|
Post by norecognition69 on Nov 8, 2007 14:51:44 GMT -6
look, Putmeincoach, the rule IS stupid so please don't try to argue. if someone broke their leg last year while wearing illegal shinguards, the ref deserves to be sued...it would have been their fault! referees should take in to consideration that if they're bad at their job, they'll have to suffer consequences because they are the ones responsible for all of the players once they step on to the field. i would assume that anyone who sued a ref last year had a legitimate reason or else they wouldn't have sued them in the first place.
and cgcsu, i didn't know that but that doesn't change anything. the fifa rules are more solid and well known than the stupid "American" soccer regulators' rules. regardless of where our rules came from, they're obviously sub-par...just look at what they did, that doesn't make sense. i stand by everything that i originally said from both posts.
|
|
|
Post by Formerly Ole School on Nov 8, 2007 21:44:19 GMT -6
"norecognition69" wins this argument. You have to like and respect any point or counter-point that can use "stupid", "ignorant" and "dumb" over and over with very little reasoning behind it. My favorite descriptive phrase in the argument is," the stupid "American" soccer regulators' rules." If that does not win the hearts of participants on this board, nothing will.
|
|
|
Post by norecognition69 on Nov 8, 2007 23:52:28 GMT -6
clever pressitup, but i must say that you are stupid, ignorant, and dumb as well for saying that there is no reason for the use of those very words. first of all, what do you consider to be over and over? the words "ignorant" and "dumb" only show up once each in all three of the posts combined. furthermore, the word "stupid" IS used in repetition, but it was supposed to be...that was the point you footnote. would you rather i consult a thesaurus before posting; ya know, to keep everyone on their heels and whatnot. your post is stupid and "has no reason behind it". oh! I'm sorry, doltish and without reasoning. i hope this isn't over your head as well. remember, read very, very slowly.
|
|
|
Post by bigsoccerfan on Nov 8, 2007 23:57:43 GMT -6
This year, officials ask coaches if players are attired properly. If coach says yes, and then during play it turns out a player is not attired properly (wrong size shin guards, jewelry, etc) it is an automatic caution for the coach. This could be really interesting... another one that takes place next year is the proper shingaurds with the proper logo... My guess is it will not be enforced or checked because the officials will just caution the coach if it comes to the attention the shingaurds are actually "illegal." They said that last year for this year. They keep putting it back a year. Don't be surprised if they push it back again
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Nov 9, 2007 16:06:52 GMT -6
the difference between FIFA and high school is that FIFA laws are written to the professional game and for national teams. NFHS writes laws for the benefit of high school players. Maybe you can't discern why there would be a difference, but lets look at a couple of examples.
1. shinguards...professional players make money, the better you are, the more you make. Spend some time this weekend looking at some professional matches. Very few, if any, professional players were small shinguards. Those that wear small ones wear them down, not up. their careers are potentially on hte line every time they step on the pitch, they aren't going to risk it for tiny shinguards. youth palyers, for whatever reason, try and pull them up as high as possible, and many believe smaller is better. High school players don't get paid to play (no arguing about jesuit here, please), and if they get injured, not a big deal, most teams have a deep bench, throw in a sub. which leads us to another difference.
2. professional matches allow only 3 subs per game (unless a friendly, then they can have up to 6). high school allows as many subs as possible.
3. soft red - done from the standpoint that high school soccer is thought of as an extension of the high school learning experience, and the need to punish should be tempered.
4. punishing the coach for improper equipment - in high school, that is now a caution. at the professional level, the club/manager/country can be fined if it is found that a player is equipped improperly. It would depend on the issue if a fine was issued, but fines have been levied for incorrect soccer balls (we all know some HS scrounge up non-compliant balls), uniforms (think Nigeria and the unitards), etc. I'd prefer a caution over fines.
5. FIFA does not require a coach on the becnh, HS requires a coach and a school rep (they can be the same).
There are many other differences (subs, changes to rosters, # players, etc) but the gist of the major rules are the same. The minor rule differences are just that, minor.
