Self-rated player blowing away the opponents

[Cindysphinx]

One of my players joined my 5.5 combo team back in September, self-rating as a 2.5. At the time, I thought she was a 2.5. All was well.

By the end of that year, she was much better due to being young and fit and practicing a lot. Nevertheless, she kept her 2.5 self-rating because combo play doesn't count for NTPR. The team moved up to 6.5, she stayed as a self-rated 2.5 playing with a 3.5 partner, and all was well.

Then she signed on for 7.0 mixed and appealed her rating up to 3.0 so she could partner with a 4.0. That makes her a self-rated 3.0.

The combo play plus the mixed play has improved her skills markedly. She beat me in two close sets of singles a few weeks back. She then played in a team scrimmage and won singles 6-1, 6-1 against a low-to-mid-level computer-rated 3.0.

She then won her first singles match on Court Two 6-1, 6-1 against a computer-rated 3.0 who I would say is middle of the pack.

Yesterday, she won in doubles 6-0, 6-1 on Court One. She was partnered with a strong 3.0 and the two computer-rated opponents were quite weak.

Now I'm getting a little worried that she's going to get DQ'd. I really, honestly do not think she is a 3.5. She is a classic retriever, which will win you lots of matches at 3.0, and she has as many stroke problems as the rest of us. She is not even the strongest player on my team, but everyone else is computer-rated and therefore not nearly as vulnerable to DQ as she is.

She will play three more matches for the team, all at singles.

How close to a DQ do you think she is? What should I do? Should I say anything to her? Should I just let the chips fall where they may?

FWIW, I would never do anything unethical like suggest she throw matches or games. And she is too ethical to do such a thing also. It just seems weird not to let her know what is coming when I think I know what is coming.

Her next match is Saturday against a tough opponent, and she's playing No. 2 singles again.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

One of my players joined my 5.5 combo team back in September, self-rating as a 2.5. At the time, I thought she was a 2.5. All was well.

By the end of that year, she was much better due to being young and fit and practicing a lot. Nevertheless, she kept her 2.5 self-rating because combo play doesn't count for NTPR. The team moved up to 6.5, she stayed as a self-rated 2.5 playing with a 3.5 partner, and all was well.

Then she signed on for 7.0 mixed and appealed her rating up to 3.0 so she could partner with a 4.0. That makes her a self-rated 3.0.

The combo play plus the mixed play has improved her skills markedly. She beat me in two close sets of singles a few weeks back. She then played in a team scrimmage and won singles 6-1, 6-1 against a low-to-mid-level computer-rated 3.0.

She then won her first singles match on Court Two 6-1, 6-1 against a computer-rated 3.0 who I would say is middle of the pack.

Yesterday, she won in doubles 6-0, 6-1 on Court One. She was partnered with a strong 3.0 and the two computer-rated opponents were quite weak.

Now I'm getting a little worried that she's going to get DQ'd. I really, honestly do not think she is a 3.5. She is a classic retriever, which will win you lots of matches at 3.0, and she has as many stroke problems as the rest of us. She is not even the strongest player on my team, but everyone else is computer-rated and therefore not nearly as vulnerable to DQ as she is.

She will play three more matches for the team, all at singles.

How close to a DQ do you think she is? What should I do? Should I say anything to her? Should I just let the chips fall where they may?

FWIW, I would never do anything unethical like suggest she throw matches or games. And she is too ethical to do such a thing also. It just seems weird not to let her know what is coming when I think I know what is coming.

Her next match is Saturday against a tough opponent, and she's playing No. 2 singles again.

The computer won't know if she is a retriever, a serve and volley specialist or plays with two forehands. Only results matter. Check to see if the players she recently waxed are average, good or beginners and what their true rating is. Could be she is waxing bad players. That won't get her DQ'd. But if she is beating players with good records handily, you could be looking at a DQ. Try playing her against the best opponent you can find in her remaining matches and she how she does.

 

[kylebarendrick]

Since you're not angling for playoffs anyway, I'd say just let her play and have fun. If she gets a DQ then some match scores may change (depending on your local league rules) - it won't erase the experience anyone gained. Tennis-n-sc is right, though, that she's only at risk if she's beating good players with those scores.

 

[XkwizitOvrhed]

If this is a stupid question, then allow me to apologize in advance.

Exactly how do you check whether a USTA league player is either self-rated, computer-rated or a benchmark player?

 

[tennis-n-sc]

If this is a stupid question, then allow me to apologize in advance.

Exactly how do you check whether a USTA league player is either self-rated, computer-rated or a benchmark player?

I'm not sure TennisLink has the info or not but your section does. If you look up your section or state website and pull up the ratings, there will be a code beside the rating, C for computer, SR for self rated, M for mixed and there are a couple of others that escape me for the moment. Mabe T for tournament.

 

[cak]

Tennislink indeed has what kind of rating each player has, you do have to look under ratings, not just under general match stats.

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

Now I'm getting a little worried that she's going to get DQ'd. I really, honestly do not think she is a 3.5. She is a classic retriever, which will win you lots of matches at 3.0, and she has as many stroke problems as the rest of us. She is not even the strongest player on my team, but everyone else is computer-rated and therefore not nearly as vulnerable to DQ as she is.

She will play three more matches for the team, all at singles.



Her next match is Saturday against a tough opponent, and she's playing No. 2 singles again.[/QUOTE]

Heads up! I'm going to cut & paste some of your original post. I am hoping to keep the original intent of your post.

Now I'm getting a little worried that she's going to get DQ'd. I really, honestly do not think she is a 3.5. She is a classic retriever, which will win you lots of matches at 3.0, and she has as many stroke problems as the rest of us.

Believe it or not, you'll see retrievers until about 4.5 level. At 4.5, they're usually very fast players, but don't possess weapons to attack any openings they were able to generate.

However, you will always see that the retrievers' NTRP advance faster than players less consistent but who have more power.

She is not even the strongest player on my team, but everyone else is computer-rated and therefore not nearly as vulnerable to DQ as she is.

The bad news is that even if a computer rated player posted these scores, they would get DQ'd as well.

How close to a DQ do you think she is?

It sounds like this player has improved over time, so even if a self-rating grievance was filed against her, it wouldn't get very far.

The bad news is from what I've read, I believe she's close to a 3 strike DQ if your section doesn't included mixed for year end ratings. Conversely, she may have generated a 3.0 computer rating during mixed. Again, everything depends on your section.

Should I say anything to her?

FWIW, I would never do anything unethical like suggest she throw matches or games. And she is too ethical to do such a thing also.

No. She has improved over time and is trying her best. She should keep trying to do so.

What should I do?

Should I just let the chips fall where they may?

It just seems weird not to let her know what is coming when I think I know what is coming.

And this is why you're paid the big bucks as a captain (just kidding). Seriously though ... she's going to impact the team if she gets DQ'd, so it's more the other way around. Do you let her play despite knowing she's going to get DQ'd sooner rather than later?

I personally would play her to see how far she can go, rather than taking the scared path that she would hurt the team.

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

If this is a stupid question, then allow me to apologize in advance.

Exactly how do you check whether a USTA league player is either self-rated, computer-rated or a benchmark player?

Here's the link for finding your rating

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/Reports/NTRP/FindRating.asp

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

Tennislink indeed has what kind of rating each player has, you do have to look under ratings, not just under general match stats.

I know you didn't ask, but here's the league record link:

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/

 

[Cindysphinx]

Around here, a computer-rated player probably wouldn't get DQ'd for these scores. I've seen computer-rated people dominate, and the worst that happens is they move up in November. And here the penalty for a DQ against a computer-rated player is just loss of the last match. For self-rated, the penalty if forfeit of all matches.

If she loses on Saturday, is the problem solved? Or do losses not matter?

Geez, it feels weird not to say anything but I can't think of much good that would be done.

Maybe the sensible thing is to only play her against really weak teams. If she gets DQ'd we'd forfeit her match, but it wouldn't hurt much if we won 4-1 or 5-0.

 

[Topaz]

Cindy, since her next opponent will be a tough one, I would wait and see how she does on this next match.

We are running into this as well. A self-rated 3.0 blew away a 3.5 singles player on my 3.5 team...now *that* will get the 3.0 a strike for sure!

 

[XkwizitOvrhed]

<Bowing to Raiden for the links>


:grin:

 

[JavierLW]

One of my players joined my 5.5 combo team back in September, self-rating as a 2.5. At the time, I thought she was a 2.5. All was well.

By the end of that year, she was much better due to being young and fit and practicing a lot. Nevertheless, she kept her 2.5 self-rating because combo play doesn't count for NTPR. The team moved up to 6.5, she stayed as a self-rated 2.5 playing with a 3.5 partner, and all was well.

