Fall 2002

Summary R&D Decisions

The R&D Committee has issued 11 decisions from the Fall 2002 Season. 1. U17/3 Protest of Game
The basis of the protest was that Team A's former coach was supposed to be serving a suspension and it was alleged that he was on the spectator sideline coaching.

For the record, Team A was coached by Parent A in the Spring 2002 season. In game played on June 2, the referee alleged that Parent A threatened him. This issue was referred to VYSA and on June 19, the VYSA Adjudication Committee held a hearing and issued the decision that Parent A did commit referee abuse and coaching misconduct. Parent A was suspended from all soccer activities under the jurisdiction of the United States Soccer Federation and its members through October 15, 2002, including all activities at the national, regional, state, club and league levels, and participation in all games, practices, and officiating. Parent A is no longer listed as the coach of record for the Team A.

Parent A and the members of the Team A claimed that Parent A was not coaching but only shouting words of encouragement to the players. However, the referee stated that Parent A was acting more like a coach than a parent and provided continual tactical instructions to the players. In the opinion of the referee, the players were responding to the instructions provided by Parent A. During the first half, the referee warned Parent A that he was interfering with the game.

The Team A management and parents made no attempt to prevent Parent A from coaching and condoned his behavior in violation of the state suspension.

In the unanimous opinion of the committee, Parent A was coaching the team during this game from the spectator sideline in clear violation of the VYSA suspension and in violation of NCSL rules and procedures for suspended team officials.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The protest was granted. The game was declared a forfeit and the score was recorded Team B 3 vs. Team A 0.
  2. Team A was fined $500.
  3. Parent A was suspended for one year in serving, in any capacity, as a NCSL team official. Since Parent A was not currently a rostered official, the R&D committee acknowledges that it does not have the ability to enforce or monitor compliance with this suspension. Therefore, the committee assigns the Club and in particular Team A the responsibility for making sure this suspension is served.

2. U16/2 Protest of Red Card
The basis of the protest was two fold: 1) the center official did not see the incident and he relied on the information provided by the assistant referee, and the 2) the player pushed, not punched the opponent. The remedy requested was a dismissal of the red card.

The fact that the referee did not see the incident but relied on the information provided to him by the assistant referee is correct and within the duties assigned to the assistant referee. The distinction between a punch and a push is not significant; what is significant is that the assistant referee reported what was in his judgement a foul to the referee. The referee made the decision that the foul warranted the red card ejection.

The committee found no justification to overturn the judgement calls made by the assistant referee and the referee during the match.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The protest was denied and the red card issued stands.
  2. The sit-out for receiving the red card must be served by the player in the next NCSL game.

3. U11/1 Terminated Game
The game was terminated with approximately 18 minutes remaining in the second half with the score Team A 4 vs. Team B 2.

During the first half, the referee reported that the parents from both teams and Team A coaches were out of control and constantly screaming at the referee for practically every call. At half time, the referee warned both coaches to control themselves and their parents. In addition, the referee requested to see the NCSL coaches' passes from both teams. The referee requested the 2 unrostered Team A officials move to the spectator sideline. Team A Assistant Coach objected to the request and argued with the referee. The referee ejected Team A Assistant Coach from the match and sent him to the parking lot.

Team A Assistant Coach stated during the hearing that he did not know he was ejected from the match. However, Team A Coach stated that he may have been ejected and Team A TSL stated that he knew he was ejected. With 18 minutes remaining in the second half, the referee noticed that Team A Assistant Coach was on the spectator sideline standing directly behind the Assistant Referee. The referee stopped the game and terminated the match.

After the termination, some Team A parents ran onto the field to the referees seeking clarification of what happened. One Team A parent approached the referee crew and insisted that they provide him an explanation of what happened. The referee crew refused to answer any of the questions and walked away to their chairs. Team A Parent felt that any parent was entitled to an explanation and he approached the referee crew a second time demanding an explanation. The referee crew again refused to answer his questions and sent him away. Parent A's behavior was totally inappropriate, unacceptable, and in violation of the NCSL Parent Code of Conduct.

It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that the referee properly terminated the match and the actions of Team A caused this game to be terminated.

Youth soccer for our children is a wonderful tool in helping them to grow. By participating in this beautiful game, youngsters learn many things about themselves and about cooperating with a group. Fun, exuberance, passion and disappointment, when appropriately expressed, are certainly a part of this experience.

