When a DQ isn't a DQ?

schmke

Legend
It is pretty common knowledge that a USTA League player that is DQ'd is not allowed play at their DQ'd level after the DQ occurs. Here is the rule from the USTA Regulations.

2.04B(3) Following an NTRP Dynamic Disqualification, the player may not play at the
disqualified NTRP level of play or any lower NTRP level of play in either singles or doubles
for the remainder of the Championship Year and for the succeeding Championship Year.
In any Division using combined levels, the combined NTRP rating of the disqualified player
and partner may not surpass the level of competition. A player who has been moved up as
a result of an NTRP Dynamic Disqualification in the Adult Division must immediately adjust
his/her NTRP level of play in the Mixed Division.

It is also well known that a player cannot be DQ'd at Nationals. What is perhaps not well known is that a player can be DQ'd after Nationals if they accumulate a third strike at Nationals. This doesn't happen often, or doesn't matter in many cases, but there appears to be one this year where the DQ is shown, but the player was allowed to play at their DQ'd level.

The player was a 3.0S this year and played at 3.5 Nationals 10/19-21 and apparently got a third strike there as they are shown as a 3.5D now on TennisLink, and the date shown is in the week after Nationals.

The player also went to 18 & Over Mixed Nationals and per the rule above, should have been required to play as a 3.5, but they played with a partner rated such that it is clear they were allowed to play as a 3.0. I don't know how or why the rule was not enforced.

And yes, the player is on a roster for 40 & Over Nationals starting tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if they play as a 3.0 or 3.5.

Anyone have any idea why the rule wasn't enforced? My only thought is that somehow a waiver was granted due to the impact on the team, but that doesn't fly with me. Either the player is DQ'd (and they are) or not.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
That seems to be complete insanity ... any of the other teams would be well in their rights to file an administrative greivance and should win if the panel has any common sense at all.
 

PBODY99

Legend
I know the USTA does what it wants, despite what their rules are.
Person should have not been allowed to play in the mixed.
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
I don’t know but the likelihood that the captain of one of the opposing teams that makes it all the way to nationals doesn’t raise a giant stink over it seems exceedingly low to me. I’d be studying rosters like a hawk at that point. A 3.5D on the roster would not slip by unnoticed.
 

dsp9753

Semi-Pro
DQ'ed player won their match today with a 3.0. I think the DQ'ed player should not have been allowed to play 6.0 with a 3.0 player. But USTA officials allowed it so it is what it is.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
There are a few way out of level 3.0 men on the intermountain team ... but I think they are all C rates although sure to get bumped given their '18 performance
 

schmke

Legend
FWIW, I just wrote up a bunch more with quotes of the relevant rules from the regulations on my blog. The rules are a bit ambiguous or in conflict with each other so I can see how an interpretation could be arrived at to let them play, but I still think it is the wrong interpretation. The player shows up as a DQ on TennisLink, so the rules regarding DQ'd players should be followed.
 

Zman

New User
I'm curious how this guy was allowed to self-rate at 3.0 in the first place. He had played as a 3.5 in all previous USTA seasons, including the previous year (when he just played mixed and tri-level). Is it possible that his mixed doubles results yielded a 3.0 mixed-exclusive rating which then led to a 3.0 self-rating for men's leagues?

In addition, this particular player's situation would have been addressed long before, if the USTA followed its own principles. Namely, the self-rating guidelines say "When players are rating themselves, if they question at which level they should play, they should place themselves in the higher NTRP level of play." Although this is stated as a piece of advice rather than a hard-and-fast rule, there should be an associated hard-and-fast rule, namely, that self-rated players who join a team at a higher NTRP level than their self-rating will have their self-rating immediately changed to that of the higher-level team. What could be a clearer sign that a player questions at which level they should play, than the fact that the player signed up for teams at different levels? In this guy's case, maybe the appeal of dominating overmatched 3.0's and mixed doubles pairs might be outweighed by the appeal of joining a super-strong 3.5 team on its way to nationals. And more generally, forcing self-rating players to only play at one level might lead more of them to self-rate correctly, or to appeal up in mid-season once they realize how boring it is to play opponents far below their level.
 

schmke

Legend
I'm curious how this guy was allowed to self-rate at 3.0 in the first place. He had played as a 3.5 in all previous USTA seasons, including the previous year (when he just played mixed and tri-level). Is it possible that his mixed doubles results yielded a 3.0 mixed-exclusive rating which then led to a 3.0 self-rating for men's leagues?
Good catch, he did get a 3.0M which allowed him to re-self-rate as a 3.0.
 
Top