self rated disqualification

[cosmo23]

One of my singles players was just dq'd after just three matches. She self
rated at 4.0. Her first match was 7-5, 6-3, second was 6-1, 6-0 and her third was against a player who hasn't won a match all year at 4.0 and she won 6-4, 6-0. How does the first match qualify as a strike? Our league coordinator says their is nothing they can do because it is computer generated.

Do we have any recourse. The first match was against a computer rated 4.0, and it was her first match of the season also.

Am I missing something?

Confused??

 

[spot]

If you want specific information you would probably be better off posting a link to her matches in tennislink.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Is she playing on another team anywhere?

 

[cosmo23]

reply

In regards to any other teams, she is only playing on my 4.0 tennis team. So she received three strikes based on the three matches that she played.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

In regards to any other teams, she is only playing on my 4.0 tennis team. So she received three strikes based on the three matches that she played.

Ask your league coordinator to check with the state and sectional offices for the answer. There may have been other issues involved. It is always a bit curious when someone without a rating comes along and self-rates at 4.0. did she have any previous college or junior experience? Was she told her disqualification resulted from the three matches?

 

[JLyon]

I would imagine the opponent who got blanked 1,0 probably filed a grievance on self-rate but even then you and your player would have a chance to appeal and fill out an accurate player profile/history.

 

[Ace]

From what I have been told, your "self rate" isn't really a rating until after your first match, and then your rating is based on your match results.
If she played a person with a "high-4.0" rating (say for example 4.49, just for arguments sake), and she won 7-5, 6-3. She won 13 games and lost 8.
If you assume that a win of 6-0, 6-0 gives you a .5 rating higher than your opponent, then a 7-5, 6-3 win gives you a rating that is .119 higher than your opponent.
So, if you accept my math, her very first rating is 4.49+.119=4.609, which is well into the 4.5 range. Strike 1.
Follow that up with a 6-1, 6-0 and a 6-4, 6-0, and she's out!

Did she play a "high-4.0" her first match?
Also, it doesn't matter that the lady she beat 6-1, 6-0 hasn't won a match all year....how did she do up until the point she played the person you are talking about (including last year)?

I can't say for certain, but this is just my attempt at an explanation.

 

[Topaz]

It she self-rated, then it would take at least four matches to generate a dNTRP rating. Something is amiss here...I would keep pushing the issue if I were you.

 

[JavierLW]

From what I have been told, your "self rate" isn't really a rating until after your first match, and then your rating is based on your match results.
If she played a person with a "high-4.0" rating (say for example 4.49, just for arguments sake), and she won 7-5, 6-3. She won 13 games and lost 8.
If you assume that a win of 6-0, 6-0 gives you a .5 rating higher than your opponent, then a 7-5, 6-3 win gives you a rating that is .119 higher than your opponent.
So, if you accept my math, her very first rating is 4.49+.119=4.609, which is well into the 4.5 range. Strike 1.
Follow that up with a 6-1, 6-0 and a 6-4, 6-0, and she's out!

Did she play a "high-4.0" her first match?
Also, it doesn't matter that the lady she beat 6-1, 6-0 hasn't won a match all year....how did she do up until the point she played the person you are talking about (including last year)?

I can't say for certain, but this is just my attempt at an explanation.

This sounds like a good explanation to me.

I thought when a player gets DQ'ed you typically get a report of all her matches and how it affected the rating?

 

[JavierLW]

It she self-rated, then it would take at least four matches to generate a dNTRP rating. Something is amiss here...I would keep pushing the issue if I were you.

That's not true, some people just assume that for some reason.

I know of another player who was DQ'ed off of a team in 3 matches as well.

Your first match creates your first rating of the year, which can be a strike.

Your second match gets averaged in with your first match result to produce your 2nd rating number (which can be another strike)

Your third match result gets averaged in with your 2nd rating number and your first match result and could result in a 3rd strike.

This is why self rated players have a higher chance of getting rated out. A computer rated player has a year end rating that gets averaged in with the first match result to produce the first rating number.

I think people are confusing the part about how it only averages back the last 4 numbers and they are assuming that it takes 4 matches to produce a rating. That's totally false.

(last year I only played 2 matches myself and was still bumped up to 3.5 from 3.0)

Like they say it's best that you ask your section coordinator if you are unsure, but this pretty much comes from the national system and the sections are the ones who find out when people are DQ'ed so I would be surprised if someone ever found a case that was overturned.

 

[Cindysphinx]

What if the computer initially placed her at 4.5 and she appealed down? I would guess (and yes, I'm only guessing), that she would start off at the high end of 4.0 so her three results could be three strikes.

We had a player that the computer self-rated at 4.0 (based on her playing level in her home country of Spain). She wanted to play on a 3.0 team (and believed she should be 3.0 based on certain medical issues). So she appealed and the appeal was granted for 3.0.

She then played four matches, two at 3.0 and two at 3.5. She lost both 3.0 matches and one 3.5 match. She won one 3.5 match. All doubles, all scores showing competitive matches. Based on that, she was moved up to 3.5 at the end of the season.

I have never seen anyone move up based on a 1-3 record with competitive scores, so I've always suspected that the computer had her teetering on the edge of 3.5 (based on its initial assessment of her experience) before she played her first match.

 

[Ace]

What if the computer initially placed her at 4.5 and she appealed down? I would guess (and yes, I'm only guessing), that she would start off at the high end of 4.0 so her three results could be three strikes.

We had a player that the computer self-rated at 4.0 (based on her playing level in her home country of Spain). She wanted to play on a 3.0 team (and believed she should be 3.0 based on certain medical issues). So she appealed and the appeal was granted for 3.0.

She then played four matches, two at 3.0 and two at 3.5. She lost both 3.0 matches and one 3.5 match. She won one 3.5 match. All doubles, all scores showing competitive matches. Based on that, she was moved up to 3.5 at the end of the season.

I have never seen anyone move up based on a 1-3 record with competitive scores, so I've always suspected that the computer had her teetering on the edge of 3.5 (based on its initial assessment of her experience) before she played her first match.

As I have said before, a lot also has to do with how you do against the person who goes to districts (or beyond) that year. If she beat, or had a competitive match with the 3.5 player who went on to districts (or beyond) and did well, then a large portion of her rating is affected by that. 1/2 of your rating is based on the national benchmark calculation that is rolled down after all championship matches are finished at the end of the year.

 

[JavierLW]

What if the computer initially placed her at 4.5 and she appealed down? I would guess (and yes, I'm only guessing), that she would start off at the high end of 4.0 so her three results could be three strikes.

We had a player that the computer self-rated at 4.0 (based on her playing level in her home country of Spain). She wanted to play on a 3.0 team (and believed she should be 3.0 based on certain medical issues). So she appealed and the appeal was granted for 3.0.

She then played four matches, two at 3.0 and two at 3.5. She lost both 3.0 matches and one 3.5 match. She won one 3.5 match. All doubles, all scores showing competitive matches. Based on that, she was moved up to 3.5 at the end of the season.

I have never seen anyone move up based on a 1-3 record with competitive scores, so I've always suspected that the computer had her teetering on the edge of 3.5 (based on its initial assessment of her experience) before she played her first match.

If you self rate the computer doesnt really have you anywhere, it's just a placeholder so you can play in a particular league. So it doesnt really matter if you appeal or not if you havent even played a match, it's still a self rate, and your rating is totally going to be based on your match results, starting with your first match.

I went into last year with a 3.0 computer rating and only played two matches in 3.5:

Lost one doubles match 6-0, 6-0, my partner was 3.5, one of my opponents was on his way to getting a 4.0 rating, and the other had a 3.0 rating but ended up with a 3.5 rating. (both were benchmark players)

Lost another doubles match 3-6, 6-2, 6-3 with a 3.5 partner against a 3.5 and a 3.0. (both are 3.5 now, my partner is now 3.0)

I got rated up to 3.5. It happens and I kind of understand why it happened if you do the math considering who I played, although I suspect some of you in that situation would cry about it and somehow claim it's wrong or that the computer made some sort of mistake.

(I was actually glad I got rated up, as it relieves me of having to play 3.0 this year, not that I was going to bother anyway)