State Cup

InTheValley said:
Technically, the child’s behavior probably was a criminal battery if, as it appears, it occurred off the ball and not in self-defense.
Click to expand...

Disagree. It was "probably not," battery (see below) and it is inconsequential if it occurred off the ball. In the US, the courts that have looked at "assault and battery" on the field of play use a different standard that focuses on the rules of the sports and "consent." Both criminal and civil assault and battery require the touching be either unlawful or without consent (which forms a complete a defense).

In the context of sports (youth, adult-amateur, professional), the basic rule is that a player would need to not only violate the rules of the game, but commit an act that is so far beyond the rule makers' and the game participants' contemplation that it was not reasonably foreseeable in order to negate presumed consent to be subject to criminal prosecution. (see, Sports Law Blog)

In this case, you have a player tackling/pushing another player from behind, clearly not playing the ball, and "using excessive force." The rules (aka Laws) of soccer contemplate this type of action (Law 12) and require the player to be sent off (if a referee sees it). This type of "excessive force" behavior happens all the time in soccer at various levels (trips from behind, dangerous tackles, elbows to the ribs, etc.).

The only way I see this as potentially rising to the level of exceeding the express and implied consent within the sport of soccer would be if the player used a weapon or foreign object of some sort OR once the player was on the ground, kicked or began punching the defenseless player. Once the physical contact exceeds the reasonably foreseeable "fouls" then consent is exceeded and criminal charges may result.

See, State of Washington v. Shelley (1997) for a discussion of how consent in sports is a defense to criminal prosecution. California and Washington follow similar paths because they are both in the 9th Circuit.
 
[QUOTE="InTheValley, post: 187743, member: 4305

If a player is a menace who risks intentionally hurting other children, I see nothing wrong in letting others should know about it. If shaming this kid and her parents deters future similar behavior, the person who posted the photos should get a medal.

Who are we trying to protect? Kids who hurt other children? Or their victims?[/QUOTE]

We don't have enough details. What if the other kid was talking smack or got a cheap shot before this incident? They are emotional and physical and this girl should be banned for several games or more.

The problem is that we are still posting one incident from a minor. What if this was the only time she's fouled someone like this? Does she get hateful emails for the next 5 years just on this one incident?
Did the victim have to go to the hospital? Did she break her leg? We just don't have enough info to put this one a blog site.

Hypotheticaly, What if I take a picture of you screaming at your child to show others how a bad parent you are? It wouldn't be fair either.
 
InTheValley said:
Nice. A graduate of the Trump school of debate, replete with ad hominem attacks. Because you want to go down that road, I’m not surprised that you must resort to personal attacks instead of substantive discussion - or by your opinion - since you seem to fit the Texas high school football coach stereotype perfectly. Given your inability to grasp fundamental concepts in grammar, punctuation and spelling, I hope they didn’t let you teach while you were there.

Technically, the child’s behavior probably was a criminal battery if, as it appears, it occurred off the ball and not in self-defense. I’m glad law enforcement has better things to do, however, especially because public shaming and hopefully a red card are likely to be sufficient. I would have thought a tough guy like you would recognize that a few pictures like these on the internet aren’t going to ruin anyone’s life. But maybe you are one of those snowflake parents raising children to be so emotionally soft that they can’t handle it? Like you said, it’s just a game. So why are so agitated?
Click to expand...

Criminal Battery.......just stop

Then you go and make it worse by trying for a political debate. Even better.

You've clearly embarrassed your self enough here. I couldn't possibly make it any worse for you with any type of response.

I'm done with this one.
 
MWN said:
Disagree. It was "probably not," battery (see below) and it is inconsequential if it occurred off the ball. In the US, the courts that have looked at "assault and battery" on the field of play use a different standard that focuses on the rules of the sports and "consent." Both criminal and civil assault and battery require the touching be either unlawful or without consent (which forms a complete a defense).

In the context of sports (youth, adult-amateur, professional), the basic rule is that a player would need to not only violate the rules of the game, but commit an act that is so far beyond the rule makers' and the game participants' contemplation that it was not reasonably foreseeable in order to negate presumed consent to be subject to criminal prosecution. (see, Sports Law Blog)

In this case, you have a player tackling/pushing another player from behind, clearly not playing the ball, and "using excessive force." The rules (aka Laws) of soccer contemplate this type of action (Law 12) and require the player to be sent off (if a referee sees it). This type of "excessive force" behavior happens all the time in soccer at various levels (trips from behind, dangerous tackles, elbows to the ribs, etc.).

The only way I see this as potentially rising to the level of exceeding the express and implied consent within the sport of soccer would be if the player used a weapon or foreign object of some sort OR once the player was on the ground, kicked or began punching the defenseless player. Once the physical contact exceeds the reasonably foreseeable "fouls" then consent is exceeded and criminal charges may result.

See, State of Washington v. Shelley (1997) for a discussion of how consent in sports is a defense to criminal prosecution. California and Washington follow similar paths because they are both in the 9th Circuit.
Click to expand...

We have a wanna be lawyer. CA and WA do not “follow similar paths because they’re in the 9th Circuit.” The 9th circuit is a federal court, which means it has jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or certain civil state law disputes between litigants of multiple states. Even in the case of the latter, individual state law applies. This is a moot point, though, because we are talking about criminal law. And diversity jurisdiction does not apply to state criminal law. And criminal battery statutes are a creation of individual state law.

But if you are gonna be a wanna be lawyer moving forward, I recommend that you read the case you cite before relying on it to support your position. Because it says the opposite of what you claim it says. What it really says is:

“Here, taking Shelley's version of the events as true, the magnitude and dangerousness of Shelley's actions were beyond the limit. There is no question that Shelley lashed out at Gonzalez with sufficient force to land a substantial blow to the jaw, and there is no question but that Shelley intended to hit Gonzalez.   There is nothing in the game of basketball, or even rugby or hockey, that would permit consent as a defense to such conduct.   Shelley admitted to an assault and was not precluded from arguing that the assault justified self-defense;  but justification and consent are not the same inquiry.”

Rather, the court held that “intentional excesses beyond those reasonably contemplated in the sport are not justified”, which is the standard in WA, not the gobbledegook you are claiming. And (for the benefit of my favorite Texas football coach), this case actually cites another case in which a football player was criminally liable for punching someone because he didn’t like how he was tackled and believed he’d been punched as part of the tackle. The first punch was part of the play (and therefore within the scope of the game), but the one that came after was not, and was therefore outside the reasonable expectations of a participant. That becomes an important point shortly (see below).

Here, admittedly it was not a punch to the jaw. Instead, if the photos accurately depict what transpired, it may be worse in the sense that it appears to have been a cheap shot from behind and did not involve the protection of a football helmet. The fact that it appears to have been away from the ball is actually critical, notwithstanding your protestations otherwise, because this is the fact that appears to put this beyond just rough play and probably establishes the necessary intent. And, as in the football case, also establishes that it was far enough removed from the run of play to arguably prohibit the defense of implied consent. The last time I checked, jumping someone from behind, grabbing them by the neck and then throwing them the ground wasn’t something to which young girls consent when they choose to spend a lovely afternoon on the soccer pitch with their peers. So I guess this means I definitively win this argument, at least in WA. But probably in CA too, since they’re both in the 9th circuit....

In the end, you miss the point, though, which is no one cares if it’s a crime or not, and I think we all agree it would be a “crime” to criminally prosecute a minor for this kind of behavior unless there’s a lot more. The point of this thread - before our TX football coach and others tried to act like law professors - is what you think about the photos and whether you think they should have been posted at all.
 
MWN said:
Disagree. It was "probably not," battery (see below) and it is inconsequential if it occurred off the ball. In the US, the courts that have looked at "assault and battery" on the field of play use a different standard that focuses on the rules of the sports and "consent." Both criminal and civil assault and battery require the touching be either unlawful or without consent (which forms a complete a defense).

In the context of sports (youth, adult-amateur, professional), the basic rule is that a player would need to not only violate the rules of the game, but commit an act that is so far beyond the rule makers' and the game participants' contemplation that it was not reasonably foreseeable in order to negate presumed consent to be subject to criminal prosecution. (see, Sports Law Blog)

In this case, you have a player tackling/pushing another player from behind, clearly not playing the ball, and "using excessive force." The rules (aka Laws) of soccer contemplate this type of action (Law 12) and require the player to be sent off (if a referee sees it). This type of "excessive force" behavior happens all the time in soccer at various levels (trips from behind, dangerous tackles, elbows to the ribs, etc.).

The only way I see this as potentially rising to the level of exceeding the express and implied consent within the sport of soccer would be if the player used a weapon or foreign object of some sort OR once the player was on the ground, kicked or began punching the defenseless player. Once the physical contact exceeds the reasonably foreseeable "fouls" then consent is exceeded and criminal charges may result.

