Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mhall]

OK!  I know this shouldn't bother me and I know that I should just look at it as opportunity for my sons team to play against great competition but!!!

Here's the scenario and I am beginning to understand this happens a lot.  A "B" team is not playing so well, so the "A" team drops some players down to help them win a couple of games.  It happened today, where the kid had such skill that he impacted the game greatly.  This kid had phenomenal ball control and was actually a treat to watch play.  But it impacted the result of the game.  Whether this really has any meaning to the importance of things I don't know, but it's frustrating to watch when a team brings "A" players down and taking the place of kids who are legitimately on the "B" team.  This team today had 17 kids.  Now, I can understand bringing an "A" team player down because the "B" team is missing players, but this was obviously not the problem today.  I believe, and there is no way to prove it, but the "A" team player was brought down to try and win the game.  And then to rub salt in the wound, the coach comes up to his guest player and says, even though I don't know you, you played a great game and sorry I got after you a little in the end.  That statement is what caused me to write this tonight.

I don't like this and I am not even sure why I don't like it.  It just seems unfair!!  Ha!  Fairness!!

[HE HATE ME]

Its been my understanding that coaches were just told by league officials to stop doing this. Tough to regulate.

[Southend soccer mom]

Which league? I thought most leagues nowadays have relaxed the rules with having players float between teams within a club.

Its been my understanding that coaches were just told by league officials to stop doing this. Tough to regulate.

[mhall]

The RCL has issued guidelines, but I believe this example did not follow the guidelines.  The team did not need additional players and this kid was not a kid in need of more playing time.  Again, this is my opinion and I can not read a coaches mind to gather what the intent was.  I just feel this was really taking advantage of the rules.  And I guess that's what bothers me the most, when people don't play according to the rules.

[mydogrosy]

I can't say what happened here, but I don't think this really happens very often.   The A team players usually don't want to play with B team, nor do A team coaches encourage it.   Clubs don't push this, and B players and parents resent giving up playing time.  Where it does happen is when team is short players due to injury, illness, etc. or where an A player has been out and missed games and needs additional minutes.  I think you are wise not to get too worked up about it.   

[gr8cgar]

OK ... I will bite.
The B team has 17 players but how many does the A team have? Might the A team also have a large roster? Might that A team player be needing some playtime because of the large roster on his team too?


I understand this might seem wrong because he is taking the place of kids who are legitimately on the "B" team. But what if this A team player been place on the B team to begin with and/or the rosters had not been sooo large.

I must admit a few years ago this would have bothered me to but no longer. Unless it is my kid that is lossing playtime 

[NKOTB]

OK ... I will bite.
The B team has 17 players but how many does the A team have? Might the A team also have a large roster? Might that A team player be needing some playtime because of the large roster on his team too?


I understand this might seem wrong because he is taking the place of kids who are legitimately on the "B" team. But what if this A team player been place on the B team to begin with and/or the rosters had not been sooo large.

I must admit a few years ago this would have bothered me to but no longer. Unless it is my kid that is lossing playtime 

I share your feelings, unless it's my kid OR it's a tournament, it wouldn't bother me.  My thoughts are most teams at some point have guest players and it's a chance to step up your teams game. 

[metz123]

I can't say what happened here, but I don't think this really happens very often.   The A team players usually don't want to play with B team, nor do A team coaches encourage it.   Clubs don't push this, and B players and parents resent giving up playing time.  Where it does happen is when team is short players due to injury, illness, etc. or where an A player has been out and missed games and needs additional minutes.  I think you are wise not to get too worked up about it.   

I haven't found the section in bold to be true. Most kids at U10-u14 want to play whenever possible. If asked to play with the B team, most kids would jump at the opportunity because it means more soccer this week. The A team coaches may not encourage it, but I've rarely seen an A team player turn down a game (it's part of what makes them an A team player at that age).

[lastplanet]

Like others, I wouldn't assume the reason the A player was with the B team was just to win the game.  It may well be that that player is a bench-warmer on the A team and this was an opportunity to get playing time.  That said, my son's team was having regular A team subs for awhile because the B team had no subs.  There would be 2-3 A team players so that the team had 3 subs each game.  I ended up bringing the issue up with the DOC in one of the clubs quarterly check-ins with the DOC (just for parents and the DOC).  I felt it would be better to lose by bigger margins (they were losing anyhow ;-) than to take time from the B-team players.   Now, I'm on the other side.  My son is on the A-team and the B-team has no subs.  Now I have a different view.  Now I think it's nice for the A-team players to have some easy games.  LOL.  I'm being facetious.  But more seriously, I'd wait to see if this is a pattern and then bring it up for discussion at a parent-coach meeting. 