Then she signed on for 7.0 mixed and appealed her rating up to 3.0 so she could partner with a 4.0. That makes her a self-rated 3.0.

The combo play plus the mixed play has improved her skills markedly. She beat me in two close sets of singles a few weeks back. She then played in a team scrimmage and won singles 6-1, 6-1 against a low-to-mid-level computer-rated 3.0.

She then won her first singles match on Court Two 6-1, 6-1 against a computer-rated 3.0 who I would say is middle of the pack.

Yesterday, she won in doubles 6-0, 6-1 on Court One. She was partnered with a strong 3.0 and the two computer-rated opponents were quite weak.

Now I'm getting a little worried that she's going to get DQ'd. I really, honestly do not think she is a 3.5. She is a classic retriever, which will win you lots of matches at 3.0, and she has as many stroke problems as the rest of us. She is not even the strongest player on my team, but everyone else is computer-rated and therefore not nearly as vulnerable to DQ as she is.

She will play three more matches for the team, all at singles.

How close to a DQ do you think she is? What should I do? Should I say anything to her? Should I just let the chips fall where they may?

FWIW, I would never do anything unethical like suggest she throw matches or games. And she is too ethical to do such a thing also. It just seems weird not to let her know what is coming when I think I know what is coming.

Her next match is Saturday against a tough opponent, and she's playing No. 2 singles again.

Cindy, Dont worry about it. If you look at the statistical numbers in almost every district only a handful of people actually get DQ'ed. Especially at the lower levels like 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5. That is because there is a built in threshhold that allows for those lower ranked players to improve otherwise they were afraid that too many people would get DQ'ed.

It all depends on who they are playing. If they totally destroy another player who usually destroys everyone else in the league then you might get a strike, but otherwise it's very unlikely.

So definately just tell her to play her best. You are going to have players that are good and they are going to whip other players, that just means they are good for that level. When the season is over she may get rated up but that's a whole diffrent story. (and she can appeal if she wants, or take it as an accomplishment and just play 3.5) Again since it happens statistically to so few players it's never worth even thinking about.

And it's wrong that if a computer generated player posted these scores that they would get DQ'ed as well. They have a less chance of getting DQ'ed because their computer generated year end rating from the previous year gets averaged in there.

You get the strike from the result of that averaging process, not from the match result itself. If you average out the last 4 numbers (if there are 4 numbers yet), and it's over a certain threshold (which is higher in the lower levels) then you get a strike. Get 3 of those and then you are DQ'ed.

A self rated player's first match result on the other hand could cause him a strike because it's the only number he has (if it goes over the threshold which is hard). The the next match gets averaged in with that match, etc...

So again, it's not worth even worrying about. Especially if you think she's just improved to some point.

The whole idea of sandbagging just to worry about whether you get rated up or not is kind of silly anyway. If someone is working hard on their game, and have improved, they deserve to get to clobber some people at some point, and if they manage to get rated up in the process they should just take it as a compliement.

Too many other losers out there only worry about whether they are winning and losing, so they want to keep their rating low just so they can go on to the championships, even though they are wasting their time for most of the local season.

 

[10sfreak]

Cindy, Dont worry about it. If you look at the statistical numbers in almost every district only a handful of people actually get DQ'ed. Especially at the lower levels like 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5. That is because there is a built in threshhold that allows for those lower ranked players to improve otherwise they were afraid that too many people would get DQ'ed.

It all depends on who they are playing. If they totally destroy another player who usually destroys everyone else in the league then you might get a strike, but otherwise it's very unlikely.

So definately just tell her to play her best. You are going to have players that are good and they are going to whip other players, that just means they are good for that level. When the season is over she may get rated up but that's a whole diffrent story. (and she can appeal if she wants, or take it as an accomplishment and just play 3.5) Again since it happens statistically to so few players it's never worth even thinking about.

And it's wrong that if a computer generated player posted these scores that they would get DQ'ed as well. They have a less chance of getting DQ'ed because their computer generated year end rating from the previous year gets averaged in there.

You get the strike from the result of that averaging process, not from the match result itself. If you average out the last 4 numbers (if there are 4 numbers yet), and it's over a certain threshold (which is higher in the lower levels) then you get a strike. Get 3 of those and then you are DQ'ed.

