As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, a rainout last Saturday allowed players from my team to sit down for a leisurely lunch. The conversation was lively and wide-ranging. One of the topics was that our team didn’t have enough players the previous weekend and wound up defaulting a line. As if that wasn’t bad enough, when we arrived at the site, members of the other team apologized to us thinking that they had initiated the default because they were also short players. It is a textbook example of the game of default chicken.
Defaults are unfortunate because they undermine the very purpose of league tennis, which is to play the matches. When a default occurs, players are deprived of what they signed up for in the first place. Additionally, defaults impact standings beyond the two teams directly involved. This particular instance wasn’t for an official USTA League and doesn’t have a playoff scenario that raises the stakes. However, that league is structured to incentivize teams to avoid finishing poorly in the standings. It goes beyond basic pride.
This creates a strategic standoff known as the game of default chicken. Captains who know their team is short often delay defaulting, hoping the other team is in the same situation or that weather will bail them out. However, withholding that information is generally considered poor sportsmanship, as it leaves the opposing captain scrambling at the last minute to adjust lineups or notify their players. At the same time, captains don’t want to default too early and give up a line unnecessarily. This puts them in a real conundrum.
One possible solution my team discussed last weekend is a system of a blind default notification system. If both captains were required to submit defaults to an independent third party or portal, it would make it possible for double defaults to be assessed. The prevailing idea amongst our team was that no one should be rewarded for a willingness to push the boundaries of default brinksmanship.
Of course the devil is always in the details. League coordinators frequently compete in the league or have strong ties to other teams that do. No one should ever be left wondering if the other captain had visibility into another team’s decisions before making their own determination. Impartiality would be essential for something like that to work. Default notification would have to be genuinely and provably blind.
And then there is the weather, which is also a very important factor when teams may have to default a line due to player availability.
Earlier this season, one of my USTA teams had a rainout declared after storms moved through the area overnight. An hour before the facility even opened the next morning, and definitely without checking on the court conditions, the other captain notified us that the courts would not be dry in time for our midday match. It is hard not to wonder if the quick trigger on the decision was because that team was short players that morning.
I am very supportive of rules that void a defaulted line in the case where weather conditions would have prevented play anyway. That incentivizes captains to provide courteous lead times when notifying the other team without being penalized for extending that nicety. However, as I wrote about in “A Local League Default Saga,” that can potentially motivate a team to declare rainouts under questionable conditions.
Defaults are frustrating. Defaulting a line to a team that was also short but “won” because they were less courteous is even worse. The game of default chicken rewards brinkmanship over etiquette. I like the idea of a blind default submission and the possibility of double defaults. It feels like the best solution to a less-than-ideal situation.
