USTA grievance against me timed match rules

[Creighton]

I once had a grievance filed against me because opponent claimed I was stalling in a timed match with a slight lead. Opponent came back to beat me the last match we played and thinks I was trying to prevent a repeat, but the fact is I often take longer breaks between points as matches go on due to fatigue.

He didn't have solid evidence (he said she said) and committee threw it out.

There are time limits on changeover breaks.

Yeah this is the problem with choosing to do timed matches if you have the option to not play timed matches.

Just the other day I was playing a timed match and we went up 5-3 with a minute left on the timer. My understanding is at 5-3 we win the set if the timer goes off but if it's 5-4 we play a second set tiebreak. Instead of delaying, I just went ahead and started the next game so we could try to win it outright. I can't imagine taking the win in that scenario on a rule technicality, although some in this thread are arguing that's the right thing to do.

The timed part just creates conflict. The entire second set my opponents who were losing never wanted to take a changeover. Hard to blame them because at the end of the day we all came there to play actual tennis. Not play the rule book.

 

[jmnk]

Funny how the situations actually develop by several posts in. The points that seem relevant to me are:

• At the onset, the match was scheduled 7-9
• When it got close to time, OP asked the club if they could go over and they said yes
• OP told the other capt'n they could play over and he said no.
• OP sounds like he did not like that answer.

[...]

it seems instead of
"

• OP told the other capt'n they could play over and he said no.

"
it was more of
"

• OP told the other capt'n the match is untimed now.

"
and it seems it was while the match was well underway, rather than at the start.

and indeed when the other captain said 'no', for whatever reasons (his player had to go, it seems weird to have the math rules changed midpoint through the match, etc) the OP really did not like the answer. And let it be known to everyone around by using " unflattering " (read: abusive) language. Which I suspect is the real reason for the grievance - the very unsportsmanlike behavior by OP.

While I found the OP to be unreliable based on his contradictions. At the end of the day, anyone who chooses to win with timed match procedures versus finishing a match is always going to be the actual bad guy in the situation.

well, yes and no. If the match has already started as a timed match you can't expect the opposing captain to agree to have it be changed to untimed. Even if the match was merely scheduled as timed (and it certainly was because it was stated the match was scheduled 7-9) and not yet started there are myriad reasons why the opposing captain still may not want to agree to have it untimed. And definitely not when the self-assumed captain (i.e. OP) is _telling_ you rather than politely asking.

[..]
Yes, and the default should always be to play a full match if able. Arguing otherwise just incentivizes bad behavior.

Maybe it should be - but it never is. At least I have never seen it. The 'if able' is impossible to apply fairly in all cases. Let's say the courts are reserved 7-9 and at 9 the club attendant says - go ahead, you can play. So you decide to play untimed match. At 9.25 attendant says 'well, I thought it would be 10-15 minutes, I kind of need to go now'. So now you go back to it being timed?

 

[TTMR]

it seems instead of
"

• OP told the other capt'n they could play over and he said no.

"
it was more of
"

• OP told the other capt'n the match is untimed now.

"
and it seems it was while the match was well underway, rather than at the start.

and indeed when the other captain said 'no', for whatever reasons (his player had to go, it seems weird to have the math rules changed midpoint through the match, etc) the OP really did not like the answer. And let it be known to everyone around by using " unflattering " (read: abusive) language. Which I suspect is the real reason for the grievance - the very unsportsmanlike behavior by OP.



well, yes and no. If the match has already started as a timed match you can't expect the opposing captain to agree to have it be changed to untimed. Even if the match was merely scheduled as timed (and it certainly was because it was stated the match was scheduled 7-9) and not yet started there are myriad reasons why the opposing captain still may not want to agree to have it untimed. And definitely not when the self-assumed captain (i.e. OP) is _telling_ you rather than politely asking.


