Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Rising U14 Girls (2003)
Collapse
X
-
Unregistered
- Quote
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostWhat's funny about this statement is the fact that none of the ringers for either side did much to change the outcome or style of the game.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostMy daughter plays for a lower level Stars team and we have a "guest" player every week while we have 5 or 6 subs. The "guest" makes no difference and the parents of the actual team members are not happy with the loss of playing time for their kids. Not much you can do besides leaving, it is just the way they are.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostThat really stinks. I would think there should be a rule to allow this only if a team is short on players. Have the parents tried to approach the coaches about this?
For all those Stars families that will immediately come to the defense of the club, I speak from experience: my D has played against Stars teams that used ringers from higher teams while they still had a full bench and my D played town with players from Stars and heard all the stories right from the Stars players themselves.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Guys, stick to the issue the Stars played a 2002 ringer in two 2003 ECNL games this weekend. How is that "age appropriate" according to the rule? Did the other two teams do the same? Seems very shady.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostGuys, stick to the issue the Stars played a 2002 ringer in two 2003 ECNL games this weekend. How is that "age appropriate" according to the rule? Did the other two teams do the same? Seems very shady.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostGuys, stick to the issue the Stars played a 2002 ringer in two 2003 ECNL games this weekend. How is that "age appropriate" according to the rule? Did the other two teams do the same? Seems very shady.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostA trapped 2002 (an 8th grader who does not play high school) is not a ringer. NEFC and Breakers do it within the rules, during the fall.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostSounds pretty shady to me. Thought birth year meant birth year and younger. How about my daughter is the size of an 03 or younger so according to you she can play even though she's an 02.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostA trapped 2002 (an 8th grader who does not play high school) is not a ringer. NEFC and Breakers do it within the rules, during the fall.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostThis is NOT in the rules! The ECNL even changed the language from the old rule. The new rule states "high school" and "age appropriate". ECNL went out of their way to change the 8th grade language in the old rule. Both clubs are clearly in violation of the new rule.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
correction:
Wouldn't a 2002 8th grader ( most likely born August-October ) classify as an "age appropriate" person? Otherwise the rule makes no sense. A 2002 high school student could play 2003 in the fall provided they didn't play high school soccer and an 8th grade 2002 could not. Clearly is an overstatement even for talking soccer.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View Postcorrection:
Wouldn't a 2002 8th grader ( most likely born August-October ) classify as an "age appropriate" person? Otherwise the rule makes no sense. A 2002 high school student could play 2003 in the fall provided they didn't play high school soccer and an 8th grade 2002 could not. Clearly is an overstatement even for talking soccer.
- Quote
Comment
Comment