WAGS R & D Committee Meeting
Fairview Park Marriott
November 13, 2006
Committee Members Present: Lula Bauer ( Director ), Wendell Domon, Karen Parker, Ruben Bolognesi ( Administrator. )
PWSI Courage 88 Red Members Present: Head Coach, Team Manager, WAGS Club Representative.
Penalty Points Accumulation – PWSI Courage Red 88 U19 D2 - 21 Current Penalty Points.
The Head Coach ( HC ) started out by explaining why the players that received cards were not in attendance then apologized for having to come before the Committee for the accumulation of 21 penalty points.
As the HC began to explain each card his players received, he made a comment about being called Gavin by other coaches and referees, Gavin was the team’s previous HC. It was his thought that referees and other teams knew of the PWSI Courage 88 Red penalty point reputation since the team has been before the Committee in the past.
He mentioned that the majority of the cards his team received were for 50 / 50 balls, and that referees called them all against his team. He continued by complaining about the level of the referees and said that he never fills out a referee evaluation form because nothing is ever done to the referees.
A Committee member responded to the comment that the HC made about referees by explaining that more than likely he wouldn’t hear if a referee had been spoken with since there really isn’t a procedure in place.
A second Committee member told the HC that he had done absolutely nothing to help his case. The HC did not provide documentation from his absent players, a plan of action, none of his players attended; and added that all 7 teams in the U19 Division 2 received a total of 22 cards and that his team accounted for 7 of those 22.
During deliberations, the Committee concluded that the PWSI Courage Red 88 was not prepared for this hearing, that the HC never took responsibility for any of the cards his players received and chose to blame the level of the referees instead. Furthermore and foremost, the Committee felt extremely disappointed and most disturbed that no players attended the hearing. The Committee would have seen proper that the all players that received Penalty Points, except for player # 22, were in attendance regardless of their personal future plans.
After deliberation, the Committee directed the following:
Players # 17 and 22 must sit out the next WAGS game regardless of the WAGSL team they decide to join in the future. 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.
The PWSI Courage 88 Red is assessed a fee equal to a full WAGSL league fee. The check must be mailed to: WAGSL – 8000 Old Parsonage Court – Alexandria, VA. 22315, and must be received no later than January 19, 2006. If the fee is not paid, all PWSI teams affiliated with WAGS and participating in the Spring 2007 season will be denied the privilege of having home games.
The PWSI Courage 88 Red was informed that they will be carrying over 10 penalty points should they decide to participate during the Spring 2007 WAGSL season.
The PWSI Courage 88 Red U19 Division 2 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”.
Penalty Points Accumulation – BRYC Thunder White U16 D3 - 27 Total Penalty Points ( 22 current + 5 Carry Over ).
BRYC Thunder White Members Present: Head Coach, Team Manager, WAGS Club Representative, Players, Parents.
The HC started his testimony by admitting that they have a problem. He continued by explaining both of his red cards the he received and read a statement he had prepared. The HC took full responsibility for his and his AC penalty point accumulation, which amount to 16 of the 22 total points assessed to his team this season.
Players # 1 and 18 explained their cards, and unfortunately neither one took responsibility for their actions.
The Team Manager ( TM ) stated that the whole team takes this situation very seriously and handed out a plan of action which will take effect immediately. The plan included, among other things, having the HC and the AC attend a Positive Coaching Alliance course. Additionally, both coaches will be fined for every card they receive in the future, and a referee will be brought in to a team meeting or practice to talk to the players.
A Committee member told both players at the meeting that they have to acknowledge and take full responsibility for their actions on the field of play.
The Director mentioned to the HC that while fouls are judgment calls made by the referee and are at times subjective, showing dissent is something that CAN and MUST BE controlled.
During deliberations the Committee took into account that twenty seven penalty points is a significant accumulation, the most any team has ever accumulated in the history of WAGS, nonetheless, the Committee commends everyone in attendance representing the BRYC Thunder White for being, forthcoming, and having a plan in place to prevent this situation from occurring in the future. With this in mind, The Committee directed the following:
Player # 1 must sit out the next 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 sits out.
The BRYC Thunder White are assessed a fee equal to a full WAGSL league fee. The check must be mailed to: WAGSL – 8000 Old Parsonage Court – Alexandria, VA. 22315, and must be received no later than January 19, 2007. If the fee is not paid, all BRYC teams affiliated with WAGS that are participating in the Spring 2007 season will be denied the privilege of having home games.
The WAGSL R&D Committee supports the first 2 measures included in the “Yellow/Red Card Prevention Plan” presented by the BRYC Thunder White team manager, which calls for the Head and the Assistant Coaches attending a Positive Alliance Course. Proof of attendance must be forwarded to the R&D Director once both coaches comply with their respective course.
The WAGSL R&D Committee defers division seeding for the BRYC Thunder White to the WAGSL Board of Directors.
The BRYC Thunder White is hereby informed that they will be carrying over 11 penalty points should they decide to participate during the Spring 2007 WAGSL season.
The BRYC Thunder White U16 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”.
Match Complaint: Game # 4495 SYA Shockwave vs. LMVSA Patriots – U17 / Division 32 - WAGS Rules J.3 and K.7.
SYA Shockwave filed the complaint.
SYA Shockwave Members Present: Head Coach, Assistant Coach, Team Manager, WAGS Club Representative.
LMVSA Patriots Members Present: Head Coach, WAGS Club Representative.
The SYA HC read the statement that he had submitted when he filed the protest, which contained a
summary of the circumstances.
The SYA HC arrived to Manchester Lakes to play the match in question wearing white. During warm
up, the LMVSA HC came in and asked the SYA HC: “what are doing wearing white?” The LMVSA
HC indicated to the SYA HC that not all players had brought in their blue uniform and asked if the
SYA Shockwave could change colors. After checking with his players, the SYC HC told the LMVSA
HC that not all SYA Shockwave players had brought in the alternate color jerseys and that they will
remain in white. The HC added that the LMVSA Patriots prior to the game had made no contact.
The SYA HC observed that 15 minutes into the second half a LMVSA player leaving the field on a
substitution had the same jersey number # 22 as another LMVSA player on the field. The problem
was brought up to the Assistant Referee ( AR ), who spoke to the LMVSA HC about it. Ten minutes
after that, the player in question reentered the game with a series of band aids connecting the two
terminal ends of the number 2 on the left side of the jersey creating a rough # 82. The SYA HC
addressed this issue with the Center Referee ( CR ) and the AR and indicated that WAGS rules do
not permit this situation. At this time, the CR approached the SYA HC and mentioned to him that he
has been aware of the situation prior to the start of the match.
The SYA HC claims that the LMVSA player in question should not have been allowed to play based
on Rule J.3, and requests that the game either be replayed, or change the game result to forfeit in
favor of the SYA Shockwave based on Rule K.7.
The LMVSA HC started his testimony by saying that the team did not receive a response from the
SYA Shockwave to the contact e-mail sent prior to the match. In that e-mail the LMVSA manager
indicated that if there were no problems, the LMVSA Patriots would wear their white uniform. The
HC provided to the Committee with copies of the contact e-mail sent to the SYA Shockwave.
The LMVSA HC continued his testimony by adding that the team was “checked in” by the referee
without any problems. Moments after that, the LMVSA HC noticed that the SYA Shockwave
players were wearing white, the same jersey color that his team was wearing. He approached the
SYA HC and asked him if he had received the contact e-mail, which the SYA HC responded
negatively. After finding out that the LMVSA Patriots had to change jerseys, he came to know that
2 of his players did not have the alternate jersey color blue in her team bag. One of them went
home and got it, but the second one lived too far, and ended up wearing a blue jersey # 22, that
player # 22 had as a spare. This issue was brought up and approved by the CR prior to the game.
The LMVSA HC finished his opening statement by adding that there was no intent to deceive, that
the player in question is an eligible and rostered player on his team and that in his belief the duplicate
uniform did not affect the outcome of the game in any way.
A Committee member mentioned that it bothered him to perceive a sense of hostility between the
two coaches and asked the LMVSA HC if he tried to work something out with the SYC HC. The LMVSA
HC responded that the atmosphere was uncomfortable; therefore he dealt directly with the CR.
As a closing statement, the SYA HC reiterated that fair play calls for this game not too be valid, and that
the CR and the LMVSA HC ignored WAGS rules.
The LMVSA HC closed his testimony by saying again that he does not know how a duplicate uniform
could affect the outcome of the game.
After hearing and reading all statements from members of both teams, the WAGS R & D Committee felt:
J. TEAM OBLIGATIONS
3. Player uniform shirts (except that of the goalkeeper) must clearly display a unique player number, which corresponds to the player number for that player as shown on the Official State Roster (or WAGS Provisional Roster). The player number on the uniform shirt must be displayed on the shirt back and sized between six (6) inches and eight (8) inches high. A team’s failure to comply with this rule may result in forfeiture to the opposition by a score of 3-0.
According to the Center Referee’s report, the LMVSA Patriots checked in with the referee wearing their “white” jerseys. The Center Referee stated that all numbers were displayed and unique. It wasn’t until after the team checked in with the Center Referee ( CR ) that LMVSA and the SYA Shockwave discovered there was a conflict with jersey colors.
The CR and the Assistant Referee ( AR ) were both aware that player #22 had a duplicate number that had been altered with “band-aids” to represent a # 82. The CR was aware of the duplicate number at kickoff and gave his permission for the game to commence. At no time was the CR unaware of the situation. The CR became aware of the duplicate number after halftime.
There was no deception by the LMVSA Patriots given that the player using jersey “duplicate” 22 was a rostered player ( # 17 ), and that she had forgotten to pack her team’s alternate color jersey.
There were not enough grounds to support WAGSL Rule K.7, which would have granted a forfeit win for the SYA Shockwave. However, the Committee was concerned that the SYA Shockwave was not made aware of the conflict until halftime.
The Committee was also concerned with the hostile atmosphere before the game. Both teams testified about a lack of, or desire for, proper communication especially concerning the resolution of color conflicts before arriving at the field of play. Being the home team, the LMVSA Patriots U17 D3 are primarily responsible for this problem.
After deliberation, the WAGS R & D Committee agrees:
Based on WAGS Rule K. 7.: “Failure to have uniform shirts clearly displaying a unique player number (except the goalkeeper) that corresponds to the player number for that player listed on the Official State Roster (or WAGS Provisional Roster) shall result in a forfeit if the R & D Committee finds that the uniform number discrepancy was intended to deceive, to avoid the consequences of disciplinary action, to permit an ineligible player to participate in the match, or to affect the match unfairly in some other way”, the Committee did not feel that a) there was intent to deceive, b) player #17 had not received a red card in her previous game, therefore was not avoiding disciplinary action, c) player #17 was an ineligible player and, d) was not trying to affect the match unfairly in any way.
The LMVSA Patriots U-17 D3 will receive a written letter of censure that will remain in their file.
The HC is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his/her players. A letter of reprimand will be
sent to the LMVSA Head Coach.
The SYA Shockwave U17 Division 3 was informed that they have the right to appeal the decision
of the WAGS R & D Committee according to Rule O, “Protests and Appeals Procedures”.