USTA tiebreak screw-up - feel my pain

[beeveewee]

first set: lost 6-4
second set: won 6-2
third set: up 4-1... opponent's Captain interrupts. Says the rules have changed and we have to scratch the third set and play a 10 point tiebreak.

Last year I had something similar happen but the Captain was obviously wrong and trying to give his guys a chance. So I was very skeptical but the guy seemed for real. He claimed he had consulted with my Captain who agreed and I figured I'm rolling the guy so I'll play it out.

Lost tiebreak 8-10, lost the match.

My Captain agreed that the third set tiebreak was the new rule and also agreed that the correct way to handle the situation was to scrub the score and start a tiebreak from scratch. Also, the other Captain consulted with my Captain before interrupting my match so good on him for that.

Have to admit it smarts a little. I played the third set in good faith and was obviously in command. Life isn't fair and this is but one small example.

So... Please confirm that we played it out properly (as much as it sucks), tell me how it should have been handled, or just offer me some sympathy.

 

[michael_1265]

I have not looked this particular item up, but I think you got screwed. You played the first five games in good faith.

 

[JLyon]

you should have either finished the set or take the victory since when this occurs it typically turns into first one to 3. I would be ready to protest said result.

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

The rule is consistently that all games played in good faith stand. Therefore once you all started the set you cannot then agree to play it as a MTB instead.

Here, you can play out the 3rd set if all parties agree ... but it is expected that you will play a third set MTB.

You were screwed.

 

[Sim]

If I was one of the captains, I would have let the set finish the way it started.

 

[goober]

You got hosed. Because you were already past the second point of the 5th game you should have finished your set.

USTA Comment 27.4:... a 10-Point Match Tiebreak would be used in lieu of the third set. The players inadvertently play a regular Tiebreak Set until they realize the mistake after the server has served a first service fault
at the beginning of the second point of the fifth game of the final set.
What should happen? Regardless of whether the score is 2-2, 3-1, or
4-0, the players must continue playing a full Tiebreak Set because
they have started the second point of the fifth game. If the score
reaches 6-all the players would play a 7-Point Set Tiebreak. The score
is recorded the same as any other Tiebreak set..

If you haven't started the 5th game:

... mistake was discovered before the start of the fifth game, the players must continue playing until the score reaches 3-1 or 2-2. If the score reaches 3-1, the player who is ahead wins the set and the final set
score is recorded as 3-1. If the score reaches 2-2, a 10-point Match
Tiebreak is played. The score is recorded as 3-2(x) with the score in
the 10-point Tiebreak placed inside the parentheses.

In either case, scrapping points played and starting over with a new 10 TB was not the right thing to do.

 

[Caesar]

He didn't get screwed. He screwed himself by not knowing the rules.

 

[AR15]

Yes, the set should have been finished, but the score would only be recorded as 1-0 for that set.

I wouldn't say you got screwed because I have been up 5-0 and lost a set, and I've been down 0-5 and won a set. You just never know what can happen.

Put it past you, and move on.

 

[sphinx780]

I wouldn't say you got screwed but it sucks. When you are that far into a set, it should be finished.

That being said, in MN we continually run into time constraints due to the nature of indoor tennis for 8 months a year. In 5.0, most players wanted to play a 3rd set so we basically said, at the 10 minute mark, if you are up by 2 games you win. If you are up by 1 game, you play one more game, if tied at 10 min or after that next game, then a set TB.

In 4.5, most players are adamant to keep the MTB during the winter because they can become long, drawn out affairs...most singles matches don't finish in the alotted time of 2 hours.

Since you agreed, to play it that way, you screwed yourself but you live to fight another day. Oh well. I would have at least asked for a point per game so starting with a 4-1 lead if it's required that you play the MTB at this point in the match. Unless your opponent's a jerk, I think you'd have been granted that much.

 

[beeveewee]

District USTA board ruled that I had won the match at the time that the match was erroneously interrupted by the opposing team's captain. The letter was pretty formal, cited the applicable rules, etc.

 

[kylebarendrick]

Thanks for following up - it is always interesting to see what ruling is actually made.

 

[Cindysphinx]

That ruling seems wrong to me.

