When two teams can advance to next round by just a draw....

[Grace T.]

Actually - that's a ref problem. Ref should have had coach removed player so game can continue. 15 minutes in a tournament game for U10 is at least 25% of match time. They received disqualification because it was against the rules and unethical. This is completely different from a team who has already won their previous 2 games and guaranteed a spot in the elimination round. Your comparing apples to oranges.

The question of whether something violates that the rules and whether something is unethical are technically 2 different things.

I agree they are apples to oranges, but this is NOT a ref problem. The ref can't order a coach to remove the player. If there's a suspicion that the player may have broken an ankle, the ref can't administer medical treatment by having the player removed. The coach can volunteer to remove the player (if he can be carried) but the ref can't order the coach to remove the player if there's a fear of serious injury (otherwise if there's any complication that's on the ref, who isn't qualified to determine how and when an injured player should be removed for fear of further aggravating the injury). The proper procedure if the player cannot move off and the coach will not move the player off is to call for an ambulance to treat and remove the player.

Since the game ended, there's not much the referee can do once the 3 whistles are blown other than note it in the match report. Since it is a violation of the rules (faking injury) disqualification is the proper remedy in response to this situation. This is an example of something which is both a violation of the rules and unethical. The "match fixing" situation was apparently not in violation of the tournament rules (there is an argument this fits in under the vague "disrespect of the game" rules, but it's hard to disqualify a team under such a vague standard, but the argument is whether it SHOULD be a violation) and there is an argument over whether it is or isn't ethical.

 

[Emma]

Depending on the philosophy of play that may not be the sole, or even the primary, objective for a team within a tournament.

This is for the national title. I can't imagine going there just to play 3 great games. When you fly out to a national tournament to compete for a national title, the objective is to win the tournament. It's very rare that philosophy of play differs when competing for a National Championship Title.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

This is for the national title. I can't imagine going there just to play 3 great games.

Yes, I think its been well established at that point that whatever this particular game was, it was in a very important tournament played under brutal conditions. People are different. I, for one, can readily imagine a situation in which a team gets the opportunity to play in a national venue, enjoys three games against really good teams from across the country, plays each one as a real match despite the elements or whatever particulars, and comes away satisfied. In the case that many are focusing on here, it sounds like one of the first three games probably wasn't so great, acquiring some kind of asterisk. If it's in a big venue, that kind of asterisk can evidently linger for some time.

It's very rare that philosophy of play differs when competing for a National Championship Title.

To me there are three basic situations. One, each team feels sufficiently motivated to try and score against the other and will play, even if conservatively, to achieve that result. Doesn't have to be full out but there is intent. Two, one team plays for the win, even if consertatively, while the other seeks to hold them off to achieve a scoreless draw. There is still active agency. Three, neither team even tries to really play because the situation in the tournament dictates that it is not necessary and they can get away with it. The game, in their view, is meaningless. I have only seen situation 3 myself a few times, mostly at Ulittle but another example recently in a pretty high level tournament at BU17. So to my knowledge situation 3 it is fortunately rare, even though the circumstances in which could occur are not necessarily uncommon. However, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a philosophy of play that embraces situation 3 is all well and good-perhaps even astute-if a trophy-particularly a national title-lies at the end.

 

[GLangevinito]

Actually - that's a ref problem. Ref should have had coach removed player so game can continue. 15 minutes in a tournament game for U10 is at least 25% of match time. They received disqualification because it was against the rules and unethical. This is completely different from a team who has already won their previous 2 games and guaranteed a spot in the elimination round. Your comparing apples to oranges.

They were 25 minute halves so it was more than half of the 2nd half, which I suppose isn't as bad as 90% of the game in the Carlsbad example. And the "injury" was not against the rules, unless the tournament had a catchall anti-cheating provision.

In both examples, teams stopped playing the match in order to preserve a result. In both examples, a team was robbed of an opportunity because the game was not played as intended and agreed. Because Carlsbad wouldn't directly benefit doesn't make it ethical, it just makes their decision stupid.

 

[outside!]

They were 25 minute halves so it was more than half of the 2nd half, which I suppose isn't as bad as 90% of the game in the Carlsbad example. And the "injury" was not against the rules, unless the tournament had a catchall anti-cheating provision.

In both examples, teams stopped playing the match in order to preserve a result. In both examples, a team was robbed of an opportunity because the game was not played as intended and agreed. Because Carlsbad wouldn't directly benefit doesn't make it ethical, it just makes their decision stupid.

