Guest player playing more than players on roster

[Anonymous]

Over the weekend our team didn't have any subs for a tournament so the coach brought in a girl from a higher team to fill in (which is allowed.) He then started that girl and had her play the entire tournament, while he sat girls from his own team -- the same three were subbed over the course of each game. That really bugged me. We pay for this team, our girls are the ones who got us to the event. And we lost anyway -- it was always a given we weren't going to win.

Am I wrong to have a bad feeling about this? Of course she should have played-- f she was subbed an equal amount I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But this way felt wrong to me.

[Anonymous]

I’d be annoyed too.

[Anonymous]

It is a terrible thing to do, but unfortunately is very common.

[Anonymous]

Common and completely annoying.

[Anonymous]

So did your DD’s team have subs or not? If some players were sitting, why did they need the guest to sub?

[Anonymous]

Gross but normal, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Happens in our little league too and it’s so unfortunate. They bring in a highly ranked sub and he plays the whole game in the best positions while kids on the team are benched. In baseball it’s particularly egregious because it’s not like you need bench players to give kids a break from play to catch their breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over the weekend our team didn't have any subs for a tournament so the coach brought in a girl from a higher team to fill in (which is allowed.) He then started that girl and had her play the entire tournament, while he sat girls from his own team -- the same three were subbed over the course of each game. That really bugged me. We pay for this team, our girls are the ones who got us to the event. And we lost anyway -- it was always a given we weren't going to win.

Am I wrong to have a bad feeling about this? Of course she should have played-- f she was subbed an equal amount I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But this way felt wrong to me.

If you are referring to the Striker v. GFR game then you are wrong. The only higher player to start was the goalie, because GFR did not have a goalie available. The other higher girl did NOT start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the weekend our team didn't have any subs for a tournament so the coach brought in a girl from a higher team to fill in (which is allowed.) He then started that girl and had her play the entire tournament, while he sat girls from his own team -- the same three were subbed over the course of each game. That really bugged me. We pay for this team, our girls are the ones who got us to the event. And we lost anyway -- it was always a given we weren't going to win.

Am I wrong to have a bad feeling about this? Of course she should have played-- f she was subbed an equal amount I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But this way felt wrong to me.

If you are referring to the Striker v. GFR game then you are wrong. The only higher player to start was the goalie, because GFR did not have a goalie available. The other higher girl did NOT start.

OP here. Not that game.
And to answer a previous question, we had just enough players. Coach brought in an extra to have one sub.

[Anonymous]

I guess the thinking of the coach could be that the better player would refuse to help if she knew she would not get as much playing time as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess the thinking of the coach could be that the better player would refuse to help if she knew she would not get as much playing time as possible.

Exactly this. It is a different situation when your guest player is from a lower team and the tournament is a chance to prove themselves. For a higher team player, what is the incentive for their family to give up their weekend, if not to maximize playing time? Your team needed a sub, and this was the price to get one. And because you had only 1 sub, even the three girls who subbed, got substantial playing time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess the thinking of the coach could be that the better player would refuse to help if she knew she would not get as much playing time as possible.

Yup, that’s the deal. The guest wants more playing time and the team needs an extra player. A better player isn’t going to waste their time showing up for a tournament only to ride the bench for 2/3 of the match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the weekend our team didn't have any subs for a tournament so the coach brought in a girl from a higher team to fill in (which is allowed.) He then started that girl and had her play the entire tournament, while he sat girls from his own team -- the same three were subbed over the course of each game. That really bugged me. We pay for this team, our girls are the ones who got us to the event. And we lost anyway -- it was always a given we weren't going to win.

Am I wrong to have a bad feeling about this? Of course she should have played-- f she was subbed an equal amount I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But this way felt wrong to me.

If you are referring to the Striker v. GFR game then you are wrong. The only higher player to start was the goalie, because GFR did not have a goalie available. The other higher girl did NOT start.

OP here. Not that game.
And to answer a previous question, we had just enough players. Coach brought in an extra to have one sub.

My apologies. Just wanted to make sure our coach was not maligned. We all really like him. Again, sorry for the confusion.

[Anonymous]

Common but yes annoying. It's one of the many things I dislike about club sports. Especially at young ages it's a hard thing to explain to the kids on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Common but yes annoying. It's one of the many things I dislike about club sports. Especially at young ages it's a hard thing to explain to the kids on the team.

My kid’s coach told the team flat-out that he did it to win, so no explanation from parents necessary.

So inspirational’