A self rated player's first match result on the other hand could cause him a strike because it's the only number he has (if it goes over the threshold which is hard). The the next match gets averaged in with that match, etc...

So again, it's not worth even worrying about. Especially if you think she's just improved to some point.

The whole idea of sandbagging just to worry about whether you get rated up or not is kind of silly anyway. If someone is working hard on their game, and have improved, they deserve to get to clobber some people at some point, and if they manage to get rated up in the process they should just take it as a compliement.

Too many other losers out there only worry about whether they are winning and losing, so they want to keep their rating low just so they can go on to the championships, even though they are wasting their time for most of the local season.

Reads to me like Cindy isn't so much worried about her player getting rated up for next season, but rather, getting DQed for this season, which definitely has the potential to hurt the team...I know for a fact that, in spite of what others on here will tell you, getting DQed is VERY possible even for computer-rated players, but I would think that a self-rated player would be even more likely to get DQed.

 

[JavierLW]

Reads to me like Cindy isn't so much worried about her player getting rated up for next season, but rather, getting DQed for this season, which definitely has the potential to hurt the team...I know for a fact that, in spite of what others on here will tell you, getting DQed is VERY possible even for computer-rated players, but I would think that a self-rated player would be even more likely to get DQed.

And Im saying she still shouldnt worry about it.

It's not "VERY" possible, it's just possible. You cant make that kind of claim without the actual numbers involved. Anything I have seen out there in terms of that sort of information shows that it's a handful of people among every thousand or so players. When the system first came out they used to read off those numbers here regularly because they didnt want it to look like everyone was getting DQ'ed.

And getting DQ'ed is certainly way less likely than getting rated up at year end. There is a built in threshold that takes care of that and it's a slightly diffrent system.

And another reason she shouldnt even worry about it is because we dont get enough data on our opponents to have any idea what our match results are doing to us anyway because the league doesnt publish a person's exact rating (which goes down the hunderdths). You dont know you have any strikes at all until you get the 3rd one. Because of this it would be dumb to try to get someone to sandbag a match (or even worse hope they lose a match) when it's likely that it's not even necessary.

Besides, a USTA League captain has enough things to worry about when it comes to scheduling. This should be like one of the last things you can afford to think about. I think you would be taking a much bigger chance if you were to try to sandbag a match or worse have your player lose, then you would be to just to take your chances with the DQ system.

If you want to be one of the "ringer" teams in every league they do have a few methods that they like to employ. (but they have enough ringers to do with with)

- Hide your ringers at #3 doubles (if that means anything in your league) so they dont meet up with the best players. After all they want to save them for the championships.

- Get a ton of players for your team (here that would be like 18, in some of your leagues what would you need, 30-40???), that way you can rotate the ringers in and out every week and they never get DQ'ed, and then they are all ready for the championships after you win.

Ive had some strong players on my teams as well, and Ive often thought that it would be good if they didnt bust out and play #1 singles against a top player in the first match because that is a big number in the way the system works. (it just gets averaged with their year end rating from the previous year, the result of that gets averaged in with the next 3 matches)

But even so Im not going to worry about it that much.

 

[GokuQ]

HA

one of my players who was self rated 3.5 just got dq'd by usta today
the email i got mentioned the 3 strike rule, which is 3 grievance filed by other captains after a match, but i never got cc'd and i thought i was supposed to

he did play 4.5 5-6 years ago and never won a match
he was 4-0 this season but all tough 3 set matches

there's players on other teams who are 4.0's that got adjusted down to 3.5
they are undefeated, won matches in districts last season and are winning easily on 4.0 teams too, none of them have been redflagged

this bites.....

 

[kylebarendrick]

The 3 strike rule is automatically implemented by the computer. It has nothing to do with grievances.

 

[GokuQ]

oh gotcha thanks for the clarification

 

[GokuQ]

oh gotcha thanks for the clarification

 

[XkwizitOvrhed]

Where did you get the idea that the 3-strike rule was even related to a grievance filed by an opposing team's captain?

Was that mentioned in the email you alluded to?

 

[GokuQ]

it was in the local norcal usta llar rules
it stated that if an opposing captain filed a grievance 3 times vs. a self rated player, that the player could be dq'd

that was from combo season in the summer
i didnt see any changes made to those rules for spring 07

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

it was in the local norcal usta llar rules
it stated that if an opposing captain filed a grievance 3 times vs. a self rated player, that the player could be dq'd

that was from combo season in the summer
i didnt see any changes made to those rules for spring 07

Please post the link to the LLAR and the specific number. I read the LLAR for both SoCal and NorCal, and never read that once.