As far as suing a referee if a player is injured and then chooses to sue...happens every year. Soccer is a dynamic game, once described as a "game of controlled violence". Players will get injured. It is their responsibilty, and that of their coach, to be attired properly. But the bottom line is that is rests on the offiicial to enforce it. You may choose to disagree with the rule, but I can tell you if I'm officiating the match, you won't be playing in peewee size shin guards. I'll make sure it is addressed with you coach prior to the start of the match, and I'll inform the captains at the coin toss. But if you want to risk it and "try me" it is your team and your coach who will be punished for your action.
|
|
|
Post by norecognition69 on Nov 10, 2007 0:03:32 GMT -6
i don't need to be schooled on the fifa rules, and i watch plenty of professional soccer. i know what they are and i didn't really mean that they should adopt their off-field rules as well; just the on-field rules, except for the subs of course, that would be ridiculous to expect all high school players to play full length games. soft reds are kind of pointless and the game could do without them. i think it makes for a better learning experience if a player's team is actually punished for his own actions. it gives the players a little bit of responsibility to know that if the screw around and get kicked off, everyone gets hurt, not just them. i do however like your view as a referee. if you see someone with "illegal" shinguards, you'll let 'em have it. but wouldn't you like to get that out of the way before the game? that's what all of this comes back to...the fact that someone has the ability to "try [you]". in my opinion, referees should still examine the players before the game, not the coaches because they're the ones that really know what is and what isn't illegal. i know plenty of coaches that don't even know there is such a thing as an illegal shinguard. to them a shinguard's a shinguard. i don't trust the coaches with rules as much as i trust a ref. i appreciate your thorough explanation for why you think what you think though. it's the first intelligent and thoughtful counterpoint to what I've said yet.
|
|
|
Post by GBULM1234 on Nov 10, 2007 12:47:20 GMT -6
To answer Rocksccrstar, you would think that people would have to be held accountable for their own actions, but in a day and age where if the coffee is to hot and we spill it on ourselves and sue the company for making the coffee to hot, we have to deal with these sue happy people who would rather blame everybody else than blame the one person responsible themselves. The rules are in place to cover not only the officials , schools and state association, but to provide a through explanation incase somebody gets the idea to sue the above organizations
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Nov 10, 2007 20:16:08 GMT -6
well, shouldn't the coaches know the rules? how silly to hear that coaches aren't knowledgeable and therefore not responsible...
|
|
|
Post by norecognition69 on Nov 11, 2007 18:23:06 GMT -6
i agree, the coaches should know the rules but sadly, some of them don't. referees, on the other hand, actually get paid to know those rules. they used to get paid to enforce those rules.
|
|
|
Post by PutMeInCoach2 on Nov 11, 2007 18:37:03 GMT -6
look, Putmeincoach, the rule IS stupid so please don't try to argue. if someone broke their leg last year while wearing illegal shinguards, the ref deserves to be sued...it would have been their fault! referees should take in to consideration that if they're bad at their job, they'll have to suffer consequences because they are the ones responsible for all of the players once they step on to the field. i would assume that anyone who sued a ref last year had a legitimate reason or else they wouldn't have sued them in the first place. and cgcsu, i didn't know that but that doesn't change anything. the fifa rules are more solid and well known than the stupid "American" soccer regulators' rules. regardless of where our rules came from, they're obviously sub-par...just look at what they did, that doesn't make sense. i stand by everything that i originally said from both posts. I agree with you that the rule is stupid. I for one don't want to sit and check my players shingaurds before every match. Look at it as a referee's stand point. Shows up 30 minutes prior to game, and in order to check shingaurds he had to have the players take off all the electrical tape holding the shinguards into place so he can look at the shingaurd, you think he wants to do it? Hell no. Another ? I have. If a kid broke their leg because of an illegal shinguard, you state the referee should be sued. What happens if a player comes off the field, switches shingaurds and returns to the game, do you want the referee to stop the game to check a players shingaurds everytime a person enters the field? Or maybe a player adjusts his shingaurds during the game (making them illegally positioned) and the kid breaks his leg right below that. Is the referee accountable for the players actions? He can't predict that the player is about to kick. Oh yea let me stop a break away because the player about to challenge the ball's shingaurds are too high. Simple fact players need to be held accountable for their own equipment and if its illegal, send them out. The rule is stupid, I agree. However, you can't hide the fact why the rule was made. A sue happy society and a company trying to make sure they stay out of it. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by GBULM1234 on Nov 13, 2007 1:21:30 GMT -6
I agree completely. The rule is there for safety reasons and nothing more. Hate , love it, doesn't matter. Somewhere down the line there has been somebody who has broken their leg, or shin or ankle and has sued over this issue. We would not have these rules in place if these issuses would not have to be brought up throughout the nation.
