Anonymous wrote:Youth soccer is not professional soccer. A youth team should never have to play a player down as a result of injury. If a player is subbed out due to injury they should be allowed to sub back in if it is determined they are able to continue. I understand that coaches could potentially have players fake injury, but the health and safety of the youth players should be the primary concern.

DA is the only youth league that does not allow re-entry. You are looking for a solution to a problem that just doesn’t exist in a majority of youth soccer.

Save the outrage for a actual problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem when it interferes with the development of the kids. If helter-skelter is making it too difficult to learn chemistry and team play, that is an issue. But conversely, if you are traveling to a tournament or game in another state and due to the substitution rule your kid doesn't get to play, well that kind of sucks too (and yes, that happens).

There is no substitution rule that would keep a kid from playing. Your coach is lying if they are blaming sub rules.

This is true. They do lie. It is not the no re-entry rule that causes them to keep kids on the bench for almost the whole game, it is the coach's decision to prioritize short term results over long term development for all of the players.

And then they'll talk about "commitment" ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in this toxic place would people think it a good idea to effectively bench a bunch of 13 year olds from playing

True but that comes from large rosters, not from substitution rules. I've had kids play in every level and there is a consistent pattern: certain kids play more than others. Whether those minutes are consecutive or not is the difference.

Larger rosters permit 13 year olds to live the lives of kids and not mini professionals. Attendance is important, but sometimes other things are, too.

All the evidence suggests treating our young athletes as children makes them better athletes.

Exactly . There’s no reason to treat a child like an adult. We don’t let 13-year-olds drive. We don’t let their can-year-olds drink alcohol. We don’t let them vote. Children playing soccer, even travel soccer, are still children. I have two children in travel soccer - My 10-year-old usually plays the entire game with only a break at half time. That is absolutely exhausting, and I wish the coach would sub him out more. It has created injuries. And then he misses practice.

Youth soccer is not professional soccer. A youth team should never have to play a player down as a result of injury. If a player is subbed out due to injury they should be allowed to sub back in if it is determined they are able to continue. I understand that coaches could potentially have players fake injury, but the health and safety of the youth players should be the primary concern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in this toxic place would people think it a good idea to effectively bench a bunch of 13 year olds from playing

True but that comes from large rosters, not from substitution rules. I've had kids play in every level and there is a consistent pattern: certain kids play more than others. Whether those minutes are consecutive or not is the difference.

Larger rosters permit 13 year olds to live the lives of kids and not mini professionals. Attendance is important, but sometimes other things are, too.

All the evidence suggests treating our young athletes as children makes them better athletes.

1. That is not why clubs keep big rosters. They do it for the money and the kids that show up play more. If you want to do other things, it's not wrong. There are different levels of soccer for a reason.

2. My DS was passionate about playing. He didn't miss a game and wouldn't want to. AND he never wanted to come to a game to watch the other kids play. He wanted to be out there on the field.

+100

My kids friend plays on a team with 22 players (11v11). They get limited playing time and the kids are frustrated.

My kid has a 15 roster team (11v11) and if they are short they will call a player up from a lower team—but this allows the kids a ton of playing time. My kid plays close to a full 90 min every game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in this toxic place would people think it a good idea to effectively bench a bunch of 13 year olds from playing

True but that comes from large rosters, not from substitution rules. I've had kids play in every level and there is a consistent pattern: certain kids play more than others. Whether those minutes are consecutive or not is the difference.

Larger rosters permit 13 year olds to live the lives of kids and not mini professionals. Attendance is important, but sometimes other things are, too.

All the evidence suggests treating our young athletes as children makes them better athletes.

1. That is not why clubs keep big rosters. They do it for the money and the kids that show up play more. If you want to do other things, it's not wrong. There are different levels of soccer for a reason.

2. My DS was passionate about playing. He didn't miss a game and wouldn't want to. AND he never wanted to come to a game to watch the other kids play. He wanted to be out there on the field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in this toxic place would people think it a good idea to effectively bench a bunch of 13 year olds from playing

True but that comes from large rosters, not from substitution rules. I've had kids play in every level and there is a consistent pattern: certain kids play more than others. Whether those minutes are consecutive or not is the difference.

