Double Dipping Gets Local

Over the past few Wednesdays, we have been examining USTA rules and regulations for tennis players who compete in more than one local league. So far, we have traced down from the National to the Sectional level. This post starts into USTA League Rules implemented locally for players who compete on multiple teams within the same division under a single area provider. Since I am most familiar with the rulebooks where I live, we will continue to examine specific examples from the Dallas Tennis Association (DTA) and the Greater Fort Worth Tennis Coalition (GFWTC). You don’t have to dig too far into the respective rulebooks of these two USTA League organizations to discover that both areas are perfectly fine with players competing on more than one team. After all, that doubles their registrations, which generates more revenue.

A player may play on more than one team within a division* at the same NTRP level provided it is in separate local leagues.
DTA League Regulation 4C.

Players can play on multiple teams at the same level as long as they are on different days.
GFWTC League Regulation 5A.

Last week’s post, “What is a Local League?” examined the definition of that term at the National Level. Unfortunately, neither the DTA nor the GFWTC rulebooks explicitly define what they mean when they use the term “local league.” Additionally, my careful reading of those respective rulebooks gives me the impression that the authors were working with slightly different (albeit unpublished) definitions from the one in the USTA National League Regulations. However, I have come to appreciate the clarity of the GFWTC wording in this section, which avoids the term altogether and just states that players may play on multiple teams at the same level as long as it is on different days.

I tried to run down a DTA-specific definition for a “local league” last weekend. In the process, the DTA league coordinator was extremely gracious in responding to my inquiries seeking clarification of what the phrase explicitly meant within that organization’s regulations. The outcome of that conversation is best summed up as “it’s complicated.” However, there was one beneficial side effect of that discussion, as I experienced a revelation of why the technical implementation of TennisLink has created an effective de facto definition. I will pick up that thread in the coming weeks.

A “double-dipping” player can potentially advance to the championship playoffs on more than one team. In fact, that happens a lot. Not surprisingly, the larger local league organizations have rules to help sort that out. For example, the DTA regulations contain an umbrella statement that can be interpreted to apply to championship playoffs at both the local and Sectional levels.

It is the responsibility of the captain to know if they have any players that qualify for championship play on more than one team within the same division**. A player who will be attending Sectionals with a team from another local league is not eligible to participate in USTA Dallas playoffs in the same division.
DTA League Regulation 4D.

One particularly interesting thing about DTA’s regulation 4D is that it places the onus on the captain to know the playoff qualification status of all their players. However, as I previously described in “The Wild West of USTA Local League Rules and Regulations,” the penalties associated with violations are imposed against the player rather than the captain.

While examining the corresponding regulation within the GFWTC rulebook for this post, I discovered that it contains what is surely an error.

If players play on a two-team league, they must designate which team is primary and play in the playoffs for that team. Players have a responsibility to the team/captain to notify the captain if playing on more than one team and which team is considered primary.
GFWTC League Regulation 5D

I am 100% sure that sentence should start as “If a player plays on two teams within the same division, they must designate which team is primary. A player can’t compete for two teams that compete against each other in a two-team league. Another nonsensical way that wording could be interpreted is that if a double-dipping player played on two teams within the same division, they would ONLY be responsible for declaring their primary team if one of those leagues had two teams. That is clearly not the intent.

Another interesting aspect of Fort Worth’s rule, once the wording is corrected, is that it could logically apply to players competing in another area’s local league. So, if a player competed in local leagues for Fort Worth and any other area’s local league, they would potentially be required to make a primary team declaration between both leagues, even if the other one didn’t require it. Courtesy would seem to dictate that players let their captains know of their availability or lack thereof during playoffs, even without this particular rule on the books. The fact that such a rule exists is a sad commentary on the state of etiquette in local leagues.

Just as the definitions and interpretations of the term “local league” are broadly nebulous within these particular regulations, delving into the mechanics and specifics of a primary team declaration reveals similar issues. Next Wednesday, I will go much deeper into what these organizations have on record regarding declarations of a primary team. That will be followed by a post about the technical underpinnings of the de facto definition of a “local league.” Eventually, I will get around to the promised posts on “flights.” This is a good time to remind everyone that “overthinking” is the hallmark of this site.

If anyone has other interesting examples of local rules surrounding “double dipping” and primary team declarations at the local level, I would be highly interested in pointers to those sources. It occurs to me that this may be a phenomenon of two large cities with overlapping geographic areas. In other words, it is possible that all this is unique to my local area.