October 3, 2006.
WAGS R & D Committee Meeting
Fairview Park Marriott
October 3, 2006
Committee Members Present: Lula Bauer ( Director ), Wendell Domon, Debi Honaker, Karen Parker, Clarence Jones, Hap Kwiatkowski, Ruben Bolognesi ( Administrator. )
FPYC Monarchs Members Present: Head Coach ( HC ), Assistant Coach ( AC ), Team Manager ( TM ).
ABGC Fusion Members Present: Assistant Coach ( AC ), Club Representative, Parent.
Complaint: FPYC Monarchs U15 / Division 5 vs. ABGC Fusion U15 / Division 3 - WAGS Rule E.1.b - Recruitment.
FPYC Monarchs filed the complaint.
The Director welcomed everyone and explained how the hearing was going to be conducted. The FPYC TM read the complaint letter he had sent to the R&D Director. In his statement the TM testified that alleged recruited player, registered with the Monarchs this Fall 2006 season. He continued by saying that after the player signed her player pass on July 31, 2006 and was officially rostered to the FPPYC Monarchs, this player was allegedly recruited by the ABGC Fusion.
The player in question attended an open tryout held by the ABGC Fusion over the Summer 06, and was not offered a spot on the team. The parents of this player kept the FPYC Monarchs updated throughout her tryout with the Fusion. The family finally informed the Monarchs that she did not make the Fusion and would therefore comment to remain with the Monarchs. On July 31, 2006, the player signed her player pass to play for the FPYC Monarchs for the Fall 2006 season.
On August 24, the FPYC TM received an e-mail from the player’s mother, stating that the ABGC Fusion called her to offer her daughter a spot on the Fusion. The e-mail also stated that she had decided to leave the FPYC Monarchs to play for the ABGC Fusion. He continued to state that in her e-mail, the mother wrote: “It was never our intention to pursue another team once we had signed on again with the Monarchs. We had not made any further contact with the team after tryouts.”
The ABGC AC stated that his team did hold open tryouts in July and that the player in question did not make the first cut. Once the parents were informed of this decision, they requested, as well as 2 other parents, to be kept in mind should an opportunity to play with the Fusion became available.
The ABGC AC continued to testify that a player on the ABGC Fusion decided to drop out off the team after tryouts had ended. The AC contacted the 3 players that asked to be contacted after tryouts had ended, and the player in question was the only one who accepted a position on the team. The ABGC AC stated that during this time, he was occupied with his professional life and did not think of asking the player whether she had “signed” with another team. He ended his statement by saying that he was just following up with a player that requested to be kept in mind should an opportunity to play with the Fusion became available, and that it was never his intention to entice or recruit the player away from another team.
The alleged recruited player’s mother acknowledged everyone’s testimony and confirmed that she had asked the ABGC Fusion AC to keep her daughter in mind for future play with the Fusion. She added that her daughter wanted to go to ABGC Fusion because she wanted to play for her HS team, and that by joining this team she would get 3 practices a week, compared to once a week with the FPYC Monarchs, and felt her daughter’s game would improve
A Committee member questioned the alleged player’s commitment (via her mother) to the FPYC Monarchs after telling them that she was going to remain on the team. The Committee agreed that the player confirmed her commitment to play the Fall 2006 season with the Monarchs when she signed her player pass.
A second Committee member commended everyone for being forthcoming. He continued by explaining the rules on recruitment and ended up by stating that he thought it was a lack of courtesy by the ABGC Fusion to not have called the FPYC Monarch HC.
The R&D Director asked the player’s parent if her daughter had ever guest played for the ABGC Fusion, to which the parent answered yes. The Monarch HC was asked if the Fusion HC ever called her to ask her if one of her players could guest play with them. Her answer was “no”.
The FPYC Monarchs HC stated that the player in question damaged the team by leaving and it was hurtful that she was the last to know that the player had left the team.
The FPYC Monarchs AC stated that the player in question left a big hole in their defense and because of that, they were not doing well.
The ABGC Fusion AC stated that he had no intent to hurt the FPYC Monarchs and that he was sorry about the way things turned out.
The Committee found that the ABGC Fusion had violated WAGS Rule, E;
Any team PARTICIPATING in WAGS play, or being formed for WAGS play, ACTING THROUGH ITS COACHES, TEAM OFFICIALS, PARENTS AND PLAYERS, which ATTEMPTS TO INDUCE ANY PLAYER - listed on a valid team roster of another WAGS, VYSA, or MSYSA team - TO LEAVE HER TEAM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE RECRUITED THAT PLAYER.” and WAGS Rule E. c; Invitations to players listed on valid rosters for play on WAGS Provisional Roster, out-of-league play, such as indoor, guest players for tournaments etc., must be initiated through that player’s coach/team official.
therefore directs the following:
The ABGC Fusion Head Coach is suspended for the next two ( 2 ) WAGS game. Please remember that a sit-out form needs to be filled out and mailed to the WAGSL R&D Director for each game a player / coach sits out.
The ABGC Fusion U15 Division 3 were informed that they have the right to appeal the decision of the WAGS R & D Committee according to Rule O, “Protests and Appeals Procedures”.
LOUD X-Treme Members Present: Head Coach ( HC ) Assistant Coach ( AC ), Team Manager ( TM ).
Referees Present: Center Referee ( CR ), Assistant Referee ( AR )
Complaint: Game # 4392 – LOUD X-Treme vs. STER Phoenix U16 Div. 5 - WAGS Rule N.1.a – Game Conduct
The CR filed the complaint.
The CR testified that towards the end of the game, a STER player got possession of the ball that squirted out of the LOUD goal keeper’s ( GK ) hands and kicked it over the goal line. At that point the LOUD GK kicked the STER player knocking her off her feet. The CR whistled a foul and issued a red card to the LOUD GK for violent conduct. He added that the LOUD HC lost it and started screaming at him. The CR issued the LOUD HC a yellow card for dissent. The LOUD HC continued with this dissent, forcing the CR to issue him a red card and letting him know that he needed to be more than 100 yards away from the field. After the game was over, the CR noticed that the LOUD HC was only about 30 yards away from the field. His AR told him that the LOUD HC had been there the entire time, but that he had not brought it to his attention because the LOUD HC had not caused any further problems.
The AR concurred with the CR testimony.
The LOUD HC stated that he was new in WAGS and did not know the rule about needing to be 100 yards away from the field after being ejected from a game, and that he should have known all the rules.
The LOUD AC mentioned that he took over the game and that he saw the LOUD HC sitting on top of the hill.
A Committee member asked the LOUD HC: “How do you think your players feel ?” The HC responded: “not very good, I guess. It was the heat of the moment, I never attacked the CR”.
A second Committee member asked the LOUD HC where he was after being ejected and if he felt it was 100 yards. The LOUD HC responded that he was close to the trees, and that he felt he was far away enough.
A third Committee member told the LOUD HC to use his AC to calm him down next time.
The R&D Director asked the CR how long has he been a referee and how many games he officiates per season. The CR responded that he has been a referee for 3 years and that he does many games per season. The R&D Director turned to the LOUD HC and stated that the league has a shortage of referees and that this CR historically does not issue many cards. She continued by telling the LOUD HC that he is a role model, and that he can and must control his dissent. The R & D Director also pointed out WAGS rule K.10, Failure of a coach/team official to remain out of sight, out of sound after being sent off or receiving a Red Card may result in a forfeit. The “100 yards away”, is NCSL’s rule.
After deliberations, the Committee decided:
The LOUD X-Treme Head Coach is suspended for 1 ( one ) WAGS game effective immediately. This suspension is in addition to the sit out to be served due to the red card. Please remember that a sit-out form needs to be filled out and mailed to the WAGSL R&D Director for each game a Player / Team Official sits out, 48 hours following the match.
The LOUD X-Treme is hereby warned that by not complying with WAGS Rules N.1.a and K.10 in the future, it will result in forfeiture.
The LOUD X-Treme U16 Division 5 were informed that they have the right to appeal the decision of the WAGS R & D Committee according to Rule O, “Protests and Appeals Procedures”.