2011 Line-Up Violations - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 27th, 2011, 03:53 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Independent Isle
Posts: 7,027
                     
2011 Line-Up Violations

A thread to keep track of all line-up violations, maybe we can help create some protests

http://www.itatennis.com/Assets/ita_...+Rule+-+DI.pdf

2 - Pepperdine
2 - Saint Mary's College
1 - UCLA
1 - Stanford

Quote:
#5 UCLA 5, #41 St. Mary's 2
Jan 19, 2011 at Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles Tennis Center)


Doubles
1. #87 Isip/Poorta (SMC) def. #57 Dolehide/Remynse (UCLA) 8-1
2. Montez/Seguso (UCLA) def. Chkhikvishvili/Gingras (SMC) 8-2
3. Johansson/Jones (UCLA) def. Alita Fisher/Jullien (SMC) 8-4
UCLA Wins Doubles Point
Singles
1. McCall Jones (UCLA) def. #85 Alex Poorta (SMC) 6-4, 6-1
2. Catherine Isip (SMC) def. #36 Courtney Dolehide (UCLA) 7-6, 6-4
3. Pamela Montez (UCLA) def. Claire Soper (SMC) 6-4, 6-0
4. Andrea Remynse (UCLA) def. Anna Chkhikvishvili (SMC) 6-0, 6-0
5. Jenny Jullien (SMC) def. Maya Johansson (UCLA) 1-6, 6-3, 6-3
6. Carling Seguso (UCLA) def. Laurie Gingras (SMC) 7-5, 6-1
Quote:
#5 UCLA 7, LMU 0
Jan 26, 2011 at Los Angeles, CA (Los Angeles Tennis Center)

Doubles
1. #57 Dolehide/Remynse (UCLA) def. Anderson/Jin (LMU) 8-3
2. Montez/Seguso (UCLA) def. Pironkova/Rohonyi (LMU) 8-1
3. Jones/Pantic (UCLA) def. Shauna Morgan/Melissa Valenzuela (LMU) 8-2
UCLA Wins Doubles Point
Singles
1. McCall Jones (UCLA) def. April Bisharat (LMU) 6-1, 6-4
2. Andrea Remynse (UCLA) def. Elisaveta Pironkova (LMU) 6-0, 6-0
3. #36 Courtney Dolehide (UCLA) def. Estelle LaPorte (LMU) 6-2, 6-0
4. Pamela Montez (UCLA) def. Ashley Anderson (LMU) 6-2, 6-1
5. Carling Seguso (UCLA) def. Miya Jin (LMU) 4-6, 6-1, 1-0 (10-3)
6. Nina Pantic (UCLA) def. Reka Rohonyi (LMU) 6-1, 6-1

Last edited by Tennisace; Feb 27th, 2011 at 12:24 AM.
Tennisace is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 27th, 2011, 03:54 PM
Senior Member
 
2nd_serve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,248
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Someone check if I've got the current and correct version, but the actual rule is :
ITA Rule II.K.4 "Line-up changes in back-to-back dual matches" (p. 255) In back-to-back dual meet matches (two consecutive dual meet matches played regardless of time between matches), the team line-up (as played) may be changed. A player may move up or down one position in this situation.
The link in the first post of this thread is the change in the protest procedure and allows more ways to protests of violation of this rule, including protest by a third party coaches not involved in the match.

And a Question,

The description of the protest rule, says that the offending coach may provide a written defense. Is the there a written standard of "exceptions" or valid defenses?

Last edited by 2nd_serve; Jan 27th, 2011 at 04:07 PM.
2nd_serve is offline  
post #3 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 09:43 AM
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

does this count?

personally I think the team can experiment a bit in January, early dual season..

