|
|
Post by jash on Oct 6, 2014 9:21:21 GMT -5
It's interesting the ECNL question came up today because I was planning to start another similar thread. What are your thoughts on this scenario? A player tries out and makes a Classic I team, but is rostered on the Classic V team. The player practices exclusively with the Classic I team and plays every single game with the Classic I team. He only comes to 2-3 Classic V games, when there is no conflict with the Classic I team and the Classic V team is playing a tough opponent. By the rules this is 100% legal (unless I have totally missed something). But by all reasonable descriptions, this player is a guest on the Classic V team. His top priority and all practices are with the Classic I team -- that is his team. Ethically, I consider this wrong. I cannot envision any scenario where this is done for the purposes of player development -- it is only about winning games through the dubious use of a 'ringer'. I have some ideas on how rule changes could fix this problem, but first I'm wondering how many people see this as a problem at all? I would not consider 'other teams do it so we have to' as a valid ethical reason to do this  |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 6, 2014 9:53:02 GMT -5
yea, that is taking advantage for sure of the new player pass rule.
not sure why a kid would even want to do that. is this a real situation, i think its wrong even to do classic II unless the kid is in the bottom third, i could see a parent or kid choosing more playing time on a classic II team vs riding the bench on a classic 1 team.
at the end of the day, the system should have some "red" flag summaries throughout the season, the problem is that their is no way to no officially if he plays with the classic V team. he'll alwasys be on their game day card and appeared as playing. you almost need a box in the game card to and when the scores are entered that the players are checked as being their.
which brings me to my next point should be a new thread, seems in 2014, we could have all this entered in electronically immediately at the end of the game by a ref/coach/team manager. i've seen apps for got soccer, you just scan a bar code on the game card, and bam you can enter the results. then immediately all goals, cards could be entered, a rep from each team has to initial etc. then add in a section for check ins, where you mark each player that is there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 6, 2014 10:38:58 GMT -5
yea, that is taking advantage for sure of the new player pass rule. not sure why a kid would even want to do that. is this a real situation, i think its wrong even to do classic II unless the kid is in the bottom third, i could see a parent or kid choosing more playing time on a classic II team vs riding the bench on a classic 1 team. Yes, this happens all the time. The exact classic levels I listed may not happen (though it wouldn't surprise me, because that Classic V rostered player could play on any other team in the club at the same age level or higher), but I know it happens in very specific cases, such as I and II, IV and an age level up II. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 6, 2014 10:42:44 GMT -5
just makes it a pain in the butt also for the team manager. they have to make sure the kid is player passed every week etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 6, 2014 11:15:43 GMT -5
I thought there was a rule limiting the number of times a player could be passed within a club?
Agree though - ethically this stinks and sends the wrong message to the Classic V players - 'you're just not good enough to beat Opponent X unless we have little Messi here to save the day'. But if the coaches and parents are of the 'win win win' mentality- they're probably fine with it.
All these issues start with what the parents will allow their kids to do and have done to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerfan30 on Oct 6, 2014 11:22:00 GMT -5
Unfortunately it happens more often than you think, i wonder why the parents of players that get displaced for games don't ever speak up. As long as people's livelihoods are tied into wins/losses some people are going to try to get every advantage possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 6, 2014 11:49:55 GMT -5
I thought there was a rule limiting the number of times a player could be passed within a club? Not that I know of, but that is one possible (and easy) solution. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 6, 2014 11:53:02 GMT -5
no, the only rule i believe is 3 per game.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 6, 2014 12:39:30 GMT -5
I had heard of goalies doing this, but not actual players
|
|
|
|
Post by sidelinemama on Oct 6, 2014 13:40:06 GMT -5
It's a shame, because some of these rules are like this to benefit smaller clubs who may not have quite enough or has just enough players, so they can help round out rosters if someone gets hurt or is out of town. Then big clubs start to abuse it and Ga Soccer makes changes that hurt the small clubs. It's unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
Post by fan on Oct 6, 2014 13:55:20 GMT -5
In sifting through the trash on the other forum there was some talk of AFC's U14 boys teams. If you look at the scoring lists, one of the top scorers in both CI and CIV West is the same name. If someone's good enough to be a top scorer in CI, there's no developmental reason that player should be playing CIV.
