Best Way to Handle Coach / Program Situation

[Unregistered]

I'm actually posting this for a friend.

In the last two weeks his daughter returned to practicing with her premier team after being out injured. She was restricted from playing on the advice of her doctor after getting a 2nd concussion this year.

I was having lunch with her dad yesterday and he was complaining to me about a dilemma he was having. Apparently the coach told his daughter "I'm not going to play you in any games if you are hesitant about heading the ball".

By the way - this is a U-15 Girls team.

Her dad was looking for some advice on how to handle the situation. I suggested that he talk with the coach and let him be fully aware of what the doctor has communicated. His response was - "Oh, the coach fully knows already." The dad is pretty upset that the coach has basically put his daughter in a conflict between playing time and injury risk. The dad clearly feels the coach should be more flexible with regards to playing time.

I'm personally not 100% privy to the girl's medical situation, but I'd tend to agree that when a coach puts a 14 year old's health at risk by placing the player in a position where they know the only way they can play is to take that risk, then it seems to me something is seriously wrong with the coach.

My personal analysis was to just ask myself:

"What's the worst that could happen to the coach's goals and objective if the girl plays and doesn't head the ball" - that would be that the team loses an important game because of it.

versus

"What's the worst that could happen from the parent's goals and objectives if the girl understates her physical condition in order to meet her desire to play?" - Obviously the worst thing is that she ends up with a more permanent head injury

So to me...it seemed that the logical thing to do would be to take the conversation up with the coach again in such a way that would hopefully make the coach realize that its an unreasonable to put a 14 year old in the position to have to choose between playing time and injury risk like that. Obviously the parent could take a soft approach to the team's coach or a more agressive one akin to "i'll write the next check when you change your mind" kind of thing.

I know the parent doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize the potential of his daughter's playing time by creating bad blood with the coach, so what would you suggest is the right way to approach the coach? Or should the parent just "suck it up" that a u-14 girl's team should be less concerned about players health than a professional sports team is.

[Unregistered]

I'm actually posting this for a friend.

In the last two weeks his daughter returned to practicing with her premier team after being out injured. She was restricted from playing on the advice of her doctor after getting a 2nd concussion this year.

I was having lunch with her dad yesterday and he was complaining to me about a dilemma he was having. Apparently the coach told his daughter "I'm not going to play you in any games if you are hesitant about heading the ball".

By the way - this is a U-15 Girls team.

Her dad was looking for some advice on how to handle the situation. I suggested that he talk with the coach and let him be fully aware of what the doctor has communicated. His response was - "Oh, the coach fully knows already." The dad is pretty upset that the coach has basically put his daughter in a conflict between playing time and injury risk. The dad clearly feels the coach should be more flexible with regards to playing time.

I'm personally not 100% privy to the girl's medical situation, but I'd tend to agree that when a coach puts a 14 year old's health at risk by placing the player in a position where they know the only way they can play is to take that risk, then it seems to me something is seriously wrong with the coach.

My personal analysis was to just ask myself:

"What's the worst that could happen to the coach's goals and objective if the girl plays and doesn't head the ball" - that would be that the team loses an important game because of it.

versus

"What's the worst that could happen from the parent's goals and objectives if the girl understates her physical condition in order to meet her desire to play?" - Obviously the worst thing is that she ends up with a more permanent head injury

So to me...it seemed that the logical thing to do would be to take the conversation up with the coach again in such a way that would hopefully make the coach realize that its an unreasonable to put a 14 year old in the position to have to choose between playing time and injury risk like that. Obviously the parent could take a soft approach to the team's coach or a more agressive one akin to "i'll write the next check when you change your mind" kind of thing.

I know the parent doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize the potential of his daughter's playing time by creating bad blood with the coach, so what would you suggest is the right way to approach the coach? Or should the parent just "suck it up" that a u-14 girl's team should be less concerned about players health than a professional sports team is.

An injury during the season sucks. More than likely she is out of the rotation. Don't expect your kid to play much even if she gets back to 100%.

[Unregistered]

Depending on the severity, as a parent, quit soccer. 2 concussions, the last where you had to rest 2 weeks. Concussions are cumulative and you become more prone to have a repeat, its not worth it for a 14 year old to potentially have life long issues.

[Unregistered]

This is a circumstance when a parent MUST step forward to protect the integrity of the player.

The coach needs to be informed by the parent that the very attitude of the coach indicated by his alleged statement is counterproductive and is contributing to diminishing the motivation of the player.

Bottom line, why is the coach making it an issue at all ? Why not just put the player back in, observe the player, and them take any appropriate action if a problem arises? Why make the statement of " if " ? Why add tension to the scenario ?

This is another indication IMO , of supposedly educated coaches not bring able to work with the needs and desires of children.

[Unregistered]

This is an ongoing issue that I see week in and week out. Very few parents seem to take concussions seriously. If a child is in a situation where they can not properly play the game due to a head injury than I agree that this player should not be on the field. Most concussions are not even caused by the ball, they are caused by being knocked to the ground or colliding with another player. So if the player can not even head a soccer ball, what is going to happen when they hit the ground fighting for a ball? This player should either not be playing anymore or should be on the sidelines until they have properly healed. Yes it sucks that their playing days could be over at age 14, but that is better than the alternative.

[Unregistered]

coach

I actually agree with the coach here but maybe the approach could be different. Many times injuries happen when people hessitate and this could make the player more prone to injury. When heading properly you are at lesser risk. If the player is hesitant then they may duck, close their eyes, take the ball off the wrong side of the head, etc. Once a players symtoms are gone, confidence slowly comes back and the player will be playing closer to 100% intensity. With concusions today if there was a player that wasn't ready I wouldnt want them on the field either. I think too many times coaches don't explain their reasoning well enough and that leaves people feeling unwanted. Concusions are the scariest injury in sport right now, and a lot of theat comes from not knowing enough about them!

[Unregistered]

parent/player at fault

Full disclosure, I am not a coach, but a parent. The player should not be playing if they have been advised not to or if the player can not perform everything required on the pitch.

Mind you , this isn't a sprained ankle, this is a serious head injury. Why is it the coaches fault for limiting playing time because the player is injured or hesitant to perform basic soccer skills/movements/tactics because of fear of injury?

My daughter would not be playing the Spring season if she sufferred a concussion. We have even taken the extra step of getting a baseline done so that if she does suffer a head injury, our doctor has a baseline to compare it to.

Non contact foot skills and fitness at practice are one thing, but thowing her in to physical contact situations is just plain wrong if she is not ready physically or mentally and the coach isn't the bad guy in this situation.

I'm actually posting this for a friend.

In the last two weeks his daughter returned to practicing with her premier team after being out injured. She was restricted from playing on the advice of her doctor after getting a 2nd concussion this year.

I was having lunch with her dad yesterday and he was complaining to me about a dilemma he was having. Apparently the coach told his daughter "I'm not going to play you in any games if you are hesitant about heading the ball".

By the way - this is a U-15 Girls team.

Her dad was looking for some advice on how to handle the situation. I suggested that he talk with the coach and let him be fully aware of what the doctor has communicated. His response was - "Oh, the coach fully knows already." The dad is pretty upset that the coach has basically put his daughter in a conflict between playing time and injury risk. The dad clearly feels the coach should be more flexible with regards to playing time.

I'm personally not 100% privy to the girl's medical situation, but I'd tend to agree that when a coach puts a 14 year old's health at risk by placing the player in a position where they know the only way they can play is to take that risk, then it seems to me something is seriously wrong with the coach.

My personal analysis was to just ask myself:

"What's the worst that could happen to the coach's goals and objective if the girl plays and doesn't head the ball" - that would be that the team loses an important game because of it.

versus

"What's the worst that could happen from the parent's goals and objectives if the girl understates her physical condition in order to meet her desire to play?" - Obviously the worst thing is that she ends up with a more permanent head injury

So to me...it seemed that the logical thing to do would be to take the conversation up with the coach again in such a way that would hopefully make the coach realize that its an unreasonable to put a 14 year old in the position to have to choose between playing time and injury risk like that. Obviously the parent could take a soft approach to the team's coach or a more agressive one akin to "i'll write the next check when you change your mind" kind of thing.

I know the parent doesn't want to do anything to jeopardize the potential of his daughter's playing time by creating bad blood with the coach, so what would you suggest is the right way to approach the coach? Or should the parent just "suck it up" that a u-14 girl's team should be less concerned about players health than a professional sports team is.

[Unregistered]

Full disclosure, I am not a coach, but a parent. The player should not be playing if they have been advised not to or if the player can not perform everything required on the pitch.

Mind you , this isn't a sprained ankle, this is a serious head injury. Why is it the coaches fault for limiting playing time because the player is injured or hesitant to perform basic soccer skills/movements/tactics because of fear of injury?

My daughter would not be playing the Spring season if she sufferred a concussion. We have even taken the extra step of getting a baseline done so that if she does suffer a head injury, our doctor has a baseline to compare it to.

Non contact foot skills and fitness at practice are one thing, but thowing her in to physical contact situations is just plain wrong if she is not ready physically or mentally and the coach isn't the bad guy in this situation.

The coach is 100% correct here. If the girl can't head the ball she shouldn't be playing anyway. if you are hurt you are hurt. Maybe the coach should say if you head the ball and you black out or get a headache then you shouldn't play and that is it.

[Unregistered]

This is a circumstance when a parent MUST step forward to protect the integrity of the player.

The coach needs to be informed by the parent that the very attitude of the coach indicated by his alleged statement is counterproductive and is contributing to diminishing the motivation of the player.

