Guest player playing more than players on roster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So there were 90 min on bench time to be spread between 11 field players? Did you also say 3 players split the 90 bench minutes so 8, including the sub, didn’t sit? Doesn’t sound that egregious to me. Better than having to risk playing a player down with an injury or if a players fitness couldn’t handle the whole tournament

It would seem egregious to me if my kid was one of the ones sitting for 1/3 or more of each game while 8 didn’t sit at all. Especially when the team isn’t winning anyway.

Yes. That’s why I laid out the math for her. The guest player is a red herring. Doesn’t sound like playing time would be much different on this team if one more regular was there instead of the guest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So there were 90 min on bench time to be spread between 11 field players? Did you also say 3 players split the 90 bench minutes so 8, including the sub, didn’t sit? Doesn’t sound that egregious to me. Better than having to risk playing a player down with an injury or if a players fitness couldn’t handle the whole tournament

It would seem egregious to me if my kid was one of the ones sitting for 1/3 or more of each game while 8 didn’t sit at all. Especially when the team isn’t winning anyway.

Yes. That’s why I laid out the math for her. The guest player is a red herring. Doesn’t sound like playing time would be much different on this team if one more regular was there instead of the guest.

Maybe not-- if the coach thought this player was so much better they probably subbed less often. And it's much different when the subs are also paying for the team, vs taking the spot of a player who is.

Funny because we had the exact same situation at a recent softball tournament. Guest player started every game and played more than my kid (who was subbed out for half the game, while the guest player never sat). I found it incredibly annoying -- and my kid noticed and felt terrible about it, which was worse.

[Anonymous]

Better player more time
Your kid is not as good
That is how this works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Better player more time
Your kid is not as good
That is how this works

I've been the parent of the best kid on the team and the kid who sat out. I've been the parent of the guest player. My opinion hasn't changed: kids who pay to be on the team should start the game and play. Guests should play as much as, but not more, than anyone else. I'm guessing we're talking about kids in the 9-12 year old range in most/all of these cases-- we're not talking about Olympic athletes.

[Anonymous]

Honestly it seems like the coach didn’t change policy for the guest player at all- best players play full time while the perceived weakest few split bench time. Which is IMO a problem in and of itself anytime before 12/13U or so. I’d never expect playing time to be equal on any club team- at any age- but it shouldn’t be quite that lopsided either. Starters should be sat here and there as well, as they should’ve been in this case. At least at these younger ages. But many coaches just keep thing simple in their mind and rotate the weakest 2 or 3 players. Unfortunately.

I could see a kid/parent expecting to get more playing time for once, with teammates absent, and then being disappointed when the guest player just plays full time too. Makes sense.

Things get more challenging in this regard as they approach high school, however. Rare to find a team that does NOT do this with guest players, kids from other teams in the organization etc.

[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.

Travel sports are a racket and sometimes the only path to play on a HS team. In my kids’ sport those that don’t play on teams that the coaches or their assistants run or are so-called national teams have been told directly or indirectly will not make the HS team. Every HS team has their preferred travel clubs.

Some of these clubs have “lesser teams” that give kids hope of playing HS but really just fund the upper teams with kids who will play HS. The most egregious ones travel on the east coast / between PA and SC, and play guest players. I’ve known a few families with kids on national teams with good players who traveled out of state on weekends to see little to no play time while guest players played. When kids were younger and maybe the team was low on players for a tournament I could understand having a guest player or two FOR THAT WEEKEND, but some became more regular.

I’ve seen good players, three were star HS players, quit over silly politics like this. The stars decided to focus on their secondary sports (nice when you have options!).

Dont think this is limited to sports. Performing arts are similar now a days (minus the guest player issue). Travel sports teams that play non-paying guest players play over those on the roster suck. These organizations need to be held accountable. They are being paid to give kids an experience, they are not paying the players. That’s the difference between travel and professional teams.

Sorry, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son guest played in a baseball tournament once and I thought the coach did it the right way. He was brought in to pitch and did not start. He came in as relief and didn't position play during the game. He did his job in one game and went home.

