Northwestern, Rock Hill and South Pointe would have been put on probation and would have been ineligible for the state playoffs.
From The Rock Hill Herald:
http://www.heraldonline.com/sports/prep/story/330880.html
"In question was the rule stating outside soccer teams are not allowed to use district facilities, in this case practice fields, during the closed season period."
The state needs to take a closer look at this rule. Many of South Carolina's top high school coaches also coach club soccer. In Columbia (CUFC) and Greenville (CESA) it may not a problem because the club's own or lease their own practice and game fields.
But in other areas, smaller clubs (Discoveries) only have access to fields that are owned by either the school district, or the town's Parks & Rec department. If the fields owned by Parks & Rec are booked by recreational soccer, or are limited to game-use only, the only alternative the coach has is to practice on school district owned facilities.
If the coach is conducting a fall season club practice at Happy Valley Middle School, and that middle school feeds into Kennedy HS, and there is one player on the team practicing who attends Kennedy High....the coach is busted.
Hopefully the SCHSL will take the same approach with the Gilbert Girl's situation. It appears to be the same thing based on what's been written on the board. Otherwise, they will put themselves in a mess with different standards, for different teams.
What would be the rationale for the rule? As I understand it, all we are talking about is a piece of "dirt." What difference does it make that it is owned by a school district? How in the world does this rule advance any important interest of the SCSHSL?
(I should add that I think some punishment is appropriate if a rule was broken, but it seems like an odd rule. I'm glad that the original decision was reversed. I prefer that SV's repeat championship not have an asterisk)
How is it that a high school league can dictate where club teams practice? I agree totally with Hurst...
I question the so-called "phone call" received by the league concerning teams using school district fields...smells like someone who is out to "get" Northwestern and to heck with the other schools mentioned. Otherwise, why on earth would anyone care where the DSC u17 boys team practices? Funny thing is...the players on that team from Northwestern don't make up the majority. The majority of the players don't play for Northwestern.
Discoveries had a formal, written agreement with the school district to use the district fields. Would it have mattered if any of these teams used an elementary school field? As I understand it, the rationale for this rule has something to with illegal recruiting...or the potential for illegal recruiting...WHATEVER.
This whole situation is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.
What happened to their coaches?
I am not aware of anything "happening" to their coaches. In the fall, they were Discoveries Coaches, coaching their respective teams, working for Discoveries Soccer Club. As of January 28, 2008 they are now coaches for their high schools.
Hurst,
One point I am unclear on is 'did these respective high schools teams practice as teams under the direction of their respective high school coaches or a separate club coach?'
2004, sorry to hijack...their respective high school coaches WERE their club coach. Dom Wren is head coach at Northwestern. He is also the coach of the DSC 90 Green. Frank Vickery is head coach South Pointe and coached the U18 boys DSC team. Rock Hill's coach's name escapes me at the moment, but he coached a U16 or U17 boys team for DSC, as well. All three coaches were told they were allowed to use district fields because of the written agreement with the school district. This agreement was established because of a shortage of available training facilities in this area.
How many players were on each club team who were also on that coach's respective high school team ?
Interesting thread, maybe the powers that be at the Rock Hill PRT will read this and finally address the issue of field usage at Manchester Meadows. Making the artificial fields available for club practice seems to be the sensible solution.
Can someone clarify or set me straight on the following issue?
High School practices can begin, as we all know, on Jan. 28. But if a club coach, who is also the high school coach, instructed more than 3 athletes from that same high school team before that date (outside the closed season), are the following SCHSL regulations violated?
{Any student participating in an illegal practice will be declared ineligible for that sport season. Any school allowing an illegal practice will be subject to League discipline to include the placing of the sport on probation.
3. Other Regulations
a. Organized practice is defined as the gathering of a coach (es) and more than three athletes in a given day for the purpose of teaching skills. It also includes the use of school facilities by more than three students.}
Taylor Babe,
Aren't there 8-9 players that went to Northwestern, as there was talk about possibly going over high school numbers allowed with the coach doing both. I'm sure no other high school from the DSC team is represented by so large numbers.
There are 7 players from DSC 90 Green that play for Northwestern. Granted they are the largest group from any one high school but they don't comprise the majority of the 18 man roster.
There are certainly other NW players that play for DSC but they are not on Dom's club team.
Another thought...
If the spirit of the rule is to prevent HS coaches from training their players on the off-season, then they might as well prohibit HS coaches from coaching club soccer. These are the points that don't make sense to me:
I don't get how the rule should extend to practicing on the middle school campus. If there are no middle school students on the team training at that facility, how does it apply? The rule, as stated below, states the "use of school facilities". This implies a school, not any facility in the district.
How would non-Northwestern players be declared ineligible? They are not a student of or member of the NW team training at NWHS.
The spirit of the rule seems to me is to hinder HS coaches from training their players on the off season. This is a farce. This would impact a significant number of club soccer players in the state. The only way to ensure this is to prohibit HS coaches from coaching club soccer. That would certainly lead to a deterioration of the HS game.
babe,
So if the NW coach did instruct and taught skills to 7 players before the Jan. 28 date, and 7 is more than 3, isn't this another violation?
Does anyone know the rules? I do not pretend to know them
From the SCHSL rule book
DEFINED SPORTS SEASONS
The following terms will be used and will apply to all sports:
IN-SEASON
Begins first day of legal practice and ends with elimination from state play-off competition. Organized
practice is left to the discretion of each school.
OUT-OF-SEASON
Strength and conditioning programs will not be affected by the limitation on practice seasons.
Conditioning programs are not to include agility drills that enhance specific skills for a given sport, nor
may equipment for any sport be used. Agility drills appropriate for all sports will be acceptable.
Practice and weight training must be open to all students. These sessions cannot be mandatory for any
student.
Any student participating in an illegal practice will be declared ineligible for that sport season. Any
school allowing an illegal practice will be subject to League discipline to include the placing of the sport
on probation.
1. Open-Season/Open Facility
a. June 1 - July 26, 2008 for Fall sports. (July 27-31, 2008 is Closed Season)
b. June 1 - July 31, 2008 for Winter and Spring sports.
c. Ten days for Fall sports to be conducted between the last 30 days of school and the first 10
days after the closing of school.
B-6
NOTE: Ten days of school against school competition are permitted June 1 - July 26,
2008. Participation at team camps and other outside organizations is included in these
10 days. No school will be permitted to attend or participate in team camps between July
27, 2008 and In-Season.
School facilities will be open to all students and coaches who may be involved with the planning and
monitoring of activities, including organized practice, during these time periods.
Participation cannot be mandatory for any student.
2. Closed Season
Any time except In-Season and the Open Season/Open Facility dates listed above. During closed
seasons, school facilities cannot be used for anything except conditioning and weight training.
3. Other Regulations
a. Organized practice is defined as the gathering of a coach (es) and more than three athletes
in a given day for the purpose of teaching skills. It also includes the use of school facilities
by more than three students.
b. Activities that take place during the school day are local matters and are not affected by
these regulations. However, any activity involving prospective athletes during the school day
must be open to all students.
c. School facilities may not be used after school hours during closed season by students of a
school except if they are members of an outside team clearly sponsored by an outside
agency. If an outside team uses school facilities during a closed season, no coach
(including volunteer coaches) from that school or its feeder school may be associated with
that outside team. Coaching outside teams during a closed season is permissible provided
school facilities, including those of feeder schools, are not used and the 75% rule is not
violated. (Refer to A-26 for details on the 75% rule.) Beginning March 25, a coach may
coach an outside team and use school facilities.
d. Outdoor facilities normally available to the public will not be restricted by these regulations on
non school days. In other words, if it is the normal practice of the school to allow the general
public to use these facilities on the weekends, there will be no violation if more than three
students are present, provided there is no coach present, and there is no attempt to facilitate
practice.
e. A coach may accompany prospective team members to a camp or clinic during a closed
season, but may not be involved with teaching skills to his or her own players.
First I'll state I do not agree with the ridiculous rules
However as written I see the following
1- the fall club season is CLOSED SEASON
2- The organized practice scenario clearly has been violated ( and may I add not just Coach Wren but I can come up with many in the Cola area)
3- Using school property was violated
so what was the winning appeal based on?
And why were Gilbert Girls prevented from post-season play but these boys beat the sentence?
another thought: did any of those discoveries players "transfer" to northwestern? if so, isn't that a violation of the rule that states that players who are coached in club by a club coach and then transfer to the high school of which that same club coach also coaches, he or she would be ineligible.
rules like many of the schsl rules work perfectly with only one sport, football. fball is the only non year round sport. all of the other sports play year round on some level. that being said, the purpose of the rule is to prevent a coach/team from gaining an unfair advantage. how an unfair advantage is gained by practicing on northwestern or feeder schools' fields is beyond me. the rule also states that no more than 8 can be on the team that were rostered last year and only 6 were. as to other players being ineligible, the rule says any player who participates in an illegal practice is ineligible and makes no reference to where he attends school. as for the gilbert girls, just because the league made a bad decision to bar the girls from post season play does not mean the same bad decision should be made again. if the purpose of the rules is to promote fairness and good sportsmanship, how is that purpose met when kids, who did not break any laws or hurt anyone or engage in otherwise boorish behavior, are kept from playing? school district said it was ok, school said it was ok, coach said it was ok, but now u cant play! give me a #@%^*** break. last fall blythewood was not allowed to defend it s football championship bec of a decision a coach made and he was not even the coach this fall. as forrest gump's mother said," stupid is as stupid does." let em play.
Probably because the Rock Hill School district gave explicit permission for Discoveries to use school field unbeknownst to the rest of us...that is what probably saved us...
And the Dutch Fork girls varsity was banned last season because they had a practice before the start date, just as the NW boys did.
So where is the equity in the rules applications?
my next lawyer is going to be from Rock Hill
babe,
What about the other possible violations as mentioned by futbol?
Loc Dog,
None of the seven players on the DSC 90 Green transferred to NW.
first it was beer drinking college girls soccer players. now we have high school boys practicing when they should not.what is up with soccer in york county.next i guess we will have people getting married just to get good players on the team.
For the record, I had nothing to do with drinking college soccer girls
Quote:
For the record, I had nothing to do with drinking college soccer girls
i would of liked to but those days are long gone
Quote:
babe,
What about the other possible violations as mentioned by futbol?
What about them? I, as a parent, have been completely blind-sided by this entire situation. How do I know the rules? How does my child know the rules? That's whole point...WE didn't know the rules...He just shows up at practice at the time and location he's told to.
I only know about the particular players on DSC 90 Green because my son plays on that team.
happy,
I currently have my hands full with my own four daughters....I don't need any step-daughters!
Thank you very much (good thought though).
wolfgang
why is this different than Gilbert and why wouldn't the SCHSL reverse one or the other?
And I'll state again... I think most anyone involved in club soccer can name coaches who practiced during the fall with a t least 3 players.
and by the way this 3 player rule makes no sense when compared to the 75% rule.
and by the way I happen to think that SCHSL rules are ridiculous so in that sense I am with you. However if it is good for the goose it has to be good for the gander.
you guys sound like a presidential candidate
Sorry, I was mistaken about the college soccer girls drinking at Winthrop. It was just the President's daughters-
So what is the diffence between Gilbert and what happened here?
Nobody parties like the Bush girls!!!!
I hate rules. Well, no....not really. Actually, I love structure. So rules that help in this regard....I like.
Rules written by lawyers that don't add a whole heckuva lot of value....I despise.
So....the State Champion DSC U17 team was practicing and getting ready for some high level post season tournament. Either CASL Shootout or Bethesda or something like that.
And because the coach of that team also coaches at a local high school and a minority of kids on the team play for him at high school.....and this coach practices at a field hired by his club and paid for with club dues, which just happens to be at a school (not his own)....
Somehow, this now becomes a violation of SC high school rules on illegal training?
Come on......how absolutely stupid is this?
W&E,
Lawyers, guns, and money. Sometimes they go by the spirit of the law, sometimes by the letter. Whichever suits them.
Big Daddy,
You need to address your concern to Jerome Singleton.
I went to high school in western PA and played high school football there. We practiced every Monday thru Thursday night of the week during the summer, at the school, using school facilities.
We lifted weights, ran, worked on non-contact position specific technique, had some fun pickup games. All of it attended and organzied by the coaches.
It was offered by Parks and Rec....and open to ANYONE who wanted to participate. Unwritten rule for football players was that it was mandatory.
Now......at the time this was legal. Not sure if it still is. But it was....becasue it was open to everyone.
Comparing situations like this......to the DSC-Northwestern one....is crazed. Dumb rules madeup by small minded people.
These rules are absolutely horrible. I am wondering how they found out. The supposed "call" seems very fishy.
I agree it is not fair to treat teams differently, but this rule is awful.
This will just add more fuel to the Northwestern fire! The New England Patriots of this year's high school season!
B-Rabbit,
Don't know him, who is he? And why would I talk to him? Assuming he's the power that be.....my guess is he's heard my argument before. And doesn't care.
Could be a bad assumption and if it is....silly me. But I'd like to think that in our cookie cutter, one size fits all approach to life....someone would have the smarts to realize that in sports where Club teams co-exist/compliment school teams....such as soccer, volleyball, basketball.....the rules need to be adjusted. Not thrown away. But tweaked to be relevant.
Don't know anything about Gilbert. But prosecution of the Discoveries-NW things seems warped. Yeah, the rules are the rules. But the sentencing should be in the spirit of the crime and the rule subsequently reviewed and revised. If what happened at Gilbert was commensurate to Northwestern...its a darned shame if those kids lost their chance to win a State championship.
I love the Walter Matthau line in the old movie about the Supreme Court (First Monday in October?).....something about laws should fit us like a good suit of clothes. Not too tight, not too loose.
Quote:
B-Rabbit,
Don't know him, who is he? And why would I talk to him? Assuming he's the power that be.....my guess is he's heard my argument before. And doesn't care.
Could be a bad assumption and if it is....silly me. But I'd like to think that in our cookie cutter, one size fits all approach to life....someone would have the smarts to realize that in sports where Club teams co-exist/compliment school teams....such as soccer, volleyball, basketball.....the rules need to be adjusted. Not thrown away. But tweaked to be relevant.
Don't know anything about Gilbert. But prosecution of the Discoveries-NW things seems warped. Yeah, the rules are the rules. But the sentencing should be in the spirit of the crime and the rule subsequently reviewed and revised. If what happened at Gilbert was commensurate to Northwestern...its a darned shame if those kids lost their chance to win a State championship.
I love the Walter Matthau line in the old movie about the Supreme Court (First Monday in October?).....something about laws should fit us like a good suit of clothes. Not too tight, not too loose.
My thoughts exactly. The rules need to be adjusted for club teams to coexist with high school teams. DSC is a top notch team and plays in high quality tournaments that may be in the off season. Why should they be punished for being good? They work hard to get where they are and want to play against the best competition, which in some cases conflicts with high school since states like NC play their club in the spring.
I believe the rule should either changed or tweaked in some way.
BD,
I don't disagree with you about the logic of some of these rules- the rules are so ethereal they beg to be pushed. I also agree that rules like this are broken all the time as noted by futbol, some go punished, some unpunished.
I think what some people are on this board are scratching their heads about is the equity of decisons by the SCHSL. We all can agree that justice is in fact not blind.
Yeah.........where is Guliani when we really need him?
Yeah O Henry,
They need to fine Dom $500,000 like the NFL did to the Patriot's Belichick.
It's all crap. Every club that uses school facilities for anything should be banned or they should all be left alone. DSC is not the only club that uses school facilities.
Picture of the South Pointe student body celebrating the death penalty 8-7 vote-
Good-looking kids! They look familiar?
The guy on the right certainly has "soccer hair".
Someone asked earlier who made the phone call to the league office. I found the man, and given his yellow attire, he must be from Irmo.
If anyone wonders why all my recent posts, I am just getting in shape for the 2008 PLC. I don't care what Jackson says, I am taking The Cup this year!
i thought you just had the day off and was lonely
happytoes,
Yeah, that too.
me too,
kids will be home soon then all the soccer starts.the rest of the day will be full
2004striker,
A coach can only work with 3 or fewer of his own athletes at a SCHOOL-sponsored practice during the closed season. He can coach a team clearly sponsored by an outside agency--a club, for example--as long as the outside team doesn't break the "75% rule." In other words, he can coach a number of his own players equal or less than 75% of the total starters for his sport. Soccer starts 11 players, so a HS coach can legally coach an outside team including up to 8 of his HS players.
The district facilities rule, though, states that a HS coach can't coach more than 3 of his school's athletes in the off-season ON DISTRICT PROPERTY in the off season, no matter if they are part of an outside team. This rule makes absolutely no practical sense to me...if the same coach is working with the same players during the same time frame, what possible advantageous difference would it make WHERE the training takes place? All this rule does is limit the available facilities for club and rec practices, which makes it harder for teams in communities with smaller training facilities to compete with teams in areas with large, well-established club practice areas. Seems this rule does more to promote disparity than equality among schools in the sport.
Coach,
Thanks for the info, and clarification.
Coach Chass,
BINGO! You nailed it.
Good job.
Just out of curiousity, why doesn't this DSC team just practice at Manchester Meadows? There is plenty of space and you would avoid this whole situation.
The DSC team did practice at Manchester last year...every practice was on the artificial turf fields. I think it boiled down to scheduling conflicts. Also, it helps to practice on grass fields because all of our games were played on grass fields.
Aren't there 8 grass fields at Manchester????
If anything, the DSC people should be yelled at for not allowing one of their own teams (which is the one they have apparently plastered all over their website).
Coach Chass
Quote:
A coach can only work with 3 or fewer of his own athletes at a SCHOOL-sponsored practice during the closed season. He can coach a team clearly sponsored by an outside agency--a club, for example--as long as the outside team doesn't break the "75% rule." In other words, he can coach a number of his own players equal or less than 75% of the total starters for his sport. Soccer starts 11 players, so a HS coach can legally coach an outside team including up to 8 of his HS players....
Is this your interpretation or official interpretation???
the book states
"3. Other Regulations
a. Organized practice is defined as the gathering of a coach (es) and more than three athletes
in a given day for the purpose of teaching skills. It also includes the use of school facilities
by more than three students."
Nowhere does it say school sponsored and there were more than 3 in DSC team
And Gilbert was exactly the same thing, club team made up of mostly Lex HS players and 4 Gilbert players practicing at GHS...as told to me. So why the difference???
I'm back BABY!!! Stroker your never GOING TO UPSTAGE ME!!!
Who is this guy Jerome that you mentioned???
so now you want the spirit of the rule to be interpreted and applied. two years ago, when you filed an appeal during club, you wanted the letter of rule to be applied. which is it? you only want what is good for your team. there is no difference between what your team has done here and what gilbert did. go and read the gilbert thread in the girls forum. so, why should your team not be held accountable? oh, because the rules are not fair. right. well, that may be the case. this particular rule doesn't seem practical or applicable. however, it is currently the rule. furthermore, i don't remember seeing you guys defending gilbert girls.
Samuel L,
Hollywood? Seriously? Is that Hollywood, SC?
Your life must be just one Bad movie.
By the way,
"3. Other Regulations
a. Organized practice is defined as the gathering of a coach (es) and more than three athletes
in a given day for the purpose of teaching skills. It also includes the use of school facilities
by more than three students"
Does this also mean that 5 HS players getting to gether for a pick up game at the field of a school in the district are violating the rule???
How does the student know this?
Also what if it is 8 incoming freshmen?
And since last time I check the SCHSL did not pay the taxes for the fields in MY SCHOOL DISTRICT. WHO ARE THEY to tell me when and where I can use MY facility?
Quote:
so now you want the spirit of the rule to be interpreted and applied. two years ago, when you filed an appeal during club, you wanted the letter of rule to be applied. which is it? you only want what is good for your team. there is no difference between what your team has done here and what gilbert did. go and read the gilbert thread in the girls forum. so, why should your team not be held accountable? oh, because the rules are not fair. right. well, that may be the case. this particular rule doesn't seem practical or applicable. however, it is currently the rule. furthermore, i don't remember seeing you guys defending gilbert girls.
The reason nobody is defending Gilbert girls is because it is a lower class girls team. I know this sounds horrible and I personally don't think it is right but this is just the way society is. With Northwestern, you have one of the best teams in 4A over the last 5 years and a legitimate contender for the 4A title every year.
Regardless, this rule is bollocks!
That is crabola. If its the same kind of situation, it does not matter the level or gender.
I agree that it is "crabola". But do you have a guess as for why the treatment was different if these indeed are the same cases?
I do not agree with it but that is my answer/opinion on why Gilbert was punished and why Northwestern wasn't.
had i known about the gilbert girls i would have defended them. someone up above said good for goose...gander. only problem is, gilbert court screwed them and didnt screw nhs. the rule is stupid, i think we all agree on that. what difference does it make where the location of the practice is? did nhs gain any advantage over practicing at nhs instead of at cherry park or manchester? dont thunk so. let em play. what kid at nhs or gilbert for that matter committed a crime to deserve not being able to compete? i player could actually be accused of a serious crime and still play a sport according to schsl rules cause there aint one. stupid stupid stupid....
You are right that the Bigtime soccer program gets away with it and the little guy is penalized cause nobody really cares. Can you imagine what NW would have done had the penalty been enforced?? They would be in court now, pleading their case of stupidity for not knowing the rule. It does not matter that everyone may think that the rule is stupid. It matters that there a rule. I don't like it that I get stopped everytime I do 70 in a 25 mph zone, but it happens everytime.
If anybody needs a chance to play soccer this spring, its the Gilbert Girls. Go Indians !!
Quote:
so now you want the spirit of the rule to be interpreted and applied. two years ago, when you filed an appeal during club, you wanted the letter of rule to be applied. which is it? you only want what is good for your team. there is no difference between what your team has done here and what gilbert did. go and read the gilbert thread in the girls forum. so, why should your team not be held accountable? oh, because the rules are not fair. right. well, that may be the case. this particular rule doesn't seem practical or applicable. however, it is currently the rule. furthermore, i don't remember seeing you guys defending gilbert girls.
I haven't a clue as to what you are referring to...my son doesn't play for Northwestern...but he would have been ruled ineligible...didn't train with his high school coach in the fall nor did he play for his high school coach in the fall...how fair is that??
As far as the Gilbert Girls...haven't a clue about that, either. But if they were punished or ruled ineligible, then it's a complete travisty. Who loses in the end? The players.
What good does it do anyone for a complete season of soccer not to happen?
Quote:
Coach Chass
Quote:
A coach can only work with 3 or fewer of his own athletes at a SCHOOL-sponsored practice during the closed season. He can coach a team clearly sponsored by an outside agency--a club, for example--as long as the outside team doesn't break the "75% rule." In other words, he can coach a number of his own players equal or less than 75% of the total starters for his sport. Soccer starts 11 players, so a HS coach can legally coach an outside team including up to 8 of his HS players....
Is this your interpretation or official interpretation???
the book states
"3. Other Regulations
a. Organized practice is defined as the gathering of a coach (es) and more than three athletes
in a given day for the purpose of teaching skills. It also includes the use of school facilities
by more than three students."
Nowhere does it say school sponsored and there were more than 3 in DSC team
Futbol,
Read a little farther down the page...after the "a" there's also a "b"-"e"...I'm referring specifically to "c."
c. School facilities may not be used after school hours during closed season by students of a
school except if they are members of an outside team clearly sponsored by an outside
agency. If an outside team uses school facilities during a closed season, no coach
(including volunteer coaches) from that school or its feeder school may be associated with
that outside team. Coaching outside teams during a closed season is permissible provided
school facilities, including those of feeder schools, are not used and the 75% rule is not
violated. (Refer to A-26 for details on the 75% rule.) Beginning March 25, a coach may
coach an outside team and use school facilities.
So, the numbers rule (which does make practical sense) was NOT violated, but the location rule (which, if it makes practical sense, I'd love to have the logic explained to me) was.
Coach Chass
Based on my reading NW violated
Rule A-1 coaching more than 3 players.
Rule A-2 more than 3 players in a school facility
Rule C-1 Practice on school grounds with coaches from the school during closed season
Rule C-2 practice on school grounds or feeder schools
They did not violate the 75% rule
So if they got a pass on C-2 what about the others. An I can tell you that many 4A schools would fail A-1 and 2
That about sums it up...I think the thing that most people find unfair about the rule is that if they had done exactly the same thing with exactly the same people anywhere BUT on school property, they would have been fine. Move a couple of goals to a vacant lot across the street, and no rules violation.
So...people who have local clubs with their own facilities are not penalized...people who have local clubs with no place to practice but to share school-owned facilities are.
