|
I wrote to the USATT Board with the following exchange of emails:
To the Board of the USATT
Gentlemen:
Last weekend, I played in a sanctioned USATT tournament in Roanoke, VA where I had just finished beating a player rated 300 points higher than me. The last match was against a similar rated player who then declared that he was too tired to play me. I believed that a "win" would be recorded for me but the tournament director judged that since no match had been played, my opponent had "retired" and neither a win or a loss would be recorded. Since this player continued to remain at the venue without any problems of exhaustion (he mentioned to another player that he didn't want to play against long pips with an opponent rated much less than him), I sent an email to the tournament director quoting ITTF rules regarding "suspension" with a copy to the USATT.
Fong Hsu of the USATT was kind enough to clarify that in the USATT (contrary to ITTF regs) a ratings change is not recorded if a player has not played a point, i.e. "defaulted". I pointed out that this is an incredible loophole whereby players can "default" when faced with a dangerous, lower-rated player than themselves. In fact, in a round robin, it would be a tactical advantage to play lower rated players at the end of the round robin and then just default any opponent who is "dangerous".
Fong Hsu then replied that this has been a long-standing problem at USATT tournaments but the USATT has not been able to address it. From many emails responding to this case from Asia and Europe (all irate at the unjust USATT ratings policy), may I suggest that the Board consider either:
1) the defaulting player will lose against his opponent but the "winner" will not gain ratings points for the default (Australia employs this approach and it reduces the incentive to "game" the system by defaulting against lower rated players); or
2) the defaulting player loses against the opponent and the winner gains ratings points (New Zealand suggests this approach as they feel that a phantom game was played in which the non-defaulter served once to an empty table and then recorded 11-0,11-0, 11-0).
It is patently unfair for U.S. players to play and pay for a USATT tournament and then find that higher rated players refuse to play against them. In my case, there is some irony: I am almost 80 years old, I travelled 4 hours to Roanoke, paid $50, to find an opponent half my age claiming that he was "tired" and refused to play me (without any penalty). To say that I am irate is mildly put; to say that other countries have a logical method of resolving this problem clearly calls for your action.
Please address this problem as soon as possible as it violates equal and fair rules for all players.
Richard Unanue, Asheville Table Tennis Club
From a Member of the USATT Board
Richard,
This has been an issue in US tournaments for decades and players complain about it often. Players who default do receive a penalty: they lose the match and receive 0 match points toward advancing. Personally i wouldn't mind if players also lost rating points for defaulting, but this sentiment is not shared by every player. Even some players who never default prefer it the way it is today.
There are actual reasons why the system is the way it is. That doesn't mean it can't change, but since you're a new tournament player i would suggest that you try to understand the opposing view - not of cowards who are afraid to play you, but of honest players who prefer the current system.
Also, there are ways that a tournament director can prevent these kinds of defaults. Regardless of whether there's a penalty or not, the ideal situation is that nobody defaults and nobody is penalized.
Responding to the Member of the USATT Board
Thank you for your prompt reply.
As in the case of all social issues, e.g. segregation, etc., the fact that the unjust rules have existed for decades just means that leadership is required to change them. Honest persons exist on both sides of any issue but that is the reason for judges or Boards to weigh arguments.
I cannot think--nor have you explained--of any rationale for a defaulting player not to lose points for his actions. There is a vast difference in taking the default route when (1) you are about to lose points or (2) just a "loss" and 0 points deducted. I can well understand the motivation of high rated players to "game" the system to maintain their rating but this is neither fair nor supportive of the sport's advancement.
From the internet forum comments, other countries and players are perplexed by this USATT loophole. If other countries and regions have resolved the problem, why are we lagging?
As to my being new to tournaments, I am guilty as charged. In my defense, may I suggest you reread Christian Andersen's story about the "Emperor's New Clothes".
Finally and contrary to your comment, tournament directors may be equally motivated to support this venal state of USATT affairs. In my case, the tournament director and my opponent were colleagues, fellow coaches and my opponent's university team comprised the bulk of the tournament players. Why would there be any possible incentive to deduct rating points from his friend and source of tournament income?
The issue is clear: what penalty should be exacted against a defaulting player who is neither sick, has suffered an accident, nor has any medical excuse for not fulfilling his tournament responsibility to play? Under the present system, the "penalty" is toothless and serves only a vested set of interests. I have recommended two alternative modifications; with the Board's vast experience, I am sure it can creatively imagine others. It just requires courage.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
) We have the following rule
