Saturday, October 6, 2018

Breaking News: 18 & Over 4.0 women potential/actual semi-finalist change, Southern in for Caribbean

I just learned that apparently the Caribbean team did not show up to Nationals with the full 8 players as is required and they ended up defaulting a court (3D) every match.  The team still managed to go 4-0 with three 3-2 wins on the strength of two singles players that would probably fare well at 4.5 Nationals so they qualified for the semis.

However, I hear grievances have been filed and their participation in the semis is now in question with the potential that the Southern team that was in 5th could be elevated to play in the semis.  See my earlier recap for the standings of those teams vying for 4th place.

This is a tricky situation.  I don't know what happened, if they were supposed to have 8 players and something happened, or if they never had 8 planning to attend and just bluffed their way into being allowed to start the event with just 7 players.  It is impressive that they could still find a way to go 4-0 starting out each match 0-1 though.

But the rules are that 8 are required for a few reasons.  One is that the opponents traveled and expect to get to play a match, and if a team is defaulting a court every match, that is 8 players on 4 opposing teams that don't get to play a match.

But more importantly, with the new format a team defaulting courts upsets the competitive balance as teams get credit for 6-0,6-0 wins that didn't happen and given how close all the tie-breakers can be, this matters and could lead to a team making the semis unfairly.

So I can certainly see a decision being made to not allow them to advance to the semis so this behavior is not rewarded and it doesn't set precedent for other teams to point to.  I hope Southern can rally their troops to play at 7:30 am if that is the decision.

How would you handle the situation?

Update: The matches should be being played, and TennisLink shows Southern in the semi, not Caribbean.  So it appears the grievance was upheld.

No comments:

Post a Comment