I haven't read all the posts about this topic, so don't know if someone has mention this, but why does soccer seem to get no breaks. baseball teams use high school fields for out of season. basketball uses gyms for aau so why do we have all this rules for soccer. i don't like the rule that we have to wait till the end of jan. to begin training with a ball. american football is allowed spring practice. no wonder we can't win consistantly against the world powers. american soccer has to much politics mix in that hinders us from success.
Aren't you lads glad I haven't put my two cents in yet.. I don't think there is enough room on this board for it.
Quote:
I haven't read all the posts about this topic, so don't know if someone has mention this, but why does soccer seem to get no breaks. baseball teams use high school fields for out of season. basketball uses gyms for aau so why do we have all this rules for soccer. i don't like the rule that we have to wait till the end of jan. to begin training with a ball. american football is allowed spring practice. no wonder we can't win consistantly against the world powers. american soccer has to much politics mix in that hinders us from success.
Actually, soccer (along with the other spring sports) has an open season for practice June 1-July 31, so legally we do have a "spring practice" season...problem for a lot of us is that we can't take advantage of it because football is using every square inch of grass available during the same time period.
very interesting how dutch fork coach handled this type of thing
A head football coach would not have done the same in an attempt to save the school. Hat tip to Wayne for laying on the chopping block to save the Silver Foxes.
So the plot thickens
Gilbert is banned because coach held club practice on school property with 3 or 4 players from Gilber along with 13 from Lexington. Appealed appears to have been denied
Dutch Fork Coach Quinlan has to resign in order to save the program because assistant held practice with 4 DF players a week ago. Appeal not known, per The State only the fine was imposed
Nothwestern coeach Wren holds a club practice that includes 6-7 player from NHS on school property and were banned. Appeal results in lifting of the ban...no penalties?? Mike Bassett can you illuminate some? I know that Northwestern/discoveries have a lawyer in house as one of the parents. Would they be interested in taking on the SCHSL for all?
Where is the equity of the decision?
Also from the sound of things t would appear that the rules are not known by all. We know from this site that there are clinics in January and you might have "excused" the Gilbert program, but Coach Quinlan is very involved in the system yet he had to admit making a mistake in interpretation. Sounds like if you have to interpret anything, you have a meaningless document.
I dunno about you guys but it sounds to me like the HSL may have a title 9 suit on their hands, equal opportunity for both genders. If the league had both teams violate the same league rules but allows the boys to play on and not allow the girls to do the same, then that is a violation of title 9. Am I wrong on this?
From what I've heard, the HSL doesn't want to take on anyone in court because they have lost the last few times.
These antiquated rules were implemented years ago with the intention of keeping kids playing multi-sports and not specializing in a certain sport (i.e. - AAU basketball, Summer/Fall Travel Baseball, Club Soccer, Club Volleyball, etc.)
Whole thing stinks IMO!
Kudos to Coach Quinlan for falling on his sword.
Would it be ironic if the assistant coach, who actually ran the illegal practice, becomes Wayne's successor? Who will lead the Silver Foxes?
The High School League is a joke. It always has been a joke and anyone who has worked with them or attended any of their proceedings knows they are a joke. It's actually a comical experience to attend the rules meetings because they are so out of tune with what reality is that it borders on lunacy. I pray to God that someone who isn't a meemur comes in to replace a guy who asked the question why some of the soccer records included TIES from the previous season. I hope they get a law suit slapped on them. It would only be fitting.
Perennially 48th-50th in education FOR A REASON
maybe california got it right after all
The "ties" question was pretty funny at the clinic, SUAP
Here are a few reasons things are the way they are.
1. As someone told me yesterday "who cares if they are suspended, soccer is a communist sport anyway. They should all be playing football."
2. NW got away with it just like SV's goalie got a red card in the state semi but was allowed to play in the final.
3. This is the way it has been this way in SC for the last 50 years, and that is the way it will always remain.
4. Someone must really be lock into the "good old boys" club, and got NW off. If you went to high school with the board, your boys couldn's have done anything wrong.
And yes, let's pray that the girls sue them to play. In fact let's start a fund to help them pay.
Did I miss anything???
cid,
If it was a "good ole boy" connection that got Northwestern their free pass, couldn't that same advocate plead Gilbert's case for them?
Or, do they only permit one mulligan and a club member is only allowed to use the Get Out of Jail Free card for one of their own?
(trying to be sarcastic) They could look out for someone else, but why? As long as your's get protected.
hurst...maybe we should contact "the State" newspaper to let them know about the inadequacy and have them run a story
I was going to suggest the Rock Hill paper but my guess they would have sleeping dogs lie
I was being facetious in my last post to cid.
I don't have any idea how this was handled by Northwestern, the Rock Hill School District or the SCHSL. I'm not going say that anybody played a trump card or that anybody called in a favor. Let's just look at the facts:
1. Discoveries asked the school district for permission to use the field(s).
2. If the punishment was upheld, some of the best players in the STATE (not just NW, RH & SP) would not be playing this year.
The final decision was correct, nobody got the electric chair for J-walking.
As for the Gilbert girls, they may have gotten a raw deal.
Still curious as to why the DSC team isn't practicing at Manchester?? They have grass fields and lights. They could practice anytime everyday. This whole thing should have been avoided.
Hurst,
As much as I hate to say this, it does not matter if some of the 'best players' may not play this year. NW got a favor, paln and simple; Gilbert did not.
This is the kind of stuff The State loves, and would make for a good story.........
Maybe we should all ask the commish directly....
As it is in their website under directory I have assumed that this info is public..
COMMISSIONER
Jerome Singleton
SCHSL Spartanburg High School PO Box 2109
Office: 803-798-0120
jsingle@schsl.org
Commish says no play for you girls!
How interesting would it be if one of the dsc players was a relative of someone who works for the schsl?
So-- If Wayne (or his assistant) had taken this same group of kids-- added up to 5 more who played varsity last year, and an unlimited number of kids who did not play VARSITY soccer the year before, lets just say 10 more, bringing the total to 16 kids that they are working with (Remember that ONLY 8 of the 16 played VARSITY HS soccer last year- They could very well have been Junior class students who played ONLY JV soccer the year before)and held the practice under a CLUB banner as a CLUB team (but not on school district property- unless you are NW) they would NOT have violated any HSL rules.
Loc Dog why all the hate towards NW? Did they kick your puppy or something? Did you want that job or something before Dom got it? Just wondering why all your statements are short little quips intended to be defamatory towards NW. I'm sure anyone in that situation would pull every string, try every angle to get their kids and their coach eligible and, I can't blame them. Their a state championship-quality side and have been for the last half decade or so. It's the SCHSL that's poor, not NW.
Shutdown,
As usual you don't get it! It does not matter that NW is a quality side, if they violated a stated rule. And one reason people hate on NW is cause their fans are as obnoxious as you are.
Gilbert must not be a quality side. Dutch Fork is having a down year. This must be ok though since they are not championship quality sides
Its either that or its nice to have the proper contacts within the SCHSL.
From the article:
“I’ve only had two yellow cards as a soccer coach,” he said. “The fact that I self-reported, and don’t have any history (of violations) meant nothing.”
Really? IMHO Mr. Singleton is an idiot! The group at the SCHSL have always done things bassackwards, but this takes the cake.
On another note, was a resignation even necessary? Why not just coach and have the team on probation? Big deal! It seems they had their shot last year. Will he back? DFHS has always been a soccer school so where are the parental voices? Where is the A.D. in these matters? Didn't DFHS get in trouble with girls soccer several years ago? Sounds like negligence towards the sport itself to me.
Quote:
Maybe we should all ask the commish directly....
As it is in their website under directory I have assumed that this info is public..
COMMISSIONER
Jerome Singleton
SCHSL Spartanburg High School PO Box 2109
Office: 803-798-0120
jsingle@schsl.org
is he the same guy that put rock hill and northwestern in different football conferences
2004striker, you sir are a joke. The kids should not be punished for something they have no control over. I doubt they know this rule so why should they be punished for it? If anything, the school should be fined more heavily.
I agree that it is completely wrong that Gilbert was punished and Northwestern wasn't but two wrong don't make a right. To say Northwestern should be put on probation "to make it fair" is rubbish. If you agree that this rule is awful, then you should be pleased that Northwestern wasn't put on probation, shouldn't you? I do not understand all this negativity towards Northwestern.
All of your negativity should be directed towards SCHSL, not the teams.
And as for the comment about Northwestern fans being obnoxious, speak for yourself!
Thank you for your lovely comments O Henry.
And yes I did speak for myself.
Mr Henry... I think you should look at this issue from two sides.... I agree with your statement about that players and that SCHSL is the culprit... Now stand on Gilbert's side and ask what is the difference? Is there one? Then SCHSL should reverse their ruling and allow Gilbert to play in the postseason... if they make it.
The bottom line is that this is hs soccer, in a nutshell. All the talk about how great hs soccer is for the players, yada yada yada, and then something like this happens again. Are there beneficial aspects of hs soccer? Sure. But, the majority of these "benefits" can be characterized primarily as personal development, rather than player development. And that is where the schsl fits in.
At the end of the day, the schsl does not look out for the best interests of the players' development nor the game. Short-sighted governing, lack of facilities in terms of quality and quantity, lack of resources (again quality and quantity), poor officiating, red tape, politics, parents, etc etc. This won't be the last mistake, in part due to the items mentioned above, but also due to the lack of reform on the part of the coaches association. Could these issues should have been addressed long ago. Perhaps the focus will move from all-state players, nscaa all-american players, and coach of the year awards to soccer-specific reform.
As for this situation, the responsibility lies with the leader. At least somebody recognized that today.
Quote:
Mr Henry... I think you should look at this issue from two sides.... I agree with your statement about that players and that SCHSL is the culprit... Now stand on Gilbert's side and ask what is the difference? Is there one? Then SCHSL should reverse their ruling and allow Gilbert to play in the postseason... if they make it.
futbol, I agree 100% that Gilbert should be allowed postseason play if they make it. I think the penalty should be reversed for Gilbert. I am just fed up with everyone thinking Northwestern should be punished and as if they are the bad guy here.
I think that you guys are all way off base on this thing. As much as I love soccer and as hard as I work to build up a program here at Eau Claire, I realize a lot of you guys are disconnected from reality, maybe because of my experience of trying to build it but if the League got rid of its season/ practice rules most HS sports in this state would die off including soccer. Since I am an assistant football coach as well I get alot of my kids from the football team, if there were no defined seasons the football coach would tell his kids to practice football in the spring and Soccer here would die. And I know most of you guys don't care about what happens here so no big loss in your mind, but most schools have multiuse out door facilities meaning they play on the football practice field. Now you can claim Dutch Fork, as some one on here has, is a soccer school, but I guarentee you that AD cares more about football than soccer because the parents overall at that school care about football than soccer, so do you think the football coach would lose out on practice time in the spring by letting the soccer team on his practice field to do soccer stuff? I'll bet you dollars to donuts he wouldn't because that means he is behind his competition in terms of preparedness, so unless things change drastically in our society in terms of our preferences the football coach will win that argument and there goes soccer at DF, a "soccer school". Now you could argue that maybe losing other HS sports is fine because kids could play in clubs or whatever instead, but that is counterproductive because you are limiting access to the game, killing it off rather than increasing access to the game. None of my kids here can afford club sports nor would they be inclind to go seek it out if it wasn't offered to them so you would be reducing the segement of the population that develops a love for the game. the issue isn't the rule its the unfair enforcement of the rule. If the league applied its rules fairly or evenly than that's fine. If the issue is kids playing for a club with a coach then playing for a HS team with the same coach and therefore getting "extra" practice the league has 2 remedies that it can do. 1) Ban a coach from coaching both or 2) ban a kid from playing ANY hs sport of he plays in a club in ANY sport that will take care of the "extra" practice issue.
Loc Dog -- Your comment:
Quote:
Could these issues should have been addressed long ago. Perhaps the focus will move from all-state players, nscaa all-american players, and coach of the year awards to soccer-specific reform.
wreaks of you not knowing the proper channels in how the SCHSL operates.
First, I have not commented on the error that I think has been made in the penalty handed down towards Dutch Fork HS and in particular, coach Wayne Quinlan. The punishment that was inflicted was akin to "cutting your leg off to fix a hang-nail." Coach Quinlan is one of the most upstanding and admirable coaches in our profession and this ruling is certainly unjust and unwarranted!
In regards to the comment above about utilizing the SCHSSCA to enact change is commendable, but quite honestly, the rules that are written for the HSL are allegedly supposed to govern all sports -- football and basketball (primarily) and then the so-called "Olympic" sports.
It is very, very difficult to have changes to the SCHSL rules due to the fact that the majority of those that serve on the Executive Committee are "traditional sports" folks -- football, basketball, baseball -- and are not familiar (nor care quite frankly) for the nuances of soccer. That's precisely why we don't end HS games in ties (which are quite natural and a part of soccer) or the fact that ejections (red cards/two yellows) are emphasized for soccer (due to them being part of the sport), but the same penalties equal to five fouls in basketball (no ejection) or a 15-yard personal foul in football (no ejection).
Also, the National Federation (of which the SCHSL is a member) makes changes "for the good" of all sports as well and the SCHSL largely has to accept these policies.
In short, it's just very hard to exact change within the HSL ranks, just like when we proposed for the "no penalty kick" rule two years ago only to have it voted UNANIMOUSLY down by non-soccer folks, despite 85% of the SCHSSCA membership supporting this measure.
IMO, the SCHSSCA may as well support efforts that they can influence rather than spitting in the wind!
Kevin,
Very good points. The PK issue says it all. If you can't convince them that draws are part of the game (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw) when 85% of the coaches are in agreement........I don't know how you can make any headway with any soccer-specific changes.
This argument about not knowing about the rule is played out. I know enough about the law to know that ignorance of the law does not excuse you from penalty. " Excuse me officer, I didn't know the speed limit was 40". Yeah, OK.
It wasn't the kids responsibility, I think everyone sees that, it was the coach, and kids are punished by the league due to coaches errors.This BS about NW being a contender is irrelevant.
We have seen two different coaches handle circumstances in very differnt ways in a matter of days. I, for one, hold Wayne Quinlan in higher light than I did 24 hours ago.
All of the Rock Hill crowd can get on here and rationalize this away but at the end of the day NW got a pass. I don't think anyone wants any of the players in Rock Hill to suffer- the outrage I believe stems from a lack of equity.THere is absolutly no argument on this point.
kevin, how many attempts have been made to support reform with regards to how all sports save football are governed indpendent of each other? Who speaks on behalf of soccer?
So, based on what you have outlined above, these types of things will occur again and will continue to be a hinderance in terms of player development and the game itself.
as for the dutch fork coach, ditto b-rabbit's comments.
going back to the relative remark with dsc players....check one certain schsl officer's family tree.
Unless you've seen it for yourself, it's very easy to be critical of the "inaction" to be proactive in the soccer community. (Been there myself)
It's simply not that easy.
Kevin is right, that it goes even higher than the SCHSL.
This is a direct quote from the Winter Clinic last month in regards to a new rule that makes coaches responsible for players improperly equip (shin guards). Mind you, the wrestling version of this rule had already been rescinded because it was found that a player intentionally got his coach fired.
Roger Hazel: It's just a rule - whether it's good or bad, that's what it is.
When it was questioned why soccer coaches cannot communicate between pressbox and sideline (unlike football).
Hazel: I don't know, you have to ask the Federation.
..that's just a taste.
frustration, and basically preaching to the choir. This is what we are doing here.
Equity was word thrown here, and I am in full agreement that equity was not exercised in these circumstances.
There is the old joke, that"some are more equal than others" and this would be what appears to happen here.
The SCHSL has a purpose
ARTICLE II - PURPOSE
The purpose of the League, a voluntary organization, is to formulate and maintain policies that will
safeguard the educational values of interscholastic competition, to cultivate high ideals of
sportsmanship, to develop and direct a program which will promote, protect and conserve the health
and physical welfare of all participants and to promote uniformity of standards in all interscholastic
competition.
How is the uniformity of standards being applied? OneHS gets banned, one HS looses their coach and has to pay a fine (not sure of the player situation)and one HS has no problems at all, all over the same/similar situation.
There are two ways to bring change to an organization, from within or from the outside. As coach Heise's note above shows the frustration of having to pick and choose from within, then from the outside it must be.
Northwestern had to pay a $500 fine I believe.
The schsl board is typical of an inbred, lack of vision and never changing organization that is all about protecting their turf, control and power. They lack the required leadership/management skills to move the organization forward in order to keep up with the progress of their membership. And every leadership spot is filled from within.
The schsl is not about, seeking change or improvements, being visionaries or looking for top talent from the outside to help the organization rise to greatness in order to meet the demands of their membership.
They use their authority and power not to manage the organization and membership fairly and objectively but to let everyone know that they do in fact hold all the power and don’t come messing with them.
Quote:
The schsl is not about, seeking change or improvements, being visionaries or looking for top talent from the outside to help the organization rise to greatness in order to meet the demands of their membership.
are these same people running lowcountry soccer? 
So let me get this straight.............
3 teams, Gilbert, Dutch Fork, and northwestern commited the same crime, but yet, NW gets no punishment, Dutch fork loses its coach, and pays a fine, but Gilbert, a girls program, cannot vie in the playoffs if they qualify???? Soooo.........the HSL's explanation is exactly what again??? NW has "friends" so we slap them in the hand, DF gets a severe timeout, but gilbert must face time in jail for "cheating" and gaining an unfair advantage on competition??? did i get that right or can someone correct me?
The only possible difference I can see in the Northwestern case is that Discoveries was actually renting the facilities from the school district, not just using them by permission or "agreement" as in the other cases. Under the terms of a legal rental agreement, it could be that the property was considered the domain of Discoveries Soccer Club at that time rather than that of the school district, which would avoid the district facilities restriction.
Still, if this is the case, then if the 75% rule was not broken there should have been no violation at all...so why the fine?
Kevin's post is factual, accurate, and tactful. I believe his comments concerning the SCHSL were extremely gracious. The SCHSSCA has repeatedly attempted to make improvements for soccer. I was one of the many coaches that supported the aforementioned proposals only to have my AD shoot it down. The SCHSSCA can rock the boat but cannot afford to turn it over.
The reality is that the SCHSL is a small body of full time staffers with an excutive commitee and committee voting on different punishments for rule infractions. The committe membership changes over the years but,they are grounded in the traditional sports. (The self professed great achievement by the SCHSL's representative for soccer was to have the "taunting" rule implemented.)
Don't even consider taking legal action against them in a formal capacity as a coach or they will invoke a rule in their constitution which will make the school ineligible to participate in any sport.
I communicated with the General Counsel for the NFHS, John Black, last year concerning what I thought were issues of conflict of interest and inconsistant decisions and punishments administered by the SCHSL. He very succinctly informed me that the NFHS has no oversight or direction over the state organizations.
"Each state high school association adopting NFHS sports rules is the sole and exclusive source of binding rules interpretations for contests involving its member schools. Any person having questions about the interpretation of NFHS rules should contact the rules interpreter designated by his or her state high school association."
I did successfully petitioned the SCHSL under the Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA) for "priviledged" information. Precedent has been established which enforces compliance but, don't expect quick response. The SCHSL is represented by Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte.
Only extreme circumstances force the SCHSL to evolve... lest we should forget Mr. Matthews and the infamous "Soccer Rule".
What has happened with Dutch Fork and Gilbert are travesties of justice.
somebody said that nhs had a lawyer parent. they do and have a bunch of moms, veternarian or 2, a teacher or 2...and none of them were at the appeal. none pf them participated in the appeal. none of them are related to board members or know any of the board membrers. the league actually did the right thing and u r upset. the df coach did not have to resign nor should he have. i hope he comes back. does anyone know exactly what the gilbert girls did? enquiring minds would like to know.
i really would love to say something about quinlan resigning but heise will delete it, so i'll just say i'm speechless, hope that works...
B-Rabbit & futbol,
Both of you made reference to Jerome Singleton as being the person responsible for the Northwestern ruling. Remember, Mr. Singleton's job is to interpret the rules and make a decision. He looked at the letter of the law and decided that Northwestern was guilty as charged, and handed down the fine, player suspensions, and banned the teams from post-season and tournament play.
My understanding is that it was the Executive Committee who heard the appeal and voted by the narrowest of margins (8-7) to rule in favor of Northwestern. This committee is comprised of AD's, coaches, principals and referees.
For those that are stating that Northwestern caught a break because they either:
a) have good legal representation
b) are in the "good ole boys club" with the guys down in Columbia
c) are a successful program that the SCHSL wouldn't want to ban
d) have a family member down at SCHSL headquarters
Remember.........
This is the 4th appeal that Northwestern has made on a SCHSL ruling in the past five years. They were soundly defeated in their previous three appeals:
* NW football team banned from the playoffs after a brawl with Marlboro County (15-0)
* NW football team forfeited games because Nathan Arroyo was an inelligible player (14-1)
* NW arguing that all the Rock Hill schools should be in the same region under the next regional alignment (?-?)
Northwestern doesn't call the shots down in Columbia, the committee just decided to rule in their favor this time. Justice was served.
Thanks Hurst... point is still the same why was NW reversed and Gilbert not... 8-7 vote in the executive committee means there was considerable disagreement in the penalty... Would very much like to see who voted which way.
I am surprised that a public institution does not have more public information on the verdicts including rationale to overturn a decision. At least none that I can find.
my whole point is simple ... rules should be enforced equally and I still think that Gilbert got shafted. So either we have the rules or we do not. That is the essence of rules to be black and white...not gray, to compete under the same conditions.
futbol,
we all agree gilbert got shafted especially if their circumstances are just like northwestern's situation. nhs should not be dissed because the executive committee actually did the right thing. i still dont know exactly what gilbert did nor do i know how gilbert responded. does anyone know the whold story? where can it be found?
The excutive committee didn't do "the right thing". They preferentially decided to disregard a rule. If they want the rule in the books, apply it equally to all schools, or abolish it all together. Don't apply it or not apply it on a whim that leads to resentment and message boards that have ~140 posts on the same topic which means there are a lot of angry disgruntled people out there!
djt,
W&E reports on the Gilbert Girls thread that their appeal is to be heard this week. The committee has not heard their case yet. Let's see how this plays out and hope that Gilbert gets the same treatment that Northwestern got.
Quote:
i really would love to say something about quinlan resigning but heise will delete it, so i'll just say i'm speechless, hope that works...
Quinlan is a good guy and we will ALL leave it at that
Quote:
W&E reports on the Gilbert Girls thread that their appeal is to be heard this week. The committee has not heard their case yet. Let's see how this plays out and hope that Gilbert gets the same treatment that Northwestern got.
My issue is the inequity in which the league hands out punishement. Blythewood practices in full pads in the spring, no postseason-how is that different than a soccer team that practices out of season? L-E's coach has a alumni game but didn't know he had to report it the league no postseason. Northwestern, practices out of season- hey no biggie. It seems that the league just doles out punishments on a whim and there is no "official" rule/punishment disclosure. 1st thing you learn as a teacher is you need to clearly state to all your students are here are my classroom rules, here are the punishements for violating the rules, if there are any special exceptions, these are them, that way all students know what to expect and there is no way any studnet can claim they didn't know, nor more importantly can they claim bias because there is absolute transparency of rules and consequences. I would think that the leaugue would be wise to have a similar policy that would eliminate all of the questions of what's fair or if someone is getting special treatment
djt,
If one of your students misinterprets one of your rules, in good faith, and screws up.....do they have the right to appeal your punishment to the assistant principal?
Sure, but my rules are designed to tolerate occasional msihaps by having various levels of punishment, and I have documentation of progression so that if they do appeal it, the AP will always side with me. Where govern bodies generally run into trouble is if they have no progression or consistancy then you get into this mess which is a perfect example. Now I agree that allowing NW to paly is the right call, but they still are being unpunished for a rules violation, which is unfair to all of us who are abiding by the rules.
Now a better policy would be to say, if you have one violation in x years (3?,5?) then yhe coach receives a fine and a reprimmand. If you have 2 violations in the same time period then the school receives a reprimmand the coach pays a larger fine and the school is banned from postseason. 3 violations the coach is fined, censured (prohibiting from coaching for 1 year) the school is fined and banned form the post season. If any of the players were involved in all 3 incidents then they would be banned from sports for 1 year(you can't claim ignorance if you get caught for something 3 thimes). If a school has excessive violations (what ever number they decide that may be)in all sports, then all sports are banned from postseason for 1 year and the AD gets fined and reprimanded. That way the primary responsibilty falls on the coach, then the AD, then the players. there is room for a mistake to happen and nothing too serious to come of it, but it severly punishes repeat offenders who after one mishap should know better, and are just trying to circuvent the rules. Also since all schools know the policy, and there a gradual increasements of punishments then if someone appeals the punishment the excutive committee should never overturn the punsihment unless there are acts of "favoritism" being doled out by the executive committee and that would be transparent under the rules/ punishments which would end all speculation of favoritism. Now you have a fair equitable system.
