Thread Tools

supertec · 08-27-2012, 03:11 PM

Thanks Ruben. Now I've revised slowly and there are 8 LL finally, with 9 missing picks. So I think the only player who gets WO should be Sonja1989. Is this true? Say yes, please

00:00 | (1) Toooom (FRA) vs. (Q) Shaddad (CHN) - ARGUELLO vs. ARNABOLDI
00:00 | Mae (USA) vs. Nix da (GER) - Same winners; SR Differences: VAGNOZZI 2-0 v 2-1
00:00 | MathMul (GER) vs. doctorlopes (FRA) - Missing picks from doctorlopes
00:00 | Freak3yman84 (USA) vs. (6) Chris. (AUS) - Missing picks from Chris.

00:00 | (3) Rafael Fernando (BRA) vs. (Q) Kev. (AUS) - Missing picks from Rafael Fernando
00:00 | Gillouthe best (ESP) vs. rneves (BRA) - Missing picks from Gillouthe best
00:00 | rajknier (NED) vs. Lazyking (USA) - BEGEMANN vs. BASSO
00:00 | (Q) RNW (SUI) vs. (8) fsilva (POR) - ARNABOLDI, MCGEE vs. ARGUELLO, KOROLEV SR Differences: ARNABOLDI 2-1 vs. ARGUELLO 2-0, MCGEE 2-0 vs. KOROLEV 2-0

00:00 | (7) Rafael Reis (BRA) vs. jpaulo1610 (BRA) - Missing picks from Rafael Reis
00:00 | Felipe Abe (BRA) vs. geangr (BRA) - VAGNOZZI vs. VIOLA
00:00 | ANDRE AGASSI (UKR) vs. cswab22 (USA) - Missing picks from ANDRE AGASSI
00:00 | procarvalho (BRA) vs. (4) Sonja1989 (HUN) - Missing picks from procarvalho

00:00 | (5) Action Jackson (ICE) vs. (Q) Waldaukönig (GER) - VIOLA vs. VAGNOZZI
00:00 | Don Corleone (BRA) vs. delicfan (BIH) - VAGNOZZI vs. VIOLA
00:00 | The Bulldog (GBR) vs. Ramsay (POR) - Missing picks from The Bulldog
00:00 | brimoz (BRA) vs. (2) duducardoso (BRA) - Missing picks from duducardoso

keqtqiadv · 08-27-2012, 03:42 PM

supertec · 08-27-2012, 03:48 PM

Thank you

Lazyking · 08-27-2012, 10:06 PM

I told freak3yman84 to take this to the board but I gotta say this first once he brought it up to me in PM. He played against someone who committed today in the Como first round. I don't believe that should be right. To top it off, he lost to that player. I thought deadlines were made for a reason?

Freak3yman84 · 08-27-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazyking

I told freak3yman84 to take this to the board but I gotta say this first once he brought it up to me in PM. He played against someone who committed today in the Como first round. I don't believe that should be right. To top it off, he lost to that player. I thought deadlines were made for a reason?

I was just about to say this. And not to mention if that player wasn't allowed, that I would've won against the player that I was supposed to initially play. The manager even said no more singles entries before the person committed. And the qualifying had already started. Thanks Lazyking

supertec · 08-27-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazyking

I told freak3yman84 to take this to the board but I gotta say this first once he brought it up to me in PM. He played against someone who committed today in the Como first round. I don't believe that should be right. To top it off, he lost to that player. I thought deadlines were made for a reason?

I'm not a board manager and I am not sure, but, as I wrote in the como thread, I think there is nothing wrong there. Samuel Guilherme commited for singles as an ALT before MD 1st round, so he started on the 20th place of LL/ALTS. I've seen throughout my "TT career" this situation (signing up late as ALTs)but it's the first time 9 of 32 players don't send and there is a chance for a 20th placed to enter main draw...

keqtqiadv · 08-27-2012, 11:11 PM

Players who commit after the final deadline and players who are only in the doubles list:

They can be alternates for the qualifying draw or MD if there was no qualifying. These players are placed at the bottom of the alternates list and are ordered by commitment time.

Freak3yman84 · 08-27-2012, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keqtqiadv

Players who commit after the final deadline and players who are only in the doubles list:

They can be alternates for the qualifying draw or MD if there was no qualifying. These players are placed at the bottom of the alternates list and are ordered by commitment time.

If there was no qualifying? But there was qualifying, so that means it's not allowed, correct?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

Boarder35m · 08-28-2012, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

If there was no qualifying? But there was qualifying, so that means it's not allowed, correct?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

Yes, you are right.
To be honest at least I was very unsure about this rule, too. But well, probably only because it really didn´t happen that often before

orangehat · 08-28-2012, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boarder35m

Yes, you are right.
To be honest at least I was very unsure about this rule, too. But well, probably only because it really didn´t happen that often before

I don't agree.

I don't see any harm if anyone who commits after qualifying is placed behind all LLs (i.e. all players in qualifying)

Freak3yman84 · 08-28-2012, 12:18 AM

I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't deserve to be in the MD as he committed after the 1st round if qualies. Please can I get a board member's opinion so we can all carry on? Thanks!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

Boarder35m · 08-28-2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't deserve to be in the MD as he committed after the 1st round if qualies. Please can I get a board member's opinion so we can all carry on? Thanks!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

I am a Board member

I thought that was clear from the other post I made.

Freak3yman84 · 08-28-2012, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boarder35m

I am a Board member

I thought that was clear from the other post I made.

Sorry didn't see it

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

Freak3yman84 · 08-28-2012, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangehat

I don't agree.

I don't see any harm if anyone who commits after qualifying is placed behind all LLs (i.e. all players in qualifying)

Because you can go straight into the MD right? The only way you could go into the draw as an alternate us for qualifying as mentioned already, no?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using VerticalSports.Com App

orangehat · 08-28-2012, 12:42 AM

Let me just explain why I think ALTs should always be allowed.

In Indian Wells when I was managing there was this hurrah over a player sending picks by email. Some people argued that because the first post says "If the board is down, send picks to ______ email" means that email picks should only be allowed if the board is down. But I argued that that's not true because it never said anything about only sending picks by PM. In fact, the rules don't say you can post picks in the thread, but you should be allowed to!

In this case, the rule says "in case of qualifying, or main draw if there is no qualifying". The wording I believe was only used because people thought ALTs if there were qualifying would never get into the main draw.

The point is, ALTs are sufficiently disadvantaged (by placing them all the way behind ALL qualifying players), I don't think there is any further necessity to punish them further.