 

[Cindysphinx]

it was in the local norcal usta llar rules
it stated that if an opposing captain filed a grievance 3 times vs. a self rated player, that the player could be dq'd

that was from combo season in the summer
i didnt see any changes made to those rules for spring 07

They don't have DQ for 3-strikes in combo around here. DQs for mixed and combo are based on grievances, IIRC (except mixed exclusive ratings, I would guess).

 

[Geezer Guy]

... How close to a DQ do you think she is? What should I do? Should I say anything to her? Should I just let the chips fall where they may?

FWIW, I would never do anything unethical like suggest she throw matches or games. And she is too ethical to do such a thing also. ...

For someone who would never do anything unethical, you're sure asking a lot of questions.

Seems to me like if you do ANYTHING you wouldn't have normally done, you're trying at cheat. And you're trying to get us to tell you it's OK and even tell you how.

I realize that as a captain you can't field your strongest team possible every week - because you want to give all your team members a chance to play. But - seems to me anyway - you are duty-bound to organize the players you're playing that week in the most strategic way possible to ensure a win, and every player must play to their full potential.

If someone gets bumped up, that's the way it's supposed to work.

 

[GokuQ]

I cant find the number but its in llar 2006 nor cal combo rules
under "Grievances, Self rate grievances and NTRP complaints/Self Rate Grievances"

heres a quote from the email we got from usta--
Hello,

From the dynamics generated after each of his matches, #### went over the margin allowed three times and "struck out" at the 3.5 level. The paperwork is mailed to the player involved, including the printout of the dynamics from matches -- showing the "strikes." If is the responsibility of the player to share with the captain this information, including the Dynamic NTRP process.

Jean MacDonald
Adult Leagues Coordinator
USTA NorCal
(510)748-7373 x2990


Each time a player’s dynamic rating exceeds the maximum tolerance for the level, he/she automatically earns a “strike.” Three strikes—considering all matches in the Adult and Senior Divisions from all sections in the database from Local League up to and including Sectional Championships— and you are disqualified.

 

[XkwizitOvrhed]

Somebody needs to either have their vision checked or brush up on their reading comprehension skills.

The OP was concerned about her player being DQ'd NOT bumped up and since when did asking what if anything could be done about it translate into insinuations of her either already being a cheat because of asking some questions or her being poised to cheat based on any "tip/s" received in response to her questions.

 

[Geezer Guy]

... GeezerGuy your post was completely out of line and you should just hope that Cindy is neither a forum moderator/administrator nor a lawyer who specializes in libelous defamation!

I don't think it would matter if Cindy was a mod or an admin or even a lawyer. I don't think I said anything that outragous.

And, maybe I misunderstood her question, but wasn't it something like "I've got this REALLY good player who's winning all the time that self-rated too low. I don't want to lose her, so how can I get away with having her on my team without being disqualified? I don't want to cheat or anything, but there must be some way I could hide her. What should I do?"

My response was meant to be a "Tsk Tsk, shame on you. Just play her and let the chips fall where they may."

 

[Geezer Guy]

And Cindy's a big girl - she can take care of herself.

 

[sureshs]

By the end of that year, she was much better due to being young and fit and practicing a lot.

Do I sense a little, you know what, here?

 

[Cindysphinx]

And Cindy's a big girl - she can take care of herself.

Geezer Guy,

Say the replies to my question were "Oh, yeah. Definitely. She almost certainly has two strikes based on her two matches so far."

I would still have some options that are perfectly ethical:

1. Go to her and tell her this so she won't be upset/surprised when it happens, or so that she can decide if she wants to continue playing and take the risk of dragging down the team with a DQ.

2. Assume she has two strikes, just don't play her any more at all, refund her money for her unplayed matches, help her find a 3.5 team.

3. Play her only against weak teams when we have an otherwise strong line-up so that if we win 5-0 and she gets disqualified, then we still win the team match 4-1.

4. Do nothing.

So, uh. Let's just say you misunderstood my question and leave it at that, shall we?

The player I mentioned in the OP is playing singles tomorrow morning. I'll let you know what happens.

 

[Geezer Guy]

I think a captain has a reponsibility to their team to do everything they can - up to a point - to win.

I think you're "point" is a little further out there than mine. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong.

I think it's fair to say you're at least considering manipulating events to your advantage a bit more than I would (except for option #4).

And that probably (well, almost certainly) makes you a better captain than me.

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

They don't have DQ for 3-strikes in combo around here. DQs for mixed and combo are based on grievances, IIRC (except mixed exclusive ratings, I would guess).

That is correct. Three strike DQs are only for National leagues. Combo is still considered a local type of league.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

Do I sense a little, you know what, here?

I sense a little of that, you know what, also.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I sense a little of that, you know what, also.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Cindysphinx]

"Manipulating events?"

What does that even mean in this context? I mean, any time a captain puts out a line-up, the captain is making strategic decisions to "manipulate events." What matters is whether the decisions are ethical or not.

GG, of the first three options I listed as ethical, which ones do you find objectionable and why?

 

[JavierLW]

"Manipulating events?"

What does that even mean in this context? I mean, any time a captain puts out a line-up, the captain is making strategic decisions to "manipulate events." What matters is whether the decisions are ethical or not.

GG, of the first three options I listed as ethical, which ones do you find objectionable and why?

I think he's talking about lining up the matches a certain way to try to manipulate the rating system, rather than just putting your best team out there and trying to do your best to win.

But I dont agree that you said you were doing that, I think he misread you, you were just asking a common question that a lot of people worry about. (ie..... Is my player who has all these big scores going to get DQ'ed?.....)

Like Ive said and some obviously will disagree, it's very unlikely. Even if it is you cant possibly plan for it because you dont have enough data to do so, it's like planning your outdoor match next week and worrying about whether it's going to rain or not.

I wouldnt feel bad about just playing her and letting her win, it sounds like she's really been working on her game, and winning (especially clobbering people) is the reward for that. It's not like you pulled some woman off the street that you know is a ringer and put her on your team.

And again it's very unlikely she would get DQ'ed. Especially after just 2 matches. Ive seen players who clobber tons of players in a season, dont get DQ'ed but get rated up, appeal themselves back down to 3.0, and clobber everyone again (and again dont get DQ'ed). They dont get DQ'ed because most of the time they are just going against average or bad 3.0 players. (and there is a rather big threshold at 3.0 that allows for you to get better without getting DQ'ed)

 

[XkwizitOvrhed]

Finally, someone who read the OP's post, understood what she was saying and provided constructive advice designed to help a fellow forum member.

Thank you Javier!


Oh and yes I deleted the parting shot I took at Geezer Guy. Life's too short to waste my time and energy trying to be an internet Guardian Ad-Litem.

 

[Cindysphinx]

OK, she played singles today. Won the first set 6-3, lost the second 3-6, won the tiebreaker.

So maybe we're gonna be all right?

 

[JavierLW]

OK, she played singles today. Won the first set 6-3, lost the second 3-6, won the tiebreaker.

So maybe we're gonna be all right?

98.5% sure you were all right anyway.

One score against some random opponent (whether close or not) has nothing to do with it because you dont know the opponents real rating.

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

For someone who would never do anything unethical, you're sure asking a lot of questions.

Seems to me like if you do ANYTHING you wouldn't have normally done, you're trying at cheat. And you're trying to get us to tell you it's OK and even tell you how.

I realize that as a captain you can't field your strongest team possible every week - because you want to give all your team members a chance to play. But - seems to me anyway - you are duty-bound to organize the players you're playing that week in the most strategic way possible to ensure a win, and every player must play to their full potential.

If someone gets bumped up, that's the way it's supposed to work.

Exactly

 

[sureshs]

I sense a little of that, you know what, also.

hehehehee

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

I cant find the number but its in llar 2006 nor cal combo rules
under "Grievances, Self rate grievances and NTRP complaints/Self Rate Grievances"

heres a quote from the email we got from usta--
Hello,

From the dynamics generated after each of his matches, #### went over the margin allowed three times and "struck out" at the 3.5 level. The paperwork is mailed to the player involved, including the printout of the dynamics from matches -- showing the "strikes." If is the responsibility of the player to share with the captain this information, including the Dynamic NTRP process.

