Print

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

[drarcher]

Does anyone know of any of the rules surrounding guest players? Having moved here from a state that only allows guest players to play up and not down I am surprised to see B and C squad RCL teams have multiple guest players from their A squad.

[ThiKuBC]

I don't know the rules - but to me it doesn't seem right a player is able to move down levels....up levels, no prob, but down, big prob....

[EWSoccer64]

There really are no rules regarding player passes in the RCL that are observed by all.   And in the RCL, rules are very mutable.

For what it is worth, there has been outcry late in this season about Player Pass abuse than in all of the individual past seasons.

[AmandaDad]

Inside a club there doesn't seem to be much stopping a player from playing up/down. Between clubs or with unaffiliated players there are more loopholes to jump through.

[Black Knight]

I don't know the rules - but to me it doesn't seem right a player is able to move down levels....up levels, no prob, but down, big prob....

Why is it a "big problem" if players from an A team to a B team. Aren't we all supposed to be in this for the development of the kids? if a kid is a bench player on the A team and can gain experience and develop from guest playing with the B team, whats wrong with that?

I'm not going to sit here and say that no one abuses the system, and do not agree with moving players just to win a game. However, I do think there are actual benefits from allowing movement both ways if used correctly. Personally I have chosen not to worry if a team uses guest players against me. All i can do is worry about how my team is playing, and if they are developing. As long as they are doing that I don't really care what the result of the game is, and who we ended up playing against.

[pondhopper]

Black Knight --

Agree moving A to B teamers is fine provided it aligns to RCL guidance which is basically kids in the bottom portion of the A team. Having been a parent of team 2 weeks ago that had this happen to them ... opponents brought in documented A teamer starters from teams 2-3 tiers up on player passes to win a single match to promote their B team and block our team, there is something unfair to the players who have worked all season to get promoted to be denied that reward for developing.  If kids that are developing are blocked from promotion to the next level to play stronger competition by adults playing games, that is just fundamentally unfair.

[ThiKuBC]

The theory of moving A players down to B (or more as was Pondhopper's case and the initial part of this post - being quite a few tiers) is not an issue. If B team is short players, and an A team "sub" needs a game, then no prob. BUT, I don't think players called down should be starting either unless the team they are moving down to play on has less than a full starting line-up.

I was going to explain how I move players up or down, but meh. Needless to say I never get complaints based on how I do it. A players who go down to B are subs. B players who move up to A might start (as was the case this weekend - because a lot of the A guys were late for warm-up so I threw the B kid on - and he thrived with the opportunity!) but are likely a sub.

BUT when A players move down, take the starting spot of a B player....that's a huge MORALE issue, and I think an ethical one too. The A player was signed to play A. The B signed to play B. Yes, passes are important especially in the cold/flu season or summer vacation seasons, or long weekends. I get that. But ... players signed to be on a certain team should always get precedence for starts.

I should soften my language. I am not trying to say "your way is wrong, my way is right." I am just trying to say "I believe this, and it works for me and my team. I also don't get complaints from opposition."

[Black Knight]

Thik: you made an interesting point, and maybe this is where my experience especially this year varies things. you said "A teams sign to play on the A, and B teams sign to play on the B"... This year for example all player at my age group tryouts signed for the club (they were not given if they would be on the A or B team) we told them at tryouts we are offering you a spot for club X (most people know what club im with now, but for now i'll leave it blank). We told them we would divide up teams later on, and we told them throughout the year we hold the right to move players how we see fit for their own development. So there was no sense of "I am an A team player, or I am a B team player" it was simply "I am a club X player"

[EWSoccer64]

Black Knight and THik are taking opposing views here in a major respect.

Thik is emphasizing the team, and Black Knight is emphasizing the Club.   While this may not sound like a big deal, while it may look like a miniscule issue, in reality it is not.

BK and the Club Approach is that the greater glory for the club A team. the best benefit of the A team is most important.  It is similar to the HS Varsity/JV approach.   The B and C teamers simply are not as important, even if they pay the same amount in fees.

Thik is thinking more along the team approach, where each team is run to maximize the benefit (particularly development at the less than A team level) to the team and its member players.  Where there exists bonds of loyalty between the team members and coach and the team as a whole.

While the differences may seem small, they can be extremely important.

[ThiKuBC]

Thanks EW. You are correct.

However, let me add, to BK. I AGREE WITH YOU. I coached u11 last year and we did that. The players were signed to the club and we rotated 2-3 player per team every month so all the players eventually got to play with different teammates and a different in-game coach. We did title the A-B-C but only for organizational purposes. I coached A, and assistants had B and C. So this way the coaches knew exactly which game they were to attend throughout the year. The names didn't signify which level was highest.

We do something similar at u12 this year in that all 24 of the players from the TWO teams we now have train together x3/week. Some move up and some move down BUT only if there is availability. AND, there is a definite A and B squad. Only those appropriate to move up from B and fill a spot do. A only moves down to B if there is room on the roster - and they go there as a sub not as a "hero" or whatever....