Bottom line, why is the coach making it an issue at all ? Why not just put the player back in, observe the player, and them take any appropriate action if a problem arises? Why make the statement of " if " ? Why add tension to the scenario ?

This is another indication IMO , of supposedly educated coaches not bring able to work with the needs and desires of children.

I'm the original poster here.

Maybe I did a lousy job of describing the situation because all of the responses except the one above really missed the essence of the question. So I appreciate that at least one person understood this parent's dilemma and suggested a course of action.

I appreciate everyone else's comments but most of you missed the point for example:
- The question wasn't about whether the girl can or cannot head the ball.
- The player has been advised by her doctor that she can return to playing. I'm not sure where people got the idea that she's not "OK" to play, medically speaking. I also don't understand how people got the idea that the parent isn't taking it seriously. The parent is actually taking it very seriously. This is not a situation where the girl is being rushed back onto the field without proper medical precautions - this is a girl whose parent knows more about concussions than probably all of you put together. The parent's problem isn't a medical one it is a problem of how best to communicate with the coach about the players returning to the team.

I do appreciate the one poster that suggested a manner in which to approach the coach. I'll pass it along to my friend as a suggestion.

[Unregistered]

I'm the original poster here.

Maybe I did a lousy job of describing the situation because all of the responses except the one above really missed the essence of the question. So I appreciate that at least one person understood this parent's dilemma and suggested a course of action.

I appreciate everyone else's comments but most of you missed the point for example:
- The question wasn't about whether the girl can or cannot head the ball.
- The player has been advised by her doctor that she can return to playing. I'm not sure where people got the idea that she's not "OK" to play, medically speaking. I also don't understand how people got the idea that the parent isn't taking it seriously. The parent is actually taking it very seriously. This is not a situation where the girl is being rushed back onto the field without proper medical precautions - this is a girl whose parent knows more about concussions than probably all of you put together. The parent's problem isn't a medical one it is a problem of how best to communicate with the coach about the players returning to the team.

I do appreciate the one poster that suggested a manner in which to approach the coach. I'll pass it along to my friend as a suggestion.

If the doctor said she can return to play then heading the ball shouldn't be an issue then. It's that simple. If she was an important part of the team then the coach will probably insert her back into the starting line up. If she was a bench player she will go back to the bench. Sorry for being blunt but it shouldn't be an issue. if you or your friend think she should play without heading the ball then you are wrong. If heading the ball will be an issue then she shouldn't play.

[Unregistered]

If the doctor said she can return to play then heading the ball shouldn't be an issue then. It's that simple. If she was an important part of the team then the coach will probably insert her back into the starting line up. If she was a bench player she will go back to the bench. Sorry for being blunt but it shouldn't be an issue. if you or your friend think she should play without heading the ball then you are wrong. If heading the ball will be an issue then she shouldn't play.

Goodness - what am I doing wrong?

How is it that people like you totally miss the meaning of a written word? All your comments have done is to add one more name to the list of people who have been unable to comprehend the issue I was describing that my friend has.

Reinforcing the fact that you missed the point by adding more irrelevant comments doesn't make progress on my friend's issue.

[Unregistered]

Thought I'd give a quick update so as to be able to put this thread to rest. I just talked to the father this afternoon, and he's got a course of action he's comfortable with. (I think it's a cop out action - but nevertheless, it's his decision).

Just to try to avoid any miscommunications I may have made in my previous postings, I will expand on the background first.

I played DI soccer so the dad looks to me for advice sometimes since he knows I walked th epath his daughter wants to of playing in college. Despite the fact that I tell him the college landscape is completely different than the balanced student-athlete landscape I played in 20 years ago, nevertheless he looks to me for advice.

His daughter's doctor is supposedly superb. About all I know about the doctor is he specializes in head injuries like concussions and that he works at Yale Hospital. So, I suspect, he's not an uninformed person on the subject.

The essence of the father's problem at it's core has nothing to do with playing time. His true problem is one that a lot of parent's face with their children in sports - it's the issue of "what do you do when the coach sees your child as nothing more than a TOOL?"

At the college level, I hope you all have finally learned that it goes without saying that if you play soccer in college, your kid is the coaches' "tool" by definition for about 80% of the programs at all levels. Yes, even at the DII or DIII level. They aren't a person, they are a tool.

But my friend's dilemma is not about college, it's about a kid that turned 15 in the last month. So basically it's about a 14 year old. Is it ok they be a tool, or is it not? And, if you see them being used as a tool, should you do anything? And if you should do something, then what is the best way to approach it?

Anyway, I gave him the advice which was presented on this forum, which is very sound - it's the advice of "you need to engage the coach so as to re-frame the coaches mind so that they see the larger picture, and not just see the players as a tool".

