Prep column: Injustice is served

Barry Faulkner

Corona del Mar High girls tennis knows how the late Wilt

Chamberlain felt when he suggested nobody roots for Goliath.

But the slingshots wielded against one of Coach Andy Stewart’s top

players last week -- in the form of a 4-1 vote to deny reigning CIF

Southern Section singles champion Brittany Reitz a chance to compete in

the league and, consequently, CIF individual tournament -- should be

confiscated, so as not to ever again harm another hardcourt heavyweight.

To be fair, PCL coaches from Laguna Beach, Northwood, University and

Estancia (Costa Mesa’s coach did not attend the meeting) had a league

rule on their side.

But the requirement that all players play at least seven league team

matches to qualify for the league individual tournament, is as petty as

those who lobbied for its installment, then used its enforcement to veil

selfish interests.

Resentment from league coaches over CdM’s dominance since joining the

PCL -- the “Empresses on Eastbluff” are 30-0, have won all three league

titles and swept all but one league singles and doubles crown after

coming over from the Sea View League -- led to the rule, aimed at elite

Sea King players.

These supremely talented athletes, many of whom occupy lofty spots in

the SCTA junior rankings and earn college scholarships, elect to

contribute to their high school programs, though doing so often conflicts

with the betterment of their game.

Consequently, some players prefer quality instruction, usually

administered by professional coaches at several local clubs, to trouncing

inadequate competition which, let’s be frank, the current PCL

configuration provides plenty of.

Stewart recalled one singles massacre, in which a CdM player won every

point against an overmatched foe, lasted a mere eight minutes. Another

coach related instances of humiliation in which boys singles standouts

have toyed with less talented rivals by beating them with their opposite

hand.

Coaches should be finding ways to prevent such assaults on a

racquet-wielding victim’s self-esteem, rather than legislating their

proliferation.

The same high-profile players frequently put personal interests aside

to help their teams combat top rivals. Many savor the camaraderie they

experience in a team format and most earn praise from their coaches for

the positive impact they have on teammates. Their participation, however

sporadic, should be encouraged and applauded, not penalized.

Further, as in other sports such as golf and, to some extent, cross

country and track and field, the team and individual portions of the

postseason are primarily separate ventures.

Once the PCL regular season concludes, the league’s top three teams

proceed to the team playoffs in whatever enrollment divisions those

schools fit.

The league then holds an individual tennis tournament, which should be

about determining the league’s best representatives for the individual

section tournament. The league singles and doubles finalists get the

chance to pursue Southern Section spoils.

No other sport in the PCL quantifies team participation requirements

for entry into their postseason championships. Not cross country, track

and field, swimming, wrestling, nor golf.

The tennis coaches’ rule originally called for a minimum of five

league matches, including at least one each against all league rivals.

This is at least defensible, in that a school could not load up against

certain league rivals, then field a diluted lineup against others,

potentially skewing the team standings.

However, this argument loses credibility when used against CdM, which

is so far superior to the rest of the league, it has and probably will

continue to sweep past opponents despite the absence of a handful of

heavy hitters.

After some investigation, I believe the real inspiration for the rule

is to blackball part-time participants, in order to increase the

likelihood that lesser players from other schools will qualify for the

CIF individual tournament.

And while some coaches may argue they are merely promoting the best

interests of their own players, I contend they are compromising the

interests of the league as a whole, not to mention the ideals of

competition, by not advancing the most worthy competitors to the CIF

stage.

In Reitz’s particular case, she had already publicized her desire to

play doubles this postseason, relinquishing the opportunity to defend her

CIF singles crown. But she should have been allowed to compete in

doubles.

To her credit, Reitz harbors no ill feelings over the coaches who

ended her individual season. She said she is happy to have won one CIF

individual title, happy to have contributed to her team’s unbeaten

record, and she looks forward to potentially helping top-seeded CdM earn

its second straight CIF Division IV team title.

In taking such a stance, Reitz displays the type of class those PCL

coaches who voted against her can only aspire to.