OP. It was scenario 2 for the other team. It wasn't a loss for us, it was a massacre, which is why the kids were so upset. I'm sure part of it is also that it was the team's last game together. Several are moving up to better teams next year, and several (including us) are changing clubs to be closer to home (us) or for a spot on a better team.

Anonymous wrote:

It is a best practice but that is not a rule. If it was a rule then report the infraction to your TD. Is it 50% playing time per game? Is it 50% playing time over the course of the season? You see how there are loopholes all over the place with such a "rule".

Just to respond to your question, in our club, it is 50 percent playing time per non tournament game. In a tournament game, the coach can play kids on the team however he wants.

I don't know what the league's rules are, and I don't understand the information on their website about permissible use of guest players. So I'm going to ask and get clarification. If what the other team did is allowed, that's that. I disagree with it, but the league makes the rules, not me, so it is what it is and I won't think of it further.

You're right that I'm angry, but it really isn't because I care so much about winning a soccer game. The team lost many games this season, and that was fine. I just hated to see members of the team crying after the game because of how incredibly badly it went. And again, sure, that is probably an overreaction, but at 7x7, these are still little kids.

Crying? Because they lost a game? How about, "Hey those guys were really good. That's really cool you got to play against them today." They're all just 9-10 year old kids, right? On the playground or local park they can play together. It's not the end of the world if it happens in a "real" game once in a while. You (OP) are still angry about this a day or two later, but I'm quite sure the kids (including the once who were crying) were over it by dinner time that night.

Curious what the other team's record was though.

Possible scenario #1: They did well this season and this game was going to determine whether they won the league, or got promoted to a higher division. If so, and that's the reason they chose players from their top team to help them, shitty move in my opinion and will only backfire on them next year when they are in over their heads most of the time.

Possible scenario #2: They had lost every single game, including quite a few blowouts, were completely demoralized, players were dropping out (maybe that's why they were down to 8), turning on each other, the parents were frustrated and becoming increasingly loud about it. So for the last game of the season, since they needed players anyway, the club decided to help them get a win just so these kids could walk off the field with a smile on their faces for once.

PP if the issue was the heat, why didn’t they ever sub out either of the ringers? It was equally hot for them as the rest of the kids, right?


Because they are in better shape? Maybe that's part of the reason they are on the top team?

Hmm, maybe, but DS plays on a lower-level team, and most of our team members are in very good shape and play multiple sports. However, they either lack: 1) sufficient aggression; 2) understanding of soccer; or 3) intelligence necessary to play on a higher level team.

DS falls into category 1. In addition to soccer, he swims and also runs with DH. He's in great shape, but he isn't aggressive enough to be a top-level soccer player. He gets pushed off the ball too easily and doesn't fight hard enough for 50-50 balls.

So.,.how do you know so much about the guest players? They could have been from a younger age group or from any team within that age group in the club? I don't see any issues with guesting from a higher team to a lower, I'd prefer it be from the top team of a younger age group to keep it fair. In some clubs the gap from A to B isn't that big. You really know a lot about another team, sure you aren't from the guesting team and just mad because your kid didn't play as much as the guest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion on this is that clubs should be required to designate their teams' pecking order with state registration systems. For league seasons (fall and spring combined) limit that a player on the permanent roster cannot play "down" a level more than thrice a year and that no more than 3 higher level players can play down in a single match. The "3 and 3" rule. Also, no skipping down two levels if the club is that large. Lower level players would be allowed to play up a level on an unlimited basis. Standard game-day rostering sizes apply.

For tournaments, only three guest players allowed, max. Guest players include club-pass or outside of club players. This again limits the ability to stack teams to make club look better and deeper than they really are and provides paying customers of lower level teams with ample league and tournament playing opportunities. Always make it "3" so that refs, coaches, parents, and toruney officials don't get confused and can't realistically claim that "they did not know the rule".

No, if you are a player on a B, C, or D team your playing time should always be in question. If a better player in the club does guest play on the B or C team yes they should get a majority of the minutes over weaker players. That is how it is supposed to work. The takeaway that disgruntled parents should walk away with is how can their DD get to the A team players level and not worrying about your little B or C team silo.

I disagree with this. B or C or D players should get the playing time they deserve on their level of team and not be displaced by A team players. That is what they are paying for. They are paying to play, to be coached, and to improve. They are not "employees" of the club, in fact quite the opposite they are the customers and once on the team deserve to play as long as they are putting in the work and honoring commitments. Also, there is little to no benefit for an A team player to go play on the B, C, or D team. It just exposes them to more wear and tear and injury due to overuse. Doing this is a self-interest tactic by the club and TD to improve their win to loss ratio at the lower levels. Also, it is poor sportsmanship for opponents at those lower levels. There is an A team and B team, etc. for a reason.

Anonymous wrote:Bringing in 2 guest players when there is only one sub is ok - what if one player didn't show up or got hurt. However, guest players in this situation should be used as subs, not starters. Parents of players on the team should have a problem with guests getting more playing time than the regular players, especially at U-littles unless the players lost playing for a reason communicated by coach (not showing up at practice, goofing off, etc.).

And how do you expect the parents of the 2 guest players to feel about that?

They are giving up their time - possibly other playing/training opportunities - to help out a lower team in their club. It's also probable these kids were taken off the bottom end of the top team's roster - meaning they usually are subs. So now they're supposed to guest for the bottom team and still sit on the bench, even though they are the two best players there? They may be better, but they are kids too right? Shouldn't they be treated fairly?

I agree they shouldn't have played the whole game, but they absolutely should have started and played the majority of the game - assuming their attitude, effort and performance merited it. The teaching point for those players in a game like that should be something like, "The best players are the ones who can make their teammates around them better." As long as they are doing that, showing good positive leadership, and not playing selfishly, they should be on the field.

Anonymous wrote:PP if the issue was the heat, why didn’t they ever sub out either of the ringers? It was equally hot for them as the rest of the kids, right?

Because they are in better shape? Maybe that's part of the reason they are on the top team?

If it was a big club, they could very well have 5 or more travel teams in the U10 age group. The difference in fitness level between top team and 5th team can be huge.

We were a lower team that found ourselves short-handed in a tournament. The only teams in our club that weren't playing in that tournament were the two top ones. Two of their girls were nice enough to play with us, and we did well. We gave them the same amount of playing time as everyone else; that's all you can really do. The other lower team from our club did the same thing. Our girls definitely learned from watching them/playing with them.

A star player still has to be able to pass and receive passes; they will probably not be as strong as they would be on their usual team. And they've never practiced with the team, so they don't know that team.

Not the OP, and that's a fair point. But we did have an issue with guest players from a higher level team just running over our team. They were much bigger and taller than our team, and more athletic (though the same age). However, in that case, the opposing team would have definitely had to forfeit without them. Even with three guest players, they had zero subs, and we had two. So it was clearly permissible, and one could even have argued that we were at an advantage, due to having subs (though we lost by a fair margin).

We were a lower team that found ourselves short-handed in a tournament. The only teams in our club that weren't playing in that tournament were the two top ones. Two of their girls were nice enough to play with us, and we did well. We gave them the same amount of playing time as everyone else; that's all you can really do. The other lower team from our club did the same thing. Our girls definitely learned from watching them/playing with them.

A star player still has to be able to pass and receive passes; they will probably not be as strong as they would be on their usual team. And they've never practiced with the team, so they don't know that team.

This may seem unfair to you but the situation is also allowed in reverse where B or C team kids get to guest play up on the A or B team. So in short, it is unlikely that any rules, league, club or otherwise were broken

That's fine, if you are right, you're right. But I see no reason not to go ahead and ask.

The league does, in fact, have rules about when you can use guest players that are not at an appropriate competitive level for the team, and the circumstances are limited. As a PP mentioned, I don't understand what a "deficient roster" means. It could mean that on a warm day, you need a certain number of subs, and if it does, the issue is over and there's nothing further to think about.

Let it go. OP sounds like a newbie. There’s more to cry about in the coming years and don’t get caught up in the drama. Have the kids work their hardest and that’s all you can do.

^^^

Also, leagues will only have rules against kids playing on multiple teams in the SAME league on the same day. A kid could play on both the A and B team in NCSL as long as the A team game was Saturday and the B team game was on Sunday.

Anonymous wrote:

It is a best practice but that is not a rule. If it was a rule then report the infraction to your TD. Is it 50% playing time per game? Is it 50% playing time over the course of the season? You see how there are loopholes all over the place with such a "rule".

Just to respond to your question, in our club, it is 50 percent playing time per non tournament game. In a tournament game, the coach can play kids on the team however he wants.

I don't know what the league's rules are, and I don't understand the information on their website about permissible use of guest players. So I'm going to ask and get clarification. If what the other team did is allowed, that's that. I disagree with it, but the league makes the rules, not me, so it is what it is and I won't think of it further.

You're right that I'm angry, but it really isn't because I care so much about winning a soccer game. The team lost many games this season, and that was fine. I just hated to see members of the team crying after the game because of how incredibly badly it went. And again, sure, that is probably an overreaction, but at 7x7, these are still little kids.

There are no league rules in any travel league that will address playing time. That is why it is not a "rule". Rec leagues have such rules but travel leagues do not.

As far as the ability for the guest players to play in the league game is determined by the player card and the league that the game was in. In general, most leagues will allow kids form the same club to guest play on the team provided they have the proper state affiliated player card for the particular league. Most clubs will dual card players in US Club as well as VYSA for such reasons.

This may seem unfair to you but the situation is also allowed in reverse where B or C team kids get to guest play up on the A or B team. So in short, it is unlikely that any rules, league, club or otherwise were broken. The rule of meritocracy was held in check in that the best proven players in fact played the most. It was just one game and you are getting your nose bent out of shape for no reason.

It is a best practice but that is not a rule. If it was a rule then report the infraction to your TD. Is it 50% playing time per game? Is it 50% playing time over the course of the season? You see how there are loopholes all over the place with such a "rule".

Just to respond to your question, in our club, it is 50 percent playing time per non tournament game. In a tournament game, the coach can play kids on the team however he wants.

I don't know what the league's rules are, and I don't understand the information on their website about permissible use of guest players. So I'm going to ask and get clarification. If what the other team did is allowed, that's that. I disagree with it, but the league makes the rules, not me, so it is what it is and I won't think of it further.

You're right that I'm angry, but it really isn't because I care so much about winning a soccer game. The team lost many games this season, and that was fine. I just hated to see members of the team crying after the game because of how incredibly badly it went. And again, sure, that is probably an overreaction, but at 7x7, these are still little kids.

Anonymous wrote:

In our club, which is a travel club, at the U10 level, everyone is guaranteed equal playing time on their own team except in a tournament, which this was not. Perhaps other travel clubs have different rules.


These are not "rules" by the way but stay angry about it.

I have no idea what you mean. It is indeed a rule of our club. I acknowledged that other clubs may not have that rule, which is fine.

I intend to ask our league if what occurred is permissible under the league's rules. If so, then fine, I'll drop the situation and not think of it again.

It is a best practice but that is not a rule. If it was a rule then report the infraction to your TD. Is it 50% playing time per game? Is it 50% playing time over the course of the season? You see how there are loopholes all over the place with such a "rule".