CA youth sports

ITFC Blues said:
It seems like only the first bullet point applies to football, rugby and water polo. Since soccer is an outdoor high contact sport it seems like testing is required for those 13 and over per the 3rd bullet point.

  • For football, rugby and water polo as these are high contact sports that are likely to be played unmasked, with close, face to face contact exceeding 15 minutes.
  • When adjusted case rates for the county are between 14-7 per 100,000.
  • For sport participants 13 years of age or above as evidence shows that younger children do not seem to be major sources of transmission—either to each other or to adults.
  • *If more than 50% of a team's participants are less than the age of 13 (and are not required to test per the above), then the entire team is exempted from the testing requirement. Coaches, however, will still be required to meet the testing requirement.
Click to expand...
I read it the way you do, that its required for soccer. That's probably a deal killer from a cost and administration standpoint. On the bright side it might not take much longer to go from 14 to 7 cases.
 
Grace T. said:
In other news is San Diego Judge Earl Mass has ruled against the Newsom Sports tiers and has said all youth sports in San Diego can resume if follow similar protocols as college/pros (correct me if I'm wrong but that requires testing as well).
Click to expand...
I wonder if there would be as big of incentive for the State to appeal this decision given the State's guidance today. I suspect they will, but maybe not. I could see where it may not be worth the risk for the State.
 
I read the testing as “and”. Norcal Premier understanding is that soccer does not require testing. Weekly testing for football, rugby & water polo for players aged 13+
They specifically listed those three sports with that rational that they require prolonged face to face contact. That implies soccer does not.
 
Jar!23 said:
I read the testing as “and”. Norcal Premier understanding is that soccer does not require testing. Weekly testing for football, rugby & water polo for players aged 13+
They specifically listed those three sports with that rational that they require prolonged face to face contact. That implies soccer does not.
Click to expand...
NorCal Premier definitely wants it to read that way or else their whole money making plan to arrange games between local clubs is not gonna work. I guess we will find out what it really means when the County Health departments and CIF chime in.
 
watfly said:
I wonder if there would be as big of incentive for the State to appeal this decision given the State's guidance today. I suspect they will, but maybe not. I could see where it may not be worth the risk for the State.
Click to expand...
It's likely not a coincidence that the new guidance came out when it did then.
 
This press release seems to clarify it only applies football, rugby and water polo, 13+ and when COVID numbers are higher. In any event, with “equity” being so important in testing and vaccination policies I would imagine the government would in some form have to ensure all players that need it get equal access to testing. Otherwise they would be inadvertently be allowing better off areas and players to play and shutting out schools and clubs with less resources.

State Updates Guidance for Youth and Recreational Adult Sports

www.cdph.ca.gov www.cdph.ca.gov
 
Grace T. said:
The rules give counties the option to enact stricter standards. The rumors are (because LAUSD's union is trying to keep schools closed next year at least part time, and because the sports rules apply equally to club and school sports) LA County may not sign off on the new sports rules. VC tweeted out this morning happy news about the new sports policy which indicates VC will implement the rules as is and not put in place stricter standard. If past history for the OC is true, they'll likely sign off as well. But we are still in wait and see mode as each of the counties reviews and signs off on the new guidance. Remember counties can be stricter than the state guidance for even school, but not looser.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for your reply. Makes perfect sense now. My only other question I have after reading through the information is where it states
-Out of state games and events are forbidden.

Do you think clubs will listen to that or will they continue to see it as a guidance? I know some ECNL/RL games were supposed to happen in Vegas in March and after the announcement today, the teams are no longer going and the games have been cancelled. I wasn't sure if that was based upon the out of state rule or what.
 
LifeOfSoccer said:
Thank you so much for your reply. Makes perfect sense now. My only other question I have after reading through the information is where it states
-Out of state games and events are forbidden.