None of those women are stupid. You should not call them that. When was the last time you hauled your butt up and down the field and risked a career ending injury?

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

Bonus points if you can work a third amendment violation into it

OK, I'll bite. 8th and 7th, sure. 3rd is the whole "can't be forced to quarter soldiers" thing. What are you thinking-the center ref or the opposing coach for an embarassing non-effort match shows up at your door, demands dinner, raids the liquor cabinet, passes out on the couch and starts snoring? You're like "Dude, time to waky-waky and lawyer up. The only quartering you're going to get is preceded by being drawn".

 

[GLangevinito]

None of those women are stupid. You should not call them that. When was the last time you hauled your butt up and down the field and risked a career ending injury?

Where did I call anyone stupid? Dramatic.

I called the Carlsbad DECISION to NOT PLAY THE GAME stupid. Whoever made it, and I am looking squarely at the Carlsbad coaching staff. No chance in hell all 22 players decided simultaneously to just not play a game, the first time in their lives. The coaches allowed it, and Carlsbad had nothing to gain from it. So, stupid.

And "risking a career ending injury" happens each and every time a player steps onto the pitch. This is not about that, it's about ethics.

 

[Emma]

They were 25 minute halves so it was more than half of the 2nd half, which I suppose isn't as bad as 90% of the game in the Carlsbad example. And the "injury" was not against the rules, unless the tournament had a catchall anti-cheating provision.

In both examples, teams stopped playing the match in order to preserve a result. In both examples, a team was robbed of an opportunity because the game was not played as intended and agreed. Because Carlsbad wouldn't directly benefit doesn't make it ethical, it just makes their decision stupid.

I disagree with your philosophy that faking an injury for 15 minutes in a 50 minute contested game is equivalent to letting teams choose their game strategy. In most tourneys refs are required to minimize injury time by moving players out and a true injury but a fake injury to rob your opponent of most of the playing time is cheating and unethical because it denies your opponent competition time. In the Carlsbad case, they didn't rob anyone of their playing time because all parties can choose to play the game as they planned.

It seems we won't agree because I don't think Carlsbad had an obligation to put their best game forward or any game forward as they earned that right according to the tournament rules. They made the decision based on their player's health as well as their goal to play better in the elimination match, one which I can respect and have no right to call unethical. I think playing kids hard in high heat during a game that is not necessary to win after an injury already resulted, is immoral of a coach. It's worse than working kids hard during high heat practice unnecessarily. My first priority for a coach is always to protect players first, then playing good soccer, and finally winning when it's important bc sometimes winning is more important than playing good soccer (players have to learn how to adjust and compete). Your priority for your coach is to play every game the same way. We agree to disagree.

 

[Emma]

Yes, I think its been well established at that point that whatever this particular game was, it was in a very important tournament played under brutal conditions. People are different. I, for one, can readily imagine a situation in which a team gets the opportunity to play in a national venue, enjoys three games against really good teams from across the country, plays each one as a real match despite the elements or whatever particulars, and comes away satisfied. In the case that many are focusing on here, it sounds like one of the first three games probably wasn't so great, acquiring some kind of asterisk. If it's in a big venue, that kind of asterisk can evidently linger for some time.



To me there are three basic situations. One, each team feels sufficiently motivated to try and score against the other and will play, even if conservatively, to achieve that result. Doesn't have to be full out but there is intent. Two, one team plays for the win, even if consertatively, while the other seeks to hold them off to achieve a scoreless draw. There is still active agency. Three, neither team even tries to really play because the situation in the tournament dictates that it is not necessary and they can get away with it. The game, in their view, is meaningless. I have only seen situation 3 myself a few times, mostly at Ulittle but another example recently in a pretty high level tournament at BU17. So to my knowledge situation 3 it is fortunately rare, even though the circumstances in which could occur are not necessarily uncommon. However, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a philosophy of play that embraces situation 3 is all well and good-perhaps even astute-if a trophy-particularly a national title-lies at the end.

I think you are missing the element of protecting your players in excessive heat and to give their bodies sufficient recovery period for the elimination round in front of more scouts.

I'm advocating that we don't single out a strategy of play as unethical because someone over generalized it without specific details, especially when the coach is trying to physically protect her players. I think you and G are looking at things through very narrow lenses and unwilling to listen to people who were there, explaining the heat situation, amount of game situation and the injury preceding the decision to slow down the game in order to put safety of our children first.