Larger rosters permit 13 year olds to live the lives of kids and not mini professionals. Attendance is important, but sometimes other things are, too.

All the evidence suggests treating our young athletes as children makes them better athletes.

Anonymous wrote:Only in this toxic place would people think it a good idea to effectively bench a bunch of 13 year olds from playing

True but that comes from large rosters, not from substitution rules. I've had kids play in every level and there is a consistent pattern: certain kids play more than others. Whether those minutes are consecutive or not is the difference.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all above.

Personally, I would think as least for so called “elite” level, let it be DA, ECNL, Top Travel team, starting U13 there should be no re-entry allowed. It’s not the game played at the highest level and kids dreaming to play at that level should be learning the right way from early on.

I would emphasize the word “dreaming”. OP, you are nuts. Good at 13 and good at 19.... sometimes the same kids sometimes not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put aside youth vs. adult soccer. The limited substitution and no reentry rules are the dumbest rules in organized sports. Period. It's why we have PKs in tournament semis and championships. It would be a much more interesting and challenging sport from a coaching and strategic perspective if you use multiple rotations and respond promptly to what the other side does with its own rotations.

You've already got a sport for that, called American Football.

That’s ridiculous. I grew up playing every soccer summer in the UK in a very traditional environment and coming back here and kicking everybody’s ass I had the benefit of playing and knowing other sports as well, though. My preference on free substitutions comes from basketball, not football. Put aside the idiotic “because it’s always been done that way.” What’s the reason for the substitution rules in soccer? Do they make sense? Why? Would the game be better with different Substitution rules? Would basketball be better with soccer’s substitution rules?

Anonymous wrote:Put aside youth vs. adult soccer. The limited substitution and no reentry rules are the dumbest rules in organized sports. Period. It's why we have PKs in tournament semis and championships. It would be a much more interesting and challenging sport from a coaching and strategic perspective if you use multiple rotations and respond promptly to what the other side does with its own rotations.

You've already got a sport for that, called American Football.

Anonymous wrote:Put aside youth vs. adult soccer. The limited substitution and no reentry rules are the dumbest rules in organized sports. Period. It's why we have PKs in tournament semis and championships. It would be a much more interesting and challenging sport from a coaching and strategic perspective if you use multiple rotations and respond promptly to what the other side does with its own rotations.

Disagree. If you want to play/watch good soccer anyway. If you are looking for athletic/fast kids who can make short term impacts but have no prayer of lasting on the field in a meaningful way for 70-90 minutes, then by all means, unlimited subs. But if you are looking for athletic/skilled kids (who are also fast but have some staying power) then the limited substitution forces them to not just be able to make one run, but to make 20.... and to learn to play at a high intensity level not always interrupted by subbing....

Put aside youth vs. adult soccer. The limited substitution and no reentry rules are the dumbest rules in organized sports. Period. It's why we have PKs in tournament semis and championships. It would be a much more interesting and challenging sport from a coaching and strategic perspective if you use multiple rotations and respond promptly to what the other side does with its own rotations.

Anonymous wrote:Only in this toxic place would people think it a good idea to effectively bench a bunch of 13 year olds from playing

What are you talking about? No matter the league there are substitution rules. Kids sit the bench, it is a part of the game. I believe it was clear that sub rules for U13 and U14 should be liberal but should take small steps towards learning to play under more competitive rules. Lots of kids sit far to much with liberal sub rules at young ages and that is the fault of the coach not the rules.

Don't hate the rule hate the role your kid has on the team if playing time is not sufficient. Kids should always strive to be in a position where they are playing significant minutes and have a role on the team. If your player is not getting the minutes you'd like or the role you'd like don't blame the rules. Look for a better fit or talk to the coach.

Anonymous wrote:Only in this toxic place would people think it a good idea to effectively bench a bunch of 13 year olds from playing

+1000