You Decide The Grievance

[Cindysphinx]

Boy, do my teams get all the drama or what?

My 7.0 mixed team had a dust-up last night that may have cost us the team match. I was not there, thankfully. I'll tell you what the rules are in our league and then I'll tell you what happened. You can decide who should win the grievance.

This season, matches are timed at 90 minutes, including warm-up. (Yes, I know many of you think timed matches *suck* blah, blah, blah, but that is the state of things now in our league).

The rules require (and league coordinators have emphasized) that captains are to agree on a timepiece (e.g. facility horn, cell phones, clock visible to all courts) for calling time and a method for calling time. They are then to tell their players. Spectators and captains cannot call time for the players unless this has been agreed to in advance. League coordinators have sent out many e-mails explaining this and encouraging teams not to exceed the 90 minutes for any reason and that matches must end exactly on time. League coordinators have also said that teams who fail to agree on timekeeping procedure in advance are on their own and should not look to the league for help. Disputes on a court must be resolved by the players on that court without interference by spectators or captains.

When matches time out, there are complicated rules that tell you who won. For our purposes, the rules that matters are that the team winning the second set by two games or more will be declared the winner of the second set. If a game isn't completed when time sounds, it is disregarded. If no team is leading by two games, the second set is disregarded and the winner of the first set wins the match.

OK.

Last night, our captain did not captain the match (wasn't playing and probably arrived late), so he designated a substitute captain. Let's call her Karen. The opposing team also had a substitute captain. Let's call her Jill. Jill and Karen agree that they will use a wall clock to keep time, and this was conveyed to all players. I do not know whether they agreed exactly how time was to be called, but I doubt they designated anyone to announce the end of time.

As luck would have it, Jill and Karen were both playing on Court One. Our players won the first set 7-5, leaving only 30 minutes or so to play the second set.

Jill (who was serving and in the middle of a game) and her partner were leading 4-3 in the second set when the wall clock showed that the 90 minutes were up. I believe one of our players loudly yelled "Time" also. Jill threw a fit and insisted that play continue, saying that the facility horn hadn't blown yet. She was very emphatic that play continue, so our players played. Jill held serve, so the set score became 5-3. Then the facility horn blew, about 4 minutes after the wall clock had shown the match had timed out (about the time our captain made it from the viewing area to the court). This meant that Jill's team was awarded the second set.

Our captain came down and protested this. He said the teams had agreed to abide by the wall clock. He also said that the league had said matches cannot go more than 90 minutes. There was an argument, and cell phone numbers were exchanged so the two captains could discuss it and decide what the scores would be.

My captain awoke the next morning to see that the opponent had entered scores awarding the match to themselves. My captain disputed the scores in Tennislink and is going to file a grievance that the extra four minutes of play was in violation of the substitute captains' explicit agreement and league policy.

Who wins the match?

 

[Sakkijarvi]

So the difference is between 4-3 and 5-3?

Sakki

 

[kylebarendrick]

I'd go with "points played in good faith stand" and award the 2nd set to your opponents. It sounds as if your team should have held their ground and refused to play anymore once time was called. Since they agreed to continue playing, those points should count.

Just an opinion from someone who's never played a timed match...

 

[Cruzer]

So if the 7-5, 3-5 score stands who wins? You both won 1 set (according the "timed match' rules) and 10 games each.

 

[10sfreak]

Cindy: One, your players should have held their ground - I'm not sure how they can take games away that were already played...Two, even if the second set is/was awarded to the other team, how did they award themselves the whole match? Y'all won the first set 7-5...I'm a little confused, as I have never played a timed match before...

 

[Cindysphinx]

Sorry.

Court Two was won by us, Court Three by the opponent.

If our players are right, then the second set doesn't count and they are the winners of Court One. We win the team match, 2-1.

If their players are right, then the second set was won by them. Both teams have the same number of games. You add up the total number of games in the entire team match. In that case, they win Court One and the whole team match.

These aren't "my players." These are my teammates. I don't have to take credit for this particular debacle. I would like to think my own players would not screw something up like this.

This just in: Jill is now saying she never agreed to use the wall clock. This makes Jill a Big Fat Liar, according to those who were there.

Hmmm. I wonder if those points were played in "good faith" if someone was intentionally breaching an explicit agreement . . .

 

[Cindysphinx]

So the difference is between 4-3 and 5-3?

Sakki

Yes. That's right.

