PDA

View Full Version : 2011 Line-Up Violations


Tennisace
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:53 AM
A thread to keep track of all line-up violations, maybe we can help create some protests :devil:

http://www.itatennis.com/Assets/ita_assets/pdf/Legislation/3rd+Party+Protest+Rule+-+DI.pdf

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

#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

#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

2nd_serve
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:54 PM
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?

fantic
Jan 28th, 2011, 09:43 AM
does this count?

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

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

spartyfan
Jan 28th, 2011, 04:43 PM
does this count? personally I think the team can experiment a bit in January, early dual season.. :lol:

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? :help:

2nd_serve
Jan 28th, 2011, 04:47 PM
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.

Tennisace
Jan 28th, 2011, 05:12 PM
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).

fantic
Jan 28th, 2011, 06:15 PM
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? :help:

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 :lol:
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 :lol:

2nd_serve
Jan 28th, 2011, 06:16 PM
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.

davidjaime
Jan 28th, 2011, 07:54 PM
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*

fantic
Jan 28th, 2011, 08:13 PM
I never thought Remynse was the 3rd best player of the team last year :lol: (although Hickey actually got a lot better during the season, culminating in the NCAA :eek: )
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 :lol: The depth
of UCLA is just :scared: )

gouci
Jan 28th, 2011, 08:15 PM
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 :devil: 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.

fantic
Jan 28th, 2011, 08:20 PM
Zalameda played #5 last season :lol: (maybe she DID get a lot better? Curious. I must go to LATC tomorrow :lol: ) I personally don't think there's a big difference among Bhargava, Walters, and Colffer.

spartyfan
Jan 28th, 2011, 10:29 PM
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 :bounce: :confused:
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)

Tennisace
Feb 2nd, 2011, 04:39 AM
Add Saint Mary's to the list

#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

#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
Feb 2nd, 2011, 04:40 AM
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."

2nd_serve
Feb 3rd, 2011, 06:08 PM
Add Saint Mary's to the list

Thanks for pointing this out. Even that I like Saint Mary's.


Would it not make sense, that ITA, apply a little technology to this. It would be fairly easy to have a computer run an analysis of every team's matches, and report if they are violating the movement rule.

Order of strength is an important rule for fair play, but then order of strength is always going to be somewhat subjective. Sometimes, I read a posting about players being played in a suspect order, and think, yeah that may be correct in hindsight, but it would be unworkable unfair to take a win away, about a placement that reasonable, and informed minds could disagree about .

spartyfan
Feb 4th, 2011, 05:45 PM
I find this whole discussion interesting since that new rule was passed. The WCC is the most interesting I guess?

The top players seem to bounce around from match to match. Is not that illegal per that rule that was posted?

#43 Pepperdine 7, Cal State Fullerton 0
Jan 27, 2011 at Malibu, Calif. (Ralphs-Straus Tennis Center)

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)

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


#56 Sacramento State 4, #43 Pepperdine 2
Jan 29, 2011 at Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles Tennis Center)

1. #77 Tatsiana Kapshai (SACST) def. Marie Zalameda (PEP) 6-4, 6-4
2. Anamika Bhargava (PEP) def. Rebeca Delgado (SACST) 6-3, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Maria Meliuk (SACST) 6-3, 6-3
4. Clarisse Baca (SACST) def. Arianna Colffer (PEP) 6-2, 6-4
5. Sophie Lohscheidt (SACST) vs. Andrea Oates (PEP) 5-7, 6-3, unfinished
6. Milica Zivanovic (SACST) def. Megan Moore (PEP) 6-1, 4-6, 6-3

1. Rebeca Delgado/Tatsiana Kapshai (SACST) def. Khunpak Issara/Marie Zalameda (PEP) 8-2
2. Clarisse Baca/Maria Meliuk (SACST) def. Arianna Colffer/Megan Moore (PEP) 8-6
3. Anamika Bhargava/Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Katharina Knoebl/Sophie Lohscheidt (SACST) 8-2

Was that not an illegal move? Colffer a straight move from number 2 to number 4?