[ThiKuBC]

Well, it's a pretty simple rule to regulate. Once registered to an "A" team the player can't play down. Only players can move UP. This is regulated by having ID cards with identification of what level the kid plays that the referee checks each week, as well as a game roster being submitted to the ref and the opposition at each match.

u10-u14 kids usually just want to play. After that getting an "A" player to play down can be a pretty difficult task as the kid won't want to play "with a lower level." And fair enough to those kids. I coach A and B teams and the boys are 11. The A boys love to play with the B kids because (a) they are friends and (b) "we want to play more!"

They never talk about scores or anything like that. Only once this year has an "A" player played down and it was because the "B" team was down to 1 sub, so the "A" guy was a sub, and he only played about 20 minutes. He had just finished an "A" game playing 30 minutes. He is a sub for the "A" team. So he was stoked and jumped up and down when I asked him to play. Why did I ask him? Because he happened to be standing there!

So I wouldn't get too excited about this kid playing down on the "B" team as I know it happens a lot in your area - not without knowing the circumstances or intent. However, with the "B" team having 17 players (including the "A" kid) I would seriously wonder what he was doing there - especially as a parent of a "B" kid on THAT team! "Why is that kid taking my kids spot? I paid for my kid to be on this team and play, he paid to be on the A team and play there." I'd be ticked in a pay-to-play system as a parent!

Honestly, if the A team had a loads of players and so this kid isn't getting much time, maybe that's the A teams problem for selecting so many players! Choose lesser numbers, then if you are short for whatever reason call-up players from B. If kids get mad at being on B and switch clubs, well, that's their choice.

[mhall]

This kid was not a bench player on the "A" team.  This kid had some of the best on ball abilities that I have seen of a kid his age.  In my opinion he was the definition of a "ringer".  Also, in my opinion without him on the team, the game would have been won by my sons team instead of a tie.  He was that influential on the field of play when he was on the field.  This was a kid who not only played well by himself but also made everyone around him play better.  Plus, it required our team to pay attention to him.  So, ultimately, again in my opinion, his play affected the outcome of the game.

We had this seem thing happen two weeks back with another team, but in that case I believe the "A" team player was there to get more playing time.  Ultimately you can never tell intent by a coach or a club, but I think in this case it was an attempt to win a game and probably instill some confidence in the team.  But, the whole time I am watching this I was watching the boys who sat on the bench while this boy played.  And ultimately, it really doesn't matter in the full scope of things.  I got to watch a really good soccer player at U14 and at least my sons team came away with a tie and not a loss!

Interesting topic and interesting in the fact of how opinions change all in accordance to perspective!!

[Firedog]

Here's what WYS has defined regarding the use of the "Player Pass":

Washington Youth Soccer Select Club Player Pass Rules
Effective January 1, 2011
Select Club Player Pass
Approved by the Soccer Operations Committee on November 13, 2010, for implementation in
any select-level league with a season beginning after January 1, 2011.
Reason: Development occurs when players of like ability strive to improve and succeed.
Success can only come from opportunity. Expanding how players are given this opportunity
within a club structure facilitates growth and satisfaction through level-specific challenges.
Expanding the use of the pass to the select level of play and leagues throughout the state is a
step towards Seamless Soccer in our state.
Washington Youth Soccer Select Club Player Pass Rules 2010-11
The Player Pass is a roster mechanism to move players between teams within the same club
for developmental purposes. Its function is to promote opportunities for development for bench
players at a high level, or quickly developing players at mid level, through field time in league
play – this is considered the spirit of the rule.
? Players must be noted as using the Club Player Pass (CPP) on the roster, indicating the
team they are originating from. Players may not “guest play” from other clubs using the
pass mechanism
? All yellow and red cards issued to the player using the Club Player Pass go to the player,
but count towards the team total they are playing for at the time the card is issued
? Opposing coaches must be notified prior to the match of the use of the pass
? Teams are limited to 3 players a game using the Club Player Pass
? Select Players are not allowed to use the Club Player Pass to play on Recreational
teams
? The use of the Club Player Pass may not be denied, but it may be contested under the
following parameters:
o The Pass was used to produce a winning result (ie: players using the pass were
instrumental in the win)
o The Pass was used without proper documentation or notification to the game
official
? Players were not clearly identified or did not have a legitimate registration with
Washington Youth Soccer
? A Player is limited to 35 scheduled Washington Youth Soccer Matches per our Long
Term Player Development Plan
? A Player using a Club Player Pass is limited to 2 scheduled matches in the course of a
weekend
? A team that has less players than the number required to fully field a side (i.e.: 11 a side
equals 11 players) may use the pass to help field a team ONLY if at least 7 players are
from the originally rostered team the pass is being used for.

