|
June 3, 2008

WAGS R&D Committee Meeting 

 Fairview Park Marriott 

June 3rd,  2008

Committee Members Present:  Lula Bauer (Director), Clarence Jones, Sally D’Italia,  Bob Emertiz, Debi Honaker, Maria Ramos, Michelle White (Administrator).

 

Loudon 93G  Team Members Present:  Assistant Coach, Team Manager, Loudoun TSL, and Loudoun Director of Coaching, Travel.

Others Present: Two A/Rs

Meeting Notes

Loudoun 93G Head Coach (U14 D1); alleged violation of WAGS Rule M.1 and K.3.  Game Conduct and Loudoun 93G protest based on FIFA Law 7, The Duration of the Match.

The meeting began with introductions and the R&D Director explaining the procedure of the hearing and the appeal process.

The Center Referee (CR) filed a report pertaining to the Head Coach (HC), alleging game misconduct which initiated this hearing.  The CR was not in attendance; however, his submitted report stands as his testimony. 

The CR was not present at the hearing, but the 1st Assistant Referee (AR) read the CR report, relating the chain of events that lead to the filing of CR’s Game Report.  The report stated that the CR was subjected to repeated loud verbal and belligerent dissent from the HC and Assistant Coach (AC) for a “lack of a call during the second half on a play involving their opponent’s goalie dribbling the ball back into the box and then picking it up (ball was last touched by attacking team prior to goalie’s action).” The constant dissent continued until the end of the second half.  The game was terminated approximately 5 minutes early.  The 1st AR supported the CR’s report as how he observed the match.

 The 2nd AR testified that the Loudoun HC and AC kept verbally harassing the CR after the lack of call on the goalie.  The 2nd AR’s observations of the match supported the CR’s report.

A committee member asked who dissented and the volume of the dissent.  The 1st AR and 2nd AR said that the Loudoun HC and AC were loudly dissented during the whole match. 

The HC was not present for the meeting.  The AC began his testimony by stating that he disputes the CR’s report.  He stated that both coaches were concerned about the level of play because the match was physical.  He stated that six fouls were called with each team receiving three. He felt that the CR treated the Loudoun team unfairly as the Loudoun team didn’t receive a kick after the opposing team’s goalkeeper pushed a Loudoun offensive player during play. He stated that when the game was ended, the CR said that they were down by 2 goals, and they couldn’t catch up. 

The Loudoun TSL testified that the CR blew his whistle to stop play after the opposing team’s goalkeeper pushed the offensive player off the wall but did not award a kick to Loudoun.   The TSL said the AC asked for an explanation and the CR replied that he didn’t have to give a reason.

The Loudoun Director of Coaching, Travel, testified that he was not at the game, but no cards were given during the match.

The Loudoun Team Manager (TM) testified that she asked CR why the game ended early, and his reply was that the game was out of control.  She stated that no one, including the TSL, received warnings. 

 A committee member asked what occurred for them to be concerned about the aggressive nature of the match and at what point the match got overly aggressive.  The AC said that he was concerned about the body contact and the pushing.  He stated that the entire match was aggressive.

A second committee member asked if the HC or AC received any yellow or red cards to which the AC replied that he and the HC both received yellow cards.

The R&D Director stated that she was disappointed in the behavior of the HC and AC toward a young referee and the HC and AC are role models, and as such must control their dissent. 

The Committee was disappointed that the HC did not attend the meeting.    

 After the deliberation, the Committee directed the following:

 The Committee denies Loudoun’s protest * based on FIFA Law 7 as the protest does not apply to the occurrences of this match.  According to FIFA Law 5 –Powers and Duties of a Referee, the Referee:  (*the team cannot protest a FIFA law, but rather can file a protest that is based on a possible misapplication of a law of the game.)

stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind.”

 The match was terminated by the Center Referee due to the overall hostile nature of the match, which was largely the result of the Loudoun coaches’ behavior, and will be recorded as a forfeit with a score of Loudoun ’93 (0), Vista Omni (3). 

 Also, this letter constitutes an official written letter of censure for the Loudon 93G Head Coach and Assistant Coach.    Questioning Referee’s calls cannot and will not be tolerated.   The HC and AC should have known the unrelenting dissent would result in termination of their match. 

 The Loudoun 93 G U14 Division 1 was informed that they have the right to appeal the decision of the WAGS R & D Committee according to Rule O, Protest and Appeals Procedure 

 Sincerely,

 

 

 

Lula E. Bauer, Director, WAGSL R&D Committee

 

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members Present:  Lula Bauer (Director), Clarence Jones, Sally D’Italia, Bob Emertiz, Debi Honaker, Maria Ramos, Michelle White (Administrator).

