Rumblings in 06 Land

KeeperCommander wrote:

Nothing_but_net wrote:

TxFutbal wrote: The rule states:
C. Age Requirements:
1.It  is  desired  that  all  teams  be  age  pure.  That  is, all  players  on  a  team  should  be  born  on or after January 1 of the appropriate calendar year.
2.Younger players are allowed to play in an older age division with the consent of their coach and parents. However, any player who has not attained the proper age to play Under 11 select soccer may not play up on a competitive (select) team.

Sure you can play up, but clearly you can't play down, as in this case.

That was going to be my question. TxF what are you talking about?

My point of this post was it is not against the JDL rules not to be age pure.  I cannot find any rule that states an older player cannot play "down" only that any player that is not at least U10 cannot play up.  I will also add that JDL is not really a competitive league so it doesn't really matter.  It's an organization focused on developing players and really just an organized set of friendlies sponsored by the ECNL clubs that pays LH to manage the logistics. The "It is desired...should be born language" is a recommendation not a rule.

TxFutbal wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

Nothing_but_net wrote:

TxFutbal wrote: The rule states:
C. Age Requirements:
1.It  is  desired  that  all  teams  be  age  pure.  That  is, all  players  on  a  team  should  be  born  on or after January 1 of the appropriate calendar year.
2.Younger players are allowed to play in an older age division with the consent of their coach and parents. However, any player who has not attained the proper age to play Under 11 select soccer may not play up on a competitive (select) team.

Sure you can play up, but clearly you can't play down, as in this case.

That was going to be my question. TxF what are you talking about?

My point of this post was it is not against the JDL rules not to be age pure.  I cannot find any rule that states an older player cannot play "down" only that any player that is not at least U10 cannot play up.  I will also add that JDL is not really a competitive league so it doesn't really matter.  It's an organization focused on developing players and really just an organized set of friendlies sponsored by the ECNL clubs that pays LH to manage the logistics.  The "It is desired...should be born language" is a recommendation not a rule.

You can not play down in any league. Even the once and now not so almighty JDL.

That's low. Lie and then make your kid lie. SMH!

TxFutbal wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

Nothing_but_net wrote:

TxFutbal wrote: The rule states:
C. Age Requirements:
1.It  is  desired  that  all  teams  be  age  pure.  That  is, all  players  on  a  team  should  be  born  on or after January 1 of the appropriate calendar year.
2.Younger players are allowed to play in an older age division with the consent of their coach and parents. However, any player who has not attained the proper age to play Under 11 select soccer may not play up on a competitive (select) team.

Sure you can play up, but clearly you can't play down, as in this case.

That was going to be my question. TxF what are you talking about?

My point of this post was it is not against the JDL rules not to be age pure.  I cannot find any rule that states an older player cannot play "down" only that any player that is not at least U10 cannot play up.  I will also add that JDL is not really a competitive league so it doesn't really matter.  It's an organization focused on developing players and really just an organized set of friendlies sponsored by the ECNL clubs that pays LH to manage the logistics.  The "It is desired...should be born language" is a recommendation not a rule.

Are you kidding me? What do you think the U stands for in U12? The "it is desired" is in hopes everyone plas their age but it is allowed to play up. I know this falls on deaf ears so I don't know why I am waiting my time but GROW UP! Cheating is cheating and that is what went on!!!!! If you don't think your kid can play her age don't play select. I'd you are doing it to help a younger team win then sham on you.

The saddest part is now this DD is marked because her parents are CHEATERS! SAME ON YOU. These actions were stupid! There is no defense to it!!!!!!

TxFutbal wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

Nothing_but_net wrote:

TxFutbal wrote: The rule states:
C. Age Requirements:
1.It  is  desired  that  all  teams  be  age  pure.  That  is, all  players  on  a  team  should  be  born  on or after January 1 of the appropriate calendar year.
2.Younger players are allowed to play in an older age division with the consent of their coach and parents. However, any player who has not attained the proper age to play Under 11 select soccer may not play up on a competitive (select) team.

Sure you can play up, but clearly you can't play down, as in this case.

That was going to be my question. TxF what are you talking about?

My point of this post was it is not against the JDL rules not to be age pure.  I cannot find any rule that states an older player cannot play "down" only that any player that is not at least U10 cannot play up.  I will also add that JDL is not really a competitive league so it doesn't really matter.  It's an organization focused on developing players and really just an organized set of friendlies sponsored by the ECNL clubs that pays LH to manage the logistics.  The "It is desired...should be born language" is a recommendation not a rule.

So does the JDL roster have the kid's correct birth date on it?  If so, and league approved, carry on.  If not, is it within the rules to lie on documents?

Remember back a whole year to 18 months ago before we had age pure? There was this thing called school year soccer year. JDL was born before the full transition to age pure hence the language that says it is "desired for all players to be age pure". It is entirely possible for say a September '05 to play on an '06 team. This was normal 18 months ago people.

And to be crystal clear.. I was responding to the JDL question about the team being suspended from JDL. I am in no way discussing what transpired in LHGCL. I am not the commissioner, judge or jury and it's not my place to even comment. I was only responding to a question with factual information.

Well school year/traditional year soccer is over. Has been for over a year. I know some tournaments still had School year divisions for those slackers but it's gone now. Everyone is age pure. Oh and when a Sept 05 played on an 06 team back in those days she was legal. If it happens now she must play for Coach G.

SG 06 JDL was supposed to have a game yesterday vs. Dfeeters 06 JDL White. Anyone know if the game took place? Might provide answer to question of whether disqualified in JDL too.

Glotz team was in attendance Sunday for their JDL game. The team rotated 2 field players in box.

I would also like to possibly throw out a scenario clearing Glotz of any wrong doing (but ultimately only he knows and maybe a few others) . If My memory serves me correctly this was not Glotz's team...was this team not pieced together by Guzman? I could be completely off based but I thought the team was handed over a month or two after signing day. So, if young lady in question was already on the roster it is feasible to say coach had no knowledge as the team wss handed over.

In case anyone is wondering my daughter's affiliation is D'feeters-kicks.

Ever think that since JDL doesn't keep scores or standings, that the 5 clubs involved got together and said "No harm, no foul" and decided that the other kids on the team didn't need to get punished for the rogue family beyond what NTSSA/LHGCL levied, as long as the '05 kid doesn't play in any more JDL games???  

Or would that be too logical...

That would be logical, and good for the innocent kids that they will still get to play in some scrimmages this year. Plenty of time for tournaments too.

Just-a-Keeper wrote:Glotz team was in attendance Sunday for their JDL game.  The team rotated 2 field players in box.

I would also like to possibly throw out a scenario clearing Glotz of any wrong doing (but ultimately only he knows and maybe a few others) .  If My memory serves me correctly this was not Glotz's team...was this team not pieced together by Guzman? I could be completely off based but I thought the team was handed over a month or two after signing day.  So, if young lady in question was already on the roster it is feasible to say coach had no knowledge as the team wss handed over.

In case anyone is wondering my daughter's affiliation is D'feeters-kicks.  

Glotz took over the team this Spring, but that only answers one of several questions.  Like most others, I feel bad for the rest of the team.  Good group of girls.

Agreed! Innocent people being punished for the actions of a few bad seeds. All teams in D3 are also affected as they lose a game of development.

Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

Do you really think banning an 11 year old for something the dad did is a useful way to deal with it. Dad and coach are a different animal of course.

bwgophers wrote:Ever think that since JDL doesn't keep scores or standings, that the 5 clubs involved got together and said "No harm, no foul" and decided that the other kids on the team didn't need to get punished for the rogue family beyond what NTSSA/LHGCL levied, as long as the '05 kid doesn't play in any more JDL games???  

Or would that be too logical...

Well JDL does make up the rules as they go, so that does make some sense.

KeeperCommander wrote:

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

Do you really think banning an 11 year old for something the dad did is a useful way to deal with it. Dad and coach are a different animal of course.

Do you really think the kid had no idea what she was doing was wrong? She had no idea of her birth year and those she was playing with? I certainly agree the dad/TM should be punished. Coach? Tough to prove fault, don't think my dds coach has seen her birth cert, so reasonable to believe this coach wouldn't know.

Just-a-Keeper wrote:Agreed!  Innocent people being punished for the actions of a few bad seeds.  All teams in D3 are also affected as they lose a game of development.

Actually, since D3 only has 10 teams most teams will lose two games in development.

NoSpinZone wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

Do you really think banning an 11 year old for something the dad did is a useful way to deal with it. Dad and coach are a different animal of course.

Do you really think the kid had no idea what she was doing was wrong?  She had no idea of her birth year and those she was playing with?  I certainly agree the dad/TM should be punished.  Coach?  Tough to prove fault, don't think my dds coach has seen her birth cert, so reasonable to believe this coach wouldn't know.  

I am sure whe you were 11 you did what your dad wanted you to do too. Wrong yes, punishable by death no. Next time you call in sick to work to leave early for a soccer trip and your kid knows you are suppose to be at work, you going to have the same tone?

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

I'm no Glotz fan, but that's ridiculous.  The manager and roster were in place from the Guzman days.  When a coach takes over, he assumes the roster is in order.  As he should.

KeeperCommander wrote:

NoSpinZone wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

Do you really think banning an 11 year old for something the dad did is a useful way to deal with it. Dad and coach are a different animal of course.

Do you really think the kid had no idea what she was doing was wrong?  She had no idea of her birth year and those she was playing with?  I certainly agree the dad/TM should be punished.  Coach?  Tough to prove fault, don't think my dds coach has seen her birth cert, so reasonable to believe this coach wouldn't know.  

I am sure whe you were 11 you did what your dad wanted you to do too.  Wrong yes, punishable by death no. Next time you call in sick to work to leave early for a soccer trip and your kid knows you are suppose to be at work, you going to have the same tone?

