Latest Posts

Examining the Rules of Tennis Match Retirements in the USTA Tournament Regulations Winning Singles Strategy for Recreational Tennis Players Is Retiring Matches Prohibited by USTA Tournament Regulations Alternating Lateral Lunges Tennis News: April 22, 2024 USTA Regulatory and Governance Structure Is Retiring a Match Against The Rules of Tennis or “The Code”?

The topic of USTA NTRP medical appeals apparently struck a nerve with a lot of people. Ever since I wrote about that topic in association with sandbagging, I have been regaled with tales of woe regarding medical appeals. Paradoxically, those stories include examples that were granted as well as some that were denied.

Per the USTA League Regulations, conditions under which a medical appeal is granted must be permanent.

Medical Appeals. If an intervening, permanently disabling injury or illness indicates that a player’s current NTRP computer rating level may be too high, the player may request a medical appeal of such rating level in accordance with USTA League NTRP Medical Appeal Procedures – Questions and Answers.

USTA League Regulations, 2022, 2.05D

I have never filed for a medical appeal, nor has anyone ever shared their actual paperwork with me. Additionally, if my committee work with my local USTA Section had ever brought me into the proximity of medical appeals, then I would probably not write about that topic at all. In other words, this is a post firmly grounded in rumor and innuendo.

One of my close friends applied for a medical appeal after she was bumped up from 4.5 to 5.0. The basis of her appeal was a torn MCL. Her request was denied on the rationale that a torn MCL would eventually get better. Several years later she is still a languishing 5.0 that doesn’t get a lot of matchplay at that level.

There is another player in my close orbit who got bumped up to the NTRP level which essentially amounts to a league death sentence in his local area. He successfully appealed down on the basis that he was overweight. According to my primary care physician, that isn’t a permanent condition. It’s an academic discussion anyway as he was immediately bumped back up the following year.

In a story that I sincerely want to believe is apocryphal, legend has it that a guy successfully appealed down on the basis that he had a newborn baby and wasn’t getting enough sleep. He allegedly bragged about receiving that appeal on that basis to a lot of other players. Having a newborn baby isn’t a permanent condition and I seriously doubt the authenticity of the story. I kind of wonder if he filed a legitimate medical appeal and is using the crying baby to avoid disclosing the real reason to his peers.

Stories like these and the fact that medical appeals came up as a topic in association with sandbagging reveal that people harbor a lot of suspicions about the overall process. Additionally, all three of those vignettes were processed within one USTA Section. Even examining those admittedly cherry-picked examples suggest some inconsistency in the adjudication.

All this sets the stage to take a closer look at what the USTA policy and procedures say about the processing of medical appeals. That will be the focus of next Wednesday’s post.


  1. USTA League Regulations, 2022, downloaded October 29, 2022.
  2. NTRP Medical Appeal Procedures – Questions and Answers, Undated USTA Artifact, downloaded October 29, 2022.

2 thoughts on “Permanent Injury or Illness

  1. Bob Chandler says:

    I played with a guy who said he had been granted a medical appeal for obesity. So I guess your Section isn’t the only one that does that. I too would question that as a “permanent condition”.

  2. Jack says:

    In a sectionals singles match I had the “pleasure” of playing a former division I player in his first season at 40+ 4.0 with a medical exemption. The only “permanently disabling injury” I could guess this pleasant gentleman suffered from was a chronically sore foot from stomping on his victims… err, opponents. My team captain filed a complaint and was told the player would be bumped to 4.5 but the results of his matches in the season and sectionals would remain unchanged.

    I agree with the suggestion that self-rated and medical appeal first season players should be excluded from post-season play. My guess is this gentleman wouldn’t have been recruited for his 4.0 team if he couldn’t play at sectionals/nationals and as such, he would have started on a 4.5 team where he clearly belonged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *