Wonder how some of these rules will be enforced. Suspending a manager 3 days because a parent who is suspended shows up to a game is completely unreasonable.
ABUSE (socalsoccerleague.org)
ABUSE (socalsoccerleague.org)
Socal Soccer Referee Abuse rules
- Thread starter Gkdad1
- Start date
This will work until someone actually tries to enforce it.
Referees already have the power to remove abusive players, coaches, and spectators. Why isn't that working?
Last edited:
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
Not that hard for a manager to tell parent to stay home for next 3 games. The difficulty is the enforcement as the next 3 teams/refs will have no idea who that parent is or whether they are serving suspension.
correct telling the parent to stay home is easy, what is the manager supposed to do if the parent decides they aren't going to stay home?
Soccer Dad & Ref
SILVER ELITE
What does referee abuse refer to? I did not see a definition in the pamphlet. It has very harsh penalties. Sounds different than what it took to get sent off, because that has a listed penalty.
At the bottom of the second page is this, which has a different penalty:
ANY PERSON who touches, confronts, chases, bullies, follows, cusses at, threatens, waits for, tries to fight, attacks or assaults a referee will be banned FOR LIFE from the SOCAL league and will be turned over to US Club Soccer for further disciplinary actions
At the bottom of the second page is this, which has a different penalty:
ANY PERSON who touches, confronts, chases, bullies, follows, cusses at, threatens, waits for, tries to fight, attacks or assaults a referee will be banned FOR LIFE from the SOCAL league and will be turned over to US Club Soccer for further disciplinary actions
The entire rule is structured so that if a parent gets carded, to encourage the club to take measures by hauling the parent in front of the club board and imposing a suspension there too. If the club doesn't, it places the responsibility on the manager and coach for failure to take action. The unwritten supposition is if the parent still shows up after being suspended by the club board, the club board would remove the parent and child from the club. SoCal didn't say that, but it is the logical inference to where it leads
Any competent lawyer will tell you that unwritten rules are unenforceable.
That's a stupid comment. There are lots of incentives built into lots of systems. The government doesn't order people to cut back on spending to fight inflation. It raises interest rates. It pushes a button to get a result because people are generally rational and will act in accordance with incentives.
Here, the rule is structured to force the clubs to take actions to control problem parents. SoCal doesn't want to say "kick out problem parents and their kids" for a variety of reasons, so it's created these incentives.
But you know that, and per your usual self, are just trolling.
Sadly, this shouldn't even have to be a topic of discussion because parents shouldn't act like idiots at their kids games to begin with. Logic says "sit down and shut up" but unfortunately some people can't seem to behave and end up getting sent-off for it. Then it's up to the club to deal with it and handle the parent. If they don't, further consequences come into play. It doesn't matter what the rules are and who likes them and who doesn't because they shouldn't have to exist in the first place but because we've turned into a crazy society of anarchists and entitled humans consequences have to be spelled out and publicized.
Why is it that whenever I point out that you are factually incorrect you accuse me of trolling?
Speaking of you being incorrect, how's your "crossing the Rubicon" claim doing these days? You followed that up with a false claim that public opinion polls were opposed to the Maralago warrant. Do you have any new opinions to add?
Wow are you so political you have to drag a politics fight into a soccer discussion?
I said "to encourage". It's an incentive, not an unwritten rule. I can't help it if you are constantly (or deliberately...which is it?) misunderstanding things.
It's appropriate to your claim of me trolling.Wow are you so political you have to drag a politics fight into a soccer discussion?
I said "to encourage". It's an incentive, not an unwritten rule. I can't help it if you are constantly (or deliberately...which is it?) misunderstanding things.
I note for the record that you have not responded to the question.
I for one do not intend to bring politics into a soccer forum, you chastised me last time for bringing a political discussion into the vaccine forum (despite you wading into an electric vehicle debate on said forum), and do not really hold an interest in any of the pure politics forums herein. I think it's funny too that you think I have a burning desire to debate you on pretty much any topic. My interactions with you are mostly for comic relief.
If you weren't so funny, I'd block you for the trolling like GoldenGate.It appears that you have no defense to my finding of your falsely claiming that I was just trolling when in reality I was pointing out a fundamental error in what you posted.I for one do not intend to bring politics into a soccer forum, you chastised me last time for bringing a political discussion into the vaccine forum, and do not really hold an interest in any of the pure politics forums herein. I think it's funny too that you think I have a burning desire to debate you on pretty much any topic. My interactions with you are mostly for comic relief.
Last edited:
I already defended that. I pointed out that you (as you routinely do), misinterpreted the post (either deliberately, to troll, or incompetently). At no point did I say there was an "unwritten rule". My point is that it created an incentive. But keep digging your hole....it's funny.
The club is free, if they trust the parent and decide it's an innocent mistake, to let them stick around, but SoCal is saying well that risk is now on the manager and the coach for not pushing the issue.You still haven't responded to the "unenforceable" phrase.I already defended that. I pointed out that you (as you routinely do), misinterpreted the post (either deliberately, to troll, or incompetently). At no point did I say there was an "unwritten rule". My point is that it created an incentive. But keep digging your hole....it's funny.
God you are dense. That's your word not mine. What part of "incentives" don't you understand??? Incentives do not need to be enforced. If the club trusts the parents and the manager and coach think it's an honest mistake, they don't have to prosecute him/her. But then it shifts the risk of not doing anything onto the manager/coach/club. The reason the incentive needs to be created is because the parent might be the parent of a kid too good to spare....therefore the club/coach/manager may turn a blind eye to it. So a counter incentive is being creative to tell the club/coach/manager we mean it and if you don't do something about this parent the risk is on you. It's ultimately the club/coach/manager's decision how exactly to handle it (Socal won't micro manage) but if you don't deal with it there will be consequences. It's not rocket science...it's soccer!
Help me out here -- what is the legal term for punishing one person for offenses committed by another? Is such a punishment enforceable?
Code
SILVER ELITE
Accountability
Anything is enforceable if you have the power to do it....duh doy. And you still are missing the point. It's not punishing the club/coach/manager for the offense of the offending parent (i.e., the parent showing up again). It's holding the club/coach/manager accountable for not taking the proper steps to ensure that it doesn't ever happen again (e.g., kicking the player off the team, bringing the parent in front of the board for suspension, financial penalties).
You said it better than I could and with one word.