Events that transpired earlier this year at the Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Championships have led us through a lengthy examination of USTA Rules and Regulations. This particular scenario is compelling because it “crosses the streams” between multiple USTA rulebooks. It is also a fascinating case study to compare and contrast the USTA tournaments and USTA League regulations. Today, we are taking a look at the concepts of misconduct and disqualification.
Specifically, I want to consider that the two players who ultimately received suspension points at the Tom Fey Tri-Level National Invitational Championships may have been initially disqualified for misconduct. To determine whether there is a credible basis for that, we first have to understand how those terms are defined and used within the applicable regulations.
The USTA League Regulations only include the word “misconduct” twice. It appears in the definition of a default, which is in the glossary. That definition is also used verbatim in the regulation for individual match defaults. Both essentially establish that a player can be defaulted for misconduct without providing a basis for what misconduct means.
Default: When a player or team fails to appear or is removed by an administrator or tournament official for misconduct or violation of regulations.
2024 USTA League National Regulations, Glossary
The term “disqualification” is also defined in the glossary of the USTA League Regulations.
Disqualification: Action taken to remove from a team, a player deemed ineligible to participate.
2024 USTA League National Regulations, Glossary
The word “disqualification” is used prolifically within USTA League Regulations. The vast majority of those instances involve dynamic NTRP disqualification. The League Regulations also include the concept of eligibility disqualifications. However, most of those references deal with scoring matches that a disqualified player previously played in local League or the Championship stages.
However, the USTA League Regulations also include a lengthy set of rules governing Player Eligibility. For example, players could be ineligible for not meeting residency requirements, failing to hold USTA membership, or not meeting age criteria. In fact, all those things are explicitly described in that part of the USTA Regulations. That same section also contains a problematic entry that has already popped up once within this current series.
Player Agreement. All players participating in the USTA League, as a condition of said participation, agree to abide and be bound by the USTA Constitution and Bylaws; the USTA LEAGUE REGULATIONS; the FRIEND AT COURT – The USTA Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations including THE CODE and Wheelchair Rules of Tennis (unless modified by these USTA LEAGUE REGULATIONS); any other USTA regulations (unless modified by these USTA LEAGUE REGULATIONS); and the standards of good conduct, fair play and good sportsmanship.
2024 USTA League Regulations, Regulation 1.04E(4)
The phrase “any other USTA regulations” was added in 2024. I have a fundamental issue with a rule allowing officials or league organizers to apply random regulations. The rulebooks should apply in their entirety or not at all. No one should have the right to cherry-pick rules that lead to a desired outcome while ignoring adjacent rules that lead to an alternate interpretation. I am not saying that is what occurred in this situation, but rather highlighting the potential.
If the two players in question were initially disqualified for misconduct, that could have been for failure to follow an official’s instruction. USTA Regulation IV.E.1 from Part III of the USTA Friend at Court would provide a basis for that.
Default of player for cause. The Referee, Deputy Referee, Chair Umpire, or Roving Umpire may default a player. A player may be defaulted for cause including, but not limited to, tardiness or misconduct (which includes failure to follow the instructions of an official).
2024 USTA Frield at Court, Part III USTA Regulations, IV.E.1
Curiously enough, the glossary of the USTA Friend at Court does not contain an explicit definition of misconduct. It probably should.
Yesterday, I described a general announcement that some (but not all) of the players at the Tri-Level Invitational heard. Even for the people in earshot, I failed to find someone who took what was said as a directive rather than a request. That included one player who was uninvolved with the controversy. Additionally, significant time lapsed between the announcement and the match retirement. No official rushed onto the court to try to stop the retirement from occurring. I believe it would be an incredible stretch to claim that this is a case of misconduct for failure to follow the instructions of an official.
In fact, if that is the prevailing belief from USTA National oversight on this situation, I would strongly advocate for updating the governance language. Specifically, organizers of any event who wish to impose new rules should be required to do that in writing with reasonable lead time such that all participants have been reasonably notified.
In this specific instance, if the administration of the Tom Fey Tri-Level Invitational wants to prohibit retirements from matches at their event, they could simply add the rule to their event informational page. If that new rule is desired for USTA League Championship events, the stipulation should be explicitly added to USTA League Regulations.
At Tri-Level, the players and captain had wide-ranging and evolutionary conversations with the officials as they discussed the infractions and potential penalties. I do not believe they clearly understand exactly the basis for the suspension points that were ultimately assessed. There is a strong argument that players should always be explicitly notified in writing of the reason for the suspension points they receive, but that is a topic for a future day.
The players who were penalized at this year’s Tom Fey Invitational didn’t break a rule about retiring from a match because one doesn’t exist. Additionally, they did not ignore an official’s directive because the general announcement wasn’t phrased as one. That means that per the USTA League Regulations, “good conduct, fair play, and sportsmanship” are all that is left.
This series will resume on Wednesday, May 1, with an additional bizarre coda to this saga that appeared in my notes that I forgot to write about yesterday. That pushes “good conduct, fair play, and sportsmanship” to Wednesday, May 8.
- 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.