 

[spot]

I would rule against you in the grievance. The 90 minute rules are there to keep things running on a tight schedule because if things go long it causes other problems. The other team couldn't make your team play those extra minutes, and once the extra minutes were taken up on the court any advantage of strictly limiting things to 90 minutes went right out the window. If your players had just stopped playing, walked off the court the other team wouldn't even have had a grievance to file. But once both teams agreed to keep taking up that court then those points probably should stand.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

So, the original agreement wasn't an agreement at all? And one captain bullied everyone into playing until a horn went off?

So, what is the rule for when captains decide to alter their original agreement later in the match whether being bullied or simply agreeing and saying "ok, we have a new agreement."?

That rule should decide the match and if their isn't a rule that says captains can renegotiate the "90 minute by a designated device" rule, then the scores should stand when someone said "Time."

As I see it, unless both captains had a "meeting of the minds" AND "can alter their original contract later in the match", then the scores should stand when someone said "Time" regardless what happened on any court after that moment (some played, some stopped, some score changed, etc.).

Those conditions are both necessary and sufficient to allow the scores to stand when the "horn" went off, nothing else should matter

 

[Jack the Hack]

Cindy,

You wrote:

"Disputes on a court must be resolved by the players on that court without interference by spectators or captains."

I would say that the players on your team should have walked off the court when the time was up, no matter how much of a "b-witch" Jill was being. The rules are the rules and the match was over. However, since they ended up agreeing to play on, I think they essentially gave the opposing team the second set. If I was your captain, I would have been totally pissed that your team mates were not aware of the scoring situation and the rules, and did not stand up for themselves. (Jill obviously knew exactly what the situation was.) It's probably going to cost you a team match. (Without expressly knowing all the rules in your league or having experience with timed matches, I would have to say y'all are out of luck if I was the coordinator.)

However, given the fact that your captain and Jill argued and exchanged phone numbers after the match means that the matter wasn't settled when they left... so it is VERY LAME that Jill went ahead and entered the scores into TennisLink anyway. She definitely didn't win any friends and will have a target on her back from you guys from here on out!!!

 

[JavierLW]

Boy, do my teams get all the drama or what?

My 7.0 mixed team had a dust-up last night that may have cost us the team match. I was not there, thankfully. I'll tell you what the rules are in our league and then I'll tell you what happened. You can decide who should win the grievance.

This season, matches are timed at 90 minutes, including warm-up. (Yes, I know many of you think timed matches *suck* blah, blah, blah, but that is the state of things now in our league).

The rules require (and league coordinators have emphasized) that captains are to agree on a timepiece (e.g. facility horn, cell phones, clock visible to all courts) for calling time and a method for calling time. They are then to tell their players. Spectators and captains cannot call time for the players unless this has been agreed to in advance. League coordinators have sent out many e-mails explaining this and encouraging teams not to exceed the 90 minutes for any reason and that matches must end exactly on time. League coordinators have also said that teams who fail to agree on timekeeping procedure in advance are on their own and should not look to the league for help. Disputes on a court must be resolved by the players on that court without interference by spectators or captains.

When matches time out, there are complicated rules that tell you who won. For our purposes, the rules that matters are that the team winning the second set by two games or more will be declared the winner of the second set. If a game isn't completed when time sounds, it is disregarded. If no team is leading by two games, the second set is disregarded and the winner of the first set wins the match.

OK.

Last night, our captain did not captain the match (wasn't playing and probably arrived late), so he designated a substitute captain. Let's call her Karen. The opposing team also had a substitute captain. Let's call her Jill. Jill and Karen agree that they will use a wall clock to keep time, and this was conveyed to all players. I do not know whether they agreed exactly how time was to be called, but I doubt they designated anyone to announce the end of time.

As luck would have it, Jill and Karen were both playing on Court One. Our players won the first set 7-5, leaving only 30 minutes or so to play the second set.

Jill (who was serving and in the middle of a game) and her partner were leading 4-3 in the second set when the wall clock showed that the 90 minutes were up. I believe one of our players loudly yelled "Time" also. Jill threw a fit and insisted that play continue, saying that the facility horn hadn't blown yet. She was very emphatic that play continue, so our players played. Jill held serve, so the set score became 5-3. Then the facility horn blew, about 4 minutes after the wall clock had shown the match had timed out (about the time our captain made it from the viewing area to the court). This meant that Jill's team was awarded the second set.

Our captain came down and protested this. He said the teams had agreed to abide by the wall clock. He also said that the league had said matches cannot go more than 90 minutes. There was an argument, and cell phone numbers were exchanged so the two captains could discuss it and decide what the scores would be.

My captain awoke the next morning to see that the opponent had entered scores awarding the match to themselves. My captain disputed the scores in Tennislink and is going to file a grievance that the extra four minutes of play was in violation of the substitute captains' explicit agreement and league policy.