The R&D Committee was disturbed by the emotions and testimony on display during this hearing. It was clear to the committee that these emotions reflected to some degree the behavior of the adult leadership for both teams during the match in question and, perhaps for other matches as well. Further, this type of behavior and attitude is misplaced and does not serve to create a healthy, appropriate atmosphere for our children at play.

The R&D Committee admonishes the adult leadership of both teams to be mindful of maintaining an appropriate, healthy and non-interfering atmosphere and perspective at all future matches. If parents and coaches can't control their emotions at this level, what is the future for the league as teams move to the upper age groups and level of play and competition increases.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The game was declared a forfeit and the score was recorded Team B 3 vs. Team A 0.
  2. The red card ejection to Team A Assistant Coach stands and the sit out for receiving the red card must be served in the next Team A NCSL game.
  3. Team A was fined $500.

Team A appealed the R&D Committee's decision based on the following:

  1. Team A believed that the game was terminated at the half and should not have been restarted.
  2. Team A believed that the referees failure to show the red card at the time of sending off Team A Assistant Coach was a material error and that R&D should have nullified the ejection.
  3. Team A argued that if R&D followed proper procedure in the use of the VYSA "coaches misconduct policy" that Team A Assistant Coach would have been given a three game suspension rather then the one game allocated by the R&D Committee.
  4. Team A asserted that the fine assessed was outside the NCSL guidelines.

Decision of the Appeals Committee was as follows:
By unanimous vote, the appeals committee upheld the R&D decision. All suspensions, penalties and fines imposed on Team A stand.

4. U17/2 Inappropriate Player Behavior
The referee alleged that Player A repeatedly used foul language directed at her and was ejected from the match. After the ejection he continued to use foul language directed toward the referee. Neither the team nor the player disputed that his language and behavior were totally unacceptable. During the hearing, it was obvious that the player regretted his behavior and he apologized to the committee, the league, and his team.

It was clear to the committee that the player's behavior was unacceptable to his mom and his coach. Team A Coach informed the committee that he had suspended the player for 3 games for his outbursts. Further, Team A Coach reported that the player has already served 2 of his 3 game suspension.

Decision of the R&D Committee was as follows:
Player A was suspended for 3 games. The 3 game suspension will be served concurrently with the suspensions issued by Team A Coach.

5. U14/5 Terminated Game
The game was terminated with approximately 15 minutes remaining in the second half with the score Team A 0 vs. Team B 0.

The referee reported that during the entire first half Team A coach was yelling at him whenever he made a call in favor of the Team B. In the second half, the referee awarded a penalty kick to Team B because a player was brought down in the box. Team A Coach started yelling at him, and came on to the field without permission. The referee requested that he calm down and go back to his side, he refused, and continued yelling. The referee ejected Team A Coach from the match, showed him a red card, and requested that he leave the field and go to the parking lot. Team A Coach initially refused to leave. After the referee threatened to terminate the match, the coach was escorted off the field by the Team A assistant coach.

During the confrontation between the referee and Team A Coach, Team B parent entered the field in an attempt to diffuse the situation. Team B Parent stated during the hearing that he entered the field because he thought the referee was being threatened by the actions of the Team A Coach. The referee stated during the hearing that he never felt threatened. Team A claimed that the actions of Team B Parent heightened the tensions on the field. Even though Team B Parent entered the field without permission, his actions did not diminish Team A Coach's inappropriate behavior.

During the hearing, Team A Coach stated that he did lose his calmness and that he entered the field without permission. He further stated that he came onto the field in an attempt to influence the referee to change his call on the penalty kick.

As the referee attempted to restart the match with the penalty kick, he noticed that the Team A coach had not left the field as requested. At this point, the referee terminated the match.

NCSL rules state that "in no event will a team gain an advantage if the committee determines it to be responsible for the termination of the match." It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that the actions of Team A Coach caused the game to be terminated.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The game was declared a forfeit and the score was recorded Team B 3 vs. Team A 0.
  2. Team A Coach was suspended for 3 games.
  3. All other cards issued during the game stand.

6. U17/2 Terminated Game
The game was terminated with approximately 10 minutes remaining in the second half with the score Team B 3 vs. Team A 1.

After Team B scored their first goal in the first half, the referee issued Team A Coach a yellow card for dissent and use of foul language. The use of foul language in dissenting the goal was totally inappropriate. Team A Parent was on the team sideline and was ejected from the match for foul and abusive language.