Maybe it should be - but it never is. At least I have never seen it. The 'if able' is impossible to apply fairly in all cases. Let's say the courts are reserved 7-9 and at 9 the club attendant says - go ahead, you can play. So you decide to play untimed match. At 9.25 attendant says 'well, I thought it would be 10-15 minutes, I kind of need to go now'. So now you go back to it being timed?

Again, the OP was in an unrelated bad mood and used the foul language in a phone call about someone else, not the opposing captain. My guess is that the OP tried to explain this to whoever notified him about the grievance, but the opposing captain was already in too deep having already gone this far in retaliation, to relent.

 

[Creighton]

Maybe it should be - but it never is. At least I have never seen it. The 'if able' is impossible to apply fairly in all cases. Let's say the courts are reserved 7-9 and at 9 the club attendant says - go ahead, you can play. So you decide to play untimed match. At 9.25 attendant says 'well, I thought it would be 10-15 minutes, I kind of need to go now'. So now you go back to it being timed?

I'm just curious what you think the negative is in this scenario? That you got 25 extra minutes of tennis? If my match has gone 2.5 hours, that means some great tennis has been played that day.

If your attendant comes back and tells you have to go to a match tiebreaker to decide the match, you're no worse off than if you had to do that at 8:55. Unless you're determining right and wrong based on what made you more likely to win. I think it would be hard pressed to argue it's a problem you blew your lead in the 25 minutes of extra play. In that circumstance your opponents just played better than you.

 

[trader14]

I can't believe this is still being chatted about - re the timed/untimed. There was no discussion re timed/untimed between anyone prior to the match. The 3rd set tiebreaker was basically over, just needed likely 2-4 minutes. Their captain declared match over and I said it it's not over it's untimed and refused to recognize me as acting captain. A less than kind word was said and said captain assumed correctly or incorrectly it was about him. The match had no effect on which team won. Neither player won their match it was a tie. It was a general grievance, apparently as long as you pay the bucks I could file a general grievance for anything. Why someone would want to drive a hour and play only to a tie when the match is already decided and a few more points would determine the winner is beyond me. I am not suggesting that I am a angel, I was simply looking for advice about the rules re timed matches and grievances. The latter I am covered given the numerous witness statements that call his account substantially into question.

My biggest tennis concerns are simply my weak backhand at this point but alas I digress

 

[ktx]

Maybe because there is so much obfuscation in your posts we have endless things to debate? IMO there is no difference in "playing the clock" between a person who is ahead at time and wants to end and a person who is behind at time and wants to play it out so they still have a chance. It sucks to win/lose by the clock but that's just part of the rules - the team ahead at the timer gets the benefit of the early lead. I personaly don't like timed matches because it introduces these other elements but that's part of it.

 

[jmnk]

I'm just curious what you think the negative is in this scenario? That you got 25 extra minutes of tennis? If my match has gone 2.5 hours, that means some great tennis has been played that day.

If your attendant comes back and tells you have to go to a match tiebreaker to decide the match, you're no worse off than if you had to do that at 8:55. Unless you're determining right and wrong based on what made you more likely to win. I think it would be hard pressed to argue it's a problem you blew your lead in the 25 minutes of extra play. In that circumstance your opponents just played better than you.

In my eyes the match has been started according to certain rules. The fact that the match is played under 'timed' rules does, or at least may, affect how one plays. Sure, everybody would say that the fact that a match is timed should not make any difference as far as how fast one plays - but I think we can all agree that is not necessarily the case. If an opponent is ahead in a timed match, and he simply uses allowed time between points and games as per rules - who am I to force him to play faster?

And if we do have extra 25 minutes of court time - I would be more than happy to continue to play, or do some drills. But it should not be a part of a sanctioned match.

Neither player won their match it was a tie. [...] Why someone would want to drive a hour and play only to a tie when the match is already decided and a few more points would determine the winner is beyond me.

You are wrong here. It was most definitely _not_ a tie, one side certainly did win. That's why there are rules for a timed match - to arrive at who won under any circumstances when the time expires. Those rules for timed match resolution are as much part of the rules as anything else.