Who wins the match?

Your team loses, and you would never win a grievence.

Because they caved (and according to your rules it's up to the players on the court, not anyone else), the players on your team are just as responsible for violating any rules as the other team, and once the match is over, it's over.

This situation even happens in non-timed matches where teams "accidently" break from scoring protocal and agree to move on. The team that caves in (even if they feel it's wrong) has no right to complain if it doesnt turn out there way.

Plus once the match is over, it's over. You cant go back and erase points that were already played, and once the teams shake hands (if they did), it's done.

Especially in this case because like someone else said your teammates could of simply walked off the court when the clock showed 90 minutes, they dont have to cave into anyone if they are following the rules. But you know in most cases, teams dont do this, they find reasons to cave in to "be fair" and then they complain when they get screwed.

 

[Paul Goldstein]

I would rule against you in the grievance. The 90 minute rules are there to keep things running on a tight schedule because if things go long it causes other problems. The other team couldn't make your team play those extra minutes, and once the extra minutes were taken up on the court any advantage of strictly limiting things to 90 minutes went right out the window. If your players had just stopped playing, walked off the court the other team wouldn't even have had a grievance to file. But once both teams agreed to keep taking up that court then those points probably should stand.

correct. Cindysphinx just use this as a lesson, not to make you bitter, but to help others on the team understand its ok not to play past the clock.

Its too bad, but let it go, and look to the future

 

[10sfreak]

Sorry.

Court Two was won by us, Court Three by the opponent.

If our players are right, then the second set doesn't count and they are the winners of Court One. We win the team match, 2-1.

If their players are right, then the second set was won by them. Both teams have the same number of games. You add up the total number of games in the entire team match. In that case, they win Court One and the whole team match.

These aren't "my players." These are my teammates. I don't have to take credit for this particular debacle. I would like to think my own players would not screw something up like this.

This just in: Jill is now saying she never agreed to use the wall clock. This makes Jill a Big Fat Liar, according to those who were there.

Hmmm. I wonder if those points were played in "good faith" if someone was intentionally breaching an explicit agreement . . .

Ok, but if your team on Court One won the first set 7-5, and "lost" the second set 3-5, then it's 10-10, right? How does the other team on Court One get the win? (Not arguing here, just trying to get a handle on this...)

 

[Jack the Hack]

Ok, but if your team on Court One won the first set 7-5, and "lost" the second set 3-5, then it's 10-10, right? How does the other team on Court One get the win? (Not arguing here, just trying to get a handle on this...)

10sfreak, the Court 1 match is not a win for either team. Since it is a 10-10 game tie, it essentially becomes irrelavant.

Court 2 was won by Cindy's team and Court 3 by the opponent. Since it is a tie all-around, the match is then decided by the number of games won by each team. Cindy didn't give the scores, but if Court 2 won 7-5, 7-5 and the opponent won Court 3 by a score of 6-2, 6-2... then the overall score in games becomes 32 to 28 for the opponents when it is all added up... and they win.

If Cindy's team hadn't let Jill serve out that last game, they would have won Court 1 outright and her team would have won 2 matches to 1.

Got it?

 

[10sfreak]

10sfreak, the Court 1 match is not a win for either team. Since it is a 10-10 game tie, it essentially becomes irrelavant.

Court 2 was won by Cindy's team and Court 3 by the opponent. Since it is a tie all-around, the match is then decided by the number of games won by each team. Cindy didn't give the scores, but if Court 2 won 7-5, 7-5 and the opponent won Court 3 by a score of 6-2, 6-2... then the overall score in games becomes 32 to 28 for the opponents when it is all added up... and they win.

If Cindy's team hadn't let Jill serve out that last game, they would have won Court 1 outright and her team would have won 2 matches to 1.

Got it?

Yeah, but I was mostly confused by her statement that the other team has won the match on Court One (the part that I quoted in bold).

 

[Jack the Hack]

This situation kind of reminds me of a tournament lesson I learned a long time ago. I was about 19 or 20 and I was playing this much older guy in the semifinals of a small tournament. We had split the first two sets, and the match had been very long. I was up 4-0 in the third and I had break point on my opponent. At this point, he was cramping bad and limping all over the court. On that break point, we had a long rally and I ended up shanking a ball that was on it's way to flying way out. However, inexplicably, my opponent reached out and caught the ball because he didn't want to go get it. Right away, he realized that he shouldn't have caught it and offered the point to me. However, thinking I had the match in the bag and feeling sorry for him, I let him have the point. Big mistake! He went on to hold that game, break me, and then hold again. What should have been a 5-0 lead and a chance to serve out the match became instead only a 4-3 lead... and he broke me again. Bottom line, I ended up losing that match 7-6 in the third, and I surely don't think that would have happened if I had just taken the point (that I was completely entitled to under the rules) to be up 5-0.

