Rules for playing up

[gmatheis]

I have a friend that is in his 70s and rated 3.5s

His record over the last 5 years is 2-15, with his last 3 spring seasons being 0-3, 0-2, 0-1

I am trying to convince him to appeal to 3.0 so he can #1 play more , and #2 have some more fun by winning some.

Question : If he appeals to 3.0 is he still allowed to play in a 4.0 tournament or a 4.0 league or are you only allowed to play up half a level?

tried to google it but couldn't find anything.

 

[J011yroger]

I have a friend that is in his 70s and rated 3.5s

His record over the last 5 years is 2-15, with his last 3 spring seasons being 0-3, 0-2, 0-1

I am trying to convince him to appeal to 3.0 so he can #1 play more , and #2 have some more fun by winning some.

Question : If he appeals to 3.0 is he still allowed to play in a 4.0 tournament or a 4.0 league or are you only allowed to play up half a level?

tried to google it but couldn't find anything.

Only .5 up.

J

 

[OnTheLine]

just to add, I see a lot of people at that age only playing age group level leagues (55+ and 65+ around here) ... seems to make sense rather than trying to change ratings.

Of note, anyone over I think it is 60 is granted an automatic appeal down per USTA guidelines. (but becomes subject to strikes)

 

[badmice2]

Only .5 up.

J

I don't believe this is accurate.

Appeal will only adjust +/- .5 in rating. You can play at any level you wish at any time, league or tournament, granted someone will let him on their team for league.

 

[OnTheLine]

I don't believe this is accurate.

Appeal will only adjust +/- .5 in rating. You can play at any level you wish at any time, league or tournament, granted someone will let him on their team for league.

ah, no. Can play up .5 NTRP only. At a tournament you would be allowed to enter into Open division if you felt like getting killed, but USTA league and NTRP tournaments, only the .5 increment.

 

[ChaelAZ]

No one should ever play up. If you can't earn the rating, you don't deserve to play it. You can appeal, and if you get it and can't perform you should be completely banned from tennis for wasting better players time. If you do well though, you should be banned completely for tennis for sandbagging the previous season.

 

[J011yroger]

I don't believe this is accurate.

Appeal will only adjust +/- .5 in rating. You can play at any level you wish at any time, league or tournament, granted someone will let him on their team for league.

Not according to section 1.04G(5) of the rules but hey, I'm sure you know better.

J

 

[OnTheLine]

No one should ever play up. If you can't earn the rating, you don't deserve to play it. You can appeal, and if you get it and can't perform you should be completely banned from tennis for wasting better players time. If you do well though, you should be banned completely for tennis for sandbagging the previous season.

Consider me banned then. I think the magic USTA computer missed me last year as I had a terrible spring and great summer/fall, the early poor results were too sticky to be overcome ...

Now playing up and sporting a 7-4 record at up level, and 14-2 record at level.

Of course, I am in that female camp of "want to be bumped" rather than the male appeal-down world

 

[ChaelAZ]

You should only get half a racquet for sandbagging before then.
And then banned.

 

[OnTheLine]

You should only get half a racquet for sandbagging before then.
And then banned.

LOL ... .then fix the USTA computers so they don't miss people like me who legitimately improve over time.

And how the heck did that happen in that pic? And why doesn't she look more concerned?

 

[ChaelAZ]

LOL ... .then fix the USTA computers so they don't miss people like me who legitimately improve over time.

And how the heck did that happen in that pic? And why doesn't she look more concerned?

AO a few years back. She had banged the racquet on the ground a point before, then this...

 

[ChaelAZ]

LOL ... .then fix the USTA computers so they don't miss people like me who legitimately improve over time.

You could just post video and get your absolute TTW approved tennis rating. It always comes with lots of pointers of EVERYTHING you are doing wrong...ad nausea.

Be brave...do it!

 

[OnTheLine]

You could just post video and get your absolute TTW approved tennis rating. It always comes with lots of pointers of EVERYTHING you are doing wrong...ad nausea.

Be brave...do it!

Nope, I in error allowed someone to take a photo of me (still not video) playing. And any illusion that I am an okay looking human was shattered.

 

[Rattler]

You could just post video and get your absolute TTW approved tennis rating. It always comes with lots of pointers of EVERYTHING you are doing wrong...ad nausea.

Be brave...do it!

Lol I’d rather run for President...less criticism

 

[r2473]

Of course, I am in that female camp of "want to be bumped" rather than the male appeal-down world

 

[Cindysphinx]

No one should ever play up. If you can't earn the rating, you don't deserve to play it. You can appeal, and if you get it and can't perform you should be completely banned from tennis for wasting better players time. If you do well though, you should be banned completely for tennis for sandbagging the previous season.

Recently played a 3.0 who was playing up at 3.5 who lost all of her 3.0 matches last year. Ahem.