In that case, they had no pitchers and a too small roster.

No absolutely not, the coach did not do it right. A baseball coach should be developing pitchers and giving them opportunities to pitch. My kids played little league and all star baseball and there were plenty of kids who had the potential to pitch who never got the chance. So many of the coaches kids started pitching not because they were the best but because they had the opportunity to get put in. They didn't have to worry about getting pulled if they messed up. Or sometimes the team is weak and a kid who might not be the best pitcher gets the opportunity to pitch a lot and gets better. My son was on a team like this when he was 8. I taught him to pitch and so the first practice the coach asked who could pitch. My son raised his hand along with the coach's son and one other kid. He had them pitch and they could throw strikes. My son and those three kids pitched almost all the innings that season. It was ridiculous the coach didn't give other players chances. My son was assistant coach one year and one practice the coach didn't show up. He had every kid try pitching and there was a lefty who had potential. My husband worked with him for a while and the next game he asked the head coach to give the lefty a chance to pitch. The coach wouldn't. The next few practices and games my husband kept asking for our son not to pitch and instead to put in the lefty. My husband stayed late and worked with the lefty a couple of more times. The coach only agreed the second to the last game. That lefty came in and struck out 3 kids the only inning he got to pitch. Three up and three down. So my husband again says let's put the lefty in the final game. Nope - the coach's son pitched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's worse is on our current soccer team (U11) there are boys who didn't make next years team. They are still on the roster and we have a memorial day weekend tournament. Coach announced 4 guest players, who are all new players who I think will be on next years team. Meanwhile the boys who didn't make next years team will show up to the tournament but likely sit and watch their replacements play. And their parents paid for this! Its a really messed up way to operate youth sports.

It is a passive aggressive way to get the boys not to come to the tournament or to leave early so he won't have to play them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's worse is on our current soccer team (U11) there are boys who didn't make next years team. They are still on the roster and we have a memorial day weekend tournament. Coach announced 4 guest players, who are all new players who I think will be on next years team. Meanwhile the boys who didn't make next years team will show up to the tournament but likely sit and watch their replacements play. And their parents paid for this! Its a really messed up way to operate youth sports.

Yep. I know it worked with one family decided to take a weekend trip. It's not OK for 10 year olds imo though.

It is a passive aggressive way to get the boys not to come to the tournament or to leave early so he won't have to play them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's worse is on our current soccer team (U11) there are boys who didn't make next years team. They are still on the roster and we have a memorial day weekend tournament. Coach announced 4 guest players, who are all new players who I think will be on next years team. Meanwhile the boys who didn't make next years team will show up to the tournament but likely sit and watch their replacements play. And their parents paid for this! Its a really messed up way to operate youth sports.

It is a passive aggressive way to get the boys not to come to the tournament or to leave early so he won't have to play them.

So sh!tty! The families paid for a full season of soccer. The clubs should not allow their coaches to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son guest played in a baseball tournament once and I thought the coach did it the right way. He was brought in to pitch and did not start. He came in as relief and didn't position play during the game. He did his job in one game and went home.

In that case, they had no pitchers and a too small roster.

No absolutely not, the coach did not do it right. A baseball coach should be developing pitchers and giving them opportunities to pitch. My kids played little league and all star baseball and there were plenty of kids who had the potential to pitch who never got the chance. So many of the coaches kids started pitching not because they were the best but because they had the opportunity to get put in. They didn't have to worry about getting pulled if they messed up. Or sometimes the team is weak and a kid who might not be the best pitcher gets the opportunity to pitch a lot and gets better. My son was on a team like this when he was 8. I taught him to pitch and so the first practice the coach asked who could pitch. My son raised his hand along with the coach's son and one other kid. He had them pitch and they could throw strikes. My son and those three kids pitched almost all the innings that season. It was ridiculous the coach didn't give other players chances. My son was assistant coach one year and one practice the coach didn't show up. He had every kid try pitching and there was a lefty who had potential. My husband worked with him for a while and the next game he asked the head coach to give the lefty a chance to pitch. The coach wouldn't. The next few practices and games my husband kept asking for our son not to pitch and instead to put in the lefty. My husband stayed late and worked with the lefty a couple of more times. The coach only agreed the second to the last game. That lefty came in and struck out 3 kids the only inning he got to pitch. Three up and three down. So my husband again says let's put the lefty in the final game. Nope - the coach's son pitched.