No. 6 North Carolina 7, No. 65 Winthrop 0
Doubles
1. #8 Featherston/McHale (UNC) def. #87 Herrera/Portioli (W), 8-5
2. #80 Durisic/Lyons (UNC) def. Garcia/Zaytseva (W), 8-0
3. Alkema/Breuss (W) def. Hemm/De Bruycker (UNC), 9-8 (2)
Order of finish: 1, 2, 3

Singles
1. #13 Zoe De Bruycker (UNC) def. Yasmine Alkema (W), 6-1, 6-2
2. #54 Shinann Featherston (UNC) def. Elizaveta Zaytseva (W), 6-1, 6-3
3. #92 Jelena Durisic (UNC) def. Sandra Herrera (W), 6-2, 6-0
4. Gina Suarez-Malaguti (UNC) def. Giovanna Portioli (W), 6-1, 6-3
5. #86 Lauren McHale (UNC) def. Andressa Garcia (W), 6-1, 7-6 (8)
6. Tessa Lyons (UNC) def. Sara Abutovic (W), 6-3, 6-2
Order of finish: 3, 1, 2, 4, 6, 5

No. 6 North Carolina 7, Elon 0
Doubles
1. Jelena Durisic/Tessa Lyons (UNC) def. Jordan Johnston/Briana Berne (E), 8-3
2. Gina Suarez-Malaguti/Jennifer Stone (UNC) def. Frida Jansaker/Bryn Khoury (E), 8-2
3. Haley Hemm/Zoe De Bruycker (UNC) def. Jessica Margolis/Andrea Pont Grau (E), 8-1
Order of finish: 3, 1, 2

Singles
1. Zoe De Bruycker (UNC) def. Frida Jansaker (E), 6-1, 6-0
2. Jelena Durisic (UNC) def. Jordan Johnston (E), 6-1, 6-3
3. Tessa Lyons (UNC) def. Bryn Khoury (E), 6-1, 6-2
4. Jennifer Stone (UNC) def. Briana Berne (E), 6-1, 6-0
5. Haley Hemm (UNC) def. Andrea Pont Grau (E), 6-1, 6-1
6. Laura Slater (UNC) def. Jessica Margolis (E), 6-1, 6-1
Order of finish: 5, 6, 2, 1, 4, 3
fantic is offline  
post #4 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 04:43 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 22
 
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantic View Post
does this count? personally I think the team can experiment a bit in January, early dual season..

No. 6 North Carolina 7, No. 65 Winthrop 0
Doubles
1. #8 Featherston/McHale (UNC) def. #87 Herrera/Portioli (W), 8-5
2. #80 Durisic/Lyons (UNC) def. Garcia/Zaytseva (W), 8-0
3. Alkema/Breuss (W) def. Hemm/De Bruycker (UNC), 9-8 (2)
Order of finish: 1, 2, 3

Singles
1. #13 Zoe De Bruycker (UNC) def. Yasmine Alkema (W), 6-1, 6-2
2. #54 Shinann Featherston (UNC) def. Elizaveta Zaytseva (W), 6-1, 6-3
3. #92 Jelena Durisic (UNC) def. Sandra Herrera (W), 6-2, 6-0
4. Gina Suarez-Malaguti (UNC) def. Giovanna Portioli (W), 6-1, 6-3
5. #86 Lauren McHale (UNC) def. Andressa Garcia (W), 6-1, 7-6 (8)
6. Tessa Lyons (UNC) def. Sara Abutovic (W), 6-3, 6-2
Order of finish: 3, 1, 2, 4, 6, 5

No. 6 North Carolina 7, Elon 0
Doubles
1. Jelena Durisic/Tessa Lyons (UNC) def. Jordan Johnston/Briana Berne (E), 8-3
2. Gina Suarez-Malaguti/Jennifer Stone (UNC) def. Frida Jansaker/Bryn Khoury (E), 8-2
3. Haley Hemm/Zoe De Bruycker (UNC) def. Jessica Margolis/Andrea Pont Grau (E), 8-1
Order of finish: 3, 1, 2

Singles
1. Zoe De Bruycker (UNC) def. Frida Jansaker (E), 6-1, 6-0
2. Jelena Durisic (UNC) def. Jordan Johnston (E), 6-1, 6-3
3. Tessa Lyons (UNC) def. Bryn Khoury (E), 6-1, 6-2
4. Jennifer Stone (UNC) def. Briana Berne (E), 6-1, 6-0
5. Haley Hemm (UNC) def. Andrea Pont Grau (E), 6-1, 6-1
6. Laura Slater (UNC) def. Jessica Margolis (E), 6-1, 6-1
Order of finish: 5, 6, 2, 1, 4, 3
My first post but here are my thoughts on your statement and question.