If Cindy's team had just stuck by the rules and taken the match as they were fully entitled to do, this would have been over.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Here's my take on it:

Our substitute captain blew it. There is no excuse for what she did in continuing to play. The grievance should be denied. Why?

Had our team won that last game, I feel confident we would happily have accepted credit for winning that last game. There is nothing in the rules that says captains cannot reach a new agreement or even that players cannot blow off the captains' agreement and do whatever they want (e.g. use some guy's wristwatch instead of the facility horn). That is essentially what Karen did by agreeing to keep playing.

I might feel differently had Court One had a regular player (not a substitute captain) who might well not understand what the captains had agreed to. Then if Jill lies to our players, maybe you have something. Since Karen made the deal, it was Karen's mistake not to enforce the deal.

I wonder what would have happened if Karen had agreed to finish out the game "under protest." In other words, say "Look, our time will expire if we stand here arguing. Let's agree to play out this game until the horn blows, but you must understand I am doing it under protest. If we win the game, the extra play will be moot. If you win the game, we will agree to ignore it if there was an agreement to use the clock." After all, there were 12 witnesses to this agreement to use the clock, right?

10sFreak, Tennislink requires that there be a winner in all matches. Since Court One was tied at 10 games each, you add up the games won on the other two courts. Our Court Two team lost badly, and our Court Three team won a third set tiebreaker in a close match. So our opponents are declared the winner.

As for me, if I attend a match for my own team, I captain that match. No way will I delegate this if I can help it. Too much can go wrong, all of which will be dumped into my lap to fix later.

 

[tbini87]

sounds like a major bummer. too hard for me to call, but it seems obvious that the other team's captain is a poor sport and loser.

 

[JavierLW]

I might feel differently had Court One had a regular player (not a substitute captain) who might well not understand what the captains had agreed to. Then if Jill lies to our players, maybe you have something. Since Karen made the deal, it was Karen's mistake not to enforce the deal.

It doesnt matter if they are the substitute captains or just regular players.

By your league's own rule (and as it is the way with most things) it's the players on the court that manage this system. So again if they dont know the rules but agree to do things a certain way, that match stands.

I had a situation once in my first year captaining a 3.0 team that I took over from someone else where my #3 doubles match (including the former captain) got talked into "mistakingly" playing a 3rd set supertiebreaker instead of a full third set by the other team.

All four of these guys had been playing in our league for years, and never in the history of our league had we ever played the supertiebreaker set.

But yet they did it. I totally think we were cheated, and I even think we would of won if it had went the full 3rd set (because one of the opponents had a leg injury and was struggling out there). But once the match was over it was done.

 

[Raiden.Kaminari]

The way I read it, I think Cindy's team should win the match since they won the only set truly completed.

 

[kevhen]

Stop playing in this stupid 90 minute league. Don't support anything so ******** like this that leads to constant bickering over the time and the scores. Your team should have stopped playing when time was called. Since they continued to play, the points played should stand so they lost 5-3. Next time quit when the clock says to end. But stop playing in this stupid clocked league.

Our USTA matches sometimes have 2 hour limits so then with 15 minutes to go you play another game to see if one team goes ahead by 2 games or back to tied. If tied then a tiebreaker is played. Maybe your 90 minute league should start this with 15 minutes to go as well.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Stop playing in this stupid 90 minute league. Don't support anything so ******** like this that leads to constant bickering over the time and the scores. Your team should have stopped playing when time was called. Since they continued to play, the points played should stand so they lost 5-3. Next time quit when the clock says to end. But stop playing in this stupid clocked league.

Our USTA matches sometimes have 2 hour limits so then with 15 minutes to go you play another game to see if one team goes ahead by 2 games or back to tied. If tied then a tiebreaker is played. Maybe your 90 minute league should start this with 15 minutes to go as well.

OK. I'll just take my business elsewhere. I will pay many thousands of dollars to join some country club league where I will play the same small group of players again and again and again and again. Or perhaps I will divorce my husband, abandon my family, and move to a place where tennis facilities are plentiful.

Really now. Our league is not "stupid." Can't you see how silly it is to propose that someone respond to timed matches by refusing to play in the league at all? What league would you propose I join?

