WAGS R & D Committee Meeting
Fairview Park Marriott

Committee Members Present: Lula Bauer ( Director ), Clarence Jones, Debi Honaker,
Sally D’Italia, Ruben Bolognesi ( Adminitrator .)

The Washington Area Girls Soccer League Rules and Discipline Committee
( WAGSL-R&DC ) held a hearing related to rule E.1.B, Recruitment. The SAC Classic I
has alleged that the CSC White Heat U13 Division 4 has violated the above mentioned
WAGS Rule as stated:
 
“No coach, team official, players or parents of players within WAGS, regardless of any
other team affiliation/association (including but not limited to WAGS Provisional Rosters,
amateur leagues, High School Soccer and Olympic Development Programs) shall initiate
any form of contact with a prospective player who is listed on the roster of a WAGS,
VYSA, or MSYSA affiliated team with the intent of recruiting that player”

Meeting Notes

The WAGS R & D Committee considered this hearing disappointing.

It is the opinion of this committee that the events which lead to the accusations of a
Recruiting Violation against the CSC Head Coach, did not provide the committee with
concrete evidence to uphold the complaint. The committee feels that the chain of
events that took place prior to the accusation was a determining factor in the
“perception” that a violation took place. The committee found the following events
provided during testimony, disturbing.  Due to the listed chain of events, parents,
coaches and players faced 12 days of uncertainty.  The Committee felt that it is
unacceptable at any level.

The chain of events as provide by SAC and CSC:

1. The SAC Technical Director, three months prior to tryouts, notified the SAC
   Classic II Coach that there would be some changes in the coaching position
   for the Classic 1 team.
2. The SAC Permier, Classic I and Classic II tryouts were scheduled for three
   day. Day three was rained out and had to be rescheduled.
3. During the SAC U-13 tryouts, players were made aware that it was “open
   try-outs” for the Premier, Classic I and Classic II teams.
4. It was already determined which players that had been rostered on the
   Premier team, were released.  (Cut)   On the other hand – none of the players
   trying out had been offered roster spots on either the Classic I or Classic II teams.
5. The SAC Parent representing SAC, validated statement #4, as she testified that
   she had told the ‘current” Head Coach of the Classic I team, “if he did not have at
   least 15 players to consist of a team, I will look elsewhere and not spend any
   more money”.
6. The Monday prior to the last tryout, the “then” Head Coach of the SAC Classic I
   was asked by the Technical Director if he could meet with him at the Club’s office.
   During the meeting, the SAC Classic I Head Coach was informed that he would no
   longer be the Head Coach of the Classic 1 team. This came as a bit of a shock to
   the SAC Classic I Head Coach.  The SAC Classic I Head Coach was still allowed
   to attend the Monday evening tryouts.
7. Once Parents of the SAC Classic I team found out that their child’s coach was
   released, many of the parents immediately requested an official from the SAC to
   meet with them. They simply wanted an explanation.  The SAC Travel Coordinator,
   who did not have answers for the parents, was the only Club Official that met with
   some parents.   They never heard from the SAC Technical Director, who was the
   one responsible for releasing the SAC Classic I Head Coach.
8. The Columbia Soccer Club (CSC) contacted the released SAC Classic I Head
   Coach and offered him a coaching position, which he accepted. 
9. At this point, the SAC Classic I parents were angry and many of the players
   were crying and very upset that they just lost their coach.  Parents and players
   that were at the tryouts heard of what happened and the “phones started ringing”.  
10. During the final tryouts, the SAC Parent’s that submitted a corroborating
    statement for the “new” SAC Classic I Head Coach, child had been released from
    the SAC Premier team. As mentioned in statement #4, this player had not
    accepteda position on the “new” SAC Classic I team.  The SAC Parent stated
    that she was not going to roster her child unless the Classic I team had at least
    15 players.
11. The CSC Head Coach, over heard the SAC Parent make this statement and
    kindly told her that IF her child could not find a team, in other words, if the SAC
    Classic I Head Coach could not get 15 players together, that she would be
    welcomed to play for him.  
12. Later that evening, the CSC Head Coach called the SAC Parent to reiterate
    the conversation they had at the tryout field.

It is the unanimous opinion of this Committee that the SAC Technical Director could
have prevented this entire situation.  It is perplexing as to why the SAC Technical
Director waited until the middle of try-outs to inform the Classic I Head Coach that
he was being released of his responsibilities.  This Committee feels that his actions
caused a terrific upheaval within the SAC’s U-13 Girl’s Age group.  The Committee
Members especially feels saddened for the players of the “then” U-13 SAC Classic I
team. 

Given the circumstance surrounding the alleged recruitment violation, the R & D
Committee finds that the Head Coach of the U-13 CSC White Heat is not in violation
of the WAGSL Rule E.1.B.

SAC Classic I, 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”.