DJT,
You make some good points about progression and accountability in administering the rules. Another key element to getting support for administration, though, is to examine each incident individually and make sure you know exactly what the offense is and the circumstances surrounding it before recommending punishment.
Just to say "Northwestern, practices out of season--hey no biggie" doesn't really give an accurate representation of what happened. According to the reports I've read, there is room to debate the legality of some NW players participating in what was a Discoveries practice, not a Northwestern practice. Here's how I read the situation, with the limited information available:
-NW coach works with an outside club team in the off season (legal).
-Said team contains some NW players, but fewer than the 75% rule allows (legal).
-Practice takes place on property that according to the paper was possessed by rental agreement by the outside club (legal).
-The club's landolord in this case was the school district (Illegal? Questionable?).
Everything about the club team scenario fits within the rules except for the rule against a coach using school facilities to coach an outside team, and there is room to argue whether, in the presence of a legal rental contract or other formal agreement, the facilities in question would be considered "school facilities" while being rented out as Discoveries facilities. I'm just guessing like almost everyone else; I don't know if this was the rationale for the executive committee's decision, but I do know if I were to pitch an appeal in this case, that would be the argument I would make.
I don't have a dog in the fight; I'm just speculating. I'd like to make sense of this as much as anyone, for all of our sakes. I hope the League lets all of the teams and athletes in question participate this year--there was very little to find fault with in any of the cases except just the LOCATION of the club practices, not the substance of them...which is a silly thing to ruin someone's season over.
Quote:
Quote:
W&E reports on the Gilbert Girls thread that their appeal is to be heard this week. The committee has not heard their case yet. Let's see how this plays out and hope that Gilbert gets the same treatment that Northwestern got.
My issue is the inequity in which the league hands out punishement. Blythewood practices in full pads in the spring, no postseason-how is that different than a soccer team that practices out of season? L-E's coach has a alumni game but didn't know he had to report it the league no postseason. Northwestern, practices out of season- hey no biggie. It seems that the league just doles out punishments on a whim and there is no "official" rule/punishment disclosure. 1st thing you learn as a teacher is you need to clearly state to all your students are here are my classroom rules, here are the punishements for violating the rules, if there are any special exceptions, these are them, that way all students know what to expect and there is no way any studnet can claim they didn't know, nor more importantly can they claim bias because there is absolute transparency of rules and consequences. I would think that the leaugue would be wise to have a similar policy that would eliminate all of the questions of what's fair or if someone is getting special treatment
I hope the curriculum you teach has nothing to do with English or typing!
punishement
punishements
studnet
leaugue
I agree to that everything is legal according to the high school league and hence the over-turning of the postseason ban, my issue is more with the league itself than with this particular case. If the purpose of these rules is for fairnes and equitity then how are any of these things:
-NW coach works with an outside club team in the off season (legal).
-Said team contains some NW players, but fewer than the 75% rule allows (legal).
-Practice takes place on property that according to the paper was possessed by rental agreement by the outside club (legal).
Legal in the 1st place? Last May Coach Heise had an interesting breakdown on poverty rates at schools and their success in soccer, and suprisingly schools with high poverty rates are terrible at soccer, why because they don't have the same access to play that kids at rich schools do. If I were to take 8 of my players to a public park 2-3 times during the week and every Saturday in the fall and practice/ play with the kids we would be banned from the posteseason. If I put a nominal name to it and claim its an "outside" organization its perfectly legal. Now I know CRSA has fincial assistance for disadvantaged players as well as CUFC but there is more than just a fee obstacle, poor kids have NO transportation, my assistant and I drive half our team home every night after practice, if they were to try and play for these outside organizations, how would they get there? This leads to the unequitity in soccer in particular. Now I understand that club soccer will be around kids want to play and that's their right, but I do know most clubs don't have practice in June and July, since most of the upper level teams are coached by high school coaches is it too much to ask to have a dead period of December/January as well to eliminate these sticky issues of what's "club" practice or what's "high school" practice because from where I'm sitting it looks pretty much the same to me.
No I teach science we're all terrible spellers/ typers
Why not change the rule to state that you cannot coach ANY of your players in the off season. You would still ba able to coach club, you would just have to coach the other gender. That way, none of this type of thing would ever happen.
Again, why didn't they just practice on one of Manchester's grass fields??? Would have avoided this all.
Quote:
Why not change the rule to state that you cannot coach ANY of your players in the off season. You would still ba able to coach club, you would just have to coach the other gender. That way, none of this type of thing would ever happen.
Again, why didn't they just practice on one of Manchester's grass fields??? Would have avoided this all.
I have no issue if they change the rules that way. I also think it just illustrates the ridiculousness of the whole thing that if they play down the street its OK if the play right here then its a problem. I think its obvious that the league needs to contemplate this more and come out with something more comprehensive than what they have.
I don't think banning high school coaches from coaching some of their players in club is the right answer. The fact that some of these club coaches coach high school teams makes the high school game so much better.
djt,
If you are suggesting that we attempt to level the playing field a bit by restricting when or how often a high school team can train prior to the official start date, you may find some folks in agreement.
As a coach, I'd like to have access to my players as often as possible.
As a parent, I would like my daughters to get a break. If the state mandated NO preseason conditioning or practice of any kind until the first official start date, I would welcome it. My daughters could probably use the rest in December and January.
Hurst....could not agree more about the rest... The fallacy is in the coaches having "conditioning" in the period of time for which the vast majority of their players are already "conditioned" as they are in state cup... they should have two programs conditytioniing for new and maintenance for the club players.
I didn't say not to coach club, just the other gender. That would also "spread the wealth" of the good coaches. The biggest problem with conditioning seems to be that coaches don't (or can't) differentiate between those 2 groups of people. Having some sort of fitness test would aleveate this. If you can pass the test, you go on a maintenance program. If you don't pass, then you go through the "get in shape" program
I don't have issues with preseason conditioning because soccer is such a physically demanding psort that if you just had these kids step in and play the first week of practice with no getting in shape time they would die. My issue stems more with hs coaches who are coaching their "club" team with 8 of their varsity players on it, on January 27th (this year) then are coaching their high school team with the rest of their palyers on January 28th. It just looks wrong, especially if the rules tell coaches like me, that you can't do ANY soccer specific activites with more than 3 of your players till the 28th. My opponenets though because of the "club" rule can essentially practice with half of their team since August. All I am asking for clubs to have a "dead" period in December and January so it makes it a little more balanced and fair to those of us whose kids can't do club. In addition there wouldn't be nay issue of who does what, where, and for whom during this time because all soccer specific activity would cease preventing issues like the whole Gilbert/NW fiasco from arising.
You are building a program and I think that every high school coach understands what you are going through. Nothing seems fair, but you are making positive steps. Keep up the good work coach.
Quote:
Quote:
Why not change the rule to state that you cannot coach ANY of your players in the off season. You would still ba able to coach club, you would just have to coach the other gender. That way, none of this type of thing would ever happen.
Again, why didn't they just practice on one of Manchester's grass fields??? Would have avoided this all.
I have no issue if they change the rules that way. I also think it just illustrates the ridiculousness of the whole thing that if they play down the street its OK if the play right here then its a problem. I think its obvious that the league needs to contemplate this more and come out with something more comprehensive than what they have.
You're trying to limit a coach, who makes about 6 cents an hour during HS season (assuming they do a decent job), from coaching teams of his/her choosing during the fall where he/she can actually make a decent amount of money to add to his/her income. If coaching 2 teams in the fall we're talking about adding potentially in upwards of 1500 dollars per month to a coaches income. That's with 2x a week for practice and weekend games. That's a substantial sum. Now, you're going to tell me that because I coach a HS team for a measily 3-1.5 grand from Jan-May that I can't coach a team of my choosing in the fall? Um, no. I'm sorry if Eau Claire feels threatend because some coaches at the HS level try to supplement their meager incomes with some Fall Club ball and opt not to train 8 year olds in the Amoeba formation and, most of us really can't help the fact that your players can't afford club ball as you've stated time and time again. There is, however, a substantial amount of scholarships available to players at various clubs around the midlands. CRSA, for example, gives out numerous, numerous scholarships each year.
Also, if you were to have an across the line, start date of Jan whatever wouldn't that hinder places like Eau Claire where soccer athletes are not in ready supply? Seems to me like Eau Claire could benefit greatly in the offseason conditioning season from late Nov-Jan by working on agilities/fitness first before you get the ball rolling. Those that have soccer players will be ready to go anyways and will just need to catch up on the fitness aspect, which, with soccer specific athletes, doesn't take all that long.
I know that SC soccer isn't fair to Eau Claire HS and I can only imagine the great undertaking that starting a program there might entail but, to be honest no sport is "fair" there's the have's and the have-nots. Phil Savitz is an EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT coach but,do you think he wins all those titles at some place like Pelion (no disrespect)? That's the way HS soccer is. You play with what you have and, preparation through club and all those other outlets makes it more exciting. You and your players are able to grow and come back to the Spring season with more and more skill in both the player and coach.
I wonder what other states say about coaching their own players.
And how is asking coaches to coach the opposite gender in any way preventing you from making money??? It doesn't, it would just mean that you can't coach your kids, in your tactical scheme, with your tactics for 12 months of the year. I know for a fact that in at least 1 state the number of players from a HS to 5 per team and the HS coach can't coach any of their own players. They may still coach, just not their players.
2. shouldn't the best coaches be coaching those 8 yr olds so that when they get to HS they already have good technique? the problem is, HS coach moan about how much technique they must teach at HS and then they go and coach the 16 yr olds. if you want them to be technacally sound, you should want to coach those 8 year old (OK maybe the 10 - 12 year olds) so that you will have more quality players when they get to HS.
The Fan I have to say that I disagree with your statement, sorry.
Cod0000,
Uh, no. If I'm going to coach, I'm going to coach whatever gender and whatever age group I want to coach (assuming it's available at my particular club). I'm not going to be regulated by some petty legislature that is too lazy to create a seperate rule book for individual sports because it requires 6 hours of their time or a simple email to a Kevin or Kyle Heise asking for help. I'm glad that you know for a fact about such and such state that does this and that. It doesn't make it or you right by any means. Limiting someone's profession is absolutely...well, lame and to many of us teaching may be the side job to pay the bills but, coaching is the profession. It's what we love to do and, it's what we live for. What you're suggesting would almost kill the high school sport of soccer. If you'd like me to elaborate on that, I could. You're also trying to tell me that I can't coach my kids in my tactical scheme with my tactics for 12 months out of the year. This, ofcourse, is obviously hyperbole because no one coaches 12 months a year, BUT, you're trying to tell me that because I'm a better coach than you that I can't coach my kids anymore because it might enable me to teach them more about the sport of soccer over a period of time, that as of right now is available to you as well? OK
And, no, 10-12 year olds do not necessarily require the best coaches. Technical training is something done over and over in repitition to build muscle memory and confidence in your athleticism, thus building skill. To be honest, from a coaching standpoint, a player could train himself to have very good technique by just using a ball and/or a set of cones. That's why some of the best technical players in the world come from places like Brazil where in the dirt streets they just play for hours and hours and develop their skills on their own from early child hood to the pro's. That's pretty much common sense in my realm to be honest
Whoa. Why so angry at me? I didn't attack you, why do you feel the need to attempt to belittle me. I didn't even say that this other state had it right. I just wonder what other states do. I'm not sure how the suggestion (even though I was just stating what another state does) would kill HS soccer? Other than you would obviously be upset. Secondly, you don't even know me, so to assume that I even coach, let alone you know more about soccer than me... Calm down, I was just making a point of what another state does. I agree with you that the state rules are a bit assinine. But don't attack me.
I will however argue that the best coaches should coach the young ones. I would rather Anson Dorrence coach my 8 year old now and then see him again in college. Yes, technique is repetitive, but correct technique needs someone teaching it with an understanding of how and when to use that technique. If I may ask you without you getting angry, how do you teach a HS to receive a ball away from pressure? a simple technique that too often isn't taught correctly to 8 yr olds. they alway receive at pressure. And now, because they weren't taught the correct technique before it became muscle memory, you can't break it. To compare the US to Brazil is also a bit rediculus (common sense in my realm). 2 different cultures, 2 different types of soccer players. And once again, the best coaches (yourself included) would understand the idea of creative play and would incorporate it into an 8 yr old practice. You said that good technique just needs a ball and some cones, but that seems like a very American way to teach a soccer robot, not a creative Brazilian, dance with the ball player.
If what you're saying is true then all of the academy coaches at all the clubs should have an "A" liscense and all of the professional coaches around the world should only be required to have an "E" or equivalent. I suppose we should get coach Berson out there to run the YMCA rec leagues as well. Maybe he could train them all at once with a little "do this, do that" in a couple of lime green Score jerseys? Is it important that you have quality coaching at your academy level? ABSOLUTELY! Is it important that players progress into a more tactical understanding of the game while maintaining and improving their technical ability as they progress to 11-a-side matches? In my mind, that's a no brainer.
I'm not angry at you. I just don't think you really know what you're talking about. Plus, what you're advocating can negatively affect the jobs of many good coaches who do a great job with lots of age groups so I take offence when someone tries to put even more limitations on coaches. It's a labor of love. Don't make it a labor of hate.
Quote:
To compare the US to Brazil is also a bit rediculus (common sense in my realm). 2 different cultures, 2 different types of soccer players. And once again, the best coaches (yourself included) would understand the idea of creative play and would incorporate it into an 8 yr old practice. You said that good technique just needs a ball and some cones, but that seems like a very American way to teach a soccer robot, not a creative Brazilian, dance with the ball player.
Why couldn't you compare Brazil - America? They do it better, the best. We should follow suit and not just blame our culture or "soccer player" because we lack "a creative Brazilian, dance with the ball player" like you say. We should learn from them and try to emulate them.
I hear you.. but the only way you are going to get our youth to play soocer in the streets is take away football, basketball, baseball, cub scouts and then Xbox and cell phones..Our country is not as passionate about one particular sport
Quote:
The Fan I have to say that I disagree with your statement, sorry.
That's okay...you have every right to be wrong 
LOL
ain't that the truth. thats why soo many other nations are the leaders in international talent because of the commitment the country has to the beautiful game.
Brazilians play the game for the love of the game not for a chance to be it's country's star..It just works out that way because of their passion..In America we spends tons of money hoping our child will be the superstar but we lack the passion..We have the passion to win just not the passion for the game itself..
Well said...sometimes I think it's that passion for winning that actually stifles the passion for the game itself.
Getting back on topic...
Do you think in Brazil that they have idiotic laws like we have that make everything "equal"?
you are right and you have the same rights as i do, congratulations, maybe if you were involved with the program you would understand, but you aren't or you weren't so good for you
1. I think some of the rules are stupid. My point was more "in some states you couldn't even coach any of your kids. in SC you could technically coach them all if they are on different teams." I agree that some of the rules are definately not in favor of soccer. I am not trying to push this other states rules on SC, just wondering how strict some other states are in comparison to SC.
2. I didn't say that E license coaches should be doing college. What I said was that if we want kids to learn to love the game and use technique properly, we should encourage our best coaches to get them at 10, 11, 12. and I am not talking about rec kids ( I suppose we should get coach Berson out there to run the YMCA rec leagues as well. Maybe he could train them all at once with a little "do this, do that" in a couple of lime green Score jerseys?) That is not even close to what I said. But if coach Berson taught a group of 10 - 14 yr olds, I would put them up against anyone else at 18 even if they had a D coach from 15 on. Because they would be so technically sound and have learned to "love" the game early on, that they would be tough to beat.
3. Coldhardtruth, I agree completely. Shutup, I think that we need more creative players, but I think that we would do better to emulate the Italians or Germans. The reason everyone loves the Brazilians is because they are flashy "and1" and score. I think we have more players that fit an Italian/German style. Does that mean we don't attempt to develop flashy players? Absolutely not!
4. We need to develop an American style of soccer. yes, we should emulate concepts from other cultures. But we shouldn't try to copy them.
Tug Job,
When I read your posts I was completely dumbfounded, I don't come on this post to create hostility with other coaches, I do it to grow professional relationships with my colleagues, but by reading your post I was floored by your animosity towards me and my program. I contemplated a million different things I could say that I would hope dispell many of the misunderstandings you may have about what this program is trying to do, but then I realized that that would be an exercise in futility, because if someone doesn't even recognize the abusrdity of their own assertion about rules not being designed for fairness would never comprehend any argument to the contrary no matter how blantantly obvious the examples are to support the my argument so I won't even try. However, being a teacher and a coach it is my first duty to instruct and correct a few other misconceptions you have.
1) We at Eau Claire are not "threatened" by anyone/anything no reason to be, we have no expectations, if we lose we lose that's what's expected of us, but if we come out and beat YOUR team that would speak volumes about your abilities as a coach because being the favorite you should ALWAYS win right? After all the "rules" are in your favor. So if anyone should feel threatened it is your side, because you have EVERYTHING to lose when playing us. In addition when everything is said and done these kids here will turn alot of CW in this state about soccer on its head (Note: I won't but these kids will)
2)Good Coaches are successful no matter WHERE they coach that is what defines a coach as good. The reason Irmo is a good soccer school is beacuse coach Savitz made it that way. The reason RNE is not currently a good soccer school despite having all the necessary resouces is because no one has put the effort in to make it good (I believe though that John, if he sticks around, will change that).
I hope you now are a little more enlightened, have a good day
Danny, Jack made a post about needing your email. Check the top forum.
Quote:
Tug Job,
When I read your posts I was completely dumbfounded, I don't come on this post to create hostility with other coaches, I do it to grow professional relationships with my colleagues, but by reading your post I was floored by your animosity towards me and my program. I contemplated a million different things I could say that I would hope dispell many of the misunderstandings you may have about what this program is trying to do, but then I realized that that would be an exercise in futility, because if someone doesn't even recognize the abusrdity of their own assertion about rules not being designed for fairness would never comprehend any argument to the contrary no matter how blantantly obvious the examples are to support the my argument so I won't even try. However, being a teacher and a coach it is my first duty to instruct and correct a few other misconceptions you have.
1) We at Eau Claire are not "threatened" by anyone/anything no reason to be, we have no expectations, if we lose we lose that's what's expected of us, but if we come out and beat YOUR team that would speak volumes about your abilities as a coach because being the favorite you should ALWAYS win right? After all the "rules" are in your favor. So if anyone should feel threatened it is your side, because you have EVERYTHING to lose when playing us. In addition when everything is said and done these kids here will turn alot of CW in this state about soccer on its head (Note: I won't but these kids will)
2)Good Coaches are successful no matter WHERE they coach that is what defines a coach as good. The reason Irmo is a good soccer school is beacuse coach Savitz made it that way. The reason RNE is not currently a good soccer school despite having all the necessary resouces is because no one has put the effort in to make it good (I believe though that John, if he sticks around, will change that).
I hope you now are a little more enlightened, have a good day
1) First of all I could care less about the rousing speech about beating someone and expectations of losing and this and that. I love to see programs like that succeed and, I think everyone who's been to the 1A state championships the last 2 years has been supporting Lincoln out of McClellanville. However, your points about placing even more limitations on coaches so that you can have what you perceive is a fair shot (even though I don't think it really is, see my points about off-season conditioning if you will) are questionable. I suppose you'd like to ban ODP players from playing HS soccer because your players can't afford to tryout? I suppose we should also disassemble AAU basketball and Fall-Ball baseball as well so that those who do not have the means to participate cannot? I suppose we should just drop all means of player development and relinquish ourselves back to the stone-age so that all teams will be "equal"? This would only seem fair right? In actuality, you are proposing more complications to an already problematic situation. It's HS athletics, you win with what you have. If Irmo has been dealt Aces and I have a pair of twos it's tough to pull that out. This doesn't just apply to soccer. It applies to all sports. You shouldn't be asking for more limitations, instead you should be asking for less limitations so that you can address and prepare your players as early as possible. If you are serious about coaching and doing a great job and building a program it would seem to me that advocating less time with your players would be a detraction not a benefit.
Also, if you'd like to bring your topics up you could attend the winter clinic meetings in Columbia where there is an open forum to address issues with the SCHSL regarding this. You could potentially bring up your problems there and see what all the other coaches from SC think about them. I'm not sure if you attended it or not but, there is also a great couple of sessions conducted by college coaches, usually from CofC, that could potentially be useful to you and your program. There is also one in the summer if you're interested which I believe takes place in Charleston.
2) Yes, good coaches are successful no matter where they are but success is measurable in different terms. For instance what you might consider to be a successful season for your program might be such and such and what some other soccer-johnny considers successful for his program might be something else. Irmo won all those titles with a team full of 25 "soccer" players, the best in the state. At that time it would be like taking the best players from DF, Chapin, and Irmo and making one team for the Yellow Jackets. It's the way it was. Now, demographics have changed as they always do and balances have shifted a bit. Same with Ridge View. In 01 they were a complete BEAST of a team. That roster was LOADED. Now? Some programs around the state see talent in waves. Year after year you have your Wando's, Greenvilles, Eastsides, Riversides, Chapins, Spring Valleys, NW, Bishop Englands that are just LOADED. Then you have programs who are cyclical who have good teams every 4 years or so when a group of kids who play together rise to an occasion during their junior/senior year at places like BC, DF, South Aiken, Socastee, Myrtle Beach, TL Hanna, Daniel, etc. Then there are programs who, because of where they are, have a tough time getting soccer specific athletes. That's sad, but it's SC Soccer to a "T". Trying to limit that coach-player relationship will only hinder those last two groups success because the best coaching stories rise from those schools who have magical seasons. Hopefully, Eau Claire can be one of those.
Anyways, I've rambled enough. Hope you have a good season coach. No hard feelings, have a good day 
lil' tug boat,
I really don't know much about what you are trying to say..........so I will point out only one comment that jumped out at me that you are definitively not accurate in making............a group of BC players do not rise to the occasion once every 4 years. BC always does the max with what they have each year! Without a doubt they are always the hardest working team in the state each year. They very rarely have a Hans, a Troy or an Andrew.......and most of their players do not play on high caliber club teams......but each game of each year they work their tails off (maybe they don't have a choice), and they compete very favorably with one of the toughest schedules each year in the state. I don't know if they have a signature theme song before each game, but I suggest 'Play for Blood' by Megadeth.
Tugger,
How do we kill the PK's that decide regular season games? How do we get the SCHSL to allow draws to stand?
Do we start with the winter clinic meetings in Columbia, and then get all of our AD's to promote the cause at their summer meetings in Charleston?
Good point Striker. Although I'm just going simply on results. BC 01-02 went to the state finals. Then they finish lower-state runner up in 06. Obviously, BC puts out quality product every year and they do more with what they are "given" than perhaps any other team in the state when researching their demographics. BC is probably the exception to every stereotype in the state. There are a lot of good "teams" year in and year out in SC but there are very few "programs" like BC. Maybe that's because there's only one coach Heise who puts more work into SC Soccer and his team than any other coach in the state. Point is that there are schools who are consistently loaded with 20 soccer players every year and then there are others who make the best of what they have. That's HS soccer.
Hurst,
Perhaps that change happens with the election of a new Liason when OLE ROGER steps down at the end of this year. Hopefully we get someone who has a little sense about athletics/multiple sports and is not just in-tune with one sport to make a difference. You also have to understand that the SCHSL is full of lazy people who want to do as little as possible for sports they don't care about. Unfortunately, for Jerome Singleton, soccer is a sport he doesn't care about. They care more about how many ejections soccer has than whether or not ties should stand. You have to understand Hurst, this state, and a large percentage of the people who live in it, are stupid and narrow minded. If it's not in there little "realm" they don't pay attention, don't want to pay attention, and don't see any merit in you paying attention. The easy thing for them to do would be let a Kevin Heise coordinate with a selected panel of SC coaches to design a rule-book for soccer and all they would have to do would be implement it...however they choose the lazy-easier solution of lump everything together under one book while they basically collect their salaries, do very little, and ruin the seasons of teams who misinterpret their horribly written rules.
[Then there are programs who, because of where they are, have a tough time getting soccer specific athletes. That's sad, but it's SC Soccer to a "T". Trying to limit that coach-player relationship will only hinder those last two groups]
This is the exact point I am making, the rules as they are written now completely limits the amount of time that those of us without "soccer specific" athletes have, while place almost no limits on those who do have soccer specific athletes. Now to abolish those limits for all sports would be ridculous because it would wipe-out HS soccer in this state for reasons I mentioned earlier. Since rules are designed for equality and this is ONLY HS soccer not the EPL, maybe if they were adjusted slightly it would make things a little more equal than they currently are. If club soccer had a 2 month dead period of Dec./Jan. It would make things slightly more equal and remove the probability of what happened in NW and Gilbert from happening because there would be no ambiguity about what can happen and what can't happen, what's leagal, illeagal, and quasi- we need an excutive committe vote to figure out case by case- leagal. That's all I am saying, if by not doing soccer specific activiteis for those 2 months without your kids is going to make or break your season, imagine how it is to go 8 months without your kids and now you know what were up against.
Quote:
You have to understand Hurst, this state, and a large percentage of the people who live in it, are stupid and narrow minded.
The number increases with each post you make that is actually read by some poor soul.
I think we know which day Tug skipped out on his Rhetoric lecture.
"Alienating Your Audience" ..perhaps?
"Making up your own facts: Dumb or Really Dumb?"
At first I read that as "Fun or Really Fun"
Course literature consisting of "How to win friends and influence people" by Bobby Knight.
chicken and the egg... I was wondering how other sports are affected by the rules
Quote:
Section 2 Closed Season
Any time except In-Season and the Open Season/Open Facility dates listed above. During closed
seasons, school facilities cannot be used for anything except conditioning and weight training.
So How does track and field do conditioning.... would they run? if so how would it be different than running track?
Or...in the area I live the only track is at the school...so lets say that Johnny and Sally decided to go for some sprints and they meet up with Bobby and Bill at the track by accident... is this illegal per section 3?
Does swimming in the summer leagues, which usually start in May (ooops closed season) at a pool the district rents for swimming meets illegal as it is considred school property for part of the year?
or golf at the country club??? are 4 golfers from the same school at the golf club at the same time in differnt holes illegal?
"Ethics are Overrated" by Bobby Petrino
I think I'd be offended, if only I were smart enough to figure out what he means.
How about:
"How To Avoid Work by Posting Meaningless One Liners On a Message Board" written by W&E
Danny,
Would you rather see changes that grant you access to your players at an earlier date? Or would you rather see everyone start fresh, no conditioning, no contact, no balls, nothing in late January?
"Determining Worth" by Friedrich Nietzsche
Ideally I'd like to have access at an earlier date, but if they allow it for soccer, then all sports would want it too, then you run into isses of eliminating seasons and once that happens, the spectre of year-round football arises which would eat up everyone's high school facilites for as we are told over and over agian in this state, "football is king". So I geuss the only option is to have a uniform start date for playing, conditioning isn't the issue its the technical/tactical stuff that puts teams like ours way behind.
I actually kind of like reading Tug Jobber's posts. Kind of like listening to James Carville. You may not like everything he says, but dadgum you wish he was on your side.
Or at least not so loudly on the other side.
Definetly a partisan, opinionated, interesting poster.
Why have any dead time? If kids want to play organized soccer 12 months a year who cares? Is this a bad thing?
I know its against the rules....but what is the value of the rule?
To the best of my knowledge... the rule was placed in order to prevent HS from having year round teams... This was not because of football but because of basketball (it is what I understand). Apparently a few years back a school had essentially a year round team and if you did not play for the club team you had no hope of making the varsity team in the school. Thus the 75% rule.
however the rules as written clearly have not progressed with the times and need to be updated...
For example many schools in the midlands have started lacrosse teams, yet SCHSL does not cover the sport, therefore they can do what they want.
So if the SCHSL "works" for the member schools, then the schools need to be the ones forcing the issue. Unfortunately this means ADs are the ones who have to do the work and since they are football people, well nothing else is important.
Interesting question, I have no idea how it affects all sports, but I do know most extraneous baseball/softball is in the summer with some fall ball but there is a definite "dead period" before the start of the season so you never run into these issues of unknowingly ahve a il/quasi/legal practices happening in these sports. As for track, in the fall there is cross country so their sport is always in season (no one does field out of season for obvious reasons).
Agreed Daddy,
It's not a bad thing for the sport of soccer but, in terms of HS athletics being run "across the board" it'd be tough to have this de-regulation of rules co-exist amongst other sports. There are a lot of other sports that'd have to agree on something like that. I'm sure most coaches hate the though of having any "dead-time" what so ever.
Danny,
You're right. Football is king in this state. It's king in America and until recently...soccer has been hard pressed to find it's little niche in the sport spectrum. I'm of the opinion that if we as a state, a sport, and a nation want to create a quality soccer product (if that's our top goal as a soccer-playing country) why are we trying to put limits on how much coaching our kids receive? It's like, somewhere along the lines someone has forgotten that coaches are here to teach players and then to win games, not the other-way around. Instead, some people are upset that some schools have players who can play the sport year round and some cannot through various, understandable, reasons and, they want how much time kids can be coached to be limited to give their school a fair shot at winning. That just doesn't seem to be in the best interest of ALL athletes around the state.
It's tough to explain. Maybe that helps clear my rambles up a bit. Then again, it probably doesn't help at all.
Quote:
To the best of my knowledge... the rule was placed in order to prevent HS from having year round teams... This was not because of football but because of basketball (it is what I understand). Apparently a few years back a school had essentially a year round team and if you did not play for the club team you had no hope of making the varsity team in the school. Thus the 75% rule.
however the rules as written clearly have not progressed with the times and need to be updated...
For example many schools in the midlands have started lacrosse teams, yet SCHSL does not cover the sport, therefore they can do what they want.
So if the SCHSL "works" for the member schools, then the schools need to be the ones forcing the issue. Unfortunately this means ADs are the ones who have to do the work and since they are football people, well nothing else is important.
What is wrong with year round teams?
Sounds like USSF Academy to me....
Danny,
With respect to the (no one does field out of season for obvious reasons), I know 20 something years ago there were some that did field event training year round. Indoor shot puts and pole vaulters doing run ups with the ropes. All in the gym. Needless to say, the bball coach was very concerned about his floor since the center circle closely matched the shot put circle. Just like the December/January club players going to college showcases, these were people that were working towards college scholarships, not your every day throwers and vaulters. Year round training has been around for a long time.
So a dead time for club soccer is not the answer in my opinion. Knowing the rules and abiding by the rules is the answer.
Well I think that having year round teams would wipe out HS soccer in this state. Most high schools (especially older ones)only have one utility field large enough for football/soccer. If they allowed year round sports every football coach I know would want to have practice to stay on pace with every other football coach, this means the AD would have to settle field usage issues and since most ADs are either football coaches or exfootball coaches and football supposedly brings in the moolah for the athletic department, its pretty obvious who would get to use the field and who would be left out in the cold.
The Academy in Cal. has created similar uproar and conflicts with HS soccer.
From the Los Angeles Times Jan. 25, 2008
ERIC SONDHEIMER
Parents, coaches weigh in on tough soccer choices
Club teams might not be for everyone, but many in the sport have learned to live with the situation. Chance Myers played four years of high school soccer at Thousand Oaks and was the No. 1 player selected recently in the Major League Soccer draft.
Chance Myers, the UCLA player who was recently the No. 1 overall pick in the MLS SuperDraft, played four years for the varsity at Thousand Oaks High School, and bemoans the fact that the U.S. Soccer Federation's academy development program will rob many California soccer players of the opportunity to compete for their school.
January 25, 2008
The U.S. Soccer Federation needs to understand that its first-year academy development program, designed to groom promising young talent for international competition, is dividing people in the Southland who love the sport.
Each of the six club programs based in Southern California that was chosen to participate in the eight-month academy season has barred its players from simultaneously playing high school soccer, forcing dozens of elite players to abandon their high school coaches, teammates and friends.
Chance Myers, who played four years of high school soccer at Thousand Oaks and was the No. 1 player taken last Friday in the Major League Soccer draft, observed, "I wasn't put in that situation, but I'm positive all the kids who have to make that choice aren't happy."
A story last week detailing the dilemma faced by players such as Chris Cummings of Encino Crespi produced strong reactions via e-mails. Cummings made the decision not to play for the Celts in his senior year under pressure from his club team.
"The real problem is the vast majority of kids that are getting lured into these academy programs that don't have anywhere near the talent or opportunity Cummings does," wrote Dave Verso, the father of two sons playing soccer. "They are getting fed dreams of being professionals and getting seen so they will get Division I scholarships that in reality are very scarce.
"It was originally sold as free but is actually very expensive due to extensive travel requirements. Rather than getting free training in a first-class professional environment like youth players in Europe, they instead are just missing out on what, for most, is a great experience to play with their friends and display their talent in front of people from their community."
A father of an Orange County player lamented that his son, a sophomore, won't be following in the path of his older brother because he'll have to choose to play for his club team next season.
"This will be his last year of high school soccer," he wrote. "It is sad that unlike his brother, who is now on a Division I men's soccer team, he will not get the chance to earn four varsity letters."
U.S. Soccer insists that it encourages players to play high school soccer as well, but having the academy program in the middle of the winter soccer season in Southern California has left players with few options. Club soccer is considered a higher caliber of training and offers more exposure to college scouts than high school.
Myers, who spent the last two years at UCLA, said if he had to make a similar choice, "I'd probably have to go to club."
Susan Hansen, the mother of Stanford-bound tennis standout Logan Hansen of Brentwood, said her daughter encountered many of the same issues soccer players and their parents are having to deal with.
"If you're talented and winning big at the junior levels, it's tempting and exciting to aspire to a career as a professional athlete," she wrote. "Kids who reach this level, and their parents, get seduced by the possibilities.
"When Logan was 13 to 15 years old, she received countless offers from all the top tennis academies offering full scholarships to train with them full time and enroll in online high schools. However, Logan has never regretted her decision to remain at home, attend a regular high school and play all four years of high school tennis.
"It would seem that all elite-level junior athletes and their parents, regardless of the sport, would want to examine the odds of making a living as a professional athlete before making major, life-changing decisions about their education. At that point, weigh the costs of pursuing that dream -- financial, emotional and developmental -- and determine if it really makes sense to bypass high school athletic participation."
Johnny Marmelstein, girls' soccer coach at San Juan Capistrano St. Margaret's, said, "I have always coexisted peacefully with club soccer. However, club soccer has become big business. The directors and their coaches used to coach three to four months out of the year, then had to work like the rest of us. But now, they are selfishly making these kids and their families their personal year-round bankrolls. But at what cost?"
Another parent sees a positive in top players leaving high school soccer.
"The good side of the increasing club/high school separation is that it increases the number of kids who get to participate on high school teams," he wrote.
"Sure, the coaches are bummed to lose their best players. But for every kid that turns to club, there's another kid that gets a lot more playing time."
Said Mike Shimizu, boys' soccer coach at West Torrance: "If [U.S. Soccer] truly wanted to encourage these gifted players to experience all the aspects of playing a high school sport, they would just make it a rule that the clubs had to release them for their high school seasons no matter if they were in the fall or winter.
"I lost three players from my high school program, and I do not begrudge them for their decision. While we are a different team, we continue to do well and play what I hope people consider a good and entertaining style of soccer.
"In the end, I will coach those kids who want to represent their school and cheer for those players from my community who have chosen to do the academies instead of high school soccer. Both sets of kids are working toward positive experiences."
eric.sondheimer@latimes.com Edited by 2004striker (01/29/08 11:50 AM)
The details in the item striker placed above state a very interesting question. Why not have soccer play in every state at the same time of the year? Geography does create problems but.... if the northern schools can play in the fallwhy couldn't the southern schools??? although discussed before ad nauseum.... it would be best for the southern soccer player to play club ball in the spring for two reasons
1- better timing with respect to regionals and nationals... many who have gone to regionals know how difficult it is to train during HS season
2- college coaches would be mora available in the Spring than the Fall and would be able to do more scouting...
Just my opinion.
Quote:
Well I think that having year round teams would wipe out HS soccer in this state. Most high schools (especially older ones)only have one utility field large enough for football/soccer. If they allowed year round sports every football coach I know would want to have practice to stay on pace with every other football coach, this means the AD would have to settle field usage issues and since most ADs are either football coaches or exfootball coaches and football supposedly brings in the moolah for the athletic department, its pretty obvious who would get to use the field and who would be left out in the cold.
I may be wrong.....but I think my original post asked what was wrong with year round soccer teams? Later posts minimized that to year round teams.
Forget football. We're talking soccer. I think there are wear/tear issues related to football that would preclude year round training from a common sense perspective. Having played it....I needed a month to heal. My '93 son so far.....hasn't been subjected to physical abuse like that on a regular basis yet from soccer.