There are limits on what can be done with the tennis resources available in our area. I know, some TW people live somewhere other than the real world and refuse to accept this, but it is a fact. I live in the real world. I understand that lots of suboptimal things happen when too many people are competing for too few resources. That's how you get things like traffic jams.

Our league has the tiebreak rules I described above. D.C. uses 90-minute matches and plays a winner-take-all single point to decide a tie. Kevhen's league uses another procedure.

I can see why you'd like your league's system, but I don't. I don't like things that speed up play by changing the basic dynamic on the court. No-ad scoring changes the basic dynamic on the court (and makes me lose!). Stopping a match 15 minutes early to deal with the possibility of a tie seems silly to me because the players might well be able to finish their second set in that 15 minutes.

I mean, if I won the first set and the second set is tied at 4 games apiece, let the players finish it. If they can't, then go ahead and use a fair system to decide who won. Sometimes the rules will cut against you, sometimes you'll be handed the win. Either way, you got to play a pre-determined amount of tennis without interference, and if you couldn't Get The Job Done in that time, then you take whatever result comes under the agreed-upon rules. The basic rule (where you compare number of games won) will tell you which team was more dominant. Seems like a good basis for deciding a draw, IMHO.

 

[cknobman]

The second set should stand since the players agreed to play it. If time had truly been up before the facility horn went off then why did your teammmates continue to play? This should be a good lesson learned because being "nice" or giving the benefit of the doubt gets you nowhere in the end. Rules are rules and people should abide by them no matter who gets "pissed off" because if they dont like the rules then they shouldnt be playing to begin with.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

All the public indoor clubs I know of, ALL the hours (except a handful during weekdays, and sometimes, not even those hours), are spoken for.

The club runs leagues, people organize their own league or contract, tennis clinics abound, pros with blocks of time, corporate contracts, and some of these book seasons (6-8 months) worth of time.

Timed matches is all there is. And people walk right on the court when the buzzer rings. Some will let people finish the point. Very few will let them finish a game.

People are paying anywhere from $40-100 an hour for that court. They want it now.

 

[JavierLW]

OK. I'll just take my business elsewhere. I will pay many thousands of dollars to join some country club league where I will play the same small group of players again and again and again and again. Or perhaps I will divorce my husband, abandon my family, and move to a place where tennis facilities are plentiful.

Really now. Our league is not "stupid." Can't you see how silly it is to propose that someone respond to timed matches by refusing to play in the league at all? What league would you propose I join?

There are limits on what can be done with the tennis resources available in our area. I know, some TW people live somewhere other than the real world and refuse to accept this, but it is a fact. I live in the real world. I understand that lots of suboptimal things happen when too many people are competing for too few resources. That's how you get things like traffic jams.

Our league has the tiebreak rules I described above. D.C. uses 90-minute matches and plays a winner-take-all single point to decide a tie. Kevhen's league uses another procedure.

I can see why you'd like your league's system, but I don't. I don't like things that speed up play by changing the basic dynamic on the court. No-ad scoring changes the basic dynamic on the court (and makes me lose!). Stopping a match 15 minutes early to deal with the possibility of a tie seems silly to me because the players might well be able to finish their second set in that 15 minutes.

I mean, if I won the first set and the second set is tied at 4 games apiece, let the players finish it. If they can't, then go ahead and use a fair system to decide who won. Sometimes the rules will cut against you, sometimes you'll be handed the win. Either way, you got to play a pre-determined amount of tennis without interference, and if you couldn't Get The Job Done in that time, then you take whatever result comes under the agreed-upon rules. The basic rule (where you compare number of games won) will tell you which team was more dominant. Seems like a good basis for deciding a draw, IMHO.

Apparently if you dont live in the Mid-Atlantic Section you are not in the real world.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Apparently if you dont live in the Mid-Atlantic Section you are not in the real world.

No, I mean if you can't wrap your mind around the idea of too many people chasing a limited resource, you aren't living with the real world.

 

[Cindysphinx]

All the public indoor clubs I know of, ALL the hours (except a handful during weekdays, and sometimes, not even those hours), are spoken for.

The club runs leagues, people organize their own league or contract, tennis clinics abound, pros with blocks of time, corporate contracts, and some of these book seasons (6-8 months) worth of time.

Timed matches is all there is. And people walk right on the court when the buzzer rings. Some will let people finish the point. Very few will let them finish a game.

People are paying anywhere from $40-100 an hour for that court. They want it now.

Exactly. I consider myself fortunate that I can play at well-maintained indoor county facilities where the court time can be had from around $26-$44 an hour and where league matches cost between $11 and $13 each.

