An incident earlier this year at the Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Championships has plunged me into a lengthy examination of the history, context, and culture surrounding retiring from USTA matches. While it is not officially a part of the USTA League program, the Tri-Level informational page currently asserts that the “USTA Rules and League Regulations and Friend at Court will be enforced during championships. [sic]” Today, we are examining the first of many potential sources of rules applicable to this specific situation.
I emphasized currently in the previous paragraph because the primary source of rules for a National Invitational tournament is up to the broad discretion of the organizers. Since Tri-Level is a National Invitational that is (semi) independent of the USTA, it is not compulsory for it to follow any particular rulebook. However, since all matches played at Tri-Level now count toward NTRP ratings, there are presumably some rules and conditions imposed by the USTA at the National level.
Outside of that, the primary authoritative set of rules for a National Invitational is whatever the event decides it is going to be. That is why Tri-Level has eligibility and qualification requirements that diverge from USTA League Regulations. Theoretically, the Tri-Level organizers could institute whimsical rules regarding the format of play. For example, the server could be required to run a lap around the court after double-faulting. It is completely within the authority of whoever puts on the National Invitational to do that.
Consequently, if the Tri-Level organizers wanted to prohibit players from retiring from matches, they could do so simply by publishing that restriction as an official rule. I cannot find any place where that has been done in writing. While the event’s informational page contains a lot about the rules and regulations, nothing on that site prohibits players from retiring from matches.
However, as the matches were put on the morning of the knockout stages for one of the divisions at this year’s Tri-Level National Championships, at least one announcement was made. I wasn’t there, so I cannot attest to exactly what was said. However, I know a lot of players who were there that day, including a few who were not involved with or aware of any controversy.
While I don’t have anywhere near statistical significance, it is clear to me that many players never heard any announcement about completing matches. That includes players who were unaware of an incident until I asked, so I don’t perceive any bias or agenda. Other players who were not directly involved heard the announcement and interpreted it as a request rather than a directive. Finally, at least one player who was ultimately impacted by what transpired heard the announcement and also interpreted it as a request.
I was unable to find a player on site that day who heard the announcement and thought that it was a compulsive directive. From one source, it was phrased something like, “If you can, please finish out your matches.” One big caveat to that is that I only contacted players from Texas, where retiring matches in the knock-out stages of the USTA League Championships is ubiquitous and routine.
Ultimately, someone at the event decided that retiring a match was a flagrant disregard of a rule. A grievance was filed with the event committee, which elected to take action. That escalation will eventually take us down a separate twisty path of the rules, but we’re not there yet.
Given the playing community’s lack of uniform awareness that an announcement was made, coupled with the apparent divergence in the interpretation of what was said, I do not believe that verbal notification made while an event is in progress is a valid way to impose new rules. The spiraling escalation that unfolded is truly unfortunate because, from my very remote perspective, the whole thing fundamentally looks like a miscommunication.
The bottom line for today’s post is that while the Tri-Level Organizers have the authority to implement rules outside of the USTA, they failed to impose this particular rule in written form. Of course, the event organizers can update their website anytime they see fit. I would highly recommend adding this stipulation before next year’s Tri-Level National Invitational Championships if that is truly desired. Making a verbal announcement to some, but not all players, is not a substitute for imposing a new rule, particularly one that can escalate into significant suspension points.
However, our rules exploration doesn’t end with what is explicitly specified for the Tri-Level National Invitational Championships. The organizers cite both USTA League Regulations and the USTA Friend at Court as also applicable to the event. This Friday, April 19, I will resume this saga by examining what USTA League Regulations say about retiring matches.
- 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.