|
|
|
Post by Formerly Ole School on Nov 13, 2007 10:19:06 GMT -6
clever pressitup, but i must say that you are stupid, ignorant, and dumb WOW, A weight has been lifted, at least I do not have to try and impress anyone with my soccer knowledge or wit. The truth is out. Norecognition, at least your point is clear. You want FIFA rules and you know FIFA rules because you typed, "i don't need to be schooled on the fifa rules, and i watch plenty of professional soccer." Then you stated, "i know what they(FIFA rules) are and i didn't really mean that they (LHSAA) should adopt their off-field rules as well; just the on-field rules, except for the subs of course, that would be ridiculous to expect all high school players to play full length games. soft reds are kind of pointless and the game could do without them." Just wondering aren't you "Americanizing" the rules or are you creating, " the stupid "American" soccer regulators' rules," as you accused others of in an earlier post. I keep forgetting I am the ignorant, dumb and stupid one. Nevertheless, the rule is in place for safety of our young men and women playing this great sport. I did not realize that litigation existed between players and referees over injuries. Makes me question what kind of Liability Insurance a referee must carry. And with all of the injuries in High School Football, are those referees liable??
|
|
|
Post by PutMeInCoach2 on Nov 13, 2007 11:07:25 GMT -6
clever pressitup, but i must say that you are stupid, ignorant, and dumb WOW, A weight has been lifted, at least I do not have to try and impress anyone with my soccer knowledge or wit. The truth is out. Norecognition, at least your point is clear. You want FIFA rules and you know FIFA rules because you typed, "i don't need to be schooled on the fifa rules, and i watch plenty of professional soccer." Then you stated, "i know what they(FIFA rules) are and i didn't really mean that they (LHSAA) should adopt their off-field rules as well; just the on-field rules, except for the subs of course, that would be ridiculous to expect all high school players to play full length games. soft reds are kind of pointless and the game could do without them." Just wondering aren't you "Americanizing" the rules or are you creating, " the stupid "American" soccer regulators' rules," as you accused others of in an earlier post. I keep forgetting I am the ignorant, dumb and stupid one. Nevertheless, the rule is in place for safety of our young men and women playing this great sport. I did not realize that litigation existed between players and referees over injuries. Makes me question what kind of Liability Insurance a referee must carry. And with all of the injuries in High School Football, are those referees liable?? Referees are covered by LHSAA when they pay their dues. However, in Rec, they are covered through the state. A referee can lose his lisence however. That is why a referee without a lisence should not referee a game.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Nov 14, 2007 21:55:54 GMT -6
[/quote]
Referees are covered by LHSAA when they pay their dues. However, in Rec, they are covered through the state. A referee can lose his lisence however. That is why a referee without a lisence should not referee a game.[/quote]
High school officials for soccer are not covered by LHSAA, this coverage was dropped 5 or 6 years ago. Some referee associations opt to purchase insurance for their officials, others don't. I don't know about any other hs sports, but I'd bet that LHSAA does not cover any of those, either.
|
|
|
Post by Formerly Ole School on Nov 14, 2007 23:45:44 GMT -6
If there is truth to a referee being named and/or found liable in a law suit and LHSAA is not providing coverage, common sense says to stay off of the field. This is a part of soccer I have never considered.
|
|
|
Post by PutMeInCoach2 on Nov 15, 2007 9:09:17 GMT -6
Referees are covered by LHSAA when they pay their dues. However, in Rec, they are covered through the state. A referee can lose his lisence however. That is why a referee without a lisence should not referee a game.[/quote] High school officials for soccer are not covered by LHSAA, this coverage was dropped 5 or 6 years ago. Some referee associations opt to purchase insurance for their officials, others don't. I don't know about any other hs sports, but I'd bet that LHSAA does not cover any of those, either.[/quote] See how much I know. ;D... I just know the referee's have to pay a fee to LHSAA, i assumed it was insurance purposes. I wouldn't referee a game without having insurance, too risky.
|
|
|
Post by soccer207 on Nov 15, 2007 16:23:52 GMT -6
Would someone just let this thread die. Wear bigger shinguards and then pull out your good ones for club again in the spring.
|
|
|
Post by upper90 on Nov 15, 2007 17:39:00 GMT -6
Another stupid rule is that everyone on your team must wear the same color Under Armor and sliding shorts as everyone else on your team. I think that is maybe the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.
|
|
|
Post by stafalcon22 on Nov 15, 2007 20:48:25 GMT -6
i didnt know that was a rule
|
|
|
Post by PutMeInCoach2 on Nov 15, 2007 22:03:47 GMT -6
i didnt know that was a rule Yes -- sure is, however, it is not strictly enforced.
|
|