Obviously, having this kind of discussion takes tact and preparation to be successful. To me it is the best option out of the four available. Those four are...

1. Accept the coaches 1-sided view of the world, and be used as a tool, with potential consequences that you take an undue risk too early.
2. Tell the coach that you'll sit on the bench rather than be used as a tool.
3. Engage the coach in understanding that it's in everyone's interest that both sides of the equation "health of player" and "success of team" be factored in on the discussion of playing time and that there is a middle ground of working a player "back into full rotation" so to speak. Then work with the coach to figure out the right way to make that middle ground work. Certainly, if the Red Sox can play a pitcher whose coming off sugery but limit the number of pitches, then there must be a way to also accomodate the 14 year olds desire to play but also understand the coaches desire to have people heading the ball.
4. Tell the coach what he wants to hear, and then just go out on the field an elect to head the ball or not based on your own decision.

My posting was related to my desire to get my friend to do the #3 from the list. But anyway, by the time I called him back today, he and his daughter had already made up their minds as to what they will do.

Guess which one they chose?

The only thing I'd add is, how stupid do you have to be to become a coach?

[Unregistered]

Thought I'd give a quick update so as to be able to put this thread to rest. I just talked to the father this afternoon, and he's got a course of action he's comfortable with. (I think it's a cop out action - but nevertheless, it's his decision).

Just to try to avoid any miscommunications I may have made in my previous postings, I will expand on the background first.

I played DI soccer so the dad looks to me for advice sometimes since he knows I walked th epath his daughter wants to of playing in college. Despite the fact that I tell him the college landscape is completely different than the balanced student-athlete landscape I played in 20 years ago, nevertheless he looks to me for advice.

His daughter's doctor is supposedly superb. About all I know about the doctor is he specializes in head injuries like concussions and that he works at Yale Hospital. So, I suspect, he's not an uninformed person on the subject.

The essence of the father's problem at it's core has nothing to do with playing time. His true problem is one that a lot of parent's face with their children in sports - it's the issue of "what do you do when the coach sees your child as nothing more than a TOOL?"

At the college level, I hope you all have finally learned that it goes without saying that if you play soccer in college, your kid is the coaches' "tool" by definition for about 80% of the programs at all levels. Yes, even at the DII or DIII level. They aren't a person, they are a tool.

But my friend's dilemma is not about college, it's about a kid that turned 15 in the last month. So basically it's about a 14 year old. Is it ok they be a tool, or is it not? And, if you see them being used as a tool, should you do anything? And if you should do something, then what is the best way to approach it?

Anyway, I gave him the advice which was presented on this forum, which is very sound - it's the advice of "you need to engage the coach so as to re-frame the coaches mind so that they see the larger picture, and not just see the players as a tool".

Obviously, having this kind of discussion takes tact and preparation to be successful. To me it is the best option out of the four available. Those four are...

1. Accept the coaches 1-sided view of the world, and be used as a tool, with potential consequences that you take an undue risk too early.
2. Tell the coach that you'll sit on the bench rather than be used as a tool.
3. Engage the coach in understanding that it's in everyone's interest that both sides of the equation "health of player" and "success of team" be factored in on the discussion of playing time and that there is a middle ground of working a player "back into full rotation" so to speak. Then work with the coach to figure out the right way to make that middle ground work. Certainly, if the Red Sox can play a pitcher whose coming off sugery but limit the number of pitches, then there must be a way to also accomodate the 14 year olds desire to play but also understand the coaches desire to have people heading the ball.
4. Tell the coach what he wants to hear, and then just go out on the field an elect to head the ball or not based on your own decision.

My posting was related to my desire to get my friend to do the #3 from the list. But anyway, by the time I called him back today, he and his daughter had already made up their minds as to what they will do.

Guess which one they chose?

The only thing I'd add is, how stupid do you have to be to become a coach?

Course of least resistance is #4, so that's my guess.

[Unregistered]

Course of least resistance is #4, so that's my guess.

Exactly right, that's the choice that was made.

Not hard to have seen that one coming right? Too bad the coach is clueless about how people behave. It would probably make her a better coach if she did understand. 'Cause now all the coach got out of it is:

1) a player who will tell the coach one thing and do another
2) An impaired reputation as a coach, in the father's and player's eyes - and in this case, it's a father that doesn't mind sharing his experiences with other soccer parents.
3) A father and player so annoyed by the situation that the coach may lose a starting player from the line-up if they end up looking for a new team at the season's end. (though I doubt this will happen cause I suspect they will calm down a little between now and then)

[Unregistered]

If the player is 100 percent and is cleared to play in games then she should be expected to head the ball. If the player is not cleared to play in games and is not 100 percent she should not be playing until she is normal again.

Not sure if I am getting something wrong here but this seems very strange to me why you are getting so upset.Sounds to me like the coach is saying I don't want you to play unless you can play to your normal ability including heading balls.