Yet Another 2020 Rule Change - Grievances Against Captains of DQ'd Players

kylebarendrick

Professional
I was looking through the 2020 league rules and found this nugget...

3.03A(7)a A sportsmanship grievance will be filed against any captain, co-captain or others who have condoned, assisted or approved of three (3) players who were either NTRP dynamically disqualified or disqualified by an NTRP Grievance Committee within any rolling 36-month period. Promotions do not count towards those three players.

I've been advocating for this for a while. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to players who play at the wrong level since they are likely not familiar with USTA leagues and the ratings rules. Captains, though, know when they have an out of level player. While this may just lead to even more efforts to better hide sandbaggers, I think it is worth a shot. Of course, filing a sportsmanship grievance doesn't necessarily mean any sanctions will actually be applied...
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
I was looking through the 2020 league rules and found this nugget...

3.03A(7)a A sportsmanship grievance will be filed against any captain, co-captain or others who have condoned, assisted or approved of three (3) players who were either NTRP dynamically disqualified or disqualified by an NTRP Grievance Committee within any rolling 36-month period. Promotions do not count towards those three players.

I've been advocating for this for a while. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to players who play at the wrong level since they are likely not familiar with USTA leagues and the ratings rules. Captains, though, know when they have an out of level player. While this may just lead to even more efforts to better hide sandbaggers, I think it is worth a shot. Of course, filing a sportsmanship grievance doesn't necessarily mean any sanctions will actually be applied...
As a captain, I 100% agree with this. One out of level player, I'll give the captain the benefit of the doubt. By three, they know what they're doing and need to face discipline for it.
 

brettatk

Semi-Pro
Would this be going forward from now or would past seasons count? There is a team who always has one or two self rates incorrectly rate each season so they can win at 4.0. He's had 3 players DQ'ed in the past 24 months.
 
I was looking through the 2020 league rules and found this nugget...

3.03A(7)a A sportsmanship grievance will be filed against any captain, co-captain or others who have condoned, assisted or approved of three (3) players who were either NTRP dynamically disqualified or disqualified by an NTRP Grievance Committee within any rolling 36-month period. Promotions do not count towards those three players.

I've been advocating for this for a while. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to players who play at the wrong level since they are likely not familiar with USTA leagues and the ratings rules. Captains, though, know when they have an out of level player. While this may just lead to even more efforts to better hide sandbaggers, I think it is worth a shot. Of course, filing a sportsmanship grievance doesn't necessarily mean any sanctions will actually be applied...
Somewhere in the universe, @Startzel is smiling.

I agree with the intent of the rule. Of course, a wise captain will simply accumulate his 2 strikes strategically and then go dormant for a while. The rule simply defines how much sandbagging he can do. A better rule [one that more strongly discourages sandbagging, not necessarily a fairer one] would be one that was more capricious and less predictable.
 

leech

Rookie
I like the intent of this rule.

Not sure how it will be applied. In our area, most players play for more than one captain. Would a DQ'd player be included in the 3-player tally for each of the captains they played for during the year? Or just for the captain in which they obtained their third strike (or were DQ'd by the Grievance Committee)?
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
I like the intent of this rule.

Not sure how it will be applied. In our area, most players play for more than one captain. Would a DQ'd player be included in the 3-player tally for each of the captains they played for during the year? Or just for the captain in which they obtained their third strike (or were DQ'd by the Grievance Committee)?
But what if the first two strikes were for a different captain? I think the rule has to apply to all of the player's captains. They "get" 3 over a period of time, I don't see an issue with a DQ'd player counting for multiple captains. They all elected to have the player on their roster, they all accept the risk.
 
I like the intent of this rule.

Not sure how it will be applied. In our area, most players play for more than one captain. Would a DQ'd player be include d in the 3-player tally for each of the captains they played for during the year? Or just for the captain in which they obtained their third strike (or were DQ'd by the Grievance Committee)?
Great question.

Also do appeal players count? From the wording I assume so. But should players that the USTA's own rating system lets appeal down a level be treated the same as a player who self-rated at the wrong level due to a sleazy captain?
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Great question.

Also do appeal players count? From the wording I assume so. But should players that the USTA's own rating system lets appeal down a level be treated the same as a player who self-rated at the wrong level due to a sleazy captain?
I can see the rationale for them not counting. An appeal is done by the player per the USTA's rules, not by the captain, so why should the captain be held responsible?

The counter argument I suppose is that some appeals are done at the behest of a captain and/or done by players who tanked matches at their captains request trying to get bumped down and failed, but were able to appeal down, so the rule aims to catch them too.