See, State of Washington v. Shelley (1997) for a discussion of how consent in sports is a defense to criminal prosecution. California and Washington follow similar paths because they are both in the 9th Circuit.
Click to expand...

The referee not seeing it is pretty weak defense.
 
MWN said:
Disagree. It was "probably not," battery (see below) and it is inconsequential if it occurred off the ball. In the US, the courts that have looked at "assault and battery" on the field of play use a different standard that focuses on the rules of the sports and "consent." Both criminal and civil assault and battery require the touching be either unlawful or without consent (which forms a complete a defense).

In the context of sports (youth, adult-amateur, professional), the basic rule is that a player would need to not only violate the rules of the game, but commit an act that is so far beyond the rule makers' and the game participants' contemplation that it was not reasonably foreseeable in order to negate presumed consent to be subject to criminal prosecution. (see, Sports Law Blog)

In this case, you have a player tackling/pushing another player from behind, clearly not playing the ball, and "using excessive force." The rules (aka Laws) of soccer contemplate this type of action (Law 12) and require the player to be sent off (if a referee sees it). This type of "excessive force" behavior happens all the time in soccer at various levels (trips from behind, dangerous tackles, elbows to the ribs, etc.).

The only way I see this as potentially rising to the level of exceeding the express and implied consent within the sport of soccer would be if the player used a weapon or foreign object of some sort OR once the player was on the ground, kicked or began punching the defenseless player. Once the physical contact exceeds the reasonably foreseeable "fouls" then consent is exceeded and criminal charges may result.

See, State of Washington v. Shelley (1997) for a discussion of how consent in sports is a defense to criminal prosecution. California and Washington follow similar paths because they are both in the 9th Circuit.
Click to expand...

I apologize for my patronizing tone with you. You did not deserve it. I should have focused it solely on the TX fella with the thin skin. Unfortunately It does not appear to let me delete posts.
 
InTheValley said:
We have a wanna be lawyer. CA and WA do not “follow similar paths because they’re in the 9th Circuit.” The 9th circuit is a federal court, which means it has jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or certain civil state law disputes between litigants of multiple states. Even in the case of the latter, individual state law applies. This is a moot point, though, because we are talking about criminal law. And diversity jurisdiction does not apply to state criminal law. And criminal battery statutes are a creation of individual state law.

But if you are gonna be a wanna be lawyer moving forward, I recommend that you read the case you cite before relying on it to support your position. Because it says the opposite of what you claim it says. What it really says is:

“Here, taking Shelley's version of the events as true, the magnitude and dangerousness of Shelley's actions were beyond the limit. There is no question that Shelley lashed out at Gonzalez with sufficient force to land a substantial blow to the jaw, and there is no question but that Shelley intended to hit Gonzalez.   There is nothing in the game of basketball, or even rugby or hockey, that would permit consent as a defense to such conduct.   Shelley admitted to an assault and was not precluded from arguing that the assault justified self-defense;  but justification and consent are not the same inquiry.”

Rather, the court held that “intentional excesses beyond those reasonably contemplated in the sport are not justified”, which is the standard in WA, not the gobbledegook you are claiming. And (for the benefit of my favorite Texas football coach), this case actually cites another case in which a football player was criminally liable for punching someone because he didn’t like how he was tackled and believed he’d been punched as part of the tackle. The first punch was part of the play (and therefore within the scope of the game), but the one that came after was not, and was therefore outside the reasonable expectations of a participant. That becomes an important point shortly (see below).

Here, admittedly it was not a punch to the jaw. Instead, if the photos accurately depict what transpired, it may be worse in the sense that it appears to have been a cheap shot from behind and did not involve the protection of a football helmet. The fact that it appears to have been away from the ball is actually critical, notwithstanding your protestations otherwise, because this is the fact that appears to put this beyond just rough play and probably establishes the necessary intent. And, as in the football case, also establishes that it was far enough removed from the run of play to arguably prohibit the defense of implied consent. The last time I checked, jumping someone from behind, grabbing them by the neck and then throwing them the ground wasn’t something to which young girls consent when they choose to spend a lovely afternoon on the soccer pitch with their peers. So I guess this means I definitively win this argument, at least in WA. But probably in CA too, since they’re both in the 9th circuit....

In the end, you miss the point, though, which is no one cares if it’s a crime or not, and I think we all agree it would be a “crime” to criminally prosecute a minor for this kind of behavior unless there’s a lot more. The point of this thread - before our TX football coach and others tried to act like law professors - is what you think about the photos and whether you think they should have been posted at all.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the apology.