Death no, but certainly some punishment, as I understand there is. Life lesson here that needs to be taught. I am not advocating a scarlet letter.

I have never and will never call in sick to leave for anything. I go in early to finish what needs to be done if that is 3 or 4am, so be it. Again, life lesson and role model, this is about more than soccer and an 05 playing 06s. I do speed from time to time though so gramps/granny need to stay in the right lane!

NoSpinZone wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

NoSpinZone wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

Do you really think banning an 11 year old for something the dad did is a useful way to deal with it. Dad and coach are a different animal of course.

Do you really think the kid had no idea what she was doing was wrong?  She had no idea of her birth year and those she was playing with?  I certainly agree the dad/TM should be punished.  Coach?  Tough to prove fault, don't think my dds coach has seen her birth cert, so reasonable to believe this coach wouldn't know.  

I am sure whe you were 11 you did what your dad wanted you to do too.  Wrong yes, punishable by death no. Next time you call in sick to work to leave early for a soccer trip and your kid knows you are suppose to be at work, you going to have the same tone?

Death no, but certainly some punishment, as I understand there is.  Life lesson here that needs to be taught. I am not advocating a scarlet letter.

I have never and will never call in sick to leave for anything.  I go in early to finish what needs to be done if that is 3 or 4am, so be it.  Again, life lesson and role model, this is about more than soccer and an 05 playing 06s.  I do speed from time to time though so gramps/granny need to stay in the right lane!

I do not imply that there should be no punishment for the young girl, just that she has less complicity than dad and coach. Yes I said coach.

Just-a-Keeper wrote:Glotz team was in attendance Sunday for their JDL game.  The team rotated 2 field players in box.

I would also like to possibly throw out a scenario clearing Glotz of any wrong doing (but ultimately only he knows and maybe a few others) .  If My memory serves me correctly this was not Glotz's team...was this team not pieced together by Guzman? I could be completely off based but I thought the team was handed over a month or two after signing day.  So, if young lady in question was already on the roster it is feasible to say coach had no knowledge as the team wss handed over.

In case anyone is wondering my daughter's affiliation is D'feeters-kicks.  

This has rumblings of some bad blood somewhere.  Could it be your DD once played for coach prior to JG and looking for payback?  If so, all you did was hurt the kids.  Not saying what manager did/didn't do isn't accountable for own actions, but maybe this could have been handled differently where maybe the team/teammates were also not held accountable.  We all know the team would have ended up with the exact same outcome in QT and game results with or without the player in question.

Also, if you are following the rules of the game, it doesn't matter if the coach knew the issue or not, he/she signs off on the roster and is ultimately accountable for every kid on the roster.  The manager does not sign off on the roster is my understanding.  So why do the kids and manager get punished but not the coach?  Makes no sense..  If you are going to punish the kids, you have to punish the coach because the kids certainly had no knowledge, and per your comment that the coach had no knowledge.  So why are the kids being punished but not the coach?  I wonder if anyone has asked NTSSA this question.

NoSpinZone wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

Do you really think banning an 11 year old for something the dad did is a useful way to deal with it. Dad and coach are a different animal of course.

Do you really think the kid had no idea what she was doing was wrong?  She had no idea of her birth year and those she was playing with?  I certainly agree the dad/TM should be punished.  Coach?  Tough to prove fault, don't think my dds coach has seen her birth cert, so reasonable to believe this coach wouldn't know.  

I agree. As a manager I receive the birth certificates. For US Club I upload to get player cards and they have to approve the BC. For NTX I upload there as well and the registrar has to review and approve to issue player cards there . If the birth certificate was altered and done so very well it is possible all those who reviewed can miss it. So ultimately the only person in the wrong is the parent who altered it.

06southgirl wrote:

NoSpinZone wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

soccerDAD88 wrote:Reguardless if he took the team over last spring or this fall. The coach is the final say of the team. He is the one making the decisions of the team. Bottom line the Coach should be banned the manager should be banned and the child should be banned.

The club should bring over another coach to finish the year out.

Do you really think banning an 11 year old for something the dad did is a useful way to deal with it. Dad and coach are a different animal of course.

Do you really think the kid had no idea what she was doing was wrong?  She had no idea of her birth year and those she was playing with?  I certainly agree the dad/TM should be punished.  Coach?  Tough to prove fault, don't think my dds coach has seen her birth cert, so reasonable to believe this coach wouldn't know.  

I agree.  As a manager I receive the birth certificates. For US Club I upload to get player cards and they have to approve the BC.   For NTX I upload there as well and the registrar has to review and approve to issue player cards there .   If the birth certificate was altered and done so very well it is possible all those who reviewed can miss it.      So ultimately the only person in the wrong is the parent who altered it.  

I would have to agree that the person most at fault is the person who did the wrong doing. That doesnt free others from shouldering some blame. If coach really did not know and I mean trully did not then his punishment should be bare minimum. His team so he has to take some heat. Perhaps a couple game suspension. If the coach did know something was not right then it shold be the year. If he was involved then it is a complete ban. Just an opinion though.