 

[Topaz]

No, I mean if you can't wrap your mind around the idea of too many people chasing a limited resource, you aren't living with the real world.

We can both say it until we are blue in the face...but I don't think it will make a difference. Lots of tennis playing folk around here...only so many clubs. Most people can do the math...obviously others can not.

 

[Topaz]

All the public indoor clubs I know of, ALL the hours (except a handful during weekdays, and sometimes, not even those hours), are spoken for.

The club runs leagues, people organize their own league or contract, tennis clinics abound, pros with blocks of time, corporate contracts, and some of these book seasons (6-8 months) worth of time.

Timed matches is all there is. And people walk right on the court when the buzzer rings. Some will let people finish the point. Very few will let them finish a game.

People are paying anywhere from $40-100 an hour for that court. They want it now.

Very well said!!!

 

[JavierLW]

No, I mean if you can't wrap your mind around the idea of too many people chasing a limited resource, you aren't living with the real world.

And you think this only happens where you are?

As usual you just dont want to admit that you guys have handled it diffrently than anyone else.

You keep using that as an excuse why you "have" to do it that way, yet other areas of the country get along just fine without timed matches.

(the key is in other areas of the country it means someone may have to wait for a court, although we feel less strongly about having to do that versus losing quality in our match by making it timed)

It's incorrect to try to say you couldnt get the same matches going if it wasnt timed, because even you have said that most matches dont even time out. (which means that most matches would be done in the 90 minutes or certainly the 120 minutes anyway, and those that didnt, would mean that someone would just have to wait a little longer)

I agree that for most club matches (non USTA) you have to have it timed, you cant run your entire business on regular scoring since you usually have to allot time per hour. But there are matches where you dont do that (Tournaments which every club has), and I feel if you are doing it to a match, it means that you dont really value the outcome of that match as much as you would a match that is not timed. (because you are letting the clock decide the winner in some cases)

That's the real diffrence. In most areas that Ive heard of USTA league matches are important enough to not use timed matches.

 

[Cindysphinx]

And you think this only happens where you are?

As usual you just dont want to admit that you guys have handled it diffrently than anyone else.

You keep using that as an excuse why you "have" to do it that way, yet other areas of the country get along just fine without timed matches.

(the key is in other areas of the country it means someone may have to wait for a court, although we feel less strongly about having to do that versus losing quality in our match by making it timed)

It's incorrect to try to say you couldnt get the same matches going if it wasnt timed, because even you have said that most matches dont even time out. (which means that most matches would be done in the 90 minutes or certainly the 120 minutes anyway, and those that didnt, would mean that someone would just have to wait a little longer)

I agree that for most club matches (non USTA) you have to have it timed, you cant run your entire business on regular scoring since you usually have to allot time per hour. But there are matches where you dont do that (Tournaments which every club has), and I feel if you are doing it to a match, it means that you dont really value the outcome of that match as much as you would a match that is not timed. (because you are letting the clock decide the winner in some cases)

That's the real diffrence. In most areas that Ive heard of USTA league matches are important enough to not use timed matches.

Javier, I have no idea what point you are even trying to make.

You say I'm not admitting our area has handling it differently from other areas? Huh?

*Of course* we have handled it differently. Other areas have done things like have outdoor play, for instance. Other areas have done things like have staggered starts to matches. There are probably many other things being done I don't even know about.

My sister lives in a suburb of Denver, and they don't have league play *at all* in the winter. They have tournaments in the few indoor facilities during the winter, and they have outdoor league in the summer and spring. Forgive me, but I'll take timed matches indoor year-round over that any day.

Are you sure you're not just arguing for the sake of it?

You are right about one thing. If USTA league play were more important in my area, there would be more facilities for USTA league play. We could stop building schools and build more tennis bubbles. Ya got me there.

 

[catfish]

And you think this only happens where you are?

As usual you just dont want to admit that you guys have handled it diffrently than anyone else.

You keep using that as an excuse why you "have" to do it that way, yet other areas of the country get along just fine without timed matches.

(the key is in other areas of the country it means someone may have to wait for a court, although we feel less strongly about having to do that versus losing quality in our match by making it timed)

It's incorrect to try to say you couldnt get the same matches going if it wasnt timed, because even you have said that most matches dont even time out. (which means that most matches would be done in the 90 minutes or certainly the 120 minutes anyway, and those that didnt, would mean that someone would just have to wait a little longer)

I agree that for most club matches (non USTA) you have to have it timed, you cant run your entire business on regular scoring since you usually have to allot time per hour. But there are matches where you dont do that (Tournaments which every club has), and I feel if you are doing it to a match, it means that you dont really value the outcome of that match as much as you would a match that is not timed. (because you are letting the clock decide the winner in some cases)

That's the real diffrence. In most areas that Ive heard of USTA league matches are important enough to not use timed matches.