For the record, I'm not a "wanna be," rather an actual (now retired) lawyer with over 18 years under my belt and a current USSF Referee familiar with the Laws of the Game. I did read the case. It stands for the proposition that I cited, which is that force contemplated within the rules of a sports is subject to a "consent" defense. Force exceeding that which is contemplated by the rules may be actionable. The facts of the case were a punch to the jaw made with sufficient force to break the victims jaw, in a pickup game, were deemed to exceed the those reasonably contemplated.

My disagreement was that your stated "probably a crime" to which I replied "probably not a crime" and stated the reason. My point with regard to the 9th Circuit, is that California State courts tend to give greater weight to neighboring states (i.e. those states in the 9th Circuit) when looking at decisions of other jurisdictions. While other states are not "controlling" they tend to be more "persuasive" than states further away. Of course, the respective legal doctrines of each State need to align (community property state v. common law). In this case both Washington State and California have adopted the Model Penal code, thus, decisions of these states can be "persuasive."

From a referee's perspective, the photos document a "send off" offense on Law 12, regardless of all but one factor related to the location of the ball. The only exception in my mind is the situation where one player climbs over the back of another player while attempting to "head" a ball, which would have similar physical contact. In that instance I can see mitigating factors.

Given my retirement from the practice of law, I suppose it would be safe to call me a "no longer wanna be lawyer."
 
MWN said:
Thank you for the apology.

For the record, I'm not a "wanna be," rather an actual (now retired) lawyer with over 18 years under my belt and a current USSF Referee familiar with the Laws of the Game.

Given my retirement from the practice of law, I suppose it would be safe to call me a "no longer wanna be lawyer."
Click to expand...


Boom!! That's what I call dropping the Microphone on someone. nice!!
 
MWN said:
Thank you for the apology.

For the record, I'm not a "wanna be," rather an actual (now retired) lawyer with over 18 years under my belt and a current USSF Referee familiar with the Laws of the Game. I did read the case. It stands for the proposition that I cited, which is that force contemplated within the rules of a sports is subject to a "consent" defense. Force exceeding that which is contemplated by the rules may be actionable. The facts of the case were a punch to the jaw made with sufficient force to break the victims jaw, in a pickup game, were deemed to exceed the those reasonably contemplated.

My disagreement was that your stated "probably a crime" to which I replied "probably not a crime" and stated the reason. My point with regard to the 9th Circuit, is that California State courts tend to give greater weight to neighboring states (i.e. those states in the 9th Circuit) when looking at decisions of other jurisdictions. While other states are not "controlling" they tend to be more "persuasive" than states further away. Of course, the respective legal doctrines of each State need to align (community property state v. common law). In this case both Washington State and California have adopted the Model Penal code, thus, decisions of these states can be "persuasive."

From a referee's perspective, the photos document a "send off" offense on Law 12, regardless of all but one factor related to the location of the ball. The only exception in my mind is the situation where one player climbs over the back of another player while attempting to "head" a ball, which would have similar physical contact. In that instance I can see mitigating factors.

Given my retirement from the practice of law, I suppose it would be safe to call me a "no longer wanna be lawyer."
Click to expand...
Wow pretty good to retire as a lawyer after only 18 years. You must have done well for yourself (or vice versa).

But, you did cite to a WA state case instead of CA authority, and then claimed it had something to do with the 9th Circuit. Happy retirement!
 
coachrefparent said:
Wow pretty good to retire as a lawyer after only 18 years. You must have done well for yourself (or vice versa).

But, you did cite to a WA state case instead of CA authority, and then claimed it had something to do with the 9th Circuit. Happy retirement!
Click to expand...

Switched careers ... didn't like various elements of the practice of law.

To my knowledge and (non-Westlaw/Lexis ... subscriptions are long expires) research, there is no published California case regarding "criminal prosecution" related to violent conduct on a sports field. Therefore, courts would look at persuasive authority. Now, in my experience, citing persuasive authority in the 9th Circuit (to the extent Federal courts have looked at the issue) and/or States near California (these same 9th Circuit states), California courts are going to give that authority greater persuasive weight than say ... Maine.
 