Big,
You are exactly right. You can have year-round soccer 2 ways - 1)Academy soccer or 2)stay together as a club team and play regional/national tournaments during Spring (high school season.) Nothing wrong with that except that tough to get guys/gals to not want to play for their respective schools. It takes away from the high school experience, but thats the sacrifice the kids would have to make. If they want to play bigtime Div. I soccer, that sacrifice is oftentimes essential.
This is bigtime; and even though Tomek did play for CC High, he devoted most of his time to the high level club experience-
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?S...p;Q_SEASON=2007SC is not Cal., but here is the way it is handled in Cal.
"The good side of the increasing club/high school separation is that it increases the number of kids who get to participate on high school teams," he wrote.
"Sure, the coaches are bummed to lose their best players. But for every kid that turns to club, there's another kid that gets a lot more playing time."
Said Mike Shimizu, boys' soccer coach at West Torrance: "If [U.S. Soccer] truly wanted to encourage these gifted players to experience all the aspects of playing a high school sport, they would just make it a rule that the clubs had to release them for their high school seasons no matter if they were in the fall or winter.
"I lost three players from my high school program, and I do not begrudge them for their decision. While we are a different team, we continue to do well and play what I hope people consider a good and entertaining style of soccer.
"In the end, I will coach those kids who want to represent their school and cheer for those players from my community who have chosen to do the academies instead of high school soccer. Both sets of kids are working toward positive experiences."
Quote:
The reason RNE is not currently a good soccer school despite having all the necessary resouces is because no one has put the effort in to make it good (I believe though that John, if he sticks around, will change that).
Agreed that RNE has underachieved in recent years, but I believe change is on the way with A'Hern.
Quote:
How about:
"How To Avoid Work by Posting Meaningless One Liners On a Message Board" written by W&E
Geez, you're not even trying...
There is nothing wrong with playing any sport year round, my point is that if HS soccer went out of its way to try and secure a year round season, other sports would want it too, and although football is a greuling sport they could easily adapt the rules to make it year round, like have 7v7 turnaments in the spring, have no one in the spring wear full pads- just shoulder pads helmets so the linemen can work on one-on-one blocks and blocking assignments (think spring practice expanded over 3 months rather than 2 weeks).
That would remove those facilities that alot of soccer teams use at the school from being available to the soccer teams, wipping out HS soccer in this statebecause most schhols especially older ones don't have the facilities for multiple large field sports being played at once. I know new schools like Blythewood and RV would have no problem accomdating it but no school in Richland one can that means no more soccer at Dreher or Flora.
Which goes back futbol's question I saw about why HS soccer is in the spring down here not the fall like everywhere else. My understanding is after the Cosmos got America into soccer again in the mid to late 70s schools everywhere started adding it (hence USC celebrated its 30 anniversary this season). Schools down here because of a lack of soccer specific athletes couldn't compete for athletes with football and needed to play in a different season 1st attempt was winter which didn't work well so they moved it to the spring. Up north where I'm from they have whole seperate infrastructure for soccer than football, to allow both to coexist at the same time.
My direct point is.....what is wrong with the heart and soul of a high school team also playing club together? With the same coach?
Are there advantages of this? Sure!!! Are there disadvantages? You betcha!!!
But why is it against the rules?
Always an interesting debate on when to play the high school soccer season. In South Florida, high school soccer is played in the winter season, up against basketball and wrestling.
Addressing Big Daddy question, of what is wrong with a coach having the kids at club and the high school.
There are obvious conflict of interest issues that could arise, by the coach forcing players to the club, where he makes money on the side. The rule being only a percentage, and not an absoulte rule, makes it vague. Clubs can easily work around this rule if they want to, as far as the number of kids on a team goes. The field issue is just dumb.
Quote:
Always an interesting debate on when to play the high school soccer season. In South Florida, high school soccer is played in the winter season, up against basketball and wrestling.
Winter is in Florida?
Here in Illinois the boys play soccer in the fall and the girls play soccer in the spring. There isn't a huge problem in the area that I am in with fields getting overused because we have multiple facilities that have over 30 fields within 25 minutes of each other. But we are lucky enough to hold the regional ODP camp here too. In fact the park district has a soccer stadium with lights that many of the teams use during the regular season in the fall. Some high schools use their own soccer/football field, but the majority use park district fields.
The academy here in Illinois has taken one of the local players to Chicago, so he will not be participating in the soccer season next fall. The team was a runner up this year, but without this specific player, I don't see them having a chance of making it to the state finals again. It is unfortunate, but some of the decision was made because the only reason his team lost in the finals last year for high school was due to the coach being out-coached in the final. He decided not to take the chance of an injury during the high school season. Here in Illinois though, most players that play in the academy come from Chicago. The huge clubs in there produce enough quality players to fill those teams easily. But Illinois is a different beast. The Chicago metropolitan area has almost double the population base of the entire state of South Carolina. When you have a population base that large, and strong club teams, you get the dominating clubs such as Sockers, Magic and Eclipse. You look at their outcomes at Disney/nationals, and you can see that have some of the best club players in the country.....
How would South Carolina do if the soccer programs had to compete with the football programs for players and fields?
Quote:
My direct point is.....what is wrong with the heart and soul of a high school team also playing club together? With the same coach?
Are there advantages of this? Sure!!! Are there disadvantages? You betcha!!!
But why is it against the rules?
Actually, it's not against the rules, as long as you consider the "heart and soul" of the high school team to be 8 or fewer players and they don't use any school facilities.
The rationale behind restricting out-of-season practice in the first place, I think, is to keep the playing field more even among schools who may or may not have a coach who does only one sport. Many schools have coaches who do double or even triple duty; if someone is helping with football, for example, he wouldn't have a chance to work with his players in the fall no matter what the rule, whereas someone who only coaches soccer could practice with his team year-round. Restricting a high school coach to working with the high school team only during the high school season helps to avoid penalizing coaches and their teams for coaching more than one sport.
Quote:
Quote:
Always an interesting debate on when to play the high school soccer season. In South Florida, high school soccer is played in the winter season, up against basketball and wrestling.
Winter is in Florida?
Yeah, it's easy to have an outdoor sport during the "winter" season in South Florida; don't know if that would work so well in the less tropical climes.
Soccer in the fall? Football takes up every inch of grass and then some at our school--between varsity, jv and B teams they are spread out over the football field, practice field, baseball field, and softball field. I don't know too many schools in SC with separate soccer facilities and stadiums; so, where would we practice and play?
This is exactly my point! In CT inorder to do it all in the same season you need distinctly seperate facilities for both sports to peacefully coexist. I just don't see many districts passing bond referendums to build facilities to promote a "marginal" olympic sport with no real returns for the district, hence if seasons were eliminated football would wipe out soccer.
As to Big's question essentially we already have that set up with the club/hs team set up.
soccerboy,
Trivia question......What's the second largest city in Illinois?
Apparently, all the appeals were held on the same day. I'm supposed to get an e-mail from Gilbert tomorrow morning as to the result of their appeal.
Quote:
Apparently, all the appeals were held on the same day. I'm supposed to get an e-mail from Gilbert tomorrow morning as to the result of their appeal.
Fancy avatar. Can I have one? Can I? Can I?
It's just a draft.. I'll let you know when the nice stuff comes out
IN SUMMARYHigh School League went overboard in its original punishment for soccer teams.Penalty was too harshBy Staff Reports · heraldonline.com
http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/story/344480.htmlUpdated 02/06/08 - 12:54 AM
If the South Carolina High School League had been adamant in pursuing a rule violation to an absurd conclusion, Rock Hill's three high school soccer teams would have been barred from competing next season. Thankfully, that consequence was averted -- but barely.
The rule in question forbids private soccer teams not associated with the public school system from using school district facilities during the off-season. Discoveries Soccer, a league that plays year-round, had rented fields from the Rock Hill school district for its practices. Because some members of Northwestern, Rock Hill and South Pointe high schools play for Discoveries, they technically were breaking the rule.
The response of the High School League was Draconian. It ruled that all local players involved would be ineligible for the spring season, and all three high schools would be put on probation. That meant none would be allowed to compete in any tournaments, including preseason, in-season or playoffs.
We understand the rationale for the League's rule against using high school fields in the off-season. It is designed to discourage illegal team practices in the guise of club competitions.
But players and coaches from other schools across the state are involved in Discoveries Soccer. They escaped discipline simply because they were not playing on their home turf.
It's not the private soccer leagues that are illegal; it's the fact that local players were practicing on local school fields.
The three schools immediately launched their own investigation into this incident and sent a report detailing their findings to the SCHSL. The schools then notified the league that they planned to appeal.
School officials argued that this was an issue between the district and Discoveries Soccer, and it would be unfair to punish the players and the coaches involved. In the end, the appeal prevailed -- but only by a vote of 8-7.
We think the schools were wise to accept responsibility and conduct their own investigation, which may have helped sway the decision in their favor. They also have instituted new guidelines to prevent this from happening again.
But while we are pleased that the appeal was upheld, we think the initial actions by the SCHSL were way out of proportion to the infraction. The league was willing to jeopardize three high school soccer programs and bar players from competing when clearly this was not an attempt by the schools to gain an unfair advantage.
The system has to have rules and a body to enforce them. But fairness and common sense should come into play as well.
In this situation, we think the SCHSL's priorities were misplaced.
Kyle thanks for the link...
Then... can someone tell me HOW practicing with 4 players will create an unfair advantage for Dutch Fork? talk about harsh...the man had to resign to keep the program alive?
Based on the newspaper, the problem was practicing on school facilities. But noone has explained why NW got away with the same infraction that Dutch Fork did not, that is practicing with more than 3 players on school facilities during the closed period.
I would argue that coach Wren practicing with 6 NW players creates a greater advantage to NW...
Hurst...the second largest city in Illinois is Rockford....I believe the third largest in Elgin. I would live outside of Rockford.
soccerboy,
You may be right.....but someone told me the town with the second largest population in Illinois was Naperville.
Can you confirm?
I thought Aurora was the second largest city in Illinois
According to the 2000 census:
Rockford: 150,115
Aurora: 142, 990
However, due to population increases, estimated 2006 populations were:
Rockford: 155,138 (+3.3%)
Aurora: 170, 617 (+19.3%)
...making Aurora the new second-largest city in Illinois.
Just wanted to make sure everyone could get to sleep tonight.
I never stop learning on this website.
You're right. Looks like Naperville is fourth, but closing fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naperville,_Illinois
Now, does anyone want to research the attributed causes of Aurora's somewhat explosive population growth?
(If we're going to jack a thread, might as well do it right!)
Everyone wants to party with Garth!!!!
Quote:
I never stop learning on this website.
Haha touche!
Sorry all, I have been so busy that I am lucky to get on here and check the board once every other day. Rockford really isn't growing....Aurora is growing pretty fast. Naperville is just about land locked, and that is where the IHSA state championship games were played. Nice stadium at North Central College there in Naperville. Crappy traffic though! Hope you all are enjoying your warm weather...we had 14 inches of snow here the other day, and we are supposed to get 2-4 more todayand tomorrow. Hve fun with preseason, my first game is March 13th, we actually have to wait for the snow to melt!
What she said!
http://www.realcities.com/mld/thestate/sports/high_school/qa_forum.htm?forumId=1934
Q: What is going on at Dutch Fork HS? Their boys soccer program loses its coach over the same rule that the Rock Hill School District Three programs all get to pay a fine and play this season. Gilbert girls got the axe, too! What gives? This is the second time that Bill Kimrey has failed in his Athletic Director duties as the Dutch Fork girls had this happen to them recently as well. How does he keep his job?
Ticked Off on Old Tamah Road, Irmo, SC 2/05/08
A: Coach Quinlan resigned in hopes that his absence would help the team avoid probation. The "illegal practice" that constituted a violation was not a scheduled practice, but an informal workout session which is why the AD was not made aware of it until after the fact. It should also be made clear that allow both Dutch Fork and Rock Hill violated the same rule, the situations were totally different. The Rock Hill schools let club teams use their facilities, which also constitutes illegal practice but is not the same as having your players working out with your coaches. I happen to see the incidents at Dutch Fork as failings of the coaches rather than of the athletic director. When coaches take the liberty of scheduling extra preseason workouts, as did coach Sylvia back in 2006, it's their responsibility to check the dates.
Akilah Imani Nelson 2/14/08
Still neglects the Gilbert/Rock Hill Three disparity.