Your statement that you feel it is ok to experiment confuses me. Why?

College tennis rule does not say you can set up your line up in best order to win the dual match. It requires a coach to place the players in order of ability. Of course, that can change and the coach is allowed to make those justified changes one line up spot at a time.

Why would a coach need to jump players all over the line up early? That is not fair if you are actually putting the players in the order of their ability. This is not basketball where you can choose to change up your line up to better match up with the opposition. Of course, if the coach finds the first line up is completely wrong then one has to ask what the coach has been doing and watching? And they do have all fall to see the players too so this is not that tough I would think?

Obviously this must be a big issue because I have never heard of a third party rule like the one posted here. Though it makes sense since a previous line up impacts the later match match ups.

Your question about if UNC counts as an illegal line up the answer would appear to be it is legal. The UNC coach removed three players and inserted at the bottom their # 7, # 8 and # 9 vs Elon. No player who played vs Winthrop jumped a player previously listed ahead of them. They just slid up per the rules.

Interesting topic this year. Maybe form and gouci can battle here too?
spartyfan is offline  
post #5 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Senior Member
 
2nd_serve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,248
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Fantic,

I'm thinking no violation, in your UNC example. While Tessa Lyons does more from 6th to 3rd, it happens with a bunch of new players in the lineup. I don't have the depth of knowledge to speak about their order of strength, but suspect that if Lyons was kept at #6 and the other players given a chance to play, that there would be an argument of the order of strength was not satisfied.
2nd_serve is offline  
post #6 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 05:12 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Independent Isle
Posts: 7,027
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Everyone is correct. The UNC example is not a violation because the order of strength remains intact. This rule is mainly to enforce the "order of ability" aka no stacking. However stacking still can occur because the coach sets up the line-up and we have no way to disprove their assessment of ability. In other words, coaches can figure out the best strategy of placing players lower in the line-up and won't get called on it as long as they don't violate the 1 position rule between matches.

Note though that and individual can move up or down the line-up "legally" as long as between each match they only go up/down in the order of strength. The legal way to have moved Remynse up would either to have sit out Dolehide and Montez OR put Remynse at No. 3 and then in the next match move her up to No. 2. The UCLA example is a violation because they jumped her two spots in the order of ability. There is a very subtle difference between line-ups and order of ability.

What UCLA sometimes does (legally) is create line-ups that cater to their depth and can create good match-ups, particularly at the bottom (i.e. use their No. 7 and No. 8 player in the No. 5 or 6 spot and sit people out ahead of them...if the No. 7 or 8 player is better matched).
Tennisace is offline  
post #7 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 06:15 PM
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Quote:
Originally Posted by spartyfan View Post
My first post but here are my thoughts on your statement and question.

Your statement that you feel it is ok to experiment confuses me. Why?

College tennis rule does not say you can set up your line up in best order to win the dual match. It requires a coach to place the players in order of ability. Of course, that can change and the coach is allowed to make those justified changes one line up spot at a time.

Why would a coach need to jump players all over the line up early? That is not fair if you are actually putting the players in the order of their ability. This is not basketball where you can choose to change up your line up to better match up with the opposition. Of course, if the coach finds the first line up is completely wrong then one has to ask what the coach has been doing and watching? And they do have all fall to see the players too so this is not that tough I would think?

Obviously this must be a big issue because I have never heard of a third party rule like the one posted here. Though it makes sense since a previous line up impacts the later match match ups.

Your question about if UNC counts as an illegal line up the answer would appear to be it is legal. The UNC coach removed three players and inserted at the bottom their # 7, # 8 and # 9 vs Elon. No player who played vs Winthrop jumped a player previously listed ahead of them. They just slid up per the rules.