The pictures have finally been deleted (thankfully), but it was never clear to me that the foul was completely off the ball. Both players were facing the sideline on the very far side of the field. It looked like they were anticipating a throw-in. I could imagine that type of collision happening where both players were running full speed toward the thrower and the girl in front (perhaps the defender) suddenly slowed or stopped her momentum. It was odd that the photos started with the one girl already in the air. Did she jump because she was trying to avoid a collision or because she wanted to collide with more force? Hard for me to tell without seeing what happened before (or a video). Players get tangled up in an infinite number of ways in soccer. It's very had to judge intent from a few cropped/zoomed still photos from the end of a play. And battery is an intentional tort, so you can't even begin to consider a possible crime here without determining intent.

And I agree @MWN's persuasive authority is relevant, but might have expressed it a little differently. Judges consider decisions from other states highly persuasive where both share a similar legal doctrine. States are most likely to share similar legal doctrines where they share demographic, geographic and/or historic similarities. And states within a given Federal Circuit would be most likely to share those similarities. So that's often where practitioners start when searching for persuasive authority in state cases. I otherwise thought his analysis was right on point. Well done counselor!
 
Chalklines said:
Pathetic.......most pathetic post I've seen in long time. "malicious physical attack" .. Please

It's just a game. It ends once the ref blows the whistle.

Nothings criminal here except the fact you drive on the same roads as I do.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you that it is just a game and ends once the referee blows the whistle. My daughter suffered two serious injuries because players like the one in the picture thought it was ok to basically play like a thug. My daughter's broken wrist and concussion and did not end when the referee blew the whistle, or the next day, or the next or the next, but took months to heal. IMHO these types of intentional attacks need to be punished with more than a multi-game suspension and should be suspended for months and not just a couple games. Had this happened on a field that I was the referee, the player in the red jersey would have been ejected for violent conduct and my game report would have reflected the intentional and violent attack.

Had another kid come up behind your kid on a sidewalk and thrown them violently to the ground, I am sure you wouldn't just brush it off as just a game. If this type of behavior is not acceptable by society off a youth sports field, then why should it be acceptable on a youth soccer field? Sure soccer is a physical game, but it should not be a violent game. If you cannot tell the difference than there is something wrong with the gray matter between your ears.
 
MWN said:
Switched careers ... didn't like various elements of the practice of law.

To my knowledge and (non-Westlaw/Lexis ... subscriptions are long expires) research, there is no published California case regarding "criminal prosecution" related to violent conduct on a sports field. Therefore, courts would look at persuasive authority. Now, in my experience, citing persuasive authority in the 9th Circuit (to the extent Federal courts have looked at the issue) and/or States near California (these same 9th Circuit states), California courts are going to give that authority greater persuasive weight than say ... Maine.
Click to expand...

High school game in Poway a few years back - forward from Ramona punched a Poway defender more than once in the face, breaking his jaw and knocking out some teeth. The ref didn't see it, but he was sure something had happened because of the obvious bloody mess, so he asked the Ramona coach what and who and ejected the player. The next day, while the player was in the process of being suspended from school, the Sheriff Deputies showed up and took him into custody.
 
espola said:
High school game in Poway a few years back - forward from Ramona punched a Poway defender more than once in the face, breaking his jaw and knocking out some teeth. The ref didn't see it, but he was sure something had happened because of the obvious bloody mess, so he asked the Ramona coach what and who and ejected the player. The next day, while the player was in the process of being suspended from school, the Sheriff Deputies showed up and took him into custody.
Click to expand...

I remember that. It was the same year that the U17 girl from Hemet got arrested at the field for throwing an opponent to the ground by her neck then stepping on her. The parents called the police and had video evidence. I don't know if either player was convicted, but they were arrested and taken away in handcuffs.
 
QUOTE="ATRTDT, post: 188331, member: 3099"]You signed up for a physical sport. Have you actually looked over the liability waiver you sign each season? Things happen. Things can also happen through the course of a game that pulls emotion out of players. Injury,rehab and recovery is all part of it too. If you dont want physical contact sign your kids up for dance, tennis, bowling or ice skating. Since California seems to be the leader in comical new laws will it be the first state to mandate jail time for personal fouls, red cards and flagrant fouls in youth sports? Imagine the extra tax revenue and all that extra sleep some parents would get at nigh knowing their dear prince and princess wont be pushed around on a Sunday afternoon. Seems like this would be the only way to make some of you happy. Probably the same people complaining here are the ones who pushed for trophy's and medals for all. Crying parents are just killing sports these days.[/QUOTE]

I am a referee and know the difference between, careless, reckless, dangerous and thug play. The majority, 99.99 %, of players play at the reckless level or below with a majority of those rarely fouling. Even some of the dangerous plays are not intentional, but are bad timing or technique. It is those 0.01% of thug players that is the problem and have no place on any soccer field. All I am trying to get at is, it is okay to have physical contact even some reckless contact. But, the intentional dangerous play and overly physical or violent play (thugery) has no place on a youth field , amateur field, semi-pro or pro field. If a player cannot keep their emotions under control and they have to resort to punching or horse collar tackles on an opponent or teammate, than maybe they should not be on the field.

My daughter's two serious injuries during youth soccer were caused by players that had histories of overly physical behavior and numerous ejections. Her broken wrist occurred when she was trying to block a thug player's punch to her face. The concussion occurred when a defender that could not stop my daughter decided to grab her around the neck (horse collar) and throw her to the ground. I do not know of anyone that expects that type of play on any soccer field. If you think those two examples are normal behavior, than I really feel sorry for you and can recommend a good therapist.
 
ATRTDT said:
You signed up for a physical sport. (1) Have you actually looked over the liability waiver you sign each season? (2) Things happen. Things can also happen through the course of a game that pulls emotion out of players. Injury,rehab and recovery is all part of it too. (3) If you dont want physical contact sign your kids up for dance, tennis, bowling or ice skating.(4) Since California seems to be the leader in comical new laws will it be the first state to mandate jail time for personal fouls, red cards and flagrant fouls in youth sports? (5) Imagine the extra tax revenue and all that extra sleep some parents would get at nigh knowing their dear prince and princess wont be pushed around on a Sunday afternoon. (6) Seems like this would be the only way to make some of you happy. (7) Probably the same people complaining here are the ones who pushed for trophy's and medals for all. (8) Crying parents are just killing sports these days (9) .
Click to expand...
(1) yes, signed up for a physical sport, not an attack on my kid
(2) no, doesn't matter. No room in any level of sports for thuggery. Even the NHL understands that
(3) yes, but you shouldn't have to "recover" from an assault on the field
(4) see #1 above,
(5) no, but I am OK if we are a leader in taking steps to protect our kids
(6) I don't know of any parent who has a kid playing at a high level that doesn't expect contact. None of them think it is OK for their kid to be assaulted (not even on the pitch)
(7) No, just want to referees to call the game and keep the kids safe; nothing more/nothing less
(8) the kids I know don't want a trophy for showing up
(9) the good old days; when men were men, women were women, American kids played American sports and Title IX wasn't screwing everything up for every WASPy male.
(10) If you think a kid assaulting another kid on the pitch (or in any game) is just a par of the "game," then you are the problem with youth sports.
 
Surfref said:
QUOTE="ATRTDT, post: 188331, member: 3099"]You signed up for a physical sport. Have you actually looked over the liability waiver you sign each season? Things happen. Things can also happen through the course of a game that pulls emotion out of players. Injury,rehab and recovery is all part of it too. If you dont want physical contact sign your kids up for dance, tennis, bowling or ice skating. Since California seems to be the leader in comical new laws will it be the first state to mandate jail time for personal fouls, red cards and flagrant fouls in youth sports? Imagine the extra tax revenue and all that extra sleep some parents would get at nigh knowing their dear prince and princess wont be pushed around on a Sunday afternoon. Seems like this would be the only way to make some of you happy. Probably the same people complaining here are the ones who pushed for trophy's and medals for all. Crying parents are just killing sports these days.
Click to expand...

I am a referee and know the difference between, careless, reckless, dangerous and thug play. The majority, 99.99 %, of players play at the reckless level or below with a majority of those rarely fouling. Even some of the dangerous plays are not intentional, but are bad timing or technique. It is those 0.01% of thug players that is the problem and have no place on any soccer field. All I am trying to get at is, it is okay to have physical contact even some reckless contact. But, the intentional dangerous play and overly physical or violent play (thugery) has no place on a youth field , amateur field, semi-pro or pro field. If a player cannot keep their emotions under control and they have to resort to punching or horse collar tackles on an opponent or teammate, than maybe they should not be on the field.

My daughter's two serious injuries during youth soccer were caused by players that had histories of overly physical behavior and numerous ejections. Her broken wrist occurred when she was trying to block a thug player's punch to her face. The concussion occurred when a defender that could not stop my daughter decided to grab her around the neck (horse collar) and throw her to the ground. I do not know of anyone that expects that type of play on any soccer field. If you think those two examples are normal behavior, than I really feel sorry for you and can recommend a good therapist.[/QUOTE]
Just current what age were these fouls committed and what was the outcome? Any cards given?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top