in the tiebreak isn't a good solution either, since that's not just four points but two mini-breaks.

In the end, what happened was the most elegant way to complete the match.

I guess you are right.

The only thought I could come up with about 8-6 is that some team would be cheated out of a proper victory because they didnt play by the rules.

But since both teams didnt manage to follow the rules, I guess they can only blame themselves anyway.

I looked in Friend of the Court again and it didnt address this in a rule, but in the glossary under "Advantage Set", it mentions that Advantage Sets are no longer played in the USTA, but sometimes they are played with teams forget to play a tiebreaker at 6-6.

 

[JavierLW]

I wasnt involved in this match but a friend told me about it.

This was a 3.0 match indoors. My friend had just finished his match when he walked up to the viewing area where the opposing captain was watching and noticed that his #Doubles team was serving the 3rd set with the score 7-6.

This surprised him because how the heck can the score but 7-6?? He asked the opposing captain and he said that they forgot to play a tiebreaker so now they have to play it out.

My friend said "no way, that extra game doesnt count, they need to play a tiebreaker, those are the rules", but the other captain strongly disagreed.

He also claimed if they did play the tiebreaker his team would be up in it 4-0 since they had won that extra game, my friend didnt believe this either.

In the actual match they ended up tying it at 7-7, and then they played the tiebreaker (my friends team won). I think had my friends team lost they definately could of filed some sort of grievence.

But Im not totally sure what happens in this situation. Since it's deciding the match on one hand I think you need to go back and play by the rules, but there are plenty of other precedents in tennis where points played in good faith stand. (like if the wrong person serves or you accidently switch sides returning in doubles) There is even a procedure for what to do if you were supposed to play a supertiebreaker but you started playing a 3rd set instead.

Has this happened to anyone else? What do you think they should of done at the point when it was at 7-6? Also consider that the two people arguing are not in the match and they would of had to have gone down and told these players what to do. (my friend's captain was still in his singles match)

I guess I didnt search hard enough, there is an actual rule on this under "correcting errors":

27.g. If in error a standard game is started at 6 games all, when it was
previously agreed that the set would be a “Tie-break set”, the error
shall be corrected immediately if only one point has been played. If the
error is discovered after the second point is in play, the set will continue
as an “Advantage set” until the score reaches 8 games all (or a
higher even number), when a tie-break game shall be played.

It does seem more fair that it would have to go all the way to 8 all or better because then you cant win 8-6. So I think knowing this rule, (if someone did know it) the right thing to do would of been to go down and let the players know.

There is also a ruling that once you shake hands though the match is over no matter what you do because the match has ended in good faith at that point.

 

[SB]

How can you forget to play a tiebreak? Do they think they are at Wimbledon or something?

 

[JavierLW]

How can you forget to play a tiebreak? Do they think they are at Wimbledon or something?

It was a 3.0 match....

The two players on my friends team are self rated players who are new to League Play and probally new to tennis in general.

The guys on the other team have been around for awhile and appear to have played tiebreakers before so Im not quite sure what their problem would be. I'd like to think they did it on purpose, but I cant think of any advantage you would gain from this....

(versus the time that my own team played a supertiebreaker instead of a 3rd set, one of the opponents were hurt so they had some incentive to want to not play a full 3rd set)

And I mispoke, after looking at it, this was in the 2nd set, not the 3rd.

So they would of had to been in Wimbledon in the 30's or something or whenever it was before they invented Tiebreak Sets.

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

There is also a ruling that once you shake hands though the match is over no matter what you do because the match has ended in good faith at that point.

yes, once the hand shake occurs, you can't file a grievance to overturn a match.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I don't understand. Why won't the rule allow you to claim victory at 8-6? Why do you have to keep going?

 

[JavierLW]

I don't understand. Why won't the rule allow you to claim victory at 8-6? Why do you have to keep going?

I think they worded that part wrong as to make it slightly confusing.

I think you would win at 8-6, it says you are playing an "advantage set" which means you play until you win by two games.

But if it ended up getting tied at 8-8 (or higher) then you play a tiebreaker.

So I guess someone could win at 8-6, but you cant play a tiebreaker at 7-7 like these guys did. (unless you actually go ahead and do it anyway and then shake hands)

 

[Cindysphinx]

I think they worded that part wrong as to make it slightly confusing.

I think you would win at 8-6, it says you are playing an "advantage set" which means you play until you win by two games.

But if it ended up getting tied at 8-8 (or higher) then you play a tiebreaker.

So I guess someone could win at 8-6, but you cant play a tiebreaker at 7-7 like these guys did. (unless you actually go ahead and do it anyway and then shake hands)

Why would the rule require you to keep playing at 7-7? Why not just say that at the next point when the score is tied, that's when you play the tiebreaker?

 

[JavierLW]

Why would the rule require you to keep playing at 7-7? Why not just say that at the next point when the score is tied, that's when you play the tiebreaker?

Not sure. The only thing I could think of is you will be on the same end of the court with the same person serving that you would of had at 6-6. (which might matter if you are playing the standard tiebreaker where you'll get stuck on that side for 6 whole points)

Otherwise you'd have to write the USTA on that one.

 

[Geezer Guy]

I would go along with whoever said that all the points played so far (in good faith) should count. So, the points from game 13 should be applied toward the tie-break, and the tie-break would simply be jump-started at 4-2 (or whatever the score of game 13 was).

I agree that it's a bit unfair that one team got to serve the entire 13th game (instead of rotating), but the receiving team brought this upon themselves by not realizing they should be playing a tie-break. It was a stupid mistake, but that doesn't mean it should go unpunished.

 

[Geezer Guy]

Actually, though, I have no problem with the two teams doing exactly what they did. That seems very fair as well.

It may not have been the letter of the law, but it was certainly done in the spirit of fairness - and that's probably even more important.

 

[Jgooser]

Not sure. The only thing I could think of is you will be on the same end of the court with the same person serving that you would of had at 6-6. (which might matter if you are playing the standard tiebreaker where you'll get stuck on that side for 6 whole points)

Otherwise you'd have to write the USTA on that one.

That is correct. Basically, once you've played that one extra game that made it 7-6 you need to get back to the EXACT positions you'd be at when the score was 6-6. This means in singles you'd be on the same side of the court at 8-8 as you would at 6-6 (you aren't at 7-7). In doubles, it's obvious that everyone should serve and return an equal amount (that doesn't happen at 7-7). You'd have a chance to win the set 8-6 and 9-7, but at 8-8 you'd play the match-tiebreak you were supposed to play at 6-6.