Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Exactly what has been accused?

That playing time in travel soccer is not equal among players?

If it was said in that grand list about a club that does not subscribe to that philosophy, then yeah, the club was falsely accused of a practice it doesn't support and may damage it in the eyes of potential families.

There is no playing time guarantee in travel soccer regardless of age. There is nothing libel about the truth. Some coaches may ascribe to some level of best practices but in general shooting for 50% minimum playing time is reasonable. And that is what the OP kid gets and that is what most posters here agree is the reasonable expectation in accordance with the thread title.

No club has been libeled because what has been stated is a general best practice in travel and a stated playing time minimum for recreation soccer.

Unless you are wrong and clubs don't support your version of best practices. Unless clubs believe that 9 year olds are not to be sidelined from the game that early. And actually the thread reads to me like most posters find the OP's complaint reasonable. And one poster is clearly offended that a club name was mentioned as doing such things.

Here are the RECREATION guidelines for Loudoun Soccer:

PLAYING TIME
Loudoun Soccer modification to FIFA Law 3 states that players who attend at least one practice per week must play at least half of that week’s game; coaches should exercise common sense when appropriating playing time so that players are not punished with less playing time due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g. a player is absent from one practice and the second practice is canceled due to inclement weather).

Loudoun has the largest rec soccer program in the area and the above is their best practices for minimum playing time.

You are not only overreacting you are ignorant

that's Loudoun "REC" soccer Duh !!!

Anonymous wrote:OMG Just take you not good enough player and move on. Put him in karate class with the rest of the nerds that get bullied.

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Exactly what has been accused?

That playing time in travel soccer is not equal among players?

If it was said in that grand list about a club that does not subscribe to that philosophy, then yeah, the club was falsely accused of a practice it doesn't support and may damage it in the eyes of potential families.

There is no playing time guarantee in travel soccer regardless of age. There is nothing libel about the truth. Some coaches may ascribe to some level of best practices but in general shooting for 50% minimum playing time is reasonable. And that is what the OP kid gets and that is what most posters here agree is the reasonable expectation in accordance with the thread title.

No club has been libeled because what has been stated is a general best practice in travel and a stated playing time minimum for recreation soccer.

Unless you are wrong and clubs don't support your version of best practices. Unless clubs believe that 9 year olds are not to be sidelined from the game that early. And actually the thread reads to me like most posters find the OP's complaint reasonable. And one poster is clearly offended that a club name was mentioned as doing such things.

Here are the RECREATION guidelines for Loudoun Soccer:

PLAYING TIME
Loudoun Soccer modification to FIFA Law 3 states that players who attend at least one practice per week must play at least half of that week’s game; coaches should exercise common sense when appropriating playing time so that players are not punished with less playing time due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g. a player is absent from one practice and the second practice is canceled due to inclement weather).

Loudoun has the largest rec soccer program in the area and the above is their best practices for minimum playing time.

You are not only overreacting you are ignorant

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Exactly what has been accused?

That playing time in travel soccer is not equal among players?

If it was said in that grand list about a club that does not subscribe to that philosophy, then yeah, the club was falsely accused of a practice it doesn't support and may damage it in the eyes of potential families.

There is no playing time guarantee in travel soccer regardless of age. There is nothing libel about the truth. Some coaches may ascribe to some level of best practices but in general shooting for 50% minimum playing time is reasonable. And that is what the OP kid gets and that is what most posters here agree is the reasonable expectation in accordance with the thread title.

No club has been libeled because what has been stated is a general best practice in travel and a stated playing time minimum for recreation soccer.

Unless you are wrong and clubs don't support your version of best practices. Unless clubs believe that 9 year olds are not to be sidelined from the game that early. And actually the thread reads to me like most posters find the OP's complaint reasonable. And one poster is clearly offended that a club name was mentioned as doing such things.

PLAYING TIME
Loudoun Soccer modification to FIFA Law 3 states that players who attend at least one practice per week must play at least half of that week’s game; coaches should exercise common sense when appropriating playing time so that players are not punished with less playing time due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g. a player is absent from one practice and the second practice is canceled due to inclement weather).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Exactly what has been accused?

That playing time in travel soccer is not equal among players?

If it was said in that grand list about a club that does not subscribe to that philosophy, then yeah, the club was falsely accused of a practice it doesn't support and may damage it in the eyes of potential families.

There is no playing time guarantee in travel soccer regardless of age. There is nothing libel about the truth. Some coaches may ascribe to some level of best practices but in general shooting for 50% minimum playing time is reasonable. And that is what the OP kid gets and that is what most posters here agree is the reasonable expectation in accordance with the thread title.

No club has been libeled because what has been stated is a general best practice in travel and a stated playing time minimum for recreation soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Exactly what has been accused?

That playing time in travel soccer is not equal among players?

If it was said in that grand list about a club that does not subscribe to that philosophy, then yeah, the club was falsely accused of a practice it doesn't support and may damage it in the eyes of potential families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Exactly what has been accused?

That playing time in travel soccer is not equal among players?

Anonymous wrote:You can post anything that is true of course. And you can post opinion that is so indicated. You cannot, of course, post libelous statements. If you do, of course, you would be subject to liability. Depending on the plaintiff’s location the penalties will differ. Most states and DC will provide for at least a mininum penalty plus costs and attorney fees.

Now in this instances someone has accused a bunch of clubs of a particular action. If true, that’s no problem at all. If false, yes it is a problem and clubs can take action and probably should if they felt they were being improperly accused of something they do not do. It is obviously simple to track a statement on a website to a phone or a computer. File a John Doe suit. Serve a subpoena on this site and get the device info. It’s probably a nice little money maker for an attorney as the defendant likely pays.

Obviously only a fool specifically accuses someone of doing something they do not do on a public website.

Anonymous wrote:Well I will talk to our director of coaching tomorrow and confirm we don’t do that. If confirmed I will suggest that the club sue the poster who libeled them. As you should know the site tracks posters.