MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: Ask the board Thread Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-20-2016 12:50 PM
Litotes
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1canada View Post
LAAKSONEN 2-0 v 2-1
This is my diff from today, LAAKSONEN retired after losing the first set 6-4 , at first glance I was happy to get the victory when LAAKSONEN lost the first set as it was my only difference and I had the 2-1 pick.

But after retirement I don't think my set to the winner counts if I understand the rule correctly, or atleast another manager put it that way to me in another tournament early this year.

The manager has given me the victory with a set to the winner, but if I interpret it properly it should go to PTS, I would prefer this over a victory not earned and my opponent would deserve the rules be applied correctly.

I'm not certainly clear, so I thought best to bring the question here, instead of taking the win and moving on.
Very sporting of you Yes, with the retirement the set to the winner rule doesn't apply and this match should go to PTS and if that is equal, to CB.
09-20-2016 12:45 PM
a1canada
Re: Ask the board Thread

LAAKSONEN 2-0 v 2-1
This is my diff from today, LAAKSONEN retired after losing the first set 6-4 , at first glance I was happy to get the victory when LAAKSONEN lost the first set as it was my only difference and I had the 2-1 pick.

But after retirement I don't think my set to the winner counts if I understand the rule correctly, or atleast another manager put it that way to me in another tournament early this year.

The manager has given me the victory with a set to the winner, but if I interpret it properly it should go to PTS, I would prefer this over a victory not earned and my opponent would deserve the rules be applied correctly.

I'm not certainly clear, so I thought best to bring the question here, instead of taking the win and moving on.
09-11-2016 09:14 PM
Randy
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbaBobb View Post
It seems more fair to switch coolfish and tim. around as coolfish had better result and Björki was a non sender, but the rules doesn't mention the result of the opponenents, just the rank, so according to that I see no room in the rules to do that.
yeah just the rank
09-11-2016 09:19 AM
BobbaBobb
Re: Ask the board Thread

It seems more fair to switch coolfish and tim. around as coolfish had better result and Björki was a non sender, but the rules doesn't mention the result of the opponenents, just the rank, so according to that I see no room in the rules to do that.
09-10-2016 06:12 PM
Kellemanske
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbaBobb View Post
What exactly should I do in Szczecin where I in Q1 have three games where both players didn't send and only two games where both players send. It's quite clear that the two losers will take the place of two of the games where none have sent and that will be against the two lowest ranked opponents. But what to do with the third game? Will that opponent receive a bye in QFR or should I adjust the draw so that that the top seeded player (Shaddad) receives a bye instead?
Shaddad doesn't get a bye cause his opponent didn't send.

Quote:
00:00 | (1) Shaddad (CHN) vs. W!MBLEDON (AUS) (SR 0:0) - Missing picks from W!MBLEDON
00:00 | (6) Himalaya (NED) vs. tim. (GER) (SR 0:0) - MOLTENI, WALKOW vs. PUETZ, BEDNAREK SR Differences: MOLTENI 2-1 vs. PUETZ 2-0, MIDDELKOOP 2-0 v 2-1, LUETJEN 2-1 v 2-0, ANDRZEJCZUK 2-1 v 2-0, WALKOW 2-0 vs. BEDNAREK 2-0, PTS1: MOLTENI 6-4 4-6 6-3 vs PUETZ 7-5 6-4, PTS2: MIDDELKOOP 7-5 7-6 vs MIDDELKOOP 3-6 7-6 6-3, PTS3: REISTER 6-4 6-2 vs REISTER 6-3 6-4
00:00 | (2) Cazorla (UKR) vs. Björki (GER) (SR 0:0) - Missing picks from Cazorla Missing picks from Björki
00:00 | (5) Peta Pan (AUS) vs. jervisjames (AUS) (SR 0:0) - Missing picks from Peta Pan Missing picks from jervisjames

00:00 | (3) rneves (BRA) vs. Gaston Ignacio (SUI) (SR 0:0) - Missing picks from Gaston Ignacio
00:00 | (7) Walsall (FRA) vs. coolfish1103 (USA) (SR 0:0) - WALKOW vs. BEDNAREK
00:00 | (4) Randy (CRO) vs. Matthew2408 (GBR) (SR 0:0) - Missing picks from Randy Missing picks from Matthew2408
00:00 | (8) Baink (POL) vs. juakos17 (CHI) (SR 0:0) - Missing picks from juakos17
If we follow the rules you get:
(1) Shaddad vs W!MBLEDON (non sender)
(6) Himalya vs BYE
(2) Cazorla vs Bjorki
tim. vs BYE
(3) rneves vs Gaston Ignacio (non sender)
(7) Walsall vs BYE
coolfish1103 vs BYE
(8) Baink vs juakos17 (non sender)

Then "After all the steps above, if there is still a match with two missing players, the loser with the best score in the round will take this spot in the following round (rule 3.1.6.1)."
According to our rules if all else is the same (picks, SR, sets to the winner, PTS, ...), which it is here as both didn't send, the tie will be decided on ranking, so that would mean that Bjorki gets the open spot in FQR (as the best ranked of all the non senders) unless his top30 ranking doesn't count in a challenger in this rule either, but I don't see that mentioned specifically so I think it counts.