 

[J011yroger]

Recently played a 3.0 who was playing up at 3.5 who lost all of her 3.0 matches last year. Ahem.

She would be shamed out of the men's league.

J

 

[dsp9753]

If your friend is losing all of his 3.5 matches and considering appealing down to 3.0... why are you even considering playing 4.0?!?!

 

[ChaelAZ]

Recently played a 3.0 who was playing up at 3.5 who lost all of her 3.0 matches last year. Ahem.

Well I was half being sarcastic in my post, but still some truth in there. As someone who played up early in my tennis development, I was thankful I could do it and was a at least a 50/50 player at the higher level. But there are whole teams of players that play up, and continue to do it each year with very poultry results. There should be some governance to help keep match quality better aligned. Maybe the UTR stuff will help...maybe not.

Personally, I would rather play some sandbagger who challenges the crap out of me and ultimately pisses me off serving me bagels and bread sticks, than me winning a no-pace dink/log fest match doing the same to players playing up.

 

[J011yroger]

Well I was half being sarcastic in my post, but still some truth in there. As someone who played up early in my tennis development, I was thankful I could do it and was a at least a 50/50 player at the higher level. But there are whole teams of players that play up, and continue to do it each year with very poultry results. There should be some governance to help keep match quality better aligned. Maybe the UTR stuff will help...maybe not.

Personally, I would rather play some sandbagger who challenges the crap out of me and ultimately pisses me off serving me bagels and bread sticks, than me winning a no-pace dink/log fest match doing the same to players playing up.

We have rules where only 25% of your team can be below level. Bad enough to play the throw court when you are good but a whole throw team?

J

 

[ChaelAZ]

We have rules where only 25% of your team can be below level. Bad enough to play the throw court when you are good but a whole throw team?

I posted about playing down in 3.5 this last year coming back from injury and how I was surprised at how many 3.5 teams were mostly made up of 3.0 players, and just generally the level of play. One team had several 3.0 players with only a few actual 3.5. I asked the captain about it and he mentioned they didn't have enough players for a full 3.0 or 3.5 team so they just combined them. I mean, fair enough for small clubs, but it is tough for the visiting teams.

Is that a written USTA rule? That would be interesting to see if we have something similar. I assume we don't because we had a whole 3.5 team that had a few of its' players get bumped to 4.0, so they all decided to play up. They were always at the bottom of the standings, so many teams questioned having them in the mix when there were so many other teams already. They eventually stepped back down to 3.5.

I dunno, I just find it interesting is all.

 

[J011yroger]

I posted about playing down in 3.5 this last year coming back from injury and how I was surprised at how many 3.5 teams were mostly made up of 3.0 players, and just generally the level of play. One team had several 3.0 players with only a few actual 3.5. I asked the captain about it and he mentioned they didn't have enough players for a full 3.0 or 3.5 team so they just combined them. I mean, fair enough for small clubs, but it is tough for the visiting teams.

Is that a written USTA rule? That would be interesting to see if we have something similar. I assume we don't because we had a whole 3.5 team that had a few of its' players get bumped to 4.0, so they all decided to play up. They were always at the bottom of the standings, so many teams questioned having them in the mix when there were so many other teams already. They eventually stepped back down to 3.5.

I dunno, I just find it interesting is all.

It's an Eastern rule. 50% except for two team leagues then 40%.

J

 

[kevrol]

Here you're not allowed to play more than .5 above your level. IMO you should have to have a >.500 record at level the prior year to be allowed to play up. Of course that rule would never fly because it mean less in registration fees.

 

[schmke]

I posted about playing down in 3.5 this last year coming back from injury and how I was surprised at how many 3.5 teams were mostly made up of 3.0 players, and just generally the level of play. One team had several 3.0 players with only a few actual 3.5. I asked the captain about it and he mentioned they didn't have enough players for a full 3.0 or 3.5 team so they just combined them. I mean, fair enough for small clubs, but it is tough for the visiting teams.

Is that a written USTA rule? That would be interesting to see if we have something similar. I assume we don't because we had a whole 3.5 team that had a few of its' players get bumped to 4.0, so they all decided to play up. They were always at the bottom of the standings, so many teams questioned having them in the mix when there were so many other teams already. They eventually stepped back down to 3.5.

I dunno, I just find it interesting is all.

The rule on team make-up varies by section. Mine is also 50%, there are some that allow fewer playing up and others that allow more.

I understand that in some cases players playing up are needed to fill out a team so the at-level players can have a team to play on, but clearly there are cases where this is not the reason and playing up is not appropriate from a competitiveness standpoint.

If the USTA was more transparent with ratings, it would at least be clear who (by the numbers) should/shouldn't be playing up, but I don't know that it would change behavior much. They'd have to go so far as to saying that you have to have been in the upper half of your range (or some threshold) at prior year-end to be able to play up, and then publish such a list. Not sure this is going to happen ...

 

[kevrol]

Found out that a lot of ladies here use the spring 18+ season as practice/preperation for their combo team in the fall.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I posted about playing down in 3.5 this last year coming back from injury and how I was surprised at how many 3.5 teams were mostly made up of 3.0 players, and just generally the level of play. One team had several 3.0 players with only a few actual 3.5. I asked the captain about it and he mentioned they didn't have enough players for a full 3.0 or 3.5 team so they just combined them. I mean, fair enough for small clubs, but it is tough for the visiting teams.

Just checked this again and it wasn't as lob-sided as I remember, but still had 9 3.0's and 7 3.5 players listed. So more than half playing up.

 

[OrangePower]

The simplest way to regulate playing up is to allow anyone to play up at the next level... but if playing up then you can't play at your own level.
For the most part this will self-regulate:

Players who are actually good enough to play at the next level and want to challenge themselves will play up. If they prefer to play at level and dominate that's fine, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it also.

Players who are too weak to be competitive playing up will not be willing to give up playing competitively at their own level.

 

[J011yroger]

Players who are too weak to be competitive playing up will not be willing to give up playing competitively at their own level.

Unless they are women.

J

 

[OnTheLine]

Unless they are women.

J

LOL This is so unfortunately true!

 

[OrangePower]

Unless they are women.

J

There will always be the delusional few playing up, but certainly fewer than under current rules.

 

[schmke]

The simplest way to regulate playing up is to allow anyone to play up at the next level... but if playing up then you can't play at your own level.
For the most part this will self-regulate:

Players who are actually good enough to play at the next level and want to challenge themselves will play up. If they prefer to play at level and dominate that's fine, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it also.

Players who are too weak to be competitive playing up will not be willing to give up playing competitively at their own level.

I think some areas actually do have this rule, which is surprising given that the USTA could reap more in league fees if they allowed players to play twice rather than once. But I do agree with the approach you recommend.

Other ideas that have been thrown around are not allowing a player playing up to play anything other than 3D or 2S (unless those courts already filled with players playing up) which would at least avoid situations where a player playing up is sacrificed on court 1. Opposing captains would know if an opponent has players playing up and know where they would possibly be so they could arrange their line-up appropriately.

 

[OnTheLine]

The rules in our area differ depending on league.

For 40+ and 18+ there are no rules regarding playing up that I am aware of. As much of your roster as you want, on any line. (just went through the Nevada regulations and found nothing Nevada USTA Regulations )

For non-advancing Ladies' Weekday Spring & Fall, and for regular Fall adult leagues, If you have a player who is playing up they must be on a court with an at level player and must play on the lowest court for the time slot, additionally may not play on the 1 singles court.

Our Summer leagues are weird, they do not count towards NTRP, they do not advance and it is nearly 100% playing up. If you are playing at 3.5, you are basically against 3.0 teams ... there are no rules except you cannot play up more than .5 NTRP.

 

[kylebarendrick]

I'd still love a rule that lines have to be played in order of rating. So in a 4.0 league you wouldn't be able to play a 3.5/4.0 team on line 1 if your other lines are 4.0/4.0.

 

[J011yroger]

I'd still love a rule that lines have to be played in order of rating. So in a 4.0 league you wouldn't be able to play a 3.5/4.0 team on line 1 if your other lines are 4.0/4.0.

What if they win?

J

 

[OnTheLine]

I'd still love a rule that lines have to be played in order of rating. So in a 4.0 league you wouldn't be able to play a 3.5/4.0 team on line 1 if your other lines are 4.0/4.0.

I get your point, but IRL things get messy. Schedules, who plays well together, etc.

But as one of those 3.5s, nothing feels as good as playing on line 1 and beating a pair of 4.0s .... almost as good as pairing with another 3.5 and beating a pair of 'em on line 3. Great gnashing of teeth from opponents.

 

[J011yroger]

I get your point, but IRL things get messy. Schedules, who plays well together, etc.

But as one of those 3.5s, nothing feels as good as playing on line 1 and beating a pair of 4.0s .... almost as good as pairing with another 3.5 and beating a pair of 'em on line 3. Great gnashing of teeth from opponents.

It's a legitimate strategy, if your #1 is good enough to win with a weak partner then you can put your #2&3 on 2 and it strengthens the whole lineup.

J

 

[kylebarendrick]

I get your point, but IRL things get messy. Schedules, who plays well together, etc.

But as one of those 3.5s, nothing feels as good as playing on line 1 and beating a pair of 4.0s .... almost as good as pairing with another 3.5 and beating a pair of 'em on line 3. Great gnashing of teeth from opponents.