USTA leagues have to use the courts that are available to them in their geographic areas. If the clubs and facilities don't allow the USTA leagues to have more than 90 minute time slots, we're stuck with timed matches. The league coordinators can't force them to give us more time. It's too expensive to pay for an additional 90 minute time slot that may only be used for 15 minutes to finish a match. The timed match system is what we're stuck with in many areas. Maybe someday a USTA league player who is a millionaire will build an indoor facility with tons of courts available at no charge to USTA leagues. I wish!

Cindy, I'll post another message and give you our local league timed match rule. It's a little more clear. I don't have it handy so I'll post later.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Hang on, there's more to refute here . . .

You keep using that as an excuse why you "have" to do it that way, yet other areas of the country get along just fine without timed matches.

Javier, it should be obvious that our league has chosen to balance a number of competing considerations in a particular way. These considerations include the weather, players' desire for certainty in when their matches begin, players' desire for matches not to be geographically distant, players' desire for matches to be affordable, players' desire not to be limited in how many matches they can play or teams they can join, and probably dozens of other factors. There's also the idea that, if you only have X hours of court time, it is most fair to split it evenly so that everyone labors under the same inconvenient restrictions.

So no. Of course we don't *have* to have timed matches. We could instead simply schedule as many matches as can be scheduled in the available court time and then just stop having matches when that time is used up. Or we could decide no player can be on more than one team and can play a maximum of 7 matches per season. That would clear up the log jam in a hot hurry.

Or we could require players to wait in a log jam past when their start time is. When people are scheduled to start at 9 p.m. but can't get on until 10 p.m. and the facility closes at 11:00 . . . well, too bad for them, I guess. Or they can go finish up outside in the snow carrying flashlights, maybe. Or they can come back the next day . . . oh, wait, this won't work because one of the players is leaving town so now what do you do?

(the key is in other areas of the country it means someone may have to wait for a court, although we feel less strongly about having to do that versus losing quality in our match by making it timed)

Apparently, this is what you have decided. Terrific. Evidently the waiting hasn't become so severe that people are willing to make a different choice. Yet.

It's incorrect to try to say you couldnt get the same matches going if it wasnt timed, because even you have said that most matches dont even time out. (which means that most matches would be done in the 90 minutes or certainly the 120 minutes anyway, and those that didnt, would mean that someone would just have to wait a little longer)

On a Saturday, matches start at 9 am (I think) and run continuously until closing time of 11 pm. Who is going to be on hand to coordinate the logistics when a court gets behind schedule? Anyone who has ever played a tournament knows how insane it can be to run just one tournament on time. Try achieving this with eleven far-flung venues where we pay matches seven days a week.

Hopefully, you now have a slightly deeper understanding of why this problem isn't nearly as simple as you make it out.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

Thankfully, I live in South Carolina, where timed matches can never occur. Actually, most people don't care what time it is, ever. They could never adapt to timed matches. That just isn't American and certainly not Southern.

And I agree with the other posters, the gievance would not hold water. Forget it, move on, preferrably to a genteel, southern city without clocks, watches and horns. You'd be amazed at how little pressure there is when time is not a factor, especially when your three setter goes over three hours.

 

[JavierLW]

Javier, I have no idea what point you are even trying to make.

You say I'm not admitting our area has handling it differently from other areas? Huh?

*Of course* we have handled it differently. Other areas have done things like have outdoor play, for instance. Other areas have done things like have staggered starts to matches. There are probably many other things being done I don't even know about.

My sister lives in a suburb of Denver, and they don't have league play *at all* in the winter. They have tournaments in the few indoor facilities during the winter, and they have outdoor league in the summer and spring. Forgive me, but I'll take timed matches indoor year-round over that any day.

Are you sure you're not just arguing for the sake of it?

You are right about one thing. If USTA league play were more important in my area, there would be more facilities for USTA league play. We could stop building schools and build more tennis bubbles. Ya got me there.

My point is, if that's how you guys want to run YOUR league, that's fine. (if you didnt want to do it that way then Im sure you would complain)

But dont act like you are the only place in the country that has a lack of indoor courts and you have the ONLY solution. That's just ignorant.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Thankfully, I live in South Carolina, where timed matches can never occur. Actually, most people don't care what time it is, ever. They could never adapt to timed matches. That just isn't American and certainly not Southern.

