The rule has to do with how three-strike DQs are handled during playoffs and Sectionals. Specifically, the National regulations give sections two options of what to do, those being to check strikes after each match and DQ the player and reverse results at that event, or to only check strikes after the finish of the event and DQ the player going forward but let the matches played at that event stand.
In the past, PNW elected the first option, and strikes were checked after each match. This meant that if a player got their third-strike in their first match, they'd be ineligible for the rest of the event, and if they won their match it would be reversed.
It also meant that if a player got their third-strike in their last/third match in their flight, and they'd won all three matches and their team had won all the matches 3-2 and won their flight, this would all be reversed. The player would be ineligible going forward, but each of those 3-2 wins would be reverse to 3-2 losses and that team that won the flight would in fact now be 0-3.
This seems pretty severe, and can have a major impact on a team and the standings, but in my opinion seemed fair as the team had benefited from a player that has been deemed to be out of level, so taking away that benefit seemed equitable and fair to the opponents.
Well, for 2022 PNW has changed the rule for Sectionals and now they will only check strikes after the event is over and all matches played stand. For local playoffs, the prior rule is still in effect.
Here are the two rules, first for local playoffs:
2.04B(2)a1 (PNW REG) - Dynamic rating calculations will be run throughout play at all Local League Playoffs.
And for Sectionals:
2.04B(2)b1 (PNW REG) - Dynamic rating calculations will be run after the conclusion of all Sectional Championships
I am not a fan of this change an don't know what prompted it, but have asked. Should I find out I will share what I hear.
The reasons I don't like it include:
- A team that has hidden out of level players during the regular season can let them loose in every match at Sectionals with no fear of implications for the team. Sure, they'll lose them for Nationals, but the benefit in getting there.
- The team that wins Sectionals and represents the section at Nationals very well not be the best team to represent the section. If they've lost players that carried them to the win, they aren't the same team, and a team they unfairly beat could be a better representative for the section.
- Forcing opponents to have to face out of level players, who are proven to be out of level, and just accept the loss, is not fair or equitable to all of the opponents at Sectionals.
This rule change is in effect encouraging captains to find out of level players and hide them in local league play so they can benefit from having them at Sectionals with very few negatives. It is the exact opposite of what I'd think we want league play to be and is trying to be "fair" to teams with questionable players by letting them play, at the expense of being "fair" to all the other teams who have to play against them. That seems backwards to me.
What do you think?
There are two sides to every coin, and I think that in this case, I actually agree with this new system. People will drive hours, book hotels, and sacrifice work days to play sectionals, with sometimes 9am or earlier matches on Friday. I think that this will give all players the chance to at least play through sectionals. Also, it's unfair to players who aren't given a chance to play out of fear of dq. I have heard of people being disqualified first match at sectionals and now just stuck with all the money/time they spent wasted. I agree that it has negative implications to the cheating problems, but for a league that is prioritizing providing opportunities to play, I agree with this at least from a logistical perspective for players. Maybe having differing degrees of out of level play having different implications at the end of sectionals could be a solution. Maybe one level where out of level player is dq'd but matches stand, but another where out of level player is dq'd AND results are flipped, due to either to higher strike threshold, absurdly high dynamic (even without strikes), or some sort of volatility index on the player as a measure of potential sandbagging.
ReplyDeleteFair points, you articulately state the reason to let them play, I just disagree that giving preference to the player/team that is proven to be out of level over the other seven teams and all their players is the right thing to do.
DeleteWhy should the single person's not playing due to fear of DQ outweigh the other 70+ players that just want fair matches?
What should the single person's sacrifice of work days and expense outweigh the other 70+ players that made the trip and are cheated out of a chance to go to Nationals?
IMHO, this rule prioritizes letting "cheaters" play and benefit over the rest of the rule abiding players and sends the wrong message. Yes, I know the USTA doesn't want to discourage new players from joining league, but rules like this discourage existing players from coming back year after year and contribute to the decline in participation.
Interesting, I didn't know sections could run calculations during sectionals. My section doesn't; they wait until after sectionals. I can see some reasons why waiting until after seems better, but running calculations during does make more sense.
DeleteThe money argument is irrelevant to me. And what about all the other players paying money to compete against someone above their level? Agree with Kevin about this. Players/teams are being shady and got caught. Those players that strikeout shouldn't have been there in the first place. Though strikes can often be misleading and shouldn't actually be strikes sometimes.
I just finished one of my sectionals. There's always at least 3-4 guys there that are clearly out of level, and the winning team will have at least 1-2 of these guys. Taking just one guy off a team, especially if the top guy, especially if that top guy is clearly above level, will usually dramatically hinder that team.
There was an event this weekend where a player was DQ'd in their last match. The team went from 4-0 and going to Nationals to 2-2 after matches were reversed. Should the rest of the team benefited and gotten to go to Nationals (without the DQ'd player) or was it more fair for another team that had lost to the out of level player get to go?
DeleteIt's definitely more fair to let the the 2nd place team to go. But wow, that's a tough situation.
DeleteBut the team with the DQ'ed player still might have been the best team though we'll never know. And whoever they would've substituted for that player, could've possibly have won or at least gotten some games. The striked matches turn to 6-0, 6-0 losses, right? Or maybe the 3rd place team would've won, etc, depending on matchups if the DQ'ed player wasn't playing at all. But this is a different argument entirely.
I have known of teams making nationals primarily with a ringer who then strikes out after sectionals. And other teams making nationals with a ringer who doesn't strikeout after sectionals but definitely should've or not been able to play at that level at all.
I agree it is a tough situation. Dealing with DQ's is tough, it would be nice if there were a way around it. But as long as captains/players will push the envelope in the pursuit of Nationals, it is going to happen. And while it is easy to feel for the rest of the team, you have to feel for the other teams more IMHO.
DeleteRight. It's what USTA league is about for the majority. Who can push the envelope the most and get away with it? Every district/section has to come together and monitor players, but don't see that happening even remotely. Even if every area except one does, what advantage will these places have? That one exception will always have an advantage.
Delete