I am not a fan of the rule change in January that allows players to play on two teams in a day. I think it encourages much more rostering of players on lower teams. Prior to that change, you could still roster someone lower but they could only play with one team in a day. On days when both teams played, it was most likely that the player would play on their stronger team. Some of the time the lower team would have the advantage of having a stronger player or two but at least it wasn't all the time.
I think a limit to the number of times you can player pass would help. The Affinity system limits how many times you can player pass but it's 99 times in a year so there's effectively no limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 6, 2014 14:09:09 GMT -5
interesting. kind of thing an opposing coach should call them out for. i don't want to belittle a classic IV player, but come on thats ridiculous.
why would the kid even want to do that??
|
|
|
|
Post by sidelinemama on Oct 6, 2014 15:58:19 GMT -5
In sifting through the trash on the other forum there was some talk of AFC's U14 boys teams. If you look at the scoring lists, one of the top scorers in both CI and CIV West is the same name. If someone's good enough to be a top scorer in CI, there's no developmental reason that player should be playing CIV. I am not a fan of the rule change in January that allows players to play on two teams in a day. I think it encourages much more rostering of players on lower teams. Prior to that change, you could still roster someone lower but they could only play with one team in a day. On days when both teams played, it was most likely that the player would play on their stronger team. Some of the time the lower team would have the advantage of having a stronger player or two but at least it wasn't all the time. I think a limit to the number of times you can player pass would help. The Affinity system limits how many times you can player pass but it's 99 times in a year so there's effectively no limit. It is so annoying, because that ruling has helped our club in a few situations. And it is not been used to bring ringers up or down. It has strictly been a numbers thing. There are literally age groups at our club that would not have a team if it weren't for this rule. It has nothing to do with winning or losing at our club, it has to do with fielding a team. |
|
|
|
Post by fan on Oct 6, 2014 17:22:04 GMT -5
I've seen our club use the rule in the situation you described as well. There are some teams that would not always have enough players if they had not rostered a player or two on the lower roster. If those situations are rare I don't have much of a problem with that but if multiple players are used for every game just so they have enough then maybe that team shouldn't have formed this year.
Unfortunately I've also seen our club use it to have access to very strong players on more than one team.
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 6, 2014 19:45:57 GMT -5
If a kid is required to play half of a game, how can s/he skip a game AND be on the roster every game?
|
|
|
|
Post by pooldawg on Oct 7, 2014 19:45:57 GMT -5
In sifting through the trash on the other forum there was some talk of AFC's U14 boys teams. If you look at the scoring lists, one of the top scorers in both CI and CIV West is the same name. If someone's good enough to be a top scorer in CI, there's no developmental reason that player should be playing CIV. I am not a fan of the rule change in January that allows players to play on two teams in a day. I think it encourages much more rostering of players on lower teams. Prior to that change, you could still roster someone lower but they could only play with one team in a day. On days when both teams played, it was most likely that the player would play on their stronger team. Some of the time the lower team would have the advantage of having a stronger player or two but at least it wasn't all the time. I think a limit to the number of times you can player pass would help. The Affinity system limits how many times you can player pass but it's 99 times in a year so there's effectively no limit. I'm surprised the team managers even entered the goals for that top scorer, since it's not required. Personally, I do think it should be required just like cards. I don't really care if coaches don't want anyone targeting their top goal scorers. Who's to say that teams won't target someone with two yellow cards to try and draw a third, such that the player would have to sit out the next game? (See another thread on yellow card enforcement.) There is in fact one case in the spring where a classic 1 player was purposely taken off that roster and put on the classic 4 team. I thought a player couldn't be moved down during the same season? |
|
