An incident earlier this year at the Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Championships has sent me on a lengthy examination of the history, context, and culture surrounding retiring from matches. We have been methodically sifting through the rules and regulations for the event as published in an enigmatic statement on the Tri-Level informational page. It asserts that the “USTA Rules and League Regulations and Friend at Court will be enforced during championships.” [sic] Last Wednesday, we covered most of how Part 3, “USTA Regulations,” within the Friend at Court treats retired matches. Today, we are moving from routine situations to those that require more officiating discretion.
One of the duties outlined for a tournament Referee within the Friend at Court is deciding whether players are allowed to compete in another match after their initial match was either not played or completed. That is necessary for tournament formats that are not single-elimination draws. The following regulation is the opening salvo describing that particular responsibility of a Referee.
Determines whether defaulted player, retired player, or player who does not play because of injury, illness, or personal circumstance may play again.
USTA Friend at Court, USTA Regulation III.B.6
That introductory statement suggests a lot of latitude for the Referee to make that determination. However, this regulation is followed up with additional guidance. We will start with the situations in which a player will generally not be permitted to play again after a defaulted or retired match.
When player does not get to play again. A player who has been defaulted for misconduct does not get to play in any events in that tournament. Lateness is not considered misconduct. A default for misconduct assessed against a doubles player does not prohibit the participation of the partner in other events unless, in the judgment of the Referee, the conduct of both players contributed to the default.
USTA Friend at Court, USTA Regulation III.B.6.a
Essentially, only misconduct prohibits a player from continuing to compete in the tournament. What exactly constitutes misconduct is deferred to a future post, but suffice it to say that it means the player did something really bad.
Additional officiating guidance specifies when players may continue to compete in the event after defaulting a match.
When player may play again. Unless an alternate takes the player’s place in the main draw, a player may play the consolation if in the player’s first match the player was defaulted for a reason other than misconduct or the player did not play because of injury, illness, or personal circumstance.
USTA Friend at Court, USTA Regulation III.B.6.b first paragraph
That first paragraph seems to leave some room for interpretation as it does not mention match retirements. However, an additional paragraph closes that gap.
A player may play the consolations or a playoff if in a subsequent match the player was defaulted for a reason other than misconduct, or the player did not play because of injury, illness, or personal circumstance, or the player retired.
USTA Friend at Court, USTA Regulation III.B.6.b second paragraph
In a tournament setting, the Referee is responsible for determining whether a player who did not compete or complete a match can continue in the event. That is essential in a format where individual players move through the draws. USTA League Regulations do not contain a similar provision for advancement because it is a team format. A player can default a match and still play in the next round because their team advanced.
Interestingly enough, a player can be defaulted for misconduct under USTA League Regulations. However, there is no provision indicating that penalties for misconduct carry over to subsequent matches.
2.03I Individual Defaults. An individual default occurs when a player fails to appear on time, or is disqualified by a tournament official for misconduct.
USTA League Regulation 2.03I
A Referee or official who primarily works in a tournament setting may assume they have the authority to determine if an individual player on a team can continue to play in the event. However, that isn’t in the USTA League Regulations. It is fairly ambiguous over whether it is appropriate for this Regulation from the Friend at Court to be applied to a National Invitational Team tournament. However, if it is, then the entire regulation and guidance must also be applicable.
A Referee or official would not have the authority to disqualify a player for simply retiring from a match based solely on these rules from the Friend at Court. However, the other alternative is that one or both of the players committed an act of misconduct. Since disqualification was the original penalty imposed on the two players, this regulation is the most plausible explanation for that initial decision. I should note that it is pure speculation on my part.
Before we explore what constitutes misconduct and break down the various sportsmanship aspects of the entire scenario, the time has finally arrived to describe the full sequence of events that transpired at the last Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Championships and led us down this sordid path. That is the topic for tomorrow’s post.
- USTA Tri-Level National Invitational Welcome Page, USTA SoCal Hosted Informational Page, last viewed April 6, 2024.
- 2024 USTA League National Regulations, USTA Resource Document, March 14, 2024.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2024
- USTA Adult and Family Tournament, Ranking, & Sanctioning Regulations, USTA Regulation, as amended December 14, 2023.
- USTA League Suspension Point System Calculation Tables, USTA Resource Document, February 6, 2024.
- USTA League Suspension Point System 2024, USTA Resource Document, February 6, 2024.
- USTA League Suspension Point System Frequently Asked Questions, USTA Resource Document, March 23, 2023.