#43 Pepperdine 4, #67 San Diego 3
Jan 31, 2011 at Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles Tennis Center)

1. Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) def. Marie Zalameda (PEP) 6-0, 6-4
2. Anamika Bhargava (PEP) def. Laura Claus (USD) 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Josymar Escalona (USD) 4-6, 6-1, 6-2
4. Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 6-2, 6-2
5. Anna Depenau (USD) def. Andrea Oates (PEP) 6-3, 3-6, 6-2
6. Marite Raygada (USD) def. Megan Moore (PEP) 6-3, 6-1

1. Khunpak Issara/Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Juliette Coupez/Maja Sujica (USD) 8-3
2. Arianna Colffer/Megan Moore (PEP) vs. Laura Claus/Josymar Escalona (USD) 5-7, unfinished
3. Anamika Bhargava/Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Anna Depenau/Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) 8-5


#50 Pepperdine 6, #65 UC Irvine 1
Feb 03, 2011 at Malibu, Calif. (Ralphs-Straus Tennis Center)

1. Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Courtney Bryron (UCI) 7-5, 6-4
2. Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Becka Kwan (UCI) 7-6 (7-3), 6-4
3. Kristina Smith (UCI) def. Anamika Bhargava (PEP) 6-3, 4-6, 1-0 (10-6)
4. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Franziska Goettschin (UCI) 6-4, 6-3
5. Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Brooke Schweyer (UCI) 0-6, 6-4, 6-2
6. Megan Moore (PEP) def. Hannah Holladay (UCI) 7-6 (7-2), 4-6, 1-0 (10-8)

1. Marie Zalameda/Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Courtney Bryron/Becka Kwan (UCI) 8-3
2. Anamika Bhargava/Megan Moore (PEP) def. Franziska Goettschin/Kristina Smith (UCI) 8-2
3. Khunpak Issara/Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Hannah Holladay/Brooke Schweyer (UCI) 8-3

Was Colffer moving straight from # 4 to # 1 not an even more illegal second move?

I believe that somebody on TennisForum questioned USD putting Coupez at fourth position, the St. Mary's line up was just questioned and looking at Pepperdine this seems wrong also. These are all WCC schools and all ranked schools. Why does the NCAA allow this or why do coaches not protest?

I am enjoying the web site. Thank you.

Tennisace
Feb 4th, 2011, 10:23 PM
I find this whole discussion interesting since that new rule was passed. The WCC is the most interesting I guess?

The top players seem to bounce around from match to match. Is not that illegal per that rule that was posted?

#43 Pepperdine 7, Cal State Fullerton 0
Jan 27, 2011 at Malibu, Calif. (Ralphs-Straus Tennis Center)

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)

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


#56 Sacramento State 4, #43 Pepperdine 2
Jan 29, 2011 at Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles Tennis Center)

1. #77 Tatsiana Kapshai (SACST) def. Marie Zalameda (PEP) 6-4, 6-4
2. Anamika Bhargava (PEP) def. Rebeca Delgado (SACST) 6-3, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Maria Meliuk (SACST) 6-3, 6-3
4. Clarisse Baca (SACST) def. Arianna Colffer (PEP) 6-2, 6-4
5. Sophie Lohscheidt (SACST) vs. Andrea Oates (PEP) 5-7, 6-3, unfinished
6. Milica Zivanovic (SACST) def. Megan Moore (PEP) 6-1, 4-6, 6-3

1. Rebeca Delgado/Tatsiana Kapshai (SACST) def. Khunpak Issara/Marie Zalameda (PEP) 8-2
2. Clarisse Baca/Maria Meliuk (SACST) def. Arianna Colffer/Megan Moore (PEP) 8-6
3. Anamika Bhargava/Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Katharina Knoebl/Sophie Lohscheidt (SACST) 8-2

Was that not an illegal move? Colffer a straight move from number 2 to number 4?

#43 Pepperdine 4, #67 San Diego 3
Jan 31, 2011 at Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles Tennis Center)

1. Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) def. Marie Zalameda (PEP) 6-0, 6-4
2. Anamika Bhargava (PEP) def. Laura Claus (USD) 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Josymar Escalona (USD) 4-6, 6-1, 6-2
4. Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 6-2, 6-2
5. Anna Depenau (USD) def. Andrea Oates (PEP) 6-3, 3-6, 6-2
6. Marite Raygada (USD) def. Megan Moore (PEP) 6-3, 6-1

1. Khunpak Issara/Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Juliette Coupez/Maja Sujica (USD) 8-3
2. Arianna Colffer/Megan Moore (PEP) vs. Laura Claus/Josymar Escalona (USD) 5-7, unfinished
3. Anamika Bhargava/Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Anna Depenau/Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) 8-5


#50 Pepperdine 6, #65 UC Irvine 1
Feb 03, 2011 at Malibu, Calif. (Ralphs-Straus Tennis Center)

1. Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Courtney Bryron (UCI) 7-5, 6-4
2. Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Becka Kwan (UCI) 7-6 (7-3), 6-4
3. Kristina Smith (UCI) def. Anamika Bhargava (PEP) 6-3, 4-6, 1-0 (10-6)
4. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Franziska Goettschin (UCI) 6-4, 6-3
5. Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Brooke Schweyer (UCI) 0-6, 6-4, 6-2
6. Megan Moore (PEP) def. Hannah Holladay (UCI) 7-6 (7-2), 4-6, 1-0 (10-8)

1. Marie Zalameda/Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Courtney Bryron/Becka Kwan (UCI) 8-3
2. Anamika Bhargava/Megan Moore (PEP) def. Franziska Goettschin/Kristina Smith (UCI) 8-2
3. Khunpak Issara/Andrea Oates (PEP) def. Hannah Holladay/Brooke Schweyer (UCI) 8-3

Was Colffer moving straight from # 4 to # 1 not an even more illegal second move?

I believe that somebody on TennisForum questioned USD putting Coupez at fourth position, the St. Mary's line up was just questioned and looking at Pepperdine this seems wrong also. These are all WCC schools and all ranked schools. Why does the NCAA allow this or why do coaches not protest?

I am enjoying the web site. Thank you.

Yes that is an example of two violations. The only legal way to move up more than two spots is if two or more people ahead of you sit out in the next dual. Consequently the only way to move down two or more spots is if two or more people ahead of you sat out in the previous dual and then are inserted back in the line-up in the next dual.

Great catch.

With the third party protests I am surprised that there are not more call-outs. However, I think there is an attached stigma for coaches calling each other out. In addition because it is early in the season I think some coaches are taking a blind eye however as we get deeper in the season (with conference titles and NCAA bids on the line) that protests will happen. Let's hope our thread will increase awareness.

Tennisace
Feb 5th, 2011, 03:23 PM
Saint Mary's with their second violation

#9 California 5, #40 Saint Mary's (CA) 2
Jan 31, 2011 at Berkeley, Calif.
Singles competition
1. #1 Jana Juricova (CAL) def. #85 Alex Poorta (SMC) 6-1, 6-3
2. #46 Mari Andersson (CAL) def. Catherine Isip (SMC) 6-7 (0-5), 6-4, 6-1
3. #44 Annie Goransson (CAL) def. Jenny Jullien (SMC) 6-2, 3-6, 6-4
4. #35 Tayler Davis (CAL) def. Claire Soper (SMC) 6-2, 6-2
5. Anna Chkhikvishvili (SMC) def. Alice Duranteau (CAL) 4-6, 6-2, 6-1
6. Laurie Gingras (SMC) def. Stephany Chang (CAL) 6-7 (0-6), 6-4, 6-4

Doubles competition
1. #5 Mari Andersson/Jana Juricova (CAL) def. #87 Catherine Isip/Alex Poorta (SMC) 8-1
2. Annie Goransson/Tayler Davis (CAL) def. Alita Fisher/Jenny Jullien (SMC) 8-2
3. Anna Chkhikvishvili/Claire Soper (SMC) def. Marina Cossou/Alice Duranteau (CAL) 8-1


#40 Saint Mary's (CA) 5, Fresno State 2
Feb 03, 2011 at Fresno, Calif.
Singles competition
1. #85 Alex Poorta (SMC) def. #75 Marianne Jodoin (FRES) 6-3, 7-5
2. Catherine Isip (SMC) def. Laura Pola (FRES) 4-6, 6-3, 6-3
3. Claire Soper (SMC) def. Melissa McQueen (FRES) 2-6, 6-4, 6-0
4. Anna Chkhikvishvili (SMC) def. #81 Mary Abby Haley (FRES) 4-6, 7-6, 6-0
5. Jenny Jullien (SMC) def. Bianca Modoc (FRES) 6-3, 6-0
6. Olga Kirpicheva (FRES) def. Laurie Gingras (SMC) 7-6, 7-6

Doubles competition
1. Laura Pola/Marianne Jodoin (FRES) def. #87 Catherine Isip/Alex Poorta (SMC) 8-7
2. Melissa McQueen/Bianca Modoc (FRES) def. Alita Fisher/Jenny Jullien (SMC) 8-4
3. Anna Chkhikvishvili/Claire Soper (SMC) def. Anna Mikhaylova/Olga Kirpicheva (FRES) 8-2

spartyfan
Feb 11th, 2011, 06:38 PM
Can you play for two schools in the same year in college tennis? I know you can not in other NCAA sports.

http://www.wsucougars.com/sports/w-tennis/recaps/092510aac.html

Sept. 24, 2010


PULLMAN, Wash.-- The Washington State University women's tennis team completed a successful first day at the 2010 Cougar Classic at the WSU Outdoor Tennis Courts. The Cougars had eight of 10 players advance to the round of 16 in singles and two doubles teams are playing in the semifinals.