 

 BAYS Baltimore Nomads Present: Head Coach, Assistant Coach, Team Manager,  TSL and parent.

 

 Others present:  Freestate Inferno Head Coach

 

 The Washington Area Girls Soccer League Rules and Discipline Committee (WAGSL-R&DC) held a hearing related to FIFA Law 7 and WAGS’ Rule M.1. and K.10.

 Meeting Notes

 The meeting began with introductions and the R&D Director explaining the procedure of the hearing and the appeal process.

 

 The R&D Director asked the BAYS Head Coach (HC) to state the reasons for the protest of FIFA Law 7, and the HC responded they were not protesting FIFA Law 7.  The R&D Director then asked them to address the alleged violation of WAGS Rule M.1 and K.10.

 

 The BAYS’ HC testified the game was not very physical.  The Center Referee (CR) carded three of his players, and he asked for an explanation in a non-harsh tone.  He stated that his team has had a rough season playing most of their games with 10 players.  His player is new in goalkeeping as she only played a couple of times before, and he was giving her instructions while the CR came up on his left and gave him a card for dissent.  He told her that he was giving instructions to his goalkeeper.  He then received a red card in which he replied that she was an awful referee and continued to walk off the field.  As he was behind the goal, the game ended.  He returned to the field to shake the opposing teams’ coaches and players’ hands.

 

 The BAYS’ Assistant Coach (AC) testified that the HC was giving the goalkeeper instructions.  He stated the CR approached them and told them one of them was receiving a card.  He stated that the CR had words with the HC, and the HC left the field.  The CR told him to get control of his HC to which he replied that the HC was leaving the field and that he was a grown man.   The AC said that he was not the HC’s keeper. The AC went back onto the pitch, and in frustration, pushed his chair while he had his back to the CR.   The CR gave him a red card.  The AC said that when a game gets out of hand, the team is told to leave the field, at which time they did.

 

 The BAYS’ TSL testified that the CR was very assertive and she let everyone know she was in charge. She stated that she gave cards quickly to their players. She further testified that after the CR approached the HC, she then approached the AC.  The AC threw his chair.

 

The BAYS’ parent stated that the CR report had several inaccuracies. A parent was not dismissed at the first half.  He also stated that the BAYS’ HC was never warned.

 

The Freestate Inferno Head Coach (HC) began his testimony by stating that he had this CR before and watched her referee the previous games in which there were some disturbing incidents.   He stated that his players know not to say anything when this CR is officiating.  He testified that the BAYS’ HC was giving instruction to his goalkeeper when the CR approached the BAYS’ coaches telling them that one of them has to go.  He stated that the CR told the BAYS’ AC to control his HC. 

 

A committee member asked what the protest was with the CR to which the HC replied he asked the CR for explanation of calls so he could get a better understanding of the CR to instruct his team on how to continue play.  

 

A second committee member asked what the HC was yelling at goalkeeper.  The HC responded that he was telling her that she can pick up the ball, and it was not a pass back.

 

A third committee member asked the HC if he was aware of the procedure when ejected from the game, and the HC responded that he had not quite had time to leave the field when the game ended.  The committee member asked the AC if his tossing of the chair would be considered dissent to which the AC replied he was not facing the field, and he was not aware if the referee saw it.

The R&D Director asked if the Freestate Inferno agreed to abandon the match with the BAYS, and the Freestate Inferno HC said they did not as they were winning 2-1.

 

During the deliberations, the Committee concluded that:

 

The behavior of the Head Coach and Assistant Coach of the BAYS was inappropriate.  Judgments made by the Center Referee and their assistants must be respected, and unquestioned except in the case of the misapplication of the Laws of the Game.  And in that event there are specific, appropriate actions that should be taken.  It is completely inappropriate to toss a chair showing dissent of the Center Referee’s actions as coaches act as a role model to their teams.   Therefore, the Committee suspends the Assistant Coach at his next WAGS’ match.

In addition, the match will be deemed a forfeit by the BAYS’ as they chose to abandon the match.  

The BAYS Baltimore Nomads U15 Division 2 was informed they have the right to appeal the decision of the WAGS R & D Committee according to Rule O, “Protest and Appeals Procedures.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Lula E. Bauer, Director, WAGSL R&D Committee

 

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

Committee Members Present:  Lula Bauer (Director), Clarence Jones, Sally D’Italia, Bob Emertiz, Debi Honaker, Maria Ramos, Michelle White (Administrator).

 

PSC Waverunners’ Present: Head Coach, Assistant Coach/Team Manager,.