Now, I'd have to do some research, but my guess is the majority of DQ's are from self-rates and not appeals, and those that are DQ'd as appeals fall into the category of trying to manipulate things down as I noted above, so I'm ok with them being included (pending my research to confirm my hypothesis).
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
Love the change. If captain has this happen that often it's great that they are putting a procedure in place to automatically review if anything nefarious is happening.
 

brettatk

Semi-Pro
Is this how the previous rule was worded? This is what appears for Atlanta in the 2020 rules section. Wondering if they just didn't change it or decided against enforcing the new rule.

A complaint may be filed by a captain or Local League Coordinator against a player and/or captain who commits or condones entering at one level when their actual skill level is at the top of the next NTRP level or higher. If a team has multiple players disqualified during a season or league year, USTA Atlanta may raise a NTRP grievance against the captain, who may be subject to sanctions, including disqualification and suspension, as deemed appropriate by the Southern Section NTRP Grievance Committee.
 
Last edited:

leech

Rookie
But what if the first two strikes were for a different captain? I think the rule has to apply to all of the player's captains. They "get" 3 over a period of time, I don't see an issue with a DQ'd player counting for multiple captains. They all elected to have the player on their roster, they all accept the risk.
Yeah, I think that's the only way it could work, and think this is a good rule to have. However, having a flat number of allowances (which is only 2, as the third could result in sanction) doesn't take into consideration the number of teams a captain runs. Having three DQs on one Nationals-bound team is far different from a captain who has accrued three player DQs over three years while captaining 50 teams over that span. I've been fortunate enough to have had just one DQ'd self-rated player (which occurred over 36 months ago), but have had at least two other players where I was surprised they hadn't DQ'd. If either of those players had DQ'd and we were operating under these rules, I'd definitely captain fewer teams and likely would ask someone else to captain teams where there were any self-rated players.
 

J D

Rookie
So, four years ago I had a self rate who was playing up for the team I captained. We were short handed. His regular partner on court 3 was coming back from a major accident two years prior and had played terribly the year before. By the next year he had greatly improved.

They lost a couple of matches that weren’t competitive (never getting above four games a set). Then we played the first place team that was gunning for the playoffs. The self rate and his partner “somehow” slaughtered their previously undefeated opponents 3 and 2. I was on the next court and noticed their opponents tanking the match badly with some very obvious ratings management going on. They knew they didn’t need the court to beat us.

So, I was emailed during the following week by the state director to let me know they were bumping our self rate up to our team’s level. I told him they were wrong because everyone else on the team could bagel the kid every time in a set and there was no way he was at our level. They replied he had generated three strikes. I guess between the tanked match and the fact that they had his partner rated too low because he had been limping around in the a knee brace the year before, they figured their team was doing much better than expected.

The kid never won a match except that one. After the artificial bump expired a year and a half later, he was dropped back down to his original self rate level. TLS and TR actually said he should have been a level below that.

I don’t know if I would have been given a strike for that or not. The moral of the story, though, is that the NTRP is a very flawed system, especially in regards to doubles, and giving strikes to captains based on it isn’t going to be close to fair in every case.
 
Last edited:

Doan

New User
So, four years ago I had a self rate who was playing up for the team I captained...

I don’t know if I would have been given a strike for that or not. The moral of the story, though, is that the NTRP is a very flawed system, especially in regards to doubles, and giving strikes to captains based on NTRP results isn’t going to be fair in every case.
3.03A(7)a A sportsmanship grievance will be filed against any captain, co-captain or others who have condoned, assisted or approved of three (3) players who were either NTRP dynamically disqualified or disqualified by an NTRP Grievance Committee within any rolling 36-month period. Promotions do not count towards those three players.

That would be a promotion. For other "edge cases" I think it's fair as the captain would have a chance to argue their case with the Grievance Committee if there were any extenuating circumstances.
 

J D

Rookie
Yes, but if he had also been playing at the level below at the same time, that captain would have been given a strike unfairly.
 

CHtennis

Rookie
I like this rule. As a player and sometimes captain that has the goal of winning national championships I look for players that push the level ceiling. Saying that, I have only had one player on my teams get DQed and he was very clearly above level and it was mistake to play him and I regret not pushing him to play 5.0 after playing with him in practice. It is very hard to get DQed if you are not way too good for the level, dont get me wrong odd things happen and people get DQed that shouldnt but it happens pretty rarely. To have 3 in 3 years is a lot. On all the teams I played on, including 4 national trips, we only had one player DQed and that is over 16 years of playing with the aggressive goal of trying to win nationals.

