October 22, 2001

 

I understand that the larger Dallas soccer clubs are requesting 2 changes to the North Dallas Boys "Classic Soccer League" rules which could put our children at risk of serious heat related injury, and have a very bad effect on all club soccer in the area.

 

The first proposed change is to alter the leagues substitution rules to conform to FIFA professional standards.  In other words, once a player comes off the field (and has been substituted for), he or she cannot be brought back into the game for any reason.  And total substitutions would be limited to a maximum of 3 or 4 players.  I'm told that this will make the game easier to coach, as much less attention would be required attending to the rest and hydration requirements of the players on the field.  The second benefit is to the spectators, who will appreciate that the "continuity" of youth soccer will cease to be interrupted with regular player substitutions.

 

The second proposed change is to lower the number of required returning players on a team to 6, from the present requirement of 10.  While I can't get anyone to explain the purpose of this rule change, but it seems to me that-on its own-this proposal seems like an almost laughably obvious attempt to facilitate the expansion of the common practice of player poaching by the powerful Dallas clubs.

 

Upon further consideration, however, it's clear that the rules change requests are related, as the implementation of the substitution change could result in mass defections from individual club teams the first year, and then from club soccer altogether the second year.

Graphic Source:   Fort Worth Star-Telegram

June 29, 2002  page F1

Have we learned nothing from the heat related deaths in sports programs just 2 months ago in Minnesota and Florida?  This is Texas, not Germany or Holland or England or Scotland. This isn't even the cooler areas of the US.  The summer temperatures are simply too hot to experiment with the substitution rules change here in Dallas/Fort Worth. It would make the game dangerous for our young people, as the overall feeling would be that only a whimp would ask to be taken out of a game if there was no chance of returning.  And the message from the coach would be that certain players are simply too valuable to be substituted, which would further discourage young players from requesting hydration or rest when they need it.

 

If the goal of American Youth Soccer is to develop soccer players in America, this is not the way to do it, as the only programs which will benefit from this change is the High School programs.  Many players will elect to pass on club ball altogether, and focus on high school ball, which would benefit from more reasonable substitution policy which would be in line with what players would play under in college.

 

Another result of the substitution rule change is that tackling could very well become much more violent, as the focus on many less talented players could be to advance their team's prospects of victory by removing the opponent's better players from the field by injury, with no chance of coming back into the game once the substitution is made. Currently, most injuries are recovered from after 10 or 15 minutes of rest, after which time the player is ready to go back into the game.  This wouldn't be possible under the FIFA friendly rules, even if there were a yellow or red card assessed to the player responsible for the injury.  Does this sound like a well thought out proposition?  I don't think so.

 

To further explain the "minimum returning player" rule, it relates to how many players stay on their club team going into the new "club year."  This year starts July 1, with 2 weeks of tryouts during which time a player can elect to leave his or her team to go to another team or to quit club soccer altogether.  Currently, if 10 or more players return, the team retains the advantages it earned via a good record the past season.  It can stay in the league and not be required to go through qualifying tournaments.  If less than 10 players return, the team is considered a "new team", and must go through qualifying tournaments and compete with dozens of club teams for a chance to win one of only 2 or 3 openings in the highest league.  And there are elements who are trying to make it impossible for a "new team" to play in the "Classic League" without first playing a season or two in the lesser Plano or Arlington leagues.

 

Understanding the negative effect that the substitution change will have, it's becomes clear that the move to lower the minimum returning player number from 10 to 6 is simply planning for the inevitable result of increased injury, more restricted playing time, and less enjoyment by the players.  Who can fault the clubs for attempting to protect their current "status" by using a simple rules change to head off the possible collapse of most of the existing teams.  It's still a bad idea, and would have no chance of getting adequate support if not for the gloomy consequences of the substitution change.

 

Frankly speaking, I don't currently have a child who plays in the Dallas Boys "Coca-Cola" Classic League. But once approved, there will be tremendous pressure to make like changes to the rules of the lesser Plano and Arlington leagues to conform to the Coca-Cola Classic league.  The same pressure will exist for the Lake Highland Girls Classic League to adapt to the FIFA way.  And this same pressure will be placed on the numerous tournaments played in May and June, which are used by the clubs as a huge revenue source, and by the teams and players to permit players to "guest play" for teams which they might wish to defect to at the start of the next year.  I won't even get into the effect that the changes will have on club revenue, but it seems obvious to me that teams will be under pressure to play fewer tournaments during the hot months.

 

There is no benefit to our young people here at all.  This is a bad pair of rules changes and there is little doubt in my mind that they should be flushed immediately before any of our young people die of heat related injuries.

 

When you consider that coaches won't want to use their last substitution due to the fact that it may be required to replace an injured player in the last minutes of a game, the substitution rule will mean that there is a good chance that the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th players on a team's roster might see no playing time.  This would add to the defection issue, as parents who are paying thousands each year for club fees and related costs will make sure that their children are on teams where they will get "some" playing time.

 

And it takes no imagination at all to predict the day when a coach says to a grieving parent, "I'm sorry, but I had used up all my substitutions on other players, and I just couldn't give your boy a rest. The league had my hands tied, but rest assured that I'm going to make sure the rules are changed to insure that this doesn't happen again."  However, in the late Spring season, when life's other priorities often make it difficult to get 11 players to show up for games, the conversation might go something like this: "I'm sorry, but we only had 2 players on the bench, I had used up those 2 substitution opportunities on players who weren't as well conditioned as your son, and I just couldn't give your boy a rest.  The league had my hands tied, but rest assured that I'm going to make sure the rules are changed to insure that this doesn't happen again."

 

To the insurance company currently covering the Boys Classic Soccer League, I'd be nervous about the liability changes under the FIFA friendly substitution rules.  I've always told my children that "tired legs are easily injured legs."  No doubt that a higher number of contact injuries are ahead, but that's nothing compared to the liability of a single heat related death.  This indeed could be an expensive proposition, particularly if the League had been warned in advance about the increased possibility of this type of injury.  And they can accept this as a formal warning.

 

We are depending on the league to think about the well being of our children.  While I freely agree that the substitution rule change would make life easier for the coaches, that minor benefit doesn't begin to offset the huge risk to our children’s well being.  Let's do the right thing here.

 

Mike Kimbro

Grapevine, Texas  USA

 

To return simply hit your back arrow button, or go to: