03-27-2019, 06:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2019, 01:29 PM by ColoradoTree.)
The scoreline—7-0—isn’t a surprise. Neither is the fact that Gordon was back at 1. But I’m at a loss to understand how the remedy for a one-line violation was another one-line violation.
Instead of Gordon-Lampl-Lord, which would have allowed us to roll out our usual Gordon-Lord-Lampl lineup against UCLA while complying with the one-line rule, we jumped straight to Gordon-Lord-Lampl.
This is our most common lineup, so using it would normally be fine, except we deviated from it last time out, so we had to get back to it one line at a time. Gordon from 2 to 1 is fine. Lord from 3 to 2 is fine. But Lampl from 3 to 1 back to 3 wasn’t fine either time. And Lord from 1 to 3 for Hawaii wasn’t fine, either.
But I guess it’s only a problem if someone cares enough to protest, you know? And we’ll probably be fine. But it’s unnecessary, and leaves us open to an attack from an opportunistic rival. Though (thinking as the lawyer that I am) there is also the question of remedy. By switching back to our intended lineup this early, UCLA can't argue that our lineup in the match against them is a violation, since it's the same one we rolled out against Davis. The most UCLA would be able to do is file a third-party protest to complain about the lineup against Davis, in which case the most that could be ordered is that we use the same lineup against UCLA that we used against Hawaii (i.e., Lampl-Gordon-Lord). I'm not sure UCLA sees their chances as materially better against that lineup (perhaps a greater chance of winning at 1, but it's a coin flip, alongside arguably reduced chances of winning at 2 and 3). So, even if you complain, does UCLA really think it has a better chance of Altick winning against Lord rather than Lampl? Or Bolton winning against Gordon rather than Lord? I would imagine that even if Stella Sampras-Webster has considered filing a protest here, she wouldn't necessarily prefer to face that lineup. And because the remedy for a first found violation is to return to the pre-violation lineup, it wouldn't help her to wait until after the match (so she could see how it goes) and then file a protest about the Davis match. It wouldn't change the UCLA match outcome at that point. That said, USC could. But it would be such a comical overreaction to a situation where Lele was only trying to get Lampl a match on Court 1 that I'd be shocked if it happened. (And like I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if Lele called the coaches in question, let them know what she wanted to do with a one-match shift for Lampl, and they all said they had no problem with it.)
Oh, and for the record, they played out all three doubles matches, but we won all three (Arbuthnott/Gordon's win was closest, at 6-4). Then, Arbuthnott was off court first in singles (6-0, 6-1), then Higuchi (6-2, 6-0), and Lord clinched on Court 2 (6-1, 6-0). They played it out, with Shin booking her win next (a double bagel), then Lampl on Court 3 (6-3, 6-1), and finally Gordon on Court 1 (6-2, 6-2). No one lost more than 4 games in total, so this is as comprehensive a team win as you can get.
Instead of Gordon-Lampl-Lord, which would have allowed us to roll out our usual Gordon-Lord-Lampl lineup against UCLA while complying with the one-line rule, we jumped straight to Gordon-Lord-Lampl.
This is our most common lineup, so using it would normally be fine, except we deviated from it last time out, so we had to get back to it one line at a time. Gordon from 2 to 1 is fine. Lord from 3 to 2 is fine. But Lampl from 3 to 1 back to 3 wasn’t fine either time. And Lord from 1 to 3 for Hawaii wasn’t fine, either.
But I guess it’s only a problem if someone cares enough to protest, you know? And we’ll probably be fine. But it’s unnecessary, and leaves us open to an attack from an opportunistic rival. Though (thinking as the lawyer that I am) there is also the question of remedy. By switching back to our intended lineup this early, UCLA can't argue that our lineup in the match against them is a violation, since it's the same one we rolled out against Davis. The most UCLA would be able to do is file a third-party protest to complain about the lineup against Davis, in which case the most that could be ordered is that we use the same lineup against UCLA that we used against Hawaii (i.e., Lampl-Gordon-Lord). I'm not sure UCLA sees their chances as materially better against that lineup (perhaps a greater chance of winning at 1, but it's a coin flip, alongside arguably reduced chances of winning at 2 and 3). So, even if you complain, does UCLA really think it has a better chance of Altick winning against Lord rather than Lampl? Or Bolton winning against Gordon rather than Lord? I would imagine that even if Stella Sampras-Webster has considered filing a protest here, she wouldn't necessarily prefer to face that lineup. And because the remedy for a first found violation is to return to the pre-violation lineup, it wouldn't help her to wait until after the match (so she could see how it goes) and then file a protest about the Davis match. It wouldn't change the UCLA match outcome at that point. That said, USC could. But it would be such a comical overreaction to a situation where Lele was only trying to get Lampl a match on Court 1 that I'd be shocked if it happened. (And like I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if Lele called the coaches in question, let them know what she wanted to do with a one-match shift for Lampl, and they all said they had no problem with it.)
Oh, and for the record, they played out all three doubles matches, but we won all three (Arbuthnott/Gordon's win was closest, at 6-4). Then, Arbuthnott was off court first in singles (6-0, 6-1), then Higuchi (6-2, 6-0), and Lord clinched on Court 2 (6-1, 6-0). They played it out, with Shin booking her win next (a double bagel), then Lampl on Court 3 (6-3, 6-1), and finally Gordon on Court 1 (6-2, 6-2). No one lost more than 4 games in total, so this is as comprehensive a team win as you can get.