Do you think clubs will listen to that or will they continue to see it as a guidance? I know some ECNL/RL games were supposed to happen in Vegas in March and after the announcement today, the teams are no longer going and the games have been cancelled. I wasn't sure if that was based upon the out of state rule or what.
Click to expand...
Our local water polo team has been debating this. The issue is the Karen’s and what happened with surf. The ability to play at 14/100k is an exemption to the normal rules. The fear is if you are caught (or if some parent is stupid enough to post on social media) you’ll be banned from league play as a potential virus spreader. Water polo though is a rich kids sport and they can afford weekly testing. So the choice there is do we do league and pass on outside tournaments or do we just go out of state? Partially the question depends on what la county allows because if no la a league isn’t feasible (and like soccer the best competition is oc/San Diego which won’t be allowed from vc).

The question for soccer is whether for oldest testing is required...if so I don’t see this being workable for a lot of teams that can’t afford it.
 
lafalafa said:
www.nbcsandiego.com

Judge's Order Clears Way for Return of Youth Sports

A San Diego Superior Court judge has blocked county officials from preventing young athletes — including high-schoolers — from participating in youth sports that are operating under the same or similar COVID protocols being enforced by professional and college teams.
www.nbcsandiego.com www.nbcsandiego.com
Click to expand...
Note this is a temporary restraining order without consideration of the newly released state guidelines. The judge's final ruling will be made March 5. The new guidelines may make it moot.

Surf's ego-driven public FU to local politicians jeopardizes the planned scrimmages etc for all other clubs. Just needed to chill, take your medicine, for another week and clubs (and high schools) in OC, SD and most other counties would get most of what they need/want, except for out-of-state games and tournaments. But most of us on this forum have always said that with the best players here, a SoCal league is all we need. We're hours away from that happening and Surf looks like it's intent on pissing it away.
 
oh canada said:
Note this is a temporary restraining order without consideration of the newly released state guidelines. The judge's final ruling will be made March 5. The new guidelines may make it moot.

Surf's ego-driven public FU to local politicians jeopardizes the planned scrimmages etc for all other clubs. Just needed to chill, take your medicine, for another week and clubs (and high schools) in OC, SD and most other counties would get most of what they need/want, except for out-of-state games and tournaments. But most of us on this forum have always said that with the best players here, a SoCal league is all we need. We're hours away from that happening and Surf looks like it's intent on pissing it away.
Click to expand...
Remember two weeks to flatten the curve...but just another week, right? Some of us have had it with being played by government and their ever-changing science.

I appluad Surf.
 
MicPaPa said:
Remember two weeks to flatten the curve...but just another week, right? Some of us have had it with being played by government and their ever-changing science.

I appluad Surf.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, but those with even half a brain knew that "2 weeks" statement would never hold. Now, we have specific and definitive orders with dates and realistic benchmarks. 14/100,000 - Feb 26 - etc. We are almost there.
 
oh canada said:
I get what you're saying, but those with even half a brain knew that "2 weeks" statement would never hold. Now, we have specific and definitive orders with dates and realistic benchmarks. 14/100,000 - Feb 26 - etc. We are almost there.
Click to expand...
Where is your brain? How big is it? How much do you use of your brain teacher? Go teach and stay in your lane. Using kids as pawns is Loserville.
 
Last edited:
oh canada said:
I get what you're saying, but those with even half a brain knew that "2 weeks" statement would never hold. Now, we have specific and definitive orders with dates and realistic benchmarks. 14/100,000 - Feb 26 - etc. We are almost there.
Click to expand...
Meh, two weeks ---> 12 months... no big deal in the academic and social development and well-being of our kids. But hey, "we're almost there" to those with no brain.
 
crush said:
Where is your brain? How big is it? How much do you use of your brain teacher? Go teach and stay in your lane. Using kids as pawns is Loserville.
Click to expand...
How do you expect anybody to take you seriously when you use words like "loserville," really? Is that your idea of an intelligent, mature argument? This is kind of an ironic statement coming from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top