I'm not sure why scheduling/partnerships plays into it. Assuming the matches start at the same time (we do have some 3/2 split starts here which I admit does make things messy), then the only difference is the line number. There is precedence in the 4.5+ leagues where the 5.0s have to play on the highest line.

While I agree (and I've done it) that it is awfully fun to play up and beat at-level players, that is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[J011yroger]

I'm not sure why scheduling/partnerships plays into it. Assuming the matches start at the same time (we do have some 3/2 split starts here which I admit does make things messy), then the only difference is the line number. There is precedence in the 4.5+ leagues where the 5.0s have to play on the highest line.

While I agree (and I've done it) that it is awfully fun to play up and beat at-level players, that is the exception rather than the rule.

But in 5.0+ you can play a 5.0/4.0 combo at 1D, and can play a 5.0 vs a 4.0 at 1S.

J

 

[kylebarendrick]

But in 5.0+ you can play a 5.0/4.0 combo at 1D, and can play a 5.0 vs a 4.0 at 1S.

J

My rule would help fix the latter problem. That 4.0 playing up wouldn't be allowed to play 1S. The 5/4 combo at 1D would still be a 9.0 line.

 

[OnTheLine]

I'm not sure why scheduling/partnerships plays into it. Assuming the matches start at the same time (we do have some 3/2 split starts here which I admit does make things messy), then the only difference is the line number. There is precedence in the 4.5+ leagues where the 5.0s have to play on the highest line.

While I agree (and I've done it) that it is awfully fun to play up and beat at-level players, that is the exception rather than the rule.

Really? Don't you have some teams where there are some player that will only play singles and some that only play dubs and some that only play ad or deuce and some players that really play terribly together but well with others? And our times move around and have some split starts. Add in player availability some weeks and you can have a truly messed up lineup.

 

[MisterP]

It's a legitimate strategy, if your #1 is good enough to win with a weak partner then you can put your #2&3 on 2 and it strengthens the whole lineup.

J

I think I remember you posting before about one of the leagues up your way giving more weight to higher courts? S1 and D1 are worth more than S2 and D2/3 respectively, which *should* discourage people from stacking. I think that would be a great idea for all of USTA.

 

[kylebarendrick]

Really? Don't you have some teams where there are some player that will only play singles and some that only play dubs and some that only play ad or deuce and some players that really play terribly together but well with others? And our times move around and have some split starts. Add in player availability some weeks and you can have a truly messed up lineup.

You would treat singles separately from doubles. In a doubles line you would arrange the lines by the combined rating of the players. You can still play the people together that you want (to address preferred sides, friendships, whatever). Then once you define your pairs, you just put the pair with the lowest combined rating on D3.

 

[J011yroger]

I think I remember you posting before about one of the leagues up your way giving more weight to higher courts? S1 and D1 are worth more than S2 and D2/3 respectively, which *should* discourage people from stacking. I think that would be a great idea for all of USTA.

Yea but a 5.0/4.0 team a lot of the time can beat a 4.5/4.5 team, and if nobody on your roster can beat the other team's court 1 it doesn't matter how many points it's worth.

J

 

[OrangePower]

But as one of those 3.5s, nothing feels as good as playing on line 1 and beating a pair of 4.0s .... almost as good as pairing with another 3.5 and beating a pair of 'em on line 3. Great gnashing of teeth from opponents.

Under my proposal you would have to choose between playing 3.5 and playing up at 4.0. Which would you choose?

 

[OnTheLine]

Under my proposal you would have to choose between playing 3.5 and playing up at 4.0. Which would you choose?

I am woman, hear me roar: 4.0

 

[Cindysphinx]

For non-advancing Ladies' Weekday Spring & Fall, and for regular Fall adult leagues, If you have a player who is playing up they must be on a court with an at level player and must play on the lowest court for the time slot, additionally may not play on the 1 singles court.

I think this should be the rule for all USTA leagues.

It wouldn't have helped me when I had to play a 3.0 who was playing 3.5 despite being unable to win at all in 3.0. My captain had me on Court Three.

Again.

Ahem.

 

[OrangePower]

I am woman, hear me roar: 4.0

Good stuff, I was hoping you would say that!

 

[DailyG&T]

I'm a 3.0 playing up to 3.5 this season in ladies 18+ and I am currently on an 8 match winning streak, including 3 of my 3.5 matches where I played the #1 singles line. (I have not lost a 3.5 match this season.) I have zero explanation for this. My club where I play 3.0 wouldn't let me play up so I found a team that would let me and since I'm winning and willing to play that singles line (which we have a lot of trouble filling - nobody wants to play singles), they're really glad to have me. Win-win. You could say the trust I have in USTA ranking system is less than strong but I'm creating my own situation that allows me to play more fun competitive tennis so it's all good.