Interesting topic this year. Maybe form and gouci can battle here too?
I'm basically against 'illegal' stacking and violating the rules. Of course players should play at the respective positions according to their ability.
Just that in the early dual season like January, if the Fall result wasn't satisfactory or confusing, I thought coaches might experiment a bit. That's all
For example, Oyen (UF) just played #3 over higher ranked players like Janowicz and Cercone. I personally don't think she's the 3rd best player, but the coach might think otherwise.
Seems I just reiterated my first post
fantic is offline  
post #8 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 06:16 PM
Senior Member
 
2nd_serve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,248
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

I believe the UCLA "legally example" should be encouraged. Besides for the point TennisAce makes about better matched to opponent, I would think the most frequent way this occurs is the coach is confident that they will win the match, and by have the opportunity to allow players #7,8,9, who spend much time practicing, and are likely eager to get some playing time an opportunity to get match play time.

That is what I'd suspect happened in the UNC match that fantic brought up. Its better for players, #7,#8,#9 to get some playing time. And it is probably better for the opponent's team as well, in that the matchup have a greater chance to be competitive, and each player win some games.
2nd_serve is offline  
post #9 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 07:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Marie playing #1 seriously? with Granillo this team is going to have some depth. 43 Pepperdine 7, Cal State Fullerton 0 DoublesNo. 1 Arianna Colffer/Marie Zalameda def. Tiffany Mai/Monica Rodriguez, 8-3 No. 2 Anamika Bhargava/Megan Moore def. Morgan McIntosh/Megan Sanford, 8-5 No. 3 Andrea Oates/Khunpak Issara def. Malorie De la Cruz/Karina Akhhmedova, 8-2 Singles No. 1 Marie Zalameda def. Tiffany MaiNo. 2 Arianna Colffer def. Morgan McIntoshNo. 3 Anamika Bhargava def. Malorie De la CruzNo. 4 Khunpak Issara def. Megan SanfordNo. 5 Andrea Oates def. Karina AkhmedovaNo. 6 Megan Moore def. Monica Rodriguez*

David Jaime
davidjaime is offline  
post #10 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 08:13 PM
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

I never thought Remynse was the 3rd best player of the team last year (although Hickey actually got a lot better during the season, culminating in the NCAA )
At the Regional,

16 Courtney Dolehide (UCLA) def. Noelle Hickey (UCLA) 6-2, 6-1
16 Pamela Montez (UCLA) def. Maya Johansson (UCLA) 6-3, 3-6, 6-1
8 Courtney Dolehide (UCLA) def. Pamela Montez (UCLA) 6-4, 6-0
4 Maria Sanchez (USC) def. Courtney Dolehide (UCLA) 6-4, 6-1
4 Danielle Lao (USC) def. Andrea Remynse (UCLA) 6-4, 6-3

Pretty useful indicator, I think.
(And actually Johansson was #3 singles a couple of seasons ago The depth
of UCLA is just )
fantic is offline  
post #11 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 08:15 PM
Senior Member
 
gouci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,111
                     
Pepperdine Line-Up Violations

Great catch davidjamie.

Marie Zalmeda will probably drop to #2 and Ali Walters will be inserted at #1. Pepperdine is playing Sac. St. then either UCLA or San Diego in the ITA Indoors. Dropping Zalmeda to #3 would be illegal. So the purpose of putting her at #1 is to probably keep Colffer and Bhargava down at #3 and #4 instead of #2 & #3 vs Sac. St.

Or a variation like where Colffer is at #1, Zalameda #2, Walters #3 and Bhargava at #4. The point is the line-up is pushed down with Zalameda occupying a top 2 spot.

Last edited by gouci; Jan 28th, 2011 at 08:21 PM.
gouci is offline  
post #12 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 08:20 PM
Le Conte's Sparrow
 
fantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,255
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Zalameda played #5 last season (maybe she DID get a lot better? Curious. I must go to LATC tomorrow ) I personally don't think there's a big difference among Bhargava, Walters, and Colffer.
fantic is offline  
post #13 of 26 (permalink) Old Jan 28th, 2011, 10:29 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 22
 
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Isn't it odd to see a veteran # 5 jump straight to # 1 over teammates who have all been nationally ranked.