 

[McLovin]

You are wrong here. It was most definitely _not_ a tie, one side certainly did win. That's why there are rules for a timed match - to arrive at who won under any circumstances when the time expires. Those rules for timed match resolution are as much part of the rules as anything else.

I believe what the OP is saying is the “team match” was already won (for arguments sake, let’s say it was 3-1 in one team’s favor). Their match was the last match, and would result in a 3-2 win or 4-1 win, but regardless, his match had no bearing on the final outcome.

And by “tie”, I don’t think he means an actual “tie”, just that nobody won his court outright.

In the Mid Atlantic there’s a confusing matrix of what the score is, and how you “finish the match”, right down to a coin toss I believe.

 

[jmnk]

I believe what the OP is saying is the “team match” was already won (for arguments sake, let’s say it was 3-1 in one team’s favor). Their match was the last match, and would result in a 3-2 win or 4-1 win, but regardless, his match had no bearing on the final outcome.

And by “tie”, I don’t think he means an actual “tie”, just that nobody won his court outright.

In the Mid Atlantic there’s a confusing matrix of what the score is, and how you “finish the match”, right down to a coin toss I believe.

yes, I get that. I'm saying that even individual match was _not_ a tie - because per that 'timed match rules matrix' surely one player was a winner. And because that individual match was played as timed from the beginning one player _did_ win his court outright. OP may think that winning the match because of timed rules is somehow different than winning by 'normal rules' - but that is not the case. If OP or someone does not like playing and have a winner determined by 'timed match rules' then the said player should not have been playing in a league where timed match rules are used. Simple as that.

 

[zaskar1]

the captain of our team wasn't there. There was no discussion between our captain and the opposing captain regarding if the match was timed or not, our captain and their captain exchanged lineups and then our captain left and theirs stayed and played (and lost). our match was scheduled from 7-9pm and our club closes at 9pm however I asked if we could continue and they said yes. I notified their captain the match is untimed however he insisted it's a timed match and they simply stopped playing so there was no change in the match one way or the other.

While I was on the phone with our captain I made a unflattering comment something along the lines of he is being a @#&%# and he assumed that I was speaking about him which I wasn't so yes I left stuff out mainly because I wanted to deal with the time issue. The secondary issues are there and if I typed everything it would be gobligook to read but I left it out because that I know how to handle. It's the timed match issue I am fuzzy with

it sounds like the opposing captain wants to be right, not play tennis.
especially if the facility said its ok to continue

this whole incident sounds like a test of "wills" not tennis competition
the opposition is probably right, timed match means you stop and reschedule for another time

when i use to play leagues, thats happened before and we just reschedule the remainder of the match

i thought the whole purpose of the league play is to promote tennis
and develop friendships through tennis.
guess i am sadly mistaken.
z

 

[socallefty]

timed match means you stop and reschedule for another time

That is not what a timed match means.

 

[TTMR]

That is not what a timed match means.

Perhaps that's what it should mean.

 

[sureshs]

@Cindysphinx has played many timed league matches

 

[Ferris]

It's recreational tennis, folks!

Of course, being around USTA League for 20+ years, I've seen this type of nonsense before. That's why filing a grievance in our Section comes with a $50 fee. It helps weed out the frivolous stuff like this.

Great idea to charge for filing a grievance!

 

[TennisOTM]

In my area, if a grievance was filed every time someone got a timed match rule wrong, there would be miles of backlogged paperwork. I think we have pretty sensible rules compared to other areas, but the downside is they are somewhat complicated. Many long time players and captains get it wrong. Scores get entered wrong on Tennislink as well. Sometimes captains just make up a score (e.g. a set that actually ended at 4-2 is entered 6-4). Or a score is entered something like 7-5, 3-3 where it should have been entered 7-5, 4-3 (set tiebreak played at 3-3).

Luckily we only have timed matches for local non-advancing leagues, so no one cares enough to get nasty about it. The scores do count for year-end NTRP though, so it's somewhat annoying when people can't get it right.