In the second half, the referee ejected Team A goalie and stopped play to allow the Team B coach to enter the field to attend to an injured player. Team A Coach entered the field without permission to argue the call. The referee directed Team A Coach to leave the field. Team A Coach directed an inappropriate remark toward the referee. The referee ejected Team A Coach from the match. At this point, Team A Coach called his players off the field and refused to continue the match.

In his report and testimony during the hearing, Team A Coach accused the referee of collusion with Team B team and bribery. No evidence was presented by Team A to support this allegation. The committee found these unfounded remarks extremely insulting to the integrity of the referee. These remarks were contemptuous and totally out of line.

Finally, the committee acknowledges that this is not Team A Coach's first appearance before the R&D Committee. In the Spring 2001 season, Team A Coach was ejected from a match and returned to the field after the game to confront the referee. As a result of that hearing, Team A Coach was suspended for 3 games.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The game was declared a forfeit and the score was recorded Team B 3 vs. Team A 0
  2. All cards issued during the game stand.
  3. Team A Coach was suspended for 6 games (1 for the red card, 1 for accumulated points, and 4 disciplinary). If Team A Coach leaves Team A at the end of the season, any unserved sit-outs remain with him and must be served with any new NCSL team that he would join.
  4. Team A was fined $300.

7. U14/1 Protest Red Card
The basis of the appeal was two fold: 1) Player A did not foul the opponent and cleanly won possession of the ball, and 2) the incident took place 10 yards outside the box. The remedy requested was a dismissal of the red card.

On a breakaway play by Team B, the referee stated that she was within 15 yards directly behind the play. She was able to see Team A defender hip check Team B player off his feet and then kick the ball. Team B player went down, she whistled the ball dead and ran up to the spot of the foul. The referee determined that the foul occurred in the penalty box. She awarded a penalty kick to Team B and red carded Team A player.

The Referee had a different view from a close vantage point of the play than either of the coaches. The decision to award a penalty kick and issue a red card to Team A player was clearly a judgement call by the referee. The committee found no justification to overturn the judgement calls made by the referee during the match.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The protest is denied and the red card issue to Team A player stands.
  2. The sit-out for receiving the red card must be served in the next Team A NCSL game.

8. U19/3 Terminated Game
The game was terminated with approximately 2 minutes remaining in the second half with the score Team A 3 vs Team B 1.

Most of the game was played without incident. However, late in the second half, Team B player tackled Team A player and both players starting fighting. Other players on the field and some players from Team B bench got involved. At this point the referee terminated the match and let the coaches separate the players.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The score when the game was terminated stands Team B 3 vs Team A 1.
  2. The red card issued to Team A player #1 and Team B player #4 stand and the sit-outs for receiving the red cards must be served by each player in their team's next NCSL game.
  3. All other cards issued during the game stand.
  4. No additional disciplinary action was warranted and a hearing was not held.

9. U12/6 Protest Red Card
The referee reported that the red card was issued to the Team A player for tackling the ball when the keeper had possession. In reviewing the incident and the laws of the game, the referee stated the player was not guilty of a serious foul play and that he should have sanctioned the player with a yellow card.

The referee further reported that after the game, an Team A parent crossed the field and confronted him using foul and abusive language. Team A parent was invited but failed to attend the hearing. Team A parents behavior was totally unacceptable and a significant violation of the NCSL Parent Code of Conduct.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The protest was granted and the red card was reduced to a yellow card.
  2. The Team A was fined $300.
  3. The Team A management was directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the outbursts by Team A parent are not repeated at future NCSL games.

10. U14/2 Protest of Game
The basis of the protest was that neither the referee, the assistant referee, nor Team B informed Team A that the assistant referee was a parent of a Team B player.

A three man crew was assigned to referee the match. When one of the assigned assistant referees reported as being sick, the referee arrived early to the field in an attempt to recruit a replacement assistant referee. The referee asked the center from the previous match if he could remain and be the assistant referee for this match. The assistant referee informed the referee that he had a son on Team B.

Team A based their protest solely on the fact that they were not informed that the assistant referee was a parent of a Team B player. Team A Coach stated that he disagreed with some of the calls made by the assistant referee and it was his opinion that a few of the those calls made by the assistant referee were biased against his team. However, Team A Coach was not able to link a specific call that he judged as bias which consequently effected the outcome of the game.

Prior to halftime, Team A Coach became aware that the assistant referee was a Team B parent. By his failure to take any action, Team A Coach implicitly agreed to accept Team B parent as the assistant referee.