You agreed to start the set over and play a match tiebreak instead. Why would the board reverse what the players agreed to do?

I think if you had refused to play the match tiebreak and opponent had refused to finish the third set, then you'd have a grievance and the board should side with you under the rules.

Once you agree with your opponent to a resolution, I don't think the league should get involved.

 

[woodrow1029]

I agree with Cindy.

First of all, the set should have continued to completion based on the rule.

Second, I also think that since both captains agreed to start the match tiebreak, the League should not have changed the result like they did.

 

[Maui19]

I don't know about tennis, but it is pretty common in sports that players/coaches cannot agree to abrogate the rules.

 

[woodrow1029]

I don't know about tennis, but it is pretty common in sports that players/coaches cannot agree to abrogate the rules.

In team tennis situations, it is common that they can. They shouldn't have in this case, but they did and the match tiebreak was then played in good faith after agreement by the coaches.

I don't think the league should have overturned the result.

 

[woodrow1029]

And this wasn't them just changing the rules. They made an incorrect decision based on what they thought the rule was.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Man. It's even worse than that.

By awarding you the set, the board took a 4-1 lead in the third set and turned it into 6-1.

Dang, that is a terrible decision.

 

[gmatheis]

Man. It's even worse than that.

By awarding you the set, the board took a 4-1 lead in the third set and turned it into 6-1.

Dang, that is a terrible decision.

I don't see how they turned a 4-1 into a 6-1 ... maybe into a 6-4

but it's really not fair that all the points that led to a 4-1 lead and were played in good faith were suddenly wiped clean to start a tiebreak at 0-0

At the very least they should have counted the games already played as points and started the tiebreak at 4-1

 

[Cindysphinx]

6-1. 7-5. 7-6. It doesn't matter. The guy earned four games, and the board gave him 6 or 7, which is 2-3 games he definitely did not earn.

 

[kylebarendrick]

At least around here 3rd sets are entered "1-0" in the score sheet so it really wouldn't matter.

My objection to the original scenaro is that the captains interefered in the match to begin with. My understanding is that once a match starts it needs to be resolved by the players on the court. The fact that nobody knew the actual rule just makes it comical.

 

[JavierLW]

Man. It's even worse than that.

By awarding you the set, the board took a 4-1 lead in the third set and turned it into 6-1.

Dang, that is a terrible decision.

They probably erroneously looked at the solution where if you have played your second point of the set already when you discover you were supposed to play a tiebreak, you play until someone gets to 3 games to win. If it's tied at 3-3 you play a set tiebreaker.

So they are more then likely turning 4-1, into 3-1.

But this is the wrong decision because they are making the same mistake. It's already 4-1 and it's past the point where you can play a set to 3 to determine the winner.

If they were still in the match the proper thing would of been to just continue the set to 6 as a normal set at that point.

But I agree with you and woodrow, regardless of what happened the players and captains agreed on the outcome (Im sure someone shook hands), the league really shouldnt be able to overturn the results.

However I suppose these go to some committee (the grievance commitee) and who knows how they rule half of the time?? (I used to be on one of those)

 

[Boj]

That ruling seems wrong to me.

You agreed to start the set over and play a match tiebreak instead. Why would the board reverse what the players agreed to do?

I think if you had refused to play the match tiebreak and opponent had refused to finish the third set, then you'd have a grievance and the board should side with you under the rules.

Once you agree with your opponent to a resolution, I don't think the league should get involved.

I don't think captains should be allowed to interfere with a match in progress.

Doesn't that breaking a coaching rule?

 

[North]

Actually, I'm kind of glad the league stepped in and essentially said to the captains that they did the wrong thing and that was unacceptable. Maybe people feel the league essentially said "My league, my rules" and resent that.

In any event, the parties involved at least now will (hopefully) not make the same mistake in the future. Makes a good case for knowing rules/policies and keeping copies of them on the court.

 

[woodrow1029]

Actually, I'm kind of glad the league stepped in and essentially said to the captains that they did the wrong thing and that was unacceptable. Maybe people feel the league essentially said "My league, my rules" and resent that.

In any event, the parties involved at least now will (hopefully) not make the same mistake in the future. Makes a good case for knowing rules/policies and keeping copies of them on the court.

No, that is not how we feel. In tennis, if points are played in good faith, the players and captains agree on it, and the decision and result is agreed on at the end of the match, then the league should not go back and change the result.

You are right though that the league should say that they did the wrong thing and it was unacceptable. However, it should be a lesson for going forward, not changing the result of a completed result.

 

[catfish]

However I suppose these go to some committee (the grievance commitee) and who knows how they rule half of the time?? (I used to be on one of those)

You've made a very good point. I have served on many USTA grievance committees and I can tell you that many members of these volunteer committees have very little knowledge of USTA league rules. And many won't bother looking. It's the nature of volunteer committees.

Personally, I dislike the USTA grievance process. Volunteers are asked to make decisions on issues that can be confusing and difficult for even the most seasoned league coordinators and administrators.

 

[North]

No, that is not how we feel.

OK - fair enough. One question, though. The only thing that troubles me in terms of having played "in good faith" (which to me is a tenet of good sportsmanship) is that the first 5 games (to get to 4-1) were also played in good faith and were in accord with the actual league procedure. Is that relevant? Just asking - I certainly defer to your experience in judging the situation.

 

[Boj]

OK - fair enough. One question, though. The only thing that troubles me in terms of having played "in good faith" (which to me is a tenet of good sportsmanship) is that the first 5 games (to get to 4-1) were also played in good faith and were in accord with the actual league procedure. Is that relevant? Just asking - I certainly defer to your experience in judging the situation.

I totally agree with you North. That 3rd set was being played in good faith. All 4 players accepted the terms of playing a 3rd full set.

I feel the captain's interference is what triggered this unjust solution of discarding the 5 played games of the 3rd set. I wonder if this opposing captain would have strong armed the players into playing a tbreaker, if the momentum of the set was rolling in his own teams favor. Captains can't call lines, can't keep score, can't coach while a match is in progress.

They are a biased entity, they shouldn't be attempting to influence their players at all. It's against the Code...

 

[goober]

OK - fair enough. One question, though. The only thing that troubles me in terms of having played "in good faith" (which to me is a tenet of good sportsmanship) is that the first 5 games (to get to 4-1) were also played in good faith and were in accord with the actual league procedure. Is that relevant? Just asking - I certainly defer to your experience in judging the situation.

IMO its relevance is trumped by the fact, you agreed to go along with the change, your captain did as well and after the match you shook hands and agreed the match was over. My hunch is if the other team appeals to a higher level, it would overturn the ruling of the local league.

 

[Boj]

Wow, even after the local league has spoken?!? This one has to go to the Supreme Court I guess, LOL....

Agree to disagree. Cheers!

 

[JavierLW]

Wow, even after the local league has spoken?!? This one has to go to the Supreme Court I guess, LOL....

Agree to disagree. Cheers!

There is usually an appeals commitee of volunteers in addition to the grievance commitee.

 

[woodrow1029]

OK - fair enough. One question, though. The only thing that troubles me in terms of having played "in good faith" (which to me is a tenet of good sportsmanship) is that the first 5 games (to get to 4-1) were also played in good faith and were in accord with the actual league procedure. Is that relevant? Just asking - I certainly defer to your experience in judging the situation.

IMO its relevance is trumped by the fact, you agreed to go along with the change, your captain did as well and after the match you shook hands and agreed the match was over. My hunch is if the other team appeals to a higher level, it would overturn the ruling of the local league.

North, Goober said it just as I was thinking it.

 

[JLyon]

It is too bad this situation came about and it was wrong to drop the 5 games played, but as others have said all participants agreed to the MTB and did it in good faith. A little childish to come back afterwards and then want it changed. There is a reason the captains should have a FAC handy.
Should be required reading for captains and parents.

 

[North]

North, Goober said it just as I was thinking it.

Just wondered what factors influence the judgement of someone who deals with this sort of thing for a living. (Though I think goober thought I am the OP.) I think honest reasonable people may value different facets of the situation and come up with different conclusions. OK to agree to disagree. Thanks Woodrow - appreciate your posts.