Curious more when Pepperdine did not post the singles match scores. So I went to the Fullerton page.

Cal State Fullerton (0) at No. 43 Pepperdine (7)
Doubles
1. Arianna Colffer/Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Tiffany Mai/Monica Rodriguez (CSF) 8-3
2. Anamika Bhargava/Megan Moore (PEP) def. Morgan McIntosh/Megan Sandford (CSF) 8-5
3. Andrea Oates/Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Malorie dela Cruz/Karina Akhmedova (CSF) 8-2

Singles
1. Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Tiffany Mai (CSF) 6-0, 0-6, 6-1
2. Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Morgan McIntosh (CSF) 6-4, 6-3
3. Anamika Bhargava (PEP) def. Malorie dela Cruz (CSF) 6-0, 6-2
4. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Megan Sandford (CSF) 6-2, 6-3
5. Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Karina Akhmedova (CSF) 6-0, 6-2
6. Megan Moore (PEP) def. Monica Rodriguez (CSF) 6-1, 7-6 (7-2)
spartyfan is offline  
post #14 of 26 (permalink) Old Feb 2nd, 2011, 04:39 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Independent Isle
Posts: 7,027
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

Add Saint Mary's to the list

Quote:
#5 UCLA 5, #41 Saint Mary's (CA) 2
Jan 19, 2011 at Los Angeles, Calif.
Singles competition
1. McCall Jones (UCLA) def. #85 Alex Poorta (SMC) 6-4, 6-1
2. Catherine Isip (SMC) def. #36 Courtney Dolehide (UCLA) 7-6, 6-4
3. Pamela Montez (UCLA) def. Claire Soper (SMC) 6-4, 6-0
4. Andrea Remynse (UCLA) def. Anna Chkhikvishvili (SMC) 6-0, 6-0
5. Jenny Jullien (SMC) def. Maya Johansson (UCLA) 1-6, 6-3, 6-3
6. Carling Seguso (UCLA) def. Laurie Gingras (SMC) 7-5, 6-1

Doubles competition
1. #87 Catherine Isip/Alex Poorta (SMC) def. #57 Andrea Remynse/Courtney Dolehide (UCLA) 8-1
2. Pamela Montez/Carling Seguso (UCLA) def. Anna Chkhikvishvili/Laurie Gingras (SMC) 8-2
3. Maya Johansson/McCall Jones (UCLA) def. Jenny Jullien/Alita Fisher (SMC) 8-4
Quote:
#40 Saint Mary's (CA) 4, #51 TCU 3
Jan 28, 2011 at Berkeley, Calif.
Singles competition
1. #85 Alex Poorta (SMC) def. Katarlina Tuohimaa (TCU) 6-3, 7-6 (7-0)
2. Catherine Isip (SMC) def. Federica Denti (TCU) 6-3, 6-1
3. Olivia Smith (TCU) def. Jenny Jullien (SMC) 6-1, 6-3
4. Claire Soper (SMC) def. Shallni Sahoo (TCU) 6-0, 2-6, 6-4
5. Anna Chkhikvishvili (SMC) def. Idunn Hertzberg (TCU) 6-1, 6-4
6. Gaby Mastromarino (TCU) def. Molly Aloia (SMC) 6-3, 6-2

Doubles competition
1. Federica Denti/Katarlina Tuohimaa (TCU) def. #87 Catherine Isip/Alex Poorta (SMC) 8-3
2. Jenny Jullien/Alita Fisher (SMC) def. Maria Babanova/Idunn Hertzberg (TCU) 8-3
3. Gaby Mastromarino/Olivia Smith (TCU) def. Anna Chkhikvishvili/Claire Soper (SMC) 9-7
Tennisace is offline  
post #15 of 26 (permalink) Old Feb 2nd, 2011, 04:40 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Independent Isle
Posts: 7,027
                     
Re: 2011 Line-Up Violations

ITA Rule H.2."In singles, players must compete in order of ability, the best player on the team playing at the No.1 position, the
second best at No. 2 and so on through all positions. This rule shall also apply to doubles play with the strongest doubles team at No. 1, etc."
Tennisace is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome