Who pays for the default?

[Cindysphinx]

Team A and Team B both have a match on a particular night, say April 1. Both teams have a stated policy that any player who causes a default has to pay the court fees ($72). If the team suffers a default because the team does not have enough available players, however, the team splits the default costs equally.

Team A must win its April 1 match to make the playoffs. Team B is middle of the pack and cannot rise in the standings with a win on April 1.

Becky and Susan are strong players who are on both Team A and Team B. Captain for Team B has them in the line-up for April 1. Once Team A learns it must win its April 1 match, Becky and Susan tell the Team B captain that they are going to play for Team A instead.

Team B captain has 12 days to find subs for Becky and Susan. She has six available players and needs two more. She asks the other ten players on the team to play, including two players designated as alternates. No one else can play. Team B defaults a doubles court, but wins the team match anyway. Team A wins and qualifies for the playoffs.

Team B captain believes Becky and Susan caused the Team B default and should pay the default costs. Becky and Susan believe Team B didn't have enough available players, so the team should share the default cost.

Who pays?

 

[Topaz]

Did Becky and Susan confirm for the lineup for Team B? If so, I think its on them. When lineups come out and people aren't in them, they make other plans.

 

[J_R_B]

Did Becky and Susan confirm for the lineup for Team B? If so, I think its on them. When lineups come out and people aren't in them, they make other plans.

I don't know the specific dynamics of the teams, but this sounds right. If I were the captain of Team A, however, I'd be pretty quick to offer to help with the costs since Becky and Susan incurred them in the course of helping Team A get in the playoffs.

 

[gmatheis]

12 days to find 2 people to fill in, out of 10 people (8 regulars and 2 alternates) that aren't playing.

Isn't the whole point of having alternates for a situation like this?

This sounds like a team default to me, split the cost among the whole team.

 

[spot]

Pretty clearly a team default.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Did Becky and Susan confirm for the lineup for Team B? If so, I think its on them. When lineups come out and people aren't in them, they make other plans.

Unclear.

Captain B prepared line-ups for the entire season early in season. There was much shifting things around as the season progressed.

The Team B line-up with Becky/Susan in it had not been sent to team members of Team B. Becky/Susan knew Captain B wanted them to play when they pulled out, and they knew Captain B's season line-up had them playing on April 1.

 

[OrangePower]

12 days to find 2 people to fill in, out of 10 people (8 regulars and 2 alternates) that aren't playing.

Isn't the whole point of having alternates for a situation like this?

This sounds like a team default to me, split the cost among the whole team.

Agree completely.

12 days to find replacements? As a captain, I would kill for that! It's not uncommon for me to have to find subs with 1 or 2 days warning. So as long as the captain gets a reasonable heads-up (which 12 days most certainly is), then it's on the team as a whole. And what's up with no-one stepping up out of 10 other teammates, with 12 days advance notice?

 

[dcdoorknob]

Another vote for team default.

 

[Nostradamus]

the entire Team shares the cost. because it is team responsibility

 

[Angle Queen]

Quick answer from me: Team Default, unless as Topaz said, Becky and Susan had already confirmed they'd be in the April 1 lineup. Even then, 12 days is A LOT of notice to back out. Merely knowing/speculating the captain wanted them in that lineup isn't sufficient to overcome the fact that there could/should have been 10 other possible candidates.

But the more intriguing aspect for me is that both strong players were on both rosters that would play on the same day.

Around here, the only scenario where you'd have play on the same day would be if the players were playing "up" in our weekend league...and that wouldn't fit the hypothetical description of "strong" players (they'd only likely be considered that "at-level"). Another weak possibility would be the partners being in the 18+ and 40+ leagues with some league season overlap...but that's a stretch.

Our weekday teams play on specific days according to NTRP and the only overlap is for makeups (which are supposed to be played on the "alternate" days of Monday and Friday...to avoid both player and court availability conflicts). I know ya'll don't do it that way up there though.

So...Cindy, how is that this pair came to play on two different teams that play on the same day? Is this a case of said players being in different Districts?

All that said, this highlights a real problem for captains who have players on more than one team in the same league/season. It's generally a recipe for disaster. And, as a player, I won't do it again...even though those weekday teams played on different days and I never had to pick one over the other, it was still more logistical stress than I wanted.

 

[schmke]

But the more intriguing aspect for me is that both strong players were on both rosters that would play on the same day.

Around here, the only scenario where you'd have play on the same day would be if the players were playing "up" in our weekend league...and that wouldn't fit the hypothetical description of "strong" players (they'd only likely be considered that "at-level"). Another weak possibility would be the partners being in the 18+ and 40+ leagues with some league season overlap...but that's a stretch.

Not a stretch, at least in the PNW section. We have our 18+ and 40+ leagues going on at the same time right now and quite a few folks are playing in both and there is no provision in the scheduling to preclude conflicts.

 

[struggle]

12 days is plenty of time to get subs OR arrange
to play a rubber or two on another day.

But, we don't the "regulars" and "alternates" thing.
We have 12 players and choose 8 per match.

Often if we warn the other captain ahead of time that we must default, we will arrange to play some or all rubbers on another day. See, we just WANT TO PLAY.......going to states and all that crap is just a PITA anyhow so we take that as/if it comes.

 

[jaggy]

Too much like a math word problem

 

[Cindysphinx]

Not a stretch, at least in the PNW section. We have our 18+ and 40+ leagues going on at the same time right now and quite a few folks are playing in both and there is no provision in the scheduling to preclude conflicts.

This.

Conflicts in scheduling are common, as you can have the same six or so women playing on the same mixed, 40+ and combo teams in the same season.

 

[Angle Queen]

We'll have some overlap of the 18+ and 40+ this year for the first time. There's already plenty of grumbling. But remember, this is Richmond. Change is hard.

I will say, though, they revised the days of play for Combo so there wouldn't be any conflict with the 40+.