Breaking the rules is not always cheating. If a club had a kid playing up 4 years (a 10 year old playing with 14 year olds) it would be against the rules, but nobody would call that cheating. (Girls putting tape over their earrings is technically against the rules too, but if someone calls that cheating I give up)
I'm not defending what they did, but it wasn't cheating. They were desperate and broke the rules so they didn't have to forfeit. That benefitted their own players and the opposition who got a game they wouldn't have. The only ones "hurt" were the ones who played two games in one day, and at this age and level that wasn't anything. I have zero affiliation with this club so it doesn't matter to me, but it does seem to me that everyone is focused on wins and losses here (even the punishment was losses), when at these ages it is meaningless. They were a Bronze team and unless the loss penalty knocked them out of first place (I don't know but doubt it did), if I were a parent on the team I'd probably say to myself that it was better to have had the games played for the experience and get the losses later than to have never played.
Keep perspective people. These are 12/13 year old kids. We should want them playing games more than we want a 1-0 forfeit.
I know the next argument is that the team should never have been formed. I know that is true, but sometimes it happens and you just have to get through the season. Time to put the pitchforks away.
Your semantics and compassion is all very fascinating but I think some more facts and additional perspective are in order.
The 05 and 06 teams have 23 total players. They could have sat 1 player from the 06 team and used that player on the days when both teams played.
Coast has continued to allow them use of the Player loan Program and that is what they have done for their remaining games.
The 05 team lost players because they disliked the coach, the players left in July.
I would dislike a coach that took my bronze team and put them in a high level tournament and then blasted the players as the game was going on when they were losing against dramatically better competition.
http://events.gotsport.com/events/s...199&FieldID=0&applicationID=4760062&action=Go
Now imagine you are a coach of a different team that has put in lots of time to avoid a scenario where you don't have enough players.
Imagine a coach that has been pro active when things fall apart and the team lost players and you followed the rules and went out and did whatever was needed to get enough players.
And on the other side, the Burbank coach that just convinces the teams parents and players, "hey, lets just not follow the rules and play these games".
Is there any question, when comparing the two, about the type of individual we want coaching youth soccer ?
Lets pretend the players on the opposing teams find out, what is the line of BS we would give them to make it all better ?
Do we want the coach that openly pushes unethical behavior on this organizational level to be leading a group of 13 year olds ?
Is that the person that we want espousing values ?
If the coach had somehow not told the players and parents and they were unaware, that would sit better with me, but that wasn't the case here.
"Its just Bronze".
What a poorly thought out comment.
Its just the proletariat, right ?
Whether Bronze or DA, kids learning ethical behavior is far more important in life than what level of soccer they play, played or any Player Development Initiative that you have somehow skewed as more important.