Since use of the Pass can't be denied, the burden of proof for abuse (provided proper notification) falls to the team that likely lost or drew the match in question.  While that's the nature of protests in general, I point it out because most "victims" will conclude it's not worth the effort.

[mhall]

Thanks Firedog!

I have seen the rule before and the reason why I am not getting to excited is because there is no way to prove any of the intent.  But it sure seems suspicious when there are plenty of kids on the bench to field a team with subs.

[EWSoccer64]

Not a response to the specifics of this situation, but in general in regards to playing an A player down.

1.  In Europe, it is common for A team players who are not getting playing time, or who are coming back from injury, to play with the reserves in the reserve of B team match.

2.  At HS, I once had a freshman on varsity.  He had been struggling with the size/force/speed of HS varsity 4A play, and then gotten an injury.  When he was fit to play, I played him on the "C" team, just about all freshmen.  (He was a 9th grader).  This was about midseason, and the kid had scored about 2 goals on varsity.  I told the kid that this was a "rehab" game for him, and it was a fitness test.   The C team played on a different night than the JV and Varsity teams, so it was a conveniet fit, it would not take him out of being eligible for the next varsity game.

3.   The kid scored a hat trick in the C team game, which did wonders for his confidence.  He played with the varsity for the rest of the season, and played better than he had before he missed time with his injury.    However, the opponents (Walla Walla HS) complained about him being played on the C team and were very pissed off.  (Of course, it had nothing to do with their 9-0 loss, at home........).   

4.   The AD at the school I was coaching at, also recieved a complaint from the parent of the freshman that I had given the rehab assignment to.  "How dare the coach demean the player like that, when he was so good, obviously the best player on varsity on the attack, etc. etc. etc.)  The AD decided, before talking to me, that what had happened was wrong.   The AD is going to be (most likely) the next superindendent of the Kennewick School District.

5.   I believe that there is truly a major difference between A and B teams, and teams within the same club that are "Premier" (RCL/USCS/Whatever) and select.  If a program is designated A/B/etc. then the lower designated teams have an absolute obligation to support the development and success of the higher designated teams.  Including having guest players drop down upon them for "tune ups".  That is the way things are set up, everyone should realise that (unless people are lieing to themselves or each other), and that is what is best for the success of the A team, which is the MISSION of that system.
If there is a definitive break between the "Premier" and the "Select" squads in a club, where the select team(s) are not designated the B or C or whatever lower ranking teams, then the mission of the select teams is different.  The mission of the select teams becomes one of developing its own players to their best extent, to developing thei rown team as greatly as possible, and if - and only if - the select players want to move to a premier enviroment, are they then required to do so.  In such an enviroment, while a select team might accept some outside players for summer tournaments, they would not be accepting Premier players dropping down in league play.  It would take away not just the playing time from their own players, but it would be dishonest in what they are playing for, a league title.

6.   As illustrated, it seems that it depends upon the way the club structures the enviroment, and the objectives of the teams involved, as to whether bringing an A team ringer down to the B team is acceptable.   To me, it is very clear cut.  If a team is playing for a reward (promotion, league championship, etc.) then bringing in a upper division player, even for rehab, is not acceptable.  In HS, where the the JV and C teams are not playing for any title or standing, then things are vastly more relaxed.  In Premier (RCL/USCS premier wannabe equivilient) bringing down an A team player for appropriate reasons is entirely appropriate, since the standings or success of the B team in Premier really does not matter.   And no, a B team being promoted from the 4th RCL division to the 3rd does not really matter, in fact it can be seen as a detriment to the entire organization.

[footiefan]

There are a lot of good reasons to pass players between A and B rosters:
a)  "B" roster players get an opportunity to play at a higher level for a few games a year.
b)  Particularly at the younger age groups, it adds to club camraderie vs. team camraderie.
c)  "A" roster players have the opportunity to lead and teach on the field.
d)  "B" teams get exposure to the increased intensity and skills of "A" roster players.

I have generally been very pleased when a club rotates a couple of B roster players up and a couple of A roster players down on a regular basis once the teams are in the middle part of the seasons.  At the younger ages, when skill development is more important than team results, I wouldn't get my shorts in a bind about "A" roster players on the B squad.  

[mhall]

Hi EW!  Nice post!