So next round draw:

(1) Shaddad vs (6) Himalya
Bjorki vs tim.
(3) rneves (7) Walsall
coolfish1103 vs (8) Baink

(could be that tim. and coolfish1103 need to be switched, not entirely sure about that)
09-10-2016 04:18 PM
BobbaBobb
Re: Ask the board Thread

What exactly should I do in Szczecin where I in Q1 have three games where both players didn't send and only two games where both players send. It's quite clear that the two losers will take the place of two of the games where none have sent and that will be against the two lowest ranked opponents. But what to do with the third game? Will that opponent receive a bye in QFR or should I adjust the draw so that that the top seeded player (Shaddad) receives a bye instead?
09-05-2016 11:28 AM
Diadochi
Re: Ask the board Thread

Anyone interested in potentially running an IPTL TT event during the off-season? You could follow the format of the league and teams of a certain number with Men's Singles, Women's Singles, Mixed Doubles, Men's Doubles and Legend's Singles players (if you really wanted to you could genuinely divide this by gender and age, if not you could just do 3 singles and 2 doubles matches), I guess no prizes would be on offer (except honour of course ) unless someone were willing to give out AO WCs.
08-24-2016 01:34 PM
Randy
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litotes View Post
It is a quite common occurrence to get CET and CEST mixed up, even for those of us who live in this time zone. Every player is advised to take care.

11 AM local is given as the principal deadline, as I understand it picks were sent 11.21 AM local. That's unfortunately too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbaBobb View Post
ibreak4Coffe wrote the following as deadline: Deadline to send is 11am New York time (5pm CET)

Technically speaking the CET time is wrong, as CET is without DST, with DST it is called CEST so 11am New York Time is 4pm CET, but 5pm CEST. tipler's picks was sent at 11:21 am New York Time.

So the question is, is it relevant if the CET time is wrong as the deadline is posted in Local time, and CET just given as a reference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahqz View Post
I totally agree.

oooooh the local time was right, my bad i understood it wrong

yeah i agree. its sadly too late
08-24-2016 08:43 AM
Mahqz
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litotes View Post
It is a quite common occurrence to get CET and CEST mixed up, even for those of us who live in this time zone. Every player is advised to take care.

11 AM local is given as the principal deadline, as I understand it picks were sent 11.21 AM local. That's unfortunately too late.
I totally agree.
08-24-2016 08:31 AM
Litotes
Re: Ask the board Thread

It is a quite common occurrence to get CET and CEST mixed up, even for those of us who live in this time zone. Every player is advised to take care.

11 AM local is given as the principal deadline, as I understand it picks were sent 11.21 AM local. That's unfortunately too late.
08-24-2016 05:20 AM
BobbaBobb
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy View Post
just to clarify: he posted a deadline that was after the time the local tournament started ?

If so:


as long as you sent before the deadline he posted they will be accepted. HOWEVER, those that were in session between the actual deadline and the deadline posted, will be voided on your differences @BobbaBobb
ibreak4Coffe wrote the following as deadline: Deadline to send is 11am New York time (5pm CET)

Technically speaking the CET time is wrong, as CET is without DST, with DST it is called CEST so 11am New York Time is 4pm CET, but 5pm CEST. tipler's picks was sent at 11:21 am New York Time.

So the question is, is it relevant if the CET time is wrong as the deadline is posted in Local time, and CET just given as a reference?
08-24-2016 03:23 AM
Randy
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripler View Post
An incorrect CET deadline time in Tuesday's OOP post for the US Open qualifiers resulted in me sending my picks 21 minutes late according to the local deadline. Going by the CET time given for the OOP, they were sent 39 minutes before the deadline.

The manager told me he'd accept my picks if the board agrees. What's your verdict?
just to clarify: he posted a deadline that was after the time the local tournament started ?

If so:


as long as you sent before the deadline he posted they will be accepted. HOWEVER, those that were in session between the actual deadline and the deadline posted, will be voided on your differences @BobbaBobb
08-24-2016 03:10 AM
tripler
Re: Ask the board Thread

An incorrect CET deadline time in Tuesday's OOP post for the US Open qualifiers resulted in me sending my picks 21 minutes late according to the local deadline. Going by the CET time given for the OOP, they were sent 39 minutes before the deadline.

The manager told me he'd accept my picks if the board agrees. What's your verdict?
08-22-2016 08:42 AM
Normand
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Litotes View Post
Yes, non-senders for Q1 are on the LL list, below all the Q senders. So if they sent for MD they're eligible.
Thanks
08-22-2016 08:41 AM
Litotes
Re: Ask the board Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normand View Post
In Manerbio, 6 players didn't send for 1st round.
According to the rules, it looks like players who didn't send in QR1 can take a LL spot in MD if they send on MD 1st day. It's weird but it looks correct.
Can someone please check the thread http://www.menstennisforums.com/36206521-post95.html to confirm ?
Yes, non-senders for Q1 are on the LL list, below all the Q senders. So if they sent for MD they're eligible.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may 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

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