Let me add though - particularly at the youngest ages Development for even the A team comes long way before winning does. From about u15+ I think you can start to talk results, but the reality those are still 14 year olds boys that are only half-way to the peak of their development so even then wins should be lower on the list of "things to achieve this year...". So for example my u12 "A" team has a very strict "50% rule" in that every kid gets to play 50% of every game and starts 50% of every game - and we share the captainship.

EW is correct in all areas of his post. Thank you.

[EWSoccer64]

One of the collaries of the debate of "Team vs Club" (for lack of a better term) is that some clubs (more and more) proclaim that the players belong to the club.   This puts the club interests ahead of the interests of the players.  In a "Team First" enviroment, this simply is not a sustainable attitude. (Unless one has a team that has an endless supply of top quality replacement players like Crossfire does for instance).    That is quite aside from moral and ethical issues, or developmental ones.

Soccer - any team youth sports, really - is a very dynamic enviroment where the interconnection of virtually all aspects impacts the success of an individual, team or club.    Many people fail to realise this, and just as many fail to take the long view.

[Black Knight]

EW: i would disagree with your thought though that signing for the club means its all about the A team. The reason we did it this way was so the players ended up on the correct team after months of training together instead of deciding their fate off of 2 tryouts. Plus our club has actually put a bigger focus on programs for "B" teams. They understood that parents often have the view that B teams are not valued as much as A teams, so starting this year they have added more trainings from "technical trainers" for just the B teams to attend. They wanted to make it clear they were getting just as much value as the A teams, and in many respects actually more value then the A team.  Personally I think this is a smart move to make. If your on the A team your usually happen and don't complain about the trainings as much, but the B team parents often complain about how they are "forgotten" so by adding more focus onto them and special trainings for B teams I think it does alot for those parents who would typically be the ones who would be upset.

[Turner b1kr]

I think what EW was saying that the "Club" first approach is focused on the A teams.  I'm not sure he was expressing his personal opinion.  But, anyway, I do think he is correct.  The club first approach seems to be focused on winning.  And I think this is likley driven by the market -- parents will drive all over the state for their dk to play for a club that wins the most.  Making winning, not player development the driving force.  Therefore, clubs are driven to win and now this attitude is being pushed to from A teams down the stack to B and other teams. 

A team players playing down happens all the time and from what I have seen, frequently to boost a B team in a big game or to get them a win.  In theory, if it only happened for a particular A players development, that would be great.  But, really, why can't the B team just get a C team player or an A team player from a younger age group?

I really like how ThiKuBC approaches it in BC.  I also really like how the clubs in BC have defined borders for which they draw kids and then can draw 2 kids from outside their area for a team. 

[ThiKuBC]

Hey Turner - I don't know if all clubs have the approach I described. It seems fairly rare in my experience. But I do know it happens. BUT, it only really happens from about u12 down....I've never heard of a tier 1 u13+ team co-training with a u13+ tier 2 team for example - but of course that doesn't mean it doesn't happen (and I hope to make it happen with my tier 1 and 2 teams starting next spring when we move up an age group....).

However, the district boundaries. Those have changed. The rule was 3 out of district and at some age (I think u16?) it went up to 5 out of district. That was for the division called METRO. Up until this September 2011 Metro was the top division. However, as of September 2011 the BC Premier League came into place and is now the top division with Metro now "tier 2". BCPL has no such boundaries. It's worth noting the out of district rule remains in effect for Metro and down through the lower tiers now known as Division 1-4.

As for a club approach - BCPL is u13-u18. Players are signed to the club there. But in such a way that they can move UP a AGE or MORE to play on an older team - they can be signed-up on permit to the adult teams as well. They can't move DOWN to play in metro or a lower tier. Metro or lower tier players can move up to BCPL on a permit basis (or permanent transfer) at any time. BUT, not every BCPL team has a 2nd tier team for every age, and not every BCPL team has a metro team at all. Some of the BCPL "franchises" (as they really are franchises) are brand new entities and as such have arrangements with certain metro clubs from which they generally draw players. For example, while Metro Ford has it's own program BCPL all the way down the tiers but, the franchise known as Mountain has no such lower tier teams but rather draws from a number of clubs. It'll be interesting to see which model works best. It appears Mountain has a strong tie with its feeder clubs. But I am not involved with them at all...

Players have never been able to go down a level on permit here regardless of what tier 1 was called and what tier 4 was called etc. Players were only ever able to move up on permit and it required paper work being filed in advance I believe.....

I for one, fully support the permit rules of players up but not down. The reason? You get threads like this one which cause nothing but headaches. BECAUSE, if there are threads like this that means there are many more emails, field conversations, and phone calls dealing with the same issue.

[seattle_divided]

Seattle United is the worst in this area - they consistantly use A players and drop them down to win games - I have seen it myself where they bring A team players to a match, play them the first half - then send them to their real game - sometimes immediatly following the game they are sandbagging to win - this is an often abused process but nobody is as bad as them.