The U. S. Soccer Federation Referee Administrative Handbook Conflict of Interest Policy states that a referee should not accept an assignment in any match in which he has a vested interest, The referee crew must inform and get agreement from both coaches if one member of the crew is a parent of a player. The referee admitted and apologized for his oversight. For future reference, the referee, assistant referee, and Team B can avoid this potential appearance of conflict of interest if they ensure prior to the game that both teams are informed and in agreement with using a parent as a member of the referee crew.

In the unanimous opinion of the R&D Committee, there was no justification to overturn the result that was fairly determined on the field.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The protest was denied and the score stands Team B 2 vs. Team A 0.
  2. All cards issued during the game stand.

11. U16/1 Terminated Game
The game was terminated with approximately 5 minutes remaining in the second half with the score Team A 5 vs Team B 0.

The committee reviewed reports submitted by the referee, both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams, the referee, and the assistant referee during the hearing. For the record, a second supplemental hearing was required since neither the referee crew nor Team B coach was able to attend the first hearing.

Prior to the start of this 2:00 pm game, there was a confrontation between Team A coach and the referee. The referee wanted to start the game early or at least on time and Team A Coach wanted additional time to start the match since his team had played another NCSL match earlier that day. The referee report that the match started at 1:58 pm. For the record, both teams had played NCSL matches earlier that day; Team A played a game starting at 11:00 am and Team B played their match starting at 10:30 am.

During the first half, the referee reported that he verbally warned Team A Coach for his behavior. In the 28th minute, the referee cautioned and showed the yellow card to Team A Coach for dissent. Team A Coach stated in his report that he did dispute and repeated his protest of an offside call.

The tone of the match reported by Team A was exceedingly different from what was reported by Team B or the referee. Team A stated that the game was played without incident, not a lot of fouls were committed, they were comfortably leading, and there was joking amongst the players from both teams. Team B coach reported that the referee repeatedly warned and cautioned Team A coach and players; he further reported that it was a very rough game on part of Team A and that his players were not joking around with Team A players.

The referee reported that he admonished Team A players for their behavior on more than one occasion. In the 71st minute, the referee issued a second caution and ejected Team A coach. Team A coach went from the team sideline to the spectator sideline. In the 75th minute, during play stoppage due to a Team A foul, the Assistant Referee reported to the referee that Team A coach was yelling on the spectator sideline. At this point the referee terminated the match because in his opinion the safety of Team B players was in jeopardy and the refusal of Team A coach to completely leave the field area.

For the record, the referee issued 3 yellow cards to Team A players during the match. Team A reported that one of its players had a broken ankle and did not participate in this match.

Team A claimed that the termination of the match was not justified and that the referee fabricated fouls and cards issued during the match to support his termination. In the opinion of the committee, this allegation was unfounded and totally inappropriate.

After the match, the referee issued red cards to 3 Team A players for foul and abusive language. Further, the referee reported that a Team A parent invaded the field and directed foul and abusive language at the referee in a threatening manner.

It was reported that Team A Coach and one player served their suspensions for the red cards. R&D records show that Team A Coach received a yellow card earlier in the season; therefore, Team A Coach should have also served a sit-out for accumulated points. R&D has not received sit-out verifications for any of these sit outs.

In the unanimous opinion of the committee, Team A was totally responsible for the termination of the match. Team A Coachs behavior during the match and after the ejection was not in compliance with the NCSL Leaders Code of Conduct.

Decisions of the R&D Committee were as follows:

  1. The game was declared a forfeit and the score was recorded as Team B 3 vs Team A 0.
  2. Team A Coach was suspended for 1 game in addition to the suspension for being ejected from the match. This suspension must be served by Team A Coach in the next Team A NCSL game. If Team A Coach leaves Team A , the suspension remains with him and must be served with any new NCSL team he would join.
  3. Two Team A players did not serve their automatic one game suspension for being ejected from the match. No additional disciplinary action was assessed; however, both players must serve their one game suspensions in the next Team A NCSL game. If either player leaves Team A , the suspensions remain with them and must be served with any new NCSL team they would join.
  4. Team A was directed to fax a copy of the sit-outs served for Team A Coach and player but not yet recorded to the R&D Chairman as soon as possible.
  5. The yellow card issued to Team A player which was not recorded on the game card and will not count.
  6. Team A was directed to report the name of Team A player who received a yellow card in the 65th minute.
  7. Team A was fined $300.