Yeah, but that's not what happened in our case. This was a travel tourney where the team had to borrow 2 other players to even make it to 9. You can't play a game with 7 players, nor can you make it through pool play with only a couple of pitchers. The kids who could pitch did as much as they could both in pool and elimination play without blowing out arms.

[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.

That’s a really bad attitude. They should show up with the expectation of helping out however needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son guest played in a baseball tournament once and I thought the coach did it the right way. He was brought in to pitch and did not start. He came in as relief and didn't position play during the game. He did his job in one game and went home.

In that case, they had no pitchers and a too small roster.

No absolutely not, the coach did not do it right. A baseball coach should be developing pitchers and giving them opportunities to pitch. My kids played little league and all star baseball and there were plenty of kids who had the potential to pitch who never got the chance. So many of the coaches kids started pitching not because they were the best but because they had the opportunity to get put in. They didn't have to worry about getting pulled if they messed up. Or sometimes the team is weak and a kid who might not be the best pitcher gets the opportunity to pitch a lot and gets better. My son was on a team like this when he was 8. I taught him to pitch and so the first practice the coach asked who could pitch. My son raised his hand along with the coach's son and one other kid. He had them pitch and they could throw strikes. My son and those three kids pitched almost all the innings that season. It was ridiculous the coach didn't give other players chances. My son was assistant coach one year and one practice the coach didn't show up. He had every kid try pitching and there was a lefty who had potential. My husband worked with him for a while and the next game he asked the head coach to give the lefty a chance to pitch. The coach wouldn't. The next few practices and games my husband kept asking for our son not to pitch and instead to put in the lefty. My husband stayed late and worked with the lefty a couple of more times. The coach only agreed the second to the last game. That lefty came in and struck out 3 kids the only inning he got to pitch. Three up and three down. So my husband again says let's put the lefty in the final game. Nope - the coach's son pitched.

Yeah, but that's not what happened in our case. This was a travel tourney where the team had to borrow 2 other players to even make it to 9. You can't play a game with 7 players, nor can you make it through pool play with only a couple of pitchers. The kids who could pitch did as much as they could both in pool and elimination play without blowing out arms.

On a travel baseball team everyone has the ability to pitch. It is ridiculous to say "kids who could pitch" when you are talking about travel ball. Who cares if they didn't make it through pool play. Who cares if a kid who rarely pitched or who was new to pitching was primarily throwing fast balls and change ups and not putting movement on the ball. So the other team hits the ball and it gets fielded. Even in rec ball if given the opportunity 3/4 of kids could throw strikes, but only 1/4 get that chance on most teams.

In OP's situation the team didn't even win with the guest player. So there was no reason to play the guest player the whole time and never be subbed out. Our favorite coach in that situation asked two younger siblings if they wanted to be the subs in case someone got hurt. He told the players they were not gong to get much playing time but it would be fun for them to sit on the bench and go in for a little bit. They were going to be there anyways.

[Anonymous]

I've had kids that have played up as a guest and down as a guest and every time they have played majority of the game. No one would ever volunteer to be a guest player if they showed up and played 10 minutes.

[Anonymous]

What age? If it’s a high level team and your kids are 14 or older you should expect better players get more playing time or are you paying high fees for equal playing time? What was your understanding going in? I’ve been on both sides as a parent. My kids have had to earn their playing time. That’s what we expected when we signed up. I have no interest in investing the time or money in a sport where everyone is equal, even if that means my kid plays less. If they want more playing time, then get better.