Week 8 Scores - 04 Girls - EAL, SDL, PTCL, DIAL - Post Them Here

jen_nah wrote:If I remember correctly a younger team playing up in age has to play age pure. There was a big stink about this last spring with '03 SRSA using '02 players from SRSA at times.I remember Kat getting a lot of heat due to her breaking the rules esp when playing in the top bracket.

Not sure how this plays out with SDL having no gold/silver brackets anymore due to lack of teams per age group.

I will say any team using older players will never be a true representation of either team. If '04 Solar was out their with their players only and beat us then I would bow down to them. At this time I won't because when you don't follow the rules it's not fair game. That is like New York Giants going against UT Longhorns this season. Not a fair match. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

So my stance is if your an '04 (or any age for that matter) playing up you shouldn't be using older players. It doesn't show your teams true talent or their true skills. This goes for any team no one is dismissed from this.

Okay, yes you are mistaken there is no such rule. But I like the invention of such a rule when it happens to you. You guys beat teams that are better than his 03 team before so not really sure what the problem was. Maybe you just let the fact that there were 03's there get inside you head. That is a game I expect you guys to win so next time come prepared. That's the weight of being at the top. Every game teams are pumped to take their shot at you bringing everything they have including guest players.

go99 wrote:actually you are mistaken it was more that just the keeper although she was the biggest factor. Now really I could care less about the FBR or rankings but you can't just take games out when things don't go their way. Nothing to see there. It was an 03 league and Kenny was certianly withing his rights (you guys are acting like he brought some SRSA girls). Rosey pants should have won that one even if king kenny brought his whole 03 team but he didn't. Don't really know why, off game, solar is a little better than I thought or a combo of the two? But either way, the game stands and was withing the rules. Ladies and gentelmen there's a new sheriff in town and his name is King Kenny . Will anybody step up to bring him down or will he finish at the top again.

Actually it's not within the rules. SDL has stated before a younger team playing up MUST play age pure. Webb got in trouble for this last spring with '03 SRSA when they where playing '02s.

From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

Dalglish played SDL last season and has always had the same 03 keeper and it was not an issue. Maybe it was a new rule made this season? I looked thru the SDL rules and couldn't find anything regarding that but if that is the case you should contact the league as King Kenny clearly violated the "rules". I am so disappointed right now. I can't believe that the King would just blatantly disregard the rules like that . He must have know he would get caught. Someone has to come on and explain themselves and apologize. Cheating is unacceptable and not something we want our kids to be taught. Turn your eyes away kids and shame on you kenny and solar parents . Gonna have to turn that "S" in solar red to stand for "shame". I'm just hearbroken right now

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

Yes what are those restrictions? because that doesn't say and so far you can suggest is or infer it but it doesn't state it.

I feel so dirty right now, knowing that a year ago my kid was part of the dirty dealings of solar. Why hasn't someone from the league done anything about this guy? This is certianly not the first time he has pulled this. CLEARLY a violation of the rules so the game actually should go in the FBR as a win for DTN and a loss for kenn. With the standard 3 points given. Basically the same as a forfeit

go99 wrote:Dalglish played SDL last season and has always had the same 03 keeper and it was not an issue. Maybe it was a new rule made this season? I looked thru the SDL rules and couldn't find anything regarding that but if that is the case you should contact the league as King Kenny clearly violated the "rules". I am so disappointed right now. I can't believe that the King would just blatantly disregard the rules like that . He must have know he would get caught. Someone has to come on and explain themselves and apologize. Cheating is unacceptable and not something we want our kids to be taught. Turn your eyes away kids and shame on you kenny and solar parents . Gonna have to turn that "S" in solar red to stand for "shame". I'm just hearbroken right now

I have contact for clarification but I won't be turning any coach in. That isn't my responsibility as a parent. That is left up to the coach or manager to make that decision.

It's not a new rule as this was brought up last Spring and you can go hunt it down in the '02s. So if Dalglish was doing so last season then they may have gotten away with it.

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thank you!

From SDL

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

could you post #3 please? Daglish has never had an 04 keeper since they were playing up. So not sure how they got away with it since she is listed on the roster. Coach LW will certianly get a very stern wag of the finger for such behavior. Well I certianly hope it get's delt with. I mean what's next? Slipping a 10 or 11 yr old or 2 in for crucial game. Where does it all stop Kenny?

jen_nah wrote:

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thanks you!

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

We are not U10 division nor is solar a u9 trying to play up to u10. Surely there is something more. By no means is my english great but that comma seems to suggest that the subject is still u10. Now had that been a period you could infer all age groups but even the use of "should" is muddying the waters a bit. I am not sure we have the king on this one

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thanks you!

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

We are not U10 division nor is solar a u9 trying to play up to u10. Surely there is something more

It's stating that in the U10 age bracket U9 teams may NOT play up. All other age brackets may play up but need to be age pure when doing so.

So in the fall '04 teams will not be allowed to play up with the '03s. That will be the true determination of the top teams because they have to play their age. I will say not sure if this is true across other leagues. I know EAL does allow younger team to play up in all academy age brackets.

jen_nah wrote:

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thanks you!

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

We are not U10 division nor is solar a u9 trying to play up to u10. Surely there is something more

It's stating that in the U10 age bracket U9 teams may NOT play up. All other age brackets may play up but need to be age pure when doing so.

So in the fall '04 teams will not be allowed to play up with the '03s. That will be the true determination of the top teams because they have to play their age. I will say not sure if this is true across other leagues. I know EAL does allow younger team to play up in all academy age brackets.

So if we put a period in there and the sentence becomes "Teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development Then we can have it at all age groups but even then the "should" part kind of makes it a suggestion.

jen_nah wrote:

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thanks you!

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

We are not U10 division nor is solar a u9 trying to play up to u10. Surely there is something more

It's stating that in the U10 age bracket U9 teams may NOT play up. All other age brackets may play up but need to be age pure when doing so.

So in the fall '04 teams will not be allowed to play up with the '03s. That will be the true determination of the top teams because they have to play their age. I will say not sure if this is true across other leagues. I know EAL does allow younger team to play up in all academy age brackets.

The only reason you are crying foul, is because AR does not have an 03 team and you guys didnt have 03 to play for you this season. Stop whining. SDL 03s are not that strong this year. Take a loss, enjoy a few wins and move on

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thanks you!

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

We are not U10 division nor is solar a u9 trying to play up to u10. Surely there is something more

It's stating that in the U10 age bracket U9 teams may NOT play up. All other age brackets may play up but need to be age pure when doing so.

So in the fall '04 teams will not be allowed to play up with the '03s. That will be the true determination of the top teams because they have to play their age. I will say not sure if this is true across other leagues. I know EAL does allow younger team to play up in all academy age brackets.

So if we put a period in there and the sentence becomes "Teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development Then we can have it at all age groups but even then the "should" part kind of makes it a suggestion.

Truth be told, if they are using even ONE 03 player it is not an 04 team because that exact team would not be allowed to play in 04 games. This is simply a 03 team with 04 players. There are MANY such teams with younger players playing up.

At the end of the day, if you are using older players, quit fudging the name of the team to make people believe you are winning

[quote="Shelby427"]

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thanks you!

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

We are not U10 division nor is solar a u9 trying to play up to u10. Surely there is something more

It's stating that in the U10 age bracket U9 teams may NOT play up. All other age brackets may play up but need to be age pure when doing so.

So in the fall '04 teams will not be allowed to play up with the '03s. That will be the true determination of the top teams because they have to play their age. I will say not sure if this is true across other leagues. I know EAL does allow younger team to play up in all academy age brackets.

So if we put a period in there and the sentence becomes "Teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development Then we can have it at all age groups but even then the "should" part kind of makes it a suggestion.

Truth be told, if they are using even ONE 03 player it is not an 04 team because that exact team would not be allowed to play in 04 games. This is simply a 03 team with 04 players. There are MANY such teams with younger players playing up.

At the end of the day, if you are using older players, quit fudging the name of the team to make people believe you are winning
[/quote

Hmm, I dont remember this conversation after the Dalglish/Juve final a week or two ago....funny

I believe the general response then was "well you guys were playing up so deal with it"

Black Sheep wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

go99 wrote:

jen_nah wrote:

shmsl wrote:

jen_nah wrote:From SDL website.

A club may share players across age-appropriate teams within the restrictions placed on teams playing up in age.

Now what are those restrictions?

It is on there. Look at rule #3

Thanks you!

Except for the U10 division, where in consultation with our advisory board U9 teams are not permitted to play up, teams may request to play up one division and should be age pure and able to play up at a Level 2 level of development.

We are not U10 division nor is solar a u9 trying to play up to u10. Surely there is something more

It's stating that in the U10 age bracket U9 teams may NOT play up. All other age brackets may play up but need to be age pure when doing so.

So in the fall '04 teams will not be allowed to play up with the '03s. That will be the true determination of the top teams because they have to play their age. I will say not sure if this is true across other leagues. I know EAL does allow younger team to play up in all academy age brackets.

The only reason you are crying foul, is because AR does not have an 03 team and you guys didnt have 03 to play for you this season. Stop whining. SDL 03s are not that strong this year. Take a loss, enjoy a few wins and move on

No one was COMAPLING or WHINING about the loss or them using older players.

The only issue was trying to PRETEND Kenny's 04 team beat Rosales 04 team when Kenny used what would be classified a 03 team to do it.

At the end of the day if you think this is an indicator of how strong Kenny's 04s are, when he used 6 03s then you are simply an idiot.... er um... mentally deficient.

go99 wrote:I believe the general response then was "well you guys were playing up so deal with it"

I don't think I got on here congratulating Juve for beating Dalglish nor had I used that game to adjust my ranking of the two teams.

Once I hear any team is using 03 players I pretty much toss the results out.

go99 wrote: Moving girls around to different position? Been there, done that, but it's youth soccer get used to it. Learned a new skill? What did he teach them the Mambo? They should be using all their skills in every game. You can't go into a game with a pre planned use of a skill.

Not sure I follow and/or agree with your contra point here. Of course, it could be because I'm not very smart, but...I disagree with your insistence against a pre-planned use of a skill. If the coach has introduced a new concept or technique during practice that week, of course he's going to want to see it used in the next game, and he will instruct his players accordingly. If you agree that the use of skill fits into a game - and I think you would, otherwise you'd be advocating a game devoid of skill, i.e. kick ball - then it makes the argument FOR a pre-planned use of skill perfectly acceptable, logical, and rational. I don't think you'd have a problem with a team going into a game with a strategy for play. This is just an extension of that. Knowing that a newly-learned anything takes time to develop, there may be negative outcomes initially with use. I may have completely mis-read the post, but I think that's all jen-nah was trying to say. Might it be used an excuse? Perhaps. Does that make it any less of a fact? Absolutely not. Given those truisms, I don't see any issue with what jen-nah stated. Credit to Kennington's team on the win. Credit to Manchester for trying something new in the hopes of improving their overall game.

I will say that if I see a team execute the Mambo during a game, I don't care about the outcome. I'm giving them bonus FBR points for that on the spot!

I guess my point is every week a new skill should be taught and hopefully worked into the game but do you really say teach a stepover and then insist that the kid goes out into the game and do stepovers? Then what you get is instead of kids learning to do things naturally in the flow of the game, you get forced mechanical movement. So what was this new skill anyway? Passing bang!! oh I have the jokes here. I will be here all week. Make sure you tip your waitress. Just kidding BTW I like rosey pants and his team and I think next time they beat kenn even if he brings all of his 03's

go99 wrote:I guess my point is every week a new skill should be taught and hopefully worked into the game but do you really say teach a stepover and then insist that the kid goes out into the game and do stepovers? Then what you get is instead of kids learning to do things naturally in the flow of the game, you get forced mechanical movement. So what was this new skill anyway? Passing bang!! oh I have the jokes here. I will be here all week. Make sure you tip your waitress. Just kidding BTW I like rosey pants and his team and I think next time they beat kenn even if he brings all of his 03's

Again I respectfully disagree. Follow this scenario: center mid has been taught and has a natural inclination to play the simple ball to the closest outside mid, either to feet or to space. I think we both agree that this could be considered a correct play. In pratice this week, the coach has taught a Cruyff turn and to switch the field with a long ball wide into space. I think we both agree that this could be considered a correct play too. When this situation arises in the game, the coach should be insistent to see the new technique applied. I wouldn't describe the attempt to perform this new skill robotic at all. Now if the play ends in a negative result because the newly learned skill can't be executed in a flawless manner yet, what should the reaction of the coach be? I opine that it should be one of encouragement and support for the attempt. Certainly you don't think any other response is acceptable. And afterwards the coach says, "Great job on trying something new. It didn't work out because we haven't practiced it enough yet, but we're going to keep working hard so that the result is better next time." Would you say that the coach has made an excuse for the negative outcome? If I'm the coach, a parent, or even just a casual observer, I don't read it that way. Of course, I'm not a coach nor do I even have a DD on any of these teams mentioned here. I'm just a humble country lawyer who enjoys a good debate on soccer forums.

"Uh-uh, I don't tip. I don't tip just because society says I have to." More FBR bonus points to any 04 DD who can name that movie. Unfortunately that comes with alot of negative parental points...

Conjigulations wrote:

go99 wrote:I guess my point is every week a new skill should be taught and hopefully worked into the game but do you really say teach a stepover and then insist that the kid goes out into the game and do stepovers? Then what you get is instead of kids learning to do things naturally in the flow of the game, you get forced mechanical movement. So what was this new skill anyway? Passing bang!! oh I have the jokes here. I will be here all week. Make sure you tip your waitress. Just kidding BTW I like rosey pants and his team and I think next time they beat kenn even if he brings all of his 03's

Again I respectfully disagree. Follow this scenario: center mid has been taught and has a natural inclination to play the simple ball to the closest outside mid, either to feet or to space. I think we both agree that this could be considered a correct play. In pratice this week, the coach has taught a Cruyff turn and to switch the field with a long ball wide into space. I think we both agree that this could be considered a correct play too. When this situation arises in the game, the coach should be insistent to see the new technique applied. I wouldn't describe the attempt to perform this new skill robotic at all. Now if the play ends in a negative result because the newly learned skill can't be executed in a flawless manner yet, what should the reaction of the coach be? I opine that it should be one of encouragement and support for the attempt. Certainly you don't think any other response is acceptable. And afterwards the coach says, "Great job on trying something new. It didn't work out because we haven't practiced it enough yet, but we're going to keep working hard so that the result is better next time." Would you say that the coach has made an excuse for the negative outcome? If I'm the coach, a parent, or even just a casual observer, I don't read it that way. Of course, I'm not a coach nor do I even have a DD on any of these teams mentioned here. I'm just a humble country lawyer who enjoys a good debate on soccer forums.

"Uh-uh, I don't tip. I don't tip just because society says I have to." More FBR bonus points to any 04 DD who can name that movie. Unfortunately that comes with alot of negative parental points...

Reservoir Dogs

Yes doing a Cruyff turn in the middle of nowhere is mechanical and useless. The point of that play is the switch. What if there is no immediate pressure? Do they just blindly do the turn? What if the defender is on the wrong side? Do they just do the turn anyway and bring the ball to the defender? Kids should learn a multitude of skills and have a good idea of the whens and wheres that they are effective. Then go into the game and use whatever they have at there disposal. You can't force it because they have to think. They have to make their own mistakes. So that part I agree with. A kid should be free to try new things without being yelled at, without worrying about results at 8, without FBR's.

Dallas Juventus 04G Gold Boyles 3
Solar Chelsea 04G Porter 0

Solar Gold Kovarik 4

FCD Dowell Red 1