Jean MacDonald
Adult Leagues Coordinator
USTA NorCal
(510)748-7373 x2990


Each time a player’s dynamic rating exceeds the maximum tolerance for the level, he/she automatically earns a “strike.” Three strikes—considering all matches in the Adult and Senior Divisions from all sections in the database from Local League up to and including Sectional Championships— and you are disqualified.

I know Jean MacDonald personally. And nowhere did she say grievance.

I was just asking you where it said three grievances would cause three strikes?

Reading your post, I know you're confused that a grievance and a strike are one in the same. They aren't (as kylebarendrick posted)

The 3 strike rule is automatically implemented by the computer. It has nothing to do with grievances.

A self-rating grievance can be filed that brings to USTA's attention that someone may be out of level. This is when you need to be CC'd with any correspondence. A grievance decision can be appealed.

If you 3 strike DQ'd, you can not appeal. It means you exceeded the maximum threshold for a particular level that includes improvement over time. Basically, a 3.5 player can not be a 4.0 player in the early part or even the middle of the season. Even juniors take time to improve.

The other players you are complaining about were computer rated. Their level is just barely above the minimum amount for a particular level. Because of this, they may be uncompetitive at the higher level, and are allowed to go back down. However, according to a rumor I heard, USTA nationals is implementing that you can't be adjusted if you reach districts now. Which is nice because I'm getting tired of seeing the same captains (and team members) every season at Districts.

 

[Geezer Guy]

Geezer Guy,

Say the replies to my question were "Oh, yeah. Definitely. She almost certainly has two strikes based on her two matches so far."

I would still have some options that are perfectly ethical:

1. Go to her and tell her this so she won't be upset/surprised when it happens, or so that she can decide if she wants to continue playing and take the risk of dragging down the team with a DQ.

2. Assume she has two strikes, just don't play her any more at all, refund her money for her unplayed matches, help her find a 3.5 team.

3. Play her only against weak teams when we have an otherwise strong line-up so that if we win 5-0 and she gets disqualified, then we still win the team match 4-1.

4. Do nothing.

So, uh. Let's just say you misunderstood my question and leave it at that, shall we?

The player I mentioned in the OP is playing singles tomorrow morning. I'll let you know what happens.

... GG, of the first three options I listed as ethical, which ones do you find objectionable and why?

RE #1 - Giving you the benefit of the doubt - maybe you wouldn't mean it this way, but when you as a Captain go to one of your players and "warn" her that if she keeps winning by such large margins she could be disqualified, which would in turn hurt the team - what is she SUPPOSED to think you mean? You want her to shave some points, obviously. Keep winning but make it close, would you?
(Sounds like maybe that's what she did over the weekend.)

RE #2 - If she gets DQ'ed, she "earned" that DQ - and your team didn't deserve the win's that she accumulated. How would YOU feel if you found out that some of your losses were against players that shouldn't even have been competing at your level. Then, in order to preserve your ill-gotten gain - so that no one will find out about what was probably an innocent error in the first place - you cover it up by refusing to let her play any more.

RE #3 - To play one of your stongest players ONLY against your weakest opponents so they don't attract attention by winning is just not right. And to sit her out when you really need the win doesn't make sence - unless you're trying to "work" the system. Some of the more advanced captains will actually have their best players lose on purpose once the outcome of the match is determined. Maybe you could try that.

RE #4 - To me - and obviously ONLY to me - the only ethical thing you can do is schedule your players according to your team's goals. If your goals are to win, you play your best players in the strongest line-up you can - and you encourage everyone to play their hardest and fairest. If your goal is less competitive and more social, you schedule your players according to whatever scheme you've been using all season, and go from there. Everyone plays their hardest, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Cindysphinx]

RE #1 - Giving you the benefit of the doubt - maybe you wouldn't mean it this way, but when you as a Captain go to one of your players and "warn" her that if she keeps winning by such large margins she could be disqualified, which would in turn hurt the team - what is she SUPPOSED to think you mean? You want her to shave some points, obviously. Keep winning but make it close, would you?
(Sounds like maybe that's what she did over the weekend.)

Wow. So to win an argument on an internet discussion board, you're questioning her integrity with no factual basis, when you've never even met her and know nothing about her. 'Tis a shame, that.

Nope, I wouldn't tell her to shave points. I would tell her *not* to shave points. Personally, if I was looking at a DQ as a player, I'd want someone to tell me that. I'd be kind of embarrassed and upset if it felt like it came out of nowhere. But that's just me. She (or others) might react differently and prefer not to have their head cluttered with data they can do nothing about. That's part of why I was wondering whether to say anything or not.