 

Others present:  DSC Blaze Team Manager

 

The Washington Area Girls Soccer League Rules and Discipline Committee (WAGSL-R&DC) held a hearing related to FIFA Law 7 and WAGS’ Rule M.1. and K.10.

Meeting Notes

 The meeting began with introductions and the R&D Director explaining the procedure of the hearing and the appeal process.

 

 The Center Referee (CR) was not in attendance, but filed a report pertaining to the PSC Waverunners Head Coach (HC) and Assistant Coach (AC) alleging game misconduct which initiated this hearing.   His submitted report stands as his testimony.

 

 The  PSC Waverunners HC began his testimony by stating that he holds a national coaching license and national state license.  He has been a referee since 1995 belonging to the Referee Association. He has played semi pro and in college.  He has coached in WAGS for about 10 years, and this is his first time appearing in front of the committee.   The HC testified to the chain of events leading up to his ejection.  He explained they were utilizing an offside trap and when the ball went behind, the AR raised the flag, but the whistle was not blown.   As a result, the goalkeeper collided with the offensive player as she came out of the box to retrieve the ball. The HC  screamed to the CR, “Sir, please blow your whistle before the keeper gets hurt” only so the CR could hear him because he was about 60 yards away.  The CR gave the HC a red card.  The HC told the CR that he was horrible and started to walk off the field.  After he realized he forgot his bag with his personal belongings, he returned to the bench, retrieved his bag and left the field.

 

 The PSC Waverunners AC testified that he questioned the CR as to why he terminated the match.  He told the team to stay on the field, and continued to ask why the game was terminated.  At this point, the PSC AC received a red card.  He stated that he said something inappropriate to the CR about the red card.  He said he would never say the expletive stated in the CR report because it is not right to say in front of his team, nor would his parents tolerate it.  

 

 A committee member asked the HC whether his behavior toward the CR was inappropriate in front of his team.  The HC responded in the positive but only when the behavior is constant by the coach.  The committee member then asked if he was aware of the WAGS rule regarding ejection, and the HC responded he was aware of the procedures, but he was grabbing his bag with his personal items to take with him to his car.

 

 A second committee member asked that although the AC did not say the expletive stated in the CR report, didn’t he think the words stated were equally dissenting.  The AC replied that he did not say the word, and felt his response to the CR was not equal.  The AC stated he probably shouldn’t have said it.

 

 A third committee member asked the HC his success of getting a referee to reverse their call to which the HC replied that he has never been successful in getting a referee to reverse a call.

 

 The DSC team manager (TM) testified that there was continued arguing between PSC Waverunner’s HC and the CR.  He stated that he did not hear the expletive but that some vulgarity was said to the CR by the AC.  He stated the CR apologized for terminating the match, but he felt that the CR could not control the game after the ejection of the PSC HC and AC.

 

 The R&D Director asked the DSC TM how much time elapsed between receipt of the red card by the PSC HC and when he finally left the field.  The DSC TM stated it was about one minute.  

 During the deliberations, the Committee concluded that:

 

 The Committee denies PSC Waverunner’s protest based on misapplication of FIFA Law 7 as it is not pertinent to the occurrences of this match.  According to FIFA Law 5 –Powers and Duties of a Referee, the Referee:

 “stops, suspends or terminates the match because of outside interference of any kind.”

 The match will be considered a forfeit due to the actions of the PSC Waverunner’s Head Coach and the Assistant Coaches’ behavior.

 The PSC Waverunners Assistant Coach is placed on disciplinary probation for 1 (one) year effective immediately. The Assistant Coach for the PSC Waverunners U-16/ D3 is placed on disciplinary probation for the next season in which the team competes in the WAGSL. The terms of this probation require that the Assistant Coach maintain a completely satisfactory disciplinary record. Cautions and ejections in PSC Waverunners  U-16/D3 matches, supplemental reports from referees and comments on the Official Game Cards will all be evaluated to ensure that Assistant Coach has satisfied the terms of probation. Violation of the terms of probation will result in an additional R&D hearing.

 Also, this letter constitutes an official written letter of censure for the PSC Waverunner’s Head  Coach.    Questioning Referee’s calls cannot and will not be tolerated. 

 The PSC Waverunners U16 Division 3 was informed they have the right to appeal the decision of the WAGS R & D Committee according to Rule O, “Protest and Appeals Procedures.

 

 Sincerely,

 

 Lula E. Bauer, Director, WAGSL R&D Committee

 

 

 

 

© Copyright 2014 Washington Area Girls Soccer League, LTD. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 2014 Demosphere International, Inc. All rights reserved.
Youth Sports WebWriter Websites, Online Registration Management, Tournament and League Scheduling Systems