I can't see how it's detrimental to a club to have an "A" team in RCL division 1 and a "B" team in division 2 or even division 1.  This would make that clubs teams much more attractive to parents and kids who want their kids to have an opportunity to play at the highest level in the state.  Crossfire has this happen.  It may be with their younger team and proper aged team.  But they often have two teams or more playing within the top two divisions.  I think this is a plus when it comes to be attractive to people.

It's interesting that I still haven't heard from that parent who sat on the sidelines in hopes of watching their kid get playing time only to see the available playing time disappear because another kid showed up on game day to play on their team.  How does all of this affect the development of that kid?  That's the kid who needs the development.  That's the kid who most often craves the development and who really wants to get better.

Anyway, it's fun to read the responses and interesting to see people's opinions.  Afterall, everyone has one!!

[EWSoccer64]

My point of view is that the aim of the A team is to be as successful as possihle.   Given the common cluh enviroment, that means as successful as possible at all times.   Diversion of effort to improving the status of the B team at any expense to the A team is then contra-indicated.   People who take the longer view, or whose A team is already firmly established as #1 in their age group, may elect to "spend" some of their A teamers on the B teamers, to help the B team achieve success right away that the B team players might not earn on their own.   I do not view this approach as exactly honest.  But when looking at this approach as a long term, club approach rather than a team approach, it is hard to call it "dishonest".

>>>I can't see how it's detrimental to a club to have an "A" team in RCL division 1 and a "B" team in division 2 or even division 1.  This would make that clubs teams much more attractive to parents and kids who want their kids to have an opportunity to play at the highest level in the state.  Crossfire has this happen.  It may be with their younger team and proper aged team.  But they often have two teams or more playing within the top two divisions.  I think this is a plus when it comes to be attractive to people.
<<

[ThiKuBC]

Depends on the age EW.

At u18 the definition of success should be very different than the definition of success at u12.

No issue with B players moving up to A if the A team has room for a call-up. But, I definitely have issue with A players dropping down to B if the B team already had its full squad.

Just regarding your #1 point - youth soccer is not European Professional soccer. So moving A players down to "reserves" doesn't equate in regards to this discussion.

[NKSoccerFan]

This would make that clubs teams much more attractive to parents and kids who want their kids to have an opportunity to play at the highest level in the state. 

And that right there is the motivation for using A team players to prop up the B team.  Hard to get people to shell out $$$ when the team is at the bottom of the standings.

[tripleplay]

The discussion is about guests but the issue is more basic than that - going to initial team formation.  Imagine 2 clubs with the same players. Club 1 has 2 subs on the A team. Club 2 has 7 subs on the A team. So Club 1's B team starts with player 14 and club 2's B team starts with player 19. This will make club 1 look better but only because it's not a fair comparison - it's really B+ vs B-.

thikuBC's idea of only allowing upward movement just pushes clubs into copying club 1 in the above example. But that's a bad idea because A teams typically have higher quantity and quality of practice which is where the development really occurs.

[ThiKuBC]

My suggestion is only UPWARD movement. I do NOT support A players moving down to B, but do support B moving UP to A - if the A team has space.

Only if the B team is struggling for bodies should an A player move down - and even then the A player should be a SUB not a starter.

My perspective is mostly bent toward the younger ages. I have more flexibility in regards to the older kids - but older kids won't want to move down from A to B for a game in the same way a younger one would.

[tripleplay]

Sorry. I mistyped and have since corrected my original. But again  all that does is encourage clubs to have small A teams, since they can always borrow. But that's not good for development. You really want the ambitious hard-working players on the A team.

[kameharem]

But that's a bad idea because A teams typically have higher quantity and quality of practice which is where the development really occurs.

bull.  the quantity and quality of practice is dependent on the coach and the players and has nothing to do with the label placed on the team.  There are plenty of B teams with great coaches on the field 4 days a week with kids putting in the time, working hard, and developing while at the same time there are A teams running drills on their own while the coach is on the phone.

[EWSoccer64]

ThikUBC,

While I suspect that you and I have much closer ideas on what real success is at various age groups, for the purpose of this discussion, "success" can be typified as winning, more or less.  And there was no delineated differentiation in regards to age groups.   While perhaps there should be, there has not been.

I actually have to disagree with your disagreement in terms of Euro-style rehab assignments.  Putting a player through his paces at a lower level, low stress enviroment has a lot to offer.   It can clearly benefit the player, and it can give the coach the benefit of checking over the player in a game situation where the player can be pulled without consequence if deemed wise.

