Yes, there are numerous failures here, unfortunately they are not mine. How many facepalms should I post before pointing out page 223 comes before page 228?
- The P5 rules on page 223 appear before the explanatory notes on page 228. The part relevant to the situation we were discussing is at the end of section XIV.A.4.a and reads, "In addition, a Top 20 Player’s WTA Ranking must include her best two (2) Premier 5 Tournament results, if any." That is the natural place to start, in addressing how the P5 rules currently impact Fran. That is the point I chose to address first.
- To see if the rules say anything else, one looks further and then finds on page 228, XIV.A.6.d "A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above." That is the part I addressed next.
, most people would agree that section 4.a appears before section 6.d, just as the common sense view is that page 223 comes before page 228. That is the logical order in which to evaluate how the rules impact Fran in 2012. (To paraphrase you, in looking only at section 6, "you have failed to take into account the ranking rules in their entirety"
You made my day!
- I didn’t quote anything from section “4. Tournament Results Comprised in Ranking” in post # 359.
- You don't find any of the three bullets I quoted in post # 359 in section “4. Tournament Results Comprised in Ranking”.
- In post # 369 I enlightened you that the bullets in question were quoted from section  ii. Ranking Point Treatment in chronological order. You said you rearranged in the order those sections appear in the rules it and moved e in front of d:
Would you be so kind and explain in detail how you managed to rearrange bullets that didn’t exist in post # 359?
Originally Posted by Tennis Observer
At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding
- Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
- A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.
- A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable) […].
From there you should be able to answer the significant question:
Why does WTA count 0 points as Top 20 player's “best” P5 result, if a “better” 1 point result includes her record?
It goes without saying, that is grasping at straws to try and salvage the situation, […]
I don’t need to save anything!
You might have realized that my interpretation of the rules in question goes in line with WTA’s computer ranking and yours not. It’s up to you if you reflect why you failed, e.g:
- How Did I resolve ambiguity?
- Did I interpret a provided information in a sensible way or lead my interpretation to a result that the phrase in brackets is practically meaningless?
- Is the result of my interpretation in line with the intention of the rules?
or if you like to stay at the same level as you joined this discussion.
IMO this is poor judgment: If a Top 10 player’s four P5 results are two mandatory 0 pointer for missing her commitments and two singles for an earliest exist, then she has to count her singles as two best P5 results; this brings her to four countable P5 tournaments, whereas a Top 20 player only has to include her two best P5 results if played. IMO the only reasonable meaning of the expression “which may be zero (0) points, if applicable” is that a Top 10 player who received a mandatory 0 pointer for missing a P5 tournament will count this as one of her two best P5 results.
I know that your view is different because you are under the impression your interpretation is correct and WTA's computer ranking is wrong. Beat this dead horse again & again, if you feel better. But as there is not the slightest chance that we find common ground, don’t expect an additional input to this topic from me!