 

[outside!]

Where did I call anyone stupid? Dramatic.

I called the Carlsbad DECISION to NOT PLAY THE GAME stupid. Whoever made it, and I am looking squarely at the Carlsbad coaching staff. No chance in hell all 22 players decided simultaneously to just not play a game, the first time in their lives. The coaches allowed it, and Carlsbad had nothing to gain from it. So, stupid.

And "risking a career ending injury" happens each and every time a player steps onto the pitch. This is not about that, it's about ethics.

Like I said before, you were not there. The players on the field said to each other that the game did not matter after the injury happened. The coaches admittedly did not push the matter, because once again, the game did not matter. If the NY team wanted a different result, they should not have lost a previous group play game by 6 or 7 to zero. No one would have ever known about this if it were not for a bunch of asshole NY parents that submitted the video and involved the officials. What should be discussed here is the poor behavior of the NY parents.

 

[watfly]

I could post this is in number of different current threads, as there seems to be a common theme, but if someone is looking for fairness from Top Division soccer (for lack of a better term) you're going to be sorely disappointed. Fairness is rarely a factor to consider and almost always takes a backseat to winning at this level. My kid has been both a victim and beneficiary of the lack of fairness. Things to consider that aren't fair:

- If your kids team didn't win its first two games, two other teams may play to a draw so that they both advance and your team doesn't
- Other teams may stack their team with ringer(s) just to win a tournament, including playing down players that normally play up in league
-The tournament host club will rig the brackets for their teams to be easy, and yours to be hard
- Guest/ringer will show up out of the blue for a tournament and take away playing time from your kid and/or ball hog and not pass to your kid
- Your kid may make every practice and give 110% which guarantees him nothing in terms of starting, playing time and position to name a few. Another kid may make half the practices and put in half the effort of your kid, but will start, play more and at a preferred position if he is a better than your kid, or perceived to be better
-Your kid could be promised a certain amount of playing time for a game or a season and circumstances change, or the coach just changes his mind, and your kid hardly plays at all
-Your kid could have been with a club for years and a shiny new object from another club shows up and knocks you off the team or severely limits your kids playing time. This can happen anytime during the season...pre, beginning, middle, end and off-season. Don't expect your kids whole portfolio of work to be considered over a shiny new object's 90 minute showing at a practice tryout
-Don't expect equal consideration for you or your child because your a full tuition paying parent. Scholarship families tend to be treated preferentially. Even when Club's have a strict "need-based" scholarship policy, don't be surprised when a scholarship family rolls up in an $80,000 SUV.

These are just to name a few and out of all these parents struggle most with the idea that effort doesn't guarantee anything on these teams. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "My kid comes to practice every day and busts his butt, and this other kid doesn't and he starts ahead of my kid. That's not fair!" Well at the end of the day that guy's kid is just not as good as the other kid, and 9 time out of 10 the coach is going to pick the better player. Now in the long term its probably going to work out better for the kid with the effort, but for the game that weekend, the effort kid may be warming the bench.

Simply put the coach is going to play the player's he or she perceives will give the team the best opportunity to win, regardless of any other factors. Not trying to justify anything, that's just the reality of teams at this level. If you expect fairness, or for promises to be kept, your going to be frustrated and miserable.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

I think you are missing the element of protecting your players in excessive heat and to give their bodies sufficient recovery period for the elimination round in front of more scouts.

I'm advocating that we don't single out a strategy of play as unethical because someone over generalized it without specific details, especially when the coach is trying to physically protect her players. I think you and G are looking at things through very narrow lenses and unwilling to listen to people who were there, explaining the heat situation, amount of game situation and the injury preceding the decision to slow down the game in order to put safety of our children first.

My interest in the thread(s) is precisely to generalize the situation, which I have called, above, as Situation 3. This is because I originally posted Situation 3 as a pet peeve of mine, since that was the OP kick off. So there is no mistake, Situation 3, as defined by me, is not to play for a draw. It is to not meaningfully play, thereby achieving a 0-0 draw as an entropic fallout in a game both teams consider meaningless since they will advance anyway. After I posted, this particular game came up. Some have described the game as a potential Situation 3. So, here's my pet peeve (even if just a tiny slice of my experience with youth soccer), with a chance to see what people post as justifications. That's my interest. Call it narrow if you will.

I think I pretty much have everything I can glean from this. But I will probe one more time on the ethical thing about player safety. Dallas in the summer (if I have it right this was in Dallas) can be hot and humid (although try Houston). Perhaps in this game a player collapsed of heat stroke early on in the match, I don't know, could affect how both teams viewed things, although there would be other ways to handle it. In my mind I'm going yeah that's a larger ethical concern than my pet peeve. But I'm also thinking, hey, my kid's team has played 100 F plus with high humidity more than once and not performed a Situation 3 spectacle. Some hypothetical litmus tests also come to mind. Like, say this team needed the three points out of the final game would they have done the same thing or suddenly rolled out their A game? Also, if the weather did not change, would the team continue to play in a similarly lackluster fashion in the KOs? Real ethical concern or rationalization, that's what I'm driving at here. The stuff about there being more scouts in the KOs, this being a national title and all that, that just seems fatuous to me in terms of the larger issues. The scouts could be as thick as flies on buffalo hide, all grumpy and sweating with their little notebooks as far as I'm concerned and it would not change my view of it. Sorry.

By the time our kiddos crank out grand-kiddos the average heat stress during a match will almost certainly have increased substantially. Gaming associations need to find a meaningful way to to deal with that. As I see it, tournament organizers do not have the necessary incentive. So going forward, I think referee associations will need to be or feel empowered to say, nope, not right now, not safe for the players. That is important and could prevent, how to say it delicately, "ad-hoc solutions".

 

[Emma]

My interest in the thread(s) is precisely to generalize the situation, which I have called, above, as Situation 3. This is because I originally posted Situation 3 as a pet peeve of mine, since that was the OP kick off. So there is no mistake, Situation 3, as defined by me, is not to play for a draw. It is to not meaningfully play, thereby achieving a 0-0 draw as an entropic fallout in a game both teams consider meaningless since they will advance anyway. After I posted, this particular game came up. Some have described the game as a potential Situation 3. So, here's my pet peeve (even if just a tiny slice of my experience with youth soccer), with a chance to see what people post as justifications. That's my interest. Call it narrow if you will.

I think I pretty much have everything I can glean from this. But I will probe one more time on the ethical thing about player safety. Dallas in the summer (if I have it right this was in Dallas) can be hot and humid (although try Houston). Perhaps in this game a player collapsed of heat stroke early on in the match, I don't know, could affect how both teams viewed things, although there would be other ways to handle it. In my mind I'm going yeah that's a larger ethical concern than my pet peeve. But I'm also thinking, hey, my kid's team has played 100 F plus with high humidity more than once and not performed a Situation 3 spectacle. Some hypothetical litmus tests also come to mind. Like, say this team needed the three points out of the final game would they have done the same thing or suddenly rolled out their A game? Also, if the weather did not change, would the team continue to play in a similarly lackluster fashion in the KOs? Real ethical concern or rationalization, that's what I'm driving at here. The stuff about there being more scouts in the KOs, this being a national title and all that, that just seems fatuous to me in terms of the larger issues. The scouts could be as thick as flies on buffalo hide, all grumpy and sweating with their little notebooks as far as I'm concerned and it would not change my view of it. Sorry.

By the time our kiddos crank out grand-kiddos the average heat stress during a match will almost certainly have increased substantially. Gaming associations need to find a meaningful way to to deal with that. As I see it, tournament organizers do not have the necessary incentive. So going forward, I think referee associations will need to be or feel empowered to say, nope, not right now, not safe for the players. That is important and could prevent, how to say it delicately, "ad-hoc solutions".

I see what you're saying. I can understand the frustration of watching two teams not put much effort forwards. In a situation where they both want a tie to move forward, it would even be more frustrating. You care that the kids play every game to the best of the ability. Which I can truly appreciate.

I like to use soccer to teach kids how to compete and a soccer tournament is about skills and strategy. Unless two teams are explicitly colluding for a specific result, in tournament games - learning when to play hard and when to rest is very important to any tournament strategy. Learning that if you work hard during your first two games, you have the option of resting the third one (bc the rules allow it) is good. Club soccer teaches kids to deal with life and how to handle situations differently. Yes, if they needed to win, they MIGHT have played differently after the injury because the players and coaches have to learn how to balance their risks and rewards. In this particular game, the reward was approval by some people while the risk was injury. The assessment the players and coaches made were good in my eyes as applied to this particular situation.

I agree with the heat issue too. Tournaments and refs should start having a maximum level of heat and humidity index while playing games. Those Silverlakes turf fields should be banned at a certain temperature and humidity. It's probably going to take a severe injury and lawsuit before this occurs.

 

[espola]

I see what you're saying. I can understand the frustration of watching two teams not put much effort forwards. In a situation where they both want a tie to move forward, it would even be more frustrating. You care that the kids play every game to the best of the ability. Which I can truly appreciate.

I like to use soccer to teach kids how to compete and a soccer tournament is about skills and strategy. Unless two teams are explicitly colluding for a specific result, in tournament games - learning when to play hard and when to rest is very important to any tournament strategy. Learning that if you work hard during your first two games, you have the option of resting the third one (bc the rules allow it) is good. Club soccer teaches kids to deal with life and how to handle situations differently. Yes, if they needed to win, they MIGHT have played differently after the injury because the players and coaches have to learn how to balance their risks and rewards. In this particular game, the reward was approval by some people while the risk was injury. The assessment the players and coaches made were good in my eyes as applied to this particular situation.

I agree with the heat issue too. Tournaments and refs should start having a maximum level of heat and humidity index while playing games. Those Silverlakes turf fields should be banned at a certain temperature and humidity. It's probably going to take a severe injury and lawsuit before this occurs.

In times of severe heat, make the tournament field marshalls run laps around the field until the half is over.

 

[GLangevinito]

I disagree with your philosophy that faking an injury for 15 minutes in a 50 minute contested game is equivalent to letting teams choose their game strategy.

Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.

No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.

The kid who faked an injury chose to stay on the ground and rob the other team of a chance to advance. It's the same thing.

These children were taught a lesson about ethics that day. The wrong lesson.

 

[outside!]

Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.

No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.

The kid who faked an injury chose to stay on the ground and rob the other team of a chance to advance. It's the same thing.

These children were taught a lesson about ethics that day. The wrong lesson.

You sound like a parent from the NY team that lost by 6 or 7 to zero. No team that loses a group play game by that much at the National Championships deserves a chance to advance. Get over it. Why do you keep calling adults children?

 

[Emma]

Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.

No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.

The kid who faked an injury chose to stay on the ground and rob the other team of a chance to advance. It's the same thing.

These children were taught a lesson about ethics that day. The wrong lesson.

The team that didn't advance wasn't robbed of anything. They lost big time and deserved not to go. If they advance, it was by sheer luck and mercy of another team. They HAD a chance to decide their fate and they decided it by being badly beaten. Do you not see a difference between that and a player robbing a team of 30% of their game time to decide their own fate?

How much effort do you think Carlsbad should have put into that game? Carlsbad would need to beat that team by 7 or 8 goals to help the other team advance. No one got robbed of anything but a few parents did lose their sensibilities that it's only youth soccer and they don't get to control others.

 

[dad4]

In times of severe heat, make the tournament field marshalls run laps around the field until the half is over.

Force field marshalls to run laps for 45 min? Never mind the heat. I'm not sure I could keep a run that long if it were 68 degrees and partly cloudy.

Would be simpler if the tournament rules specified the wet bulb temperature above which they stop games.

 

[Kicker4Life]

Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.

No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.

The kid who faked an injury chose to stay on the ground and rob the other team of a chance to advance. It's the same thing.

These children were taught a lesson about ethics that day. The wrong lesson.

By “none of us” do you mean “you”? I’m sure you would have preferred a forfeit then your team (that couldn’t make it they on their own) would have been gifted a spot they didn’t earn.

Your argument continues to present itself as sour grapes.

 

[Soccerfan2]

Letting teams choose their game strategy. Not playing the game is a "game strategy"? They chose not to play. If their strategy was to park the bus, clear the ball, and not go aggressively into challenges none of us would be here talking about this 5 years later. If they truly were so concerned about the heat, and the risk of injury, they should have just forfeited. And none of us would be here talking about it 5 years later.

No, they chose to stand around and not play, thus robbing another team of a chance to advance.

The kid who faked an injury chose to stay on the ground and rob the other team of a chance to advance. It's the same thing.

These children were taught a lesson about ethics that day. The wrong lesson.

I agree. What is ethical and what is legal are both the same and very simple. You must compete always and you cannot collude to remove the natural uncertainty from the game. Both teams deciding not to play is by itself obvious collusion.

It is also petty to report it as a parent of another team. The refs should do so and then it’s up to the event operator to handle.