And I agree with the other posters, the gievance would not hold water. Forget it, move on, preferrably to a genteel, southern city without clocks, watches and horns. You'd be amazed at how little pressure there is when time is not a factor, especially when your three setter goes over three hours.

What do you guys do in the winter? I'm curious. And how is inclement weather handled?

As for the grievance, I think the best course of action is to be darn careful who you pick as your substitute captain. Once something is screwed up, it all falls in the captain's lap. I only have about 5 people on the team I use as substitute captains -- they've been "trained" -- and one of them is on thin ice.

The latest is that the grievance was filed and it is in a line of other grievances to be resolved. I think they need someone like me to handle grievances, because I would move with dispatch. They wouldn't be allowed to sit around for long, that's for sure. In this case, I'd want e-mails from the other 10 players to see if there was an agreement about the time. Absent that, grievance denied.

I can't help but notice that I haven't seen impassioned e-mails from our players saying they were using the wall clock . . .

 

[amarone]

The latest is that the grievance was filed and it is in a line of other grievances to be resolved. I think they need someone like me to handle grievances, because I would move with dispatch. They wouldn't be allowed to sit around for long, that's for sure. In this case, I'd want e-mails from the other 10 players to see if there was an agreement about the time. Absent that, grievance denied.

I have sat on grievance committees and would deny the grievance whether there was agreement about the time or not for the reason given by several others - points played in (sort of) good faith. If your teammates had played "under protest", as you suggest in another post, I would then try ascertain whether the wall clock was agreed as the timekeeping mechanism and, if it was, uphold the grievance.

As for speed of handling grievances - it's not that easy. It can take a long time to get hold of all the players involved in an incident. Plus the committee I was on did not like to do things by email - we felt it better to be able to talk to the players (by phone) to get a better feel of how they felt and to put them on the spot with no opportunity to collude with teammates before answering.

 

[amarone]

What do you guys do in the winter? I'm curious. And how is inclement weather handled?

I am not quite in SC - I'm in Atlanta. What do we do in winter? Play tennis, of course, just like any other time of the year.

If the temperature is below 30, you don't have to play. Ditto for rain and snow, although I have played in light snow. Any matches not played are rescheduled - the players are given about a week to reschedule and if they cannot agree on a time, there is a set default time at which they must play. If only one team shows up at the default time for any individual match, it wins that match.

 

[tennis-n-sc]

What do you guys do in the winter? I'm curious. And how is inclement weather handled?

As for the grievance, I think the best course of action is to be darn careful who you pick as your substitute captain. Once something is screwed up, it all falls in the captain's lap. I only have about 5 people on the team I use as substitute captains -- they've been "trained" -- and one of them is on thin ice.

The latest is that the grievance was filed and it is in a line of other grievances to be resolved. I think they need someone like me to handle grievances, because I would move with dispatch. They wouldn't be allowed to sit around for long, that's for sure. In this case, I'd want e-mails from the other 10 players to see if there was an agreement about the time. Absent that, grievance denied.

I can't help but notice that I haven't seen impassioned e-mails from our players saying they were using the wall clock . . .

We play outdoors year round. There are a few indoor courts but most people just play outdoors. The ladies wear these leotard warmers and sweatshirts and guys wear sweatpants. You would be surprised at how quickly they come off after about 30 minutes of play in 30 degree weather. If it rains a match out, it is postponed to an agreeable make-up date to be finished outdoors. Same when a match is begun and then rain postponed. We might have one match out 10 affected in the early spring league and after that it is rare. Of course, we are in the midst of a severe drought so that enters into the fray. Sometimes the clay freezes and can't be used so we move to hard courts. All the private clubs here cooperate with the USTA leagues to make courts available to team matches. In other words, if you have a club team playing a public team in the same league, they can easily use the club courts. The computer generated schedule maker designates one team as the home team and they become the location of the match, whether public or private. A team may not form without designated home courts.

I've lived in the D.C. area before I began playing tennis. It really sucks.
Too many clocks.

 

[10sguy]

I just read this thread, admittedly somewhat quickly . . . so forgive me if I'm duplicating something already said.

It seems to me that the rule for determinung a winner of non-completed sets ought to consider a player/team being "up a break" - when the time limit is reached - to be considered the winner of that set. So, in the case cited, the insistent server's team was ahead, 4 - 3, right? Then they wouldn't have to even be concerned with winning the additional game. The real issue, though, is she apparently went outside the bounds of an agreed-upon process. Still, as many others have stated, "points played in good faith (even grudgingly) shall stand."