Obviously, this strain of thought is rather denigrating to the B team, but then this model places the vast majority of the emphasis on the A team, the B team exists solely to benefit the A team.

Depends on the age EW.

At u18 the definition of success should be very different than the definition of success at u12.

No issue with B players moving up to A if the A team has room for a call-up. But, I definitely have issue with A players dropping down to B if the B team already had its full squad.

Just regarding your #1 point - youth soccer is not European Professional soccer. So moving A players down to "reserves" doesn't equate in regards to this discussion.

[tripleplay]

bull.  the quantity and quality of practice is dependent on the coach and the players and has nothing to do with the label placed on the team.  There are plenty of B teams with great coaches on the field 4 days a week with kids putting in the time, working hard, and developing while at the same time there are A teams running drills on their own while the coach is on the phone.

Plenty??? Think that a B team with higher intensity and quantity of practice than an A team at the same premier club is atypical.

[NKSoccerFan]

Obviously, this strain of thought is rather denigrating to the B team, but then this model places the vast majority of the emphasis on the A team, the B team exists solely to benefit the A team.

Of course, this is also the model for WYS.  Replace A team with RCL club and B team with Non-RCL club and you have...

Obviously, this strain of thought is rather denigrating to the Non-RCL club, but then this model places the vast majority of the emphasis on the RCL club, the Non-RCL club exists solely to benefit the RCL club.

[kameharem]

bull.  the quantity and quality of practice is dependent on the coach and the players and has nothing to do with the label placed on the team.  There are plenty of B teams with great coaches on the field 4 days a week with kids putting in the time, working hard, and developing while at the same time there are A teams running drills on their own while the coach is on the phone.

Plenty??? Think that a B team with higher intensity and quantity of practice than an A team at the same premier club is atypical.

and I think you are wrong.  you are hung up on labeling teams and kids as A players and B players on A teams and B teams and saying one is superior to the other when they are just players on teams and the differences are as individual as the players themselves and the coaches.  Just because a coach is given an A team assignment by the club does not mean that he will be giving higher quality or quantity than his B team counterpart; it may just mean that he bought the DoC a beer at the last coaches meeting.  and bringing back the old question of why aren't the kids on the A team at U12 still on the team at U17; maybe because the kids on the B teams are working harder and developing while the A team is just trying to win now so they can save face for the club. 

[mhall]

Great discussion!  Of course I first pronounced denigrating - DE (long "e") ni (long "i") grating and couldn't figure out what it meant.  Once I pronounced it correctly the light bulb went off!!!

I personally like the idea of players moving up but only down in the case of need because of sickness or injury.  A perfect example of when players should be used on different teams worked this weekend at my older sons game, or I should say after it.  He plays U16 and their game was done and the U17's were entering the field.  Uh oh!!  Only ten players.  The coach asked for volunteers from the 16's, cards were exchanged between coaches and the game was played.  That's an example of how moving players should be used properly in my mind.

[EWSoccer64]

Great discussion!  Of course I first pronounced denigrating - DE (long "e") ni (long "i") grating and couldn't figure out what it meant.  Once I pronounced it correctly the light bulb went off!!!

I personally like the idea of players moving up but only down in the case of need because of sickness or injury.  A perfect example of when players should be used on different teams worked this weekend at my older sons game, or I should say after it.  He plays U16 and their game was done and the U17's were entering the field.  Uh oh!!  Only ten players.  The coach asked for volunteers from the 16's, cards were exchanged between coaches and the game was played.  That's an example of how moving players should be used properly in my mind.

Err, what are the rules about the amount of time per day or per weekend that a player can play using the pass system?  Playing in back to back games is not exactly what many would call an appropriate use of it, even under these circumstances.

[tripleplay]

and I think you are wrong. 

Yet you haven't provided a single example for your point of view, let alone plenty. Here's a few for my side:
1. club charges A teams higher dues than other teams because they have a higher default number of practices.
2. Different club gives teams a default number of practices. Fields are very tight. Policy for allotting extra field makes use of how competitive they are. Last year perhaps the best team this club has ever had practices 4-5 times per week. Everyone else gets 2 or less.

Btw, I'd love to see your data showing how players on u12 b teams on average go to greater heights than those on u12 a teams.

Back to the original point, we don't want poorly thought out player pass restrictions, such as those suggested by thickubc, that encourage clubs to make bad choices -I.e. win in the short term by keeping the A team small, but harming development. Personally not a huge fan of player pass concept in general. Guess I'm old-fashioned and like the idea of a team being a unit with players and coaches having mutual interests. Players as fodder is a step backwards in my book.