RE #2 - If she gets DQ'ed, she "earned" that DQ - and your team didn't deserve the win's that she accumulated. How would YOU feel if you found out that some of your losses were against players that shouldn't even have been competing at your level. Then, in order to preserve your ill-gotten gain - so that no one will find out about what was probably an innocent error in the first place - you cover it up by refusing to let her play any more.

I think you have it exactly backward. If a captain really thought a player was playing below level, it would be perfectly fine to *stop* playing that player, IMHO.

RE #3 - To play one of your stongest players ONLY against your weakest opponents so they don't attract attention by winning is just not right. And to sit her out when you really need the win doesn't make sence - unless you're trying to "work" the system. Some of the more advanced captains will actually have their best players lose on purpose once the outcome of the match is determined. Maybe you could try that.

I would hope you know from my posts on another thread on this subject that I think it is wrong, wrong, wrong to throw games to manipulate one's rating to avoid a DQ or move to another level. Perhaps you missed that thread and therefore have honestly mistaken me for someone who cheats at tennis?

What I would propose is to play the player in situations where the team doesn't need her win so much.

Remember, I have to give all players 5 matches. I do have other strong players, players who are even better than this player but who happen to be protected by a computer rating. Playing her in conjunction with my strongest line-ups is totally fair to any opponents she might face -- if she destroys them then she'll get DQ'd, as it should. It just won't hurt her teammates because I made sure we won by 4-1, not 3-2.

Keep in mind that the league could (but does not) require forfeiture of all team matches in which the player played at all. That seems to be what you're advocating.

Eh, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill on this one, and you're assuming quite a lot to do it.

 

[Geezer Guy]

I'm not trying to win an arguement - just sharing my opinion (which you asked for).
Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill.

Thanks for sharing your rationale. I don't agree with it, but I see where you're coming from.

 

[JavierLW]

Wow. So to win an argument on an internet discussion board, you're questioning her integrity with no factual basis, when you've never even met her and know nothing about her. 'Tis a shame, that.

Nope, I wouldn't tell her to shave points. I would tell her *not* to shave points. Personally, if I was looking at a DQ as a player, I'd want someone to tell me that. I'd be kind of embarrassed and upset if it felt like it came out of nowhere. But that's just me. She (or others) might react differently and prefer not to have their head cluttered with data they can do nothing about. That's part of why I was wondering whether to say anything or not.



I think you have it exactly backward. If a captain really thought a player was playing below level, it would be perfectly fine to *stop* playing that player, IMHO.



I would hope you know from my posts on another thread on this subject that I think it is wrong, wrong, wrong to throw games to manipulate one's rating to avoid a DQ or move to another level. Perhaps you missed that thread and therefore have honestly mistaken me for someone who cheats at tennis?

What I would propose is to play the player in situations where the team doesn't need her win so much.

Remember, I have to give all players 5 matches. I do have other strong players, players who are even better than this player but who happen to be protected by a computer rating. Playing her in conjunction with my strongest line-ups is totally fair to any opponents she might face -- if she destroys them then she'll get DQ'd, as it should. It just won't hurt her teammates because I made sure we won by 4-1, not 3-2.

Keep in mind that the league could (but does not) require forfeiture of all team matches in which the player played at all. That seems to be what you're advocating.

Eh, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill on this one, and you're assuming quite a lot to do it.

Our local league changed it this year so a person DQ'ed does lose all of their matches. Which I believe is more than fair, since it's so hard to get DQ'ed that you really deserve it if you do.

Otherwise I think playing a person who is underrated against only the weaker players where you knew you were going to win the match anyway is also not right. You are screwing those weaker players and you are cheating them out of a fair match more so than you would be if you played your ringer (hypothetical ringer, your lady probally isnt one) against the strongest of players. In most league most of the stronger players are ringers themselves anyway.

I think where GG is confused is that in most cases if a captain is worried about their player getting DQ'ed, they know something about them that would lead them to believe that they are at risk of that. Which means that it's likely that captain is a cheater for getting that person on their team to begin with.

In your case, the specifics you gave do not look like that though because your player has actually been playing at the lower levels and probally just naturally improved her game. But that also means it's very unlikely you should even be worried about a DQ.