Also someone has to file a grievance against you, so if the community knows that you are not trying to game the system you just captain a lot of teams, then you would likely never have a problem. This just catches the captains that are really pushing the envelope and trying to bring in a lot of over level players.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Yeah, I think that's the only way it could work, and think this is a good rule to have. However, having a flat number of allowances (which is only 2, as the third could result in sanction) doesn't take into consideration the number of teams a captain runs. Having three DQs on one Nationals-bound team is far different from a captain who has accrued three player DQs over three years while captaining 50 teams over that span. I've been fortunate enough to have had just one DQ'd self-rated player (which occurred over 36 months ago), but have had at least two other players where I was surprised they hadn't DQ'd. If either of those players had DQ'd and we were operating under these rules, I'd definitely captain fewer teams and likely would ask someone else to captain teams where there were any self-rated players.
Excellent points.

FWIW, it appears this new rule appears in a NorCal 2020 regulations document but I have not seen it in a document from National yet. It is possible it is a NorCal specific rule, working to verify that.

Note of course that player's are only DQ'd from play in Adult advancing leagues, so it would be interesting to see how this rule would be interpreted in an area like yours where the same player could be on one advancing league team and also on Mixed or non-advancing league teams (Combo, Singles, etc.). Would the captain of the non-advancing league teams be subject to this rule? Aspects like this are perhaps an indicator that this is a NorCal only rule where I think they only have Combo as a non-advancing league and not all the options you do.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
The moral of the story, though, is that the NTRP is a very flawed system, especially in regards to doubles, and giving strikes to captains based on it isn’t going to be close to fair in every case.
I don't know that this is an accurate statement to make based on one example that was pretty clearly an edge case. Scenarios where a player has obtained a rating from play in the past that no longer represents their current ability will open the door for strange things to happen, but these are pretty rare and not every one results in an unfair DQ. Will some happen? Sure, but I don't think it is a widespread problem.
 

leech

Rookie
Also someone has to file a grievance against you, so if the community knows that you are not trying to game the system you just captain a lot of teams, then you would likely never have a problem. This just catches the captains that are really pushing the envelope and trying to bring in a lot of over level players.
Hmmmm, in our Section, dynamic DQs are applied systemically. Three strikes, and a self-rated (or appealed-down) player gets dynamically DQ'd, with no need for a grievance. I don't think there is even a process for someone to file a grievance for a dynamic DQ.
 

CHtennis

Rookie
Hmmmm, in our Section, dynamic DQs are applied systemically. Three strikes, and a self-rated (or appealed-down) player gets dynamically DQ'd, with no need for a grievance. I don't think there is even a process for someone to file a grievance for a dynamic DQ.
I was saying that it looks like a greivance could be filed against the captain by another captain or player in the area after the three DQs. Am I reading that wrong?
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Also someone has to file a grievance against you, so if the community knows that you are not trying to game the system you just captain a lot of teams, then you would likely never have a problem. This just catches the captains that are really pushing the envelope and trying to bring in a lot of over level players.
As the text the OP posted is worded, it doesn't sound like other captains have to file a grievance.

"A sportsmanship grievance will be filed against ..."

Sounds like it is more automatic and administrative than something a captain has to notice and file.
 

leech

Rookie
I was saying that it looks like a greivance could be filed against the captain by another captain or player in the area after the three DQs. Am I reading that wrong?
Oh, gotcha. I think they'd have used "may be filed" if this was just a mechanism to allow other captains to file a grievance, instead of "sportsmanship grievance will be filed".
 
Not sure if im interpreting the rule correctly or not. Does this rule mean that Texas's (im okay TX bashing) 4.0 teams will be filled with 3.5S (getting promotions to 4.0) instead of 4.0S (getting DQ'ed) to get past this rule?
 

kylebarendrick

Professional
Not sure if im interpreting the rule correctly or not. Does this rule mean that Texas's (im okay TX bashing) 4.0 teams will be filled with 3.5S (getting promotions to 4.0) instead of 4.0S (getting DQ'ed) to get past this rule?
While I recognize this is primarily Texas bashing (which I'm happy to support)... The level you self rate at has nothing to do with your actual rating and strikes. You play and the results generate the rating.

So... Those 3.5s Texas players would likely get a DQ to 4.5 which (in my book) should count as two strikes against the captain. Would serve them right too...
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
While I recognize this is primarily Texas bashing (which I'm happy to support)... The level you self rate at has nothing to do with your actual rating and strikes. You play and the results generate the rating.

So... Those 3.5s Texas players would likely get a DQ to 4.5 which (in my book) should count as two strikes against the captain. Would serve them right too...
If the captain is the same captain of both the 3.5 and 4.0 teams (which he is), then it should count as 2.
 
Top