In the Gray singles bracket, Marina Nicolas, Jackie Owens, Erin Troedson, and Jessica Gomez advanced to the third round. Following a first round bye, Nicolas advanced with a win over Rocio Norena of Eastern Washington 6-1, 6-0. Owens also had a first round bye then defeated Ashley Mackey of Montana 6-4, 6-0. Troedson defeated Gabi Villegas of Montana State 1-6, 6-1, 7-5 and Natalie Martin of Seattle 6-2, 6-1. Jessica Gomez beat Judy Leining of Eastern Washington 6-3, 6-0, and Natalie Kirch of Idaho 6-3, 6-3. Lea Jansen will compete on Saturday in the second round consolation after defeating Lucy Fairbotham of Montana State 6-2, 6-1, then falling to Jackie Tabb of Gonzaga 2-6, 6-3, 7-5.


http://www.pepperdinesports.com/sports/w-tennis/recaps/020811aaa.html

#51 Pepperdine 4, Hawai'i 3
Singles competition
1. Katarina Poljakova (HAW) def. Arianna Colffer (PEP) 6-4, 7-6 (8-6)
2. Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Barbara Pinterova (HAW) 6-2, 3-6, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Magdalena Ploch (HAW) 6-4, 3-0, retired
4. Nathasha Zorec (HAW) def. Andrea Oates (PEP) 7-5, 7-6
5. Alyssa Nafarrete (HAW) def. Megan Moore (PEP) 6-4, 6-0
6. Jackie Owens (PEP) def. Mari Tadaki (HAW) 6-2, 4-6, 7-6 (7-4)

Doubles competition
1. Marie Zalameda/Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Barbara Pinterova/Katarina Poljakova (HAW) 8-6
2. Megan Moore/Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Magdalena Ploch/Alyssa Nafarrete (HAW) 9-7
3. Nathasha Zorec/Mari Tadaki (HAW) def. Tara Panu/Andrea Oates (PEP) 8-6

Tennisace
Feb 11th, 2011, 07:28 PM
Can you play for two schools in the same year in college tennis? I know you can not in other NCAA sports.

http://www.wsucougars.com/sports/w-tennis/recaps/092510aac.html

Sept. 24, 2010


PULLMAN, Wash.-- The Washington State University women's tennis team completed a successful first day at the 2010 Cougar Classic at the WSU Outdoor Tennis Courts. The Cougars had eight of 10 players advance to the round of 16 in singles and two doubles teams are playing in the semifinals.


In the Gray singles bracket, Marina Nicolas, Jackie Owens, Erin Troedson, and Jessica Gomez advanced to the third round. Following a first round bye, Nicolas advanced with a win over Rocio Norena of Eastern Washington 6-1, 6-0. Owens also had a first round bye then defeated Ashley Mackey of Montana 6-4, 6-0. Troedson defeated Gabi Villegas of Montana State 1-6, 6-1, 7-5 and Natalie Martin of Seattle 6-2, 6-1. Jessica Gomez beat Judy Leining of Eastern Washington 6-3, 6-0, and Natalie Kirch of Idaho 6-3, 6-3. Lea Jansen will compete on Saturday in the second round consolation after defeating Lucy Fairbotham of Montana State 6-2, 6-1, then falling to Jackie Tabb of Gonzaga 2-6, 6-3, 7-5.


http://www.pepperdinesports.com/sports/w-tennis/recaps/020811aaa.html

#51 Pepperdine 4, Hawai'i 3
Singles competition
1. Katarina Poljakova (HAW) def. Arianna Colffer (PEP) 6-4, 7-6 (8-6)
2. Marie Zalameda (PEP) def. Barbara Pinterova (HAW) 6-2, 3-6, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Magdalena Ploch (HAW) 6-4, 3-0, retired
4. Nathasha Zorec (HAW) def. Andrea Oates (PEP) 7-5, 7-6
5. Alyssa Nafarrete (HAW) def. Megan Moore (PEP) 6-4, 6-0
6. Jackie Owens (PEP) def. Mari Tadaki (HAW) 6-2, 4-6, 7-6 (7-4)

Doubles competition
1. Marie Zalameda/Arianna Colffer (PEP) def. Barbara Pinterova/Katarina Poljakova (HAW) 8-6
2. Megan Moore/Khunpak Issara (PEP) def. Magdalena Ploch/Alyssa Nafarrete (HAW) 9-7
3. Nathasha Zorec/Mari Tadaki (HAW) def. Tara Panu/Andrea Oates (PEP) 8-6

It is possible, ironically Alexandria Walters now of Pepperdine (formerly UCLA) was the most recent one I can think of. I assume that it is only possible if at the school you transferred from, you were not on scholarship.

spartyfan
Feb 11th, 2011, 10:08 PM
It is possible, ironically Alexandria Walters now of Pepperdine (formerly UCLA) was the most recent one I can think of. I assume that it is only possible if at the school you transferred from, you were not on scholarship.

Google search was complicated but I think the NCAA changed the transfer rule for tennis as of this year to be like most other sports. This publication says a tennis athlete can not transfer mid year and be immediately eligible if you played at the other school during the same academic year or if you were getting a scholarship. If this is true than would the Pepperdine player be eligible this spring?

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/TGONLINE2010.pdf on page 19

During the search I read that this just changed. It was passed a couple years ago to be effective this school year. I know you can transfer over the summer in baseball but had never heard of being eligible to do it right in the middle of the school year. Letting someone play for two schools in the same year seems weird.

Another transfer story I searched said that only golf and tennis have more four year university to four year university transfers than women's basketball. The story turned out to be about women's basketball but why would so many tennis players transfer?

2nd_serve
Feb 11th, 2011, 10:34 PM
Quote.

In tennis, if you are transferring ot (sic) Division I institution at the start of the winter or spring term, you will not be eligible to compete until the next fall term, regardless if you meet an exception if you have competed during the same academic year or received athletically related financial aid during the same academic year from the previous four year institution.

Sparty, you are right. Thanks for pointing this out. I would guess that this was an accidental violation, but the rule does seem to be clear.

Tennisace
Feb 27th, 2011, 12:23 AM
Stanford is added to the list

No. 1 Stanford 7, No. 28 SMU 0

DOUBLES
1) No. 3 Barte/Burdette (STAN) d. Lesniak/Malyarchikova (SMU) 8-2
2) Ahn/Gibbs (STAN) d. Cieplucha/Steinbauer (SMU) 8-2
3) Veronica Li/McVeigh (STAN) d. Hatamova/Turpin (SMU) 8-2
Order of Finish: 1, 3, 2

SINGLES
1) No. 5 Hilary Barte (STAN) d. No. 2 Marta Lesniak (SMU) 6-4, 7-6 (2)
2) No. 80 Nicole Gibbs (STAN) d. Edyta Cieplucha (SMU) 2-6, 6-3, 6-2
3) No. 23 Kristie Ahn (STAN) d. Heather Steinbauer (SMU) 6-2, 6-2
4) No. 31 Mallory Burdette (STAN) d. Shahzoda Hatamova (SMU) 7-5, 7-5
5) No. 47 Stacey Tan (STAN) d. Aleksandra Malyarchikova (SMU) 6-4, 7-6 (7)
6) Carolyn McVeigh (STAN) d. Ashley Turpin (SMU) 6-3, 6-1
Order of Finish: 3, 6, 5, 1, 2, 4

No. 1 Stanford 4, No. 19 Arkansas 0

DOUBLES
1) No. 3 Barte/Burdette (STAN) d. No. 37 Paulson/Tigu (ARK) 8-1
2) Ahn/Gibbs (STAN) vs. Lukomskaya/Roy (ARK) aban.
3) McVeigh/Tan (STAN) d. Frampton/Starkova (ARK) 8-3
Order of Finish: 1,3

SINGLES
1) No. 2 Hilary Barte (STAN) vs. Claudine Paulson (ARK) aban.
2) No. 22 Mallory Burdette (STAN) d. Kate Lukomskaya (ARK) 7-5, 6-2
3) No. 20 Kristie Ahn (STAN) d. Emily Carbone (ARK) 6-2, 6-3
4) No. 21 Nicole Gibbs (STAN) d. Stephanie Roy (ARK) 6-0, 7-5
5) No. 87 Stacey Tan (STAN) vs. Valentina Starkova (ARK) aban.
6) Carolyn McVeigh (STAN) vs. Jade Frampton (ARK) aban.
Order of Finish: 3, 4, 2

spartyfan
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:32 AM
Stanford is added to the list

That idea someone had about setting up a computer program to flag each of these moves really needs to happen. Clearly letting coaches police themselves is not working. They could always manually review each one that gets flagged. When Stanford is doing this than the rules need revision. It seems such a simple rule to follow.

Amalgamate
Mar 12th, 2011, 10:01 PM
Stanford is added to the list

Did you mean to copy and paste the UCLA match rather then the Arkansas match?