U19/1 Rejection of Protest
In order for a protest to be accepted as valid two criteria must be met according to NCSL Rules & Procedures:
Alleged misapplication of FIFA Laws of the Game by the referee which may have affected the outcome of the game may be protested (A single incident in a 7-0 game will generally not be considered to have affected the outcome of the game.) Incidents resulting from judgment calls may not be protested.

For this game there was no misapplication of the LOTG and the outcome was Team A 7 vs. Team B 0.

This protest is frivolous and without merit.  Therefore, this protest will not be reviewed by the NCSL R&D Committee. The R&D Chairman directed the league administrator to return the protest and check to Team B.

U19/1 Terminated Game
The R&D Chairman reviewed the issues, which caused the above referenced game to be terminated.  The R&D Chairman reviewed the referee's report and reports submitted by both.

The referee reported that he terminated the match due to excessive cards and because Coach A came onto the field twice to argue cards that were issued to his players.  After the second time he came onto the field, the referee terminated the match.

The referee reported that he ejected three Team A players from the match.  In addition the referee issued yellow cards to Player A and Player B.

Decisions of the R&D Chairman are as follows:
1. The score when the game was terminated stands, Team B 4 vs. Team A 3.
2. All cards issued during the match stand.

U16/2 Inappropriate Behavior       
A hearing was held to review the inappropriate player and spectator behavior during and after the above referenced game. After the match, the tensions escalated to the point where the referee and others felt it necessary to call the Montgomery County Police.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams, reports submitted by both teams waiting to play the next match as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

The referee reported that the game was played at a high intensity level.  During the first half, the referee red carded the Team A goalie for punching a Team B player. The Team A spectators were upset and became very vocal after the Team A goalies ejection. After the match, the Team A spectators were very upset and confronted Team B.  The Team A spectators made disparaging remarks directed toward the referee.  The referee stated in his report that he perceived that the Team A spectators were massed at the sideline as if they were going to come after either me or the other team.  The referee reported that Coach A offered no support in controlling his teams parents.  The referee further reported that as the teams walked down to the parking lot, the shouting had escalated to the point where he felt the situation had the potential to get out of hand and he had someone call the police.

The Team B manager reported that he was serving as the TSL.  During the first half, he felt that the Team A spectators were being excessive in their criticism of the referee.  He attempted to meet with the Team A TSL to diffuse the situation; however, he was rebuffed by the Team A TSL and another Team A spectator and was told that their behavior was none of his business.  Team B reported that the referee received a lot of criticism from the Team A parents after the match.

Team A reported that the referee arrived ten minutes late with only one 14 year-old assistant to referee the match.  Team A complained that the referee was just bad and that a 14 year-old was too young to serve as assistant referee for a U16 match.  Coach A stated that if the NCSL provided three decent referees to do the match, problems like what occurred in this match would not happen.  Team A further alleged that the referee displayed bias against its predominately Hispanic team.  Coach A admitted that some of his parents were out of control.

For the record, the assistant referee was 15 years-old and is certainly old enough and capable enough to do a line at a U16 match.  Further, it must be pointed out that both teams coaches are Hispanic and there are Hispanic players on both teams rosters.

In the opinion of the committee, Team As allegations against the referee, assistant referee and the fact that only two referees were assigned to the match were a deplorable attempt to deflect the fact that they lost the match and their spectators were out of control.  The Team A TSL was given the opportunity but made no attempt to calm the Team A spectators during the first half. The behavior of the Team A parents/spectators during and after the match was totally out of control and unacceptable.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:
1. Team A is fined $600.
2. Each parent/guardian from both teams must sign a copy of the Parent Code of Conduct.  A copy of all the signed Parent Code of Conducts along with a copy of each teams roster must be faxed to the R&D Chairman.
3. Team A is placed on probation for the remainder of the spring season.  Any incident involving Team A that rises to the level of the R&D Committee will result in a disciplinary hearing that may subject Team A to being suspended from the league.
4. Team A club representative/club must get every parent/guardian of each Team A participating in the NCSL to sign the Parent Code of Conduct.  A copy of all the Parent Code of Conducts along with a copy of each teams roster must be mailed to and received in the NCSL office.

U16/4 Terminated Game
A hearing was held to review the incidents, which caused the above referenced game to be terminated approximately ten minutes into the second half.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.  For the record, the players involved in the altercation were required to appear at the hearing.  One Team A player did not attend, however the committee was informed that after the incidents in this game this player was suspended and removed from the roster.

The referee reported that after a goal was scored on a penalty kick by Team A, the suspended Team A player punched a Team B player.  The Team B player fought back, after which two more Team A players from the bench ran onto the field and joined in the fight.  This was followed by several additional players running to the point of the altercation.  It appeared that most of the additional players were attempting to pull the fighting players apart.  The referee ejected three Team A players and one Team B player.  At this point, the referee terminated the match.

Before the game was terminated, one Team B official entered the field in an attempt to remove some of his players from the area of the altercation.  One Team A mother entered the field, and by her own admission, had an altercation with a Team B player.

Both teams agreed with the basic facts as to the sequence of events that led up to the game being terminated.
 
The committee reminds both teams that field invasion by team officials and spectators is against the rules and can contribute to an escalation in tensions resulting in a match being terminated.
 
Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:
1. The game is declared a non-game, no score will be recorded and the game will not be replayed.
2. All cards issued in the match stand.  Team A is reminded that since Player A had a yellow card in first half of the match, he will be assessed fifteen disciplinary points for this match.
3. Team A is fined $100.

U15/2 Protested Game
A hearing was held to review the protest filed by Team A in the above referenced game. The basis of the protest was Team A team was not informed that the club linesman from Team B was serving as an assistant referee and that the Team B club linesman made several offside calls against Team A.  In addition, Team A appealed the red card issued to the Team A player for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing. The referee was invited but did not attend the hearing.

Team A felt that the offside decisions during the match clearly favored Team B.  Team A alleged that the Team B parent raised his flag to signal offside calls against Team A several times in the second half.  When questioned by the committee as to how the Team A coach knew that the referee accepted the Team B linesmans call rather than the call being made by the referee, Team A stated that the referee nodded his head with concurrence toward the Team B linesman.

The referee reported that prior to the start of the match he had no assigned assistant referees.  The referee requested and was provided a volunteer from each team. The Team B parent informed the referee that he completed the SIAR training.  The referee reported that he requested both volunteers to stand with the second to last man to aid him in making offside calls and to raise their flag for all out of bounds balls and indicate direction if they can determine it.  During the match, Team B acknowledged that the Team B parent did raise his flag once for offside in the first half against Team B; however, Team B claimed that the Team B parent did not attempt to call offside against the Team B in the second half.

The committee cannot determine how many times the Team B parent called or attempted to call offside during the game. However, it is clear that the Team B parent was not asked by the referee to serve as an assistant referee and the referee gave no indication that he acknowledged any attempt by the Team B volunteer linesman to call offside.  In the opinion of the committee, offside decisions made during the match were that of the referee.

The referee reported that a Team A player was issued a red card for tackling a Team B player with the ball from behind denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.  While the referee acknowledged that he incorrectly awarded a penalty kick for the offense that occurred outside the penalty area, the penalty kick did not result in a goal. In the opinion of the referee, the foul committed by the Team A player was a red card; the committee is not in position to overturn a judgment call.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:
1. The protest is denied and the score stands Team B 3 vs. Team A 1.
2. The red card issued to Player A stands and must be served in the Team As next NCSL game.

U15/2 Protested Game
A hearing was held to review the protest filed by Team A in the above referenced match.  The basis of the protest was that a Team B parent volunteer linesman made a foul call which denied a goal to the Team A.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams and the referee during the hearing.
 
Team A claimed the following play happened near the end of the match:  the Team A striker was driving on the goal, the Team B keeper came out missed getting the ball, a Team B defender came across the field collided with the Team A striker and the ball was put in the goal.  After the play and during the stoppage time for the injury to the Team B player, the referee went over and consulted with the Team B parent linesman.  After the conference, the referee disallowed the goal and stated that the Team A striker interfered with the Team B defender.
 
Team B did not dispute the basic facts concerning the contested goal.  The Team B position was that the call was a judgment call by the referee and therefore, it cannot by league rules be overturned.

The referee acknowledged the confusion and upset that resulted from his poor mechanics following a disallowed goal.  The referee stated that he focused on the injured Team B defender and did not on how the ball wound up in the goal.  The referee was pretty sure he saw a foul but he did not whistle for the foul.  Instead, the referee took the opportunity due to the stoppage for the injury to consult with the Team B volunteer linesman.  After the consultation, the referee disallowed the goal.

In the opinion of the committee, the Team B volunteer linesman clearly influenced the decision of the referee to disallow the goal.
 
The committee appreciates the referees willingness to acknowledge the mistake he made during the match.  His candor during the hearing made the deliberations of the committee considerable easier.

Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:
The protest is granted and the game is directed to be replayed.

U15/2 Abandoned Match
The R&D Chairman received a report and spoke with the referee for the above referenced match. In the opinion of the referee, this was a physical match and there was a lot of complaining by both teams. However, the referee acknowledged that he abandoned the match without sufficient justification.

Therefore, in fairness to both teams, the R&D Chairman directed that this game be rescheduled.

U15/4 Failure to Sit-Out
The referee for this game played on May 22nd reported that he ejected Player A after the match for foul and abusive language.  Player A was supposed to serve his automatic one game suspension in the game played on May 23rd.

Coach A reported that Player A did not come to the match.  However, Coach A did not fill out a sit-out card nor did he inform his opponent that Player A was serving a suspension.  Coach A claimed that he informed the referee of the game played on May 23rd that Player A was serving a suspension.

The R&D Chairman spoke with and received a report from the referee for the game played on May 23rd.  The referee could not corroborate Coach As claim; the referee, in fact, claimed that he was not informed that Team A had a player serving a sit-out prior to the match.

Per NCSL rules: The penalty for ejection from an NCSL game is an automatic one-game suspension, i.e., a sit-out. A player, coach, or other team official may be ejected during or after a game; an ejection after a game carries the same sanction as an ejection during a game.

Decisions of the R&D Chairman are as follows:
1. Game played on May 23rd is declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded, Team B 3 vs. Team A 0. 2. Player A is suspended from the next Team A NCSL match.
3. Coach A is suspended from the next Team A NCSL match.
 
U13/1 Protested Game
A hearing was held to review the protest filed by Team A in the above referenced game. The basis of the protest was a controversial handball call near the end of the game, which resulted in a penalty kick and goal for Team B.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams and the referee during the hearing. In addition, the referee for the next match, who arrived early for his match, provided a written report and testified during the hearing.

Team A alleged that the handball call was improperly influenced by the behavior of Coach B and manager.  Further Team A claimed that the ball was struck so forcefully that the Team A defender had no time to react to it and that the ball glanced off the hand of the player.  In the opinion of Team A, the ball played the defenders hand rather than the defenders hand playing the ball. Team A claimed that play continued for 20-30 seconds and only as a result of the Team Bs screaming did the referee whistled the play dead and awarded the penalty kick to Team B.

Team B disputed the accounting of the events as provided by the Team A.  Team B claimed that right after the handball occurred, the referee whistled play stoppage and awarded the penalty kick.  Team B asserted that if there was any undue attempt to influence the referee it was the Coach A who entered the field to argue the call.
 
Referee A reported that he called the handball and awarded the penalty kick to Team A.  Referee A further reported that after the retake of the penalty kick, both coaches came onto the field to argue the call and subsequent goal.  Referee A reported that he told both coaches that he called the penalty kick based on what he observed and he was not influenced by Coach B.

Referee B, for the next match on the field, reported that there was a lot of shouting by both sidelines as a result of the whistle for the penalty kick.  Referee B further reported that both coaches entered the field to confront Referee A.  Referee A looked towards Referee B for assistance.  Referee B entered the field, got between the coaches and directed them to leave the field.  After the retake of the penalty kick, both coaches continued to argue with each other.  Referee B positioned himself between the coaches and directed them to stop arguing and coach their teams.

Referee B reported that the youth referee was inexperienced and clearly over his head at this level of play.  He opined that the teams saw an inexperienced referee and both coaches and sidelines tried to intimidate him.

The inexperience of the referee contributed to the confusion during the match. However, the inexperience of the referee is not an excuse for the behavior of both coaches and sidelines in attempting to take advantage of the situation rather than trying to help the referee with the match. The committee believes that the referee assignor shares some of the responsibility for the problems that occurred during the match by assigning a far too inexperienced referee to do this match.

The committee thanks Referee A for attending the hearing and for displaying maturity and composure during the proceedings.  The committee is convinced that with experience Referee A is going to be a fine referee.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:
1. The protest is denied and the score stands Team B 2 vs. Team A 1.
2. Coach A and Coach B are each suspended for one game. These suspensions must be served in the next NCSL match for each team.
3. Both teams are admonished for their inappropriate behavior and will be monitored for the balance of this season.

U13/6 Terminated Game
A hearing was held to review the incidents which caused the above referenced game to be terminated ten minutes into the second half.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.  For the record, Coach A and Parent/Assistant Coach A, although both were required to appear, neither attended the hearing. Team Manager A indicated that they were expected to attend and didnt know why they were not at the hearing.

The referee reported that after Team B scored on a direct kick, Coach A came onto the field followed by Parent/Assistant Coach A.  The coaches met the referee near the penalty area and protested the call made by the referee.  Profanity was directed at the referee.  The referee issued Coach A a red card and immediately directed him to leave the field.  However, the coaches did not leave the field and instead pursued the referee further.  At this point, the referee terminated the match.

Both teams agreed with the basic facts as to the sequence of events that led up to the game being terminated.
 
The committee points out that Team A had two significant violations of the NCSL Codes of Conduct; a coach entering the field without permission and a parent invading the field to dispute a judgment call by the referee.

Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:
1. The game is declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded, Team B 3 vs. Team A 0.
2. Coach A is suspended for three games in addition to the automatic one game suspension for receiving the red card.  These suspensions must be served in the next three NCSL games.  If Coach A changes teams at the end of this season, the unserved sit-outs remain with him and must be served with any new NCSL team he joins.
3. Team A is fined $200.

U11/2 Protest of Red Card
A hearing was held to review the protest of the red card issued to Coach A in the above referenced match.

The committee reviewed the assistant referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by Team A and the referee crew during the hearing.

Near the end of the match, Team A claimed that the referee missed a critical call during their attempt to score a goal.  A Team A parent yelled at the referee and Coach A responded to the parent that the referee missed the foul because he is too lazy to get down the field to make a call.  At this point, according to Team A, the referee came over to Coach A, issued him a warning, and returned to the field to restart play.  The assistant referee came over and stopped the referee from restarting play.  The referee and assistant referee conferred and the referee went back over to Coach A and showed him the red card.
 
Coach B reported the events as outlined in the protest are similar to what he observed.  Coach B believed that there was some justification in reducing the red to a yellow card.
 
The referee stated that when he first approached Coach A, he told him to leave the field.  The referee further admitted that he did not wait for Coach A to leave and returned to the field to restart play.

Based on the actions of the referee, the committee perceived that the referee intended to give Coach A only a warning.  Initially a red card was not shown to the coach and the coach thought and acted as if he was only given a verbal warning.  In the opinion of the committee, procedural inconsistencies and miscommunication on part of the referee crew contributed to the confusion over the ejection of Coach A.

Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:
The protest is granted and the red card issued to Coach A is reduced to a yellow card.

U10/G  Decision on Coachs Behavior
A hearing was held to review the referees allegations of significant inappropriate behavior by the Coach A in the above referenced match.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by the referee and Coach A during the hearing.

Coach A admitted during the hearing that he didnt want to play this match and it was his opinion that the field was unplayable due to the high winds. Coach A argued his position with a Team A club official several hours prior to the match. The Team A club official disagreed with Coach A and informed him that the field was open and playable.

Prior to the start of this match, Coach A approached the referee on the field to present his case to the referee that the field was unplayable. The referee informed Coach A that the previous teams had no problems with the wind, the field was playable and he would not cancel the match. Coach A continued to press his case with negative comments directed toward the referee, the referee reported that he walked away from Coach A and started the match.

During the match, the referee awarded Coach A a yellow card for continued dissent. After the match, Coach A approached the referee to question a call he made late in the match against the Team A and to question a yellow card issued to his player.

In Coach As written submission, he admitted that he went across the field to get clarification from the referee on a very questionable call. Further, Coach A reported that "it was important to understand why his player received a yellow card. Coach A stated that he was not confrontational or rude towards the referee. However, the discussion escalated to the point that the referee issued Coach A a red card.

Coaches may approach the referee after the match to request from the referee what cards were issued during the match. However, this must not be taken as an opportunity to challenge or dispute the calls made during the match. Further, if a team is unhappy with the performance of the referee or wants to file a protest over what happened during the match, the team should contact their club representative. There is a formal process for filing a protest of a match outlined in the Rules & Procedures Manual.

In the unanimous opinion of the committee, Coach As behavior prior, during and especially after the match was totally inappropriate and a significant violation of the NCSL Leaders Code of Conduct.

Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:
In addition to the automatic one game suspension for receiving a red card. Coach A is suspended for an additional two games.  This three game suspension must be served in the next three NCSL games.  Coach A is directed to review the requirements for serving a suspension in the NCSL Rules & Procedures Manual.

U10/L Protested Game
A hearing was held to review the protest filed by Team A in the above referenced game.  The basis of the protest was the referee did not award a goal to the Team A after a handball by a Team B player in the box.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

The referee reported that the Team A team took a shot on goal.  A Team B field player reached out and deflected the ball in flight. The referee reported that he blew his whistle before the ball rolled into the goal. The referee awarded a penalty kick to the Team A team and ejected the Team B player for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The penalty kick was taken but was unsuccessful.

Both teams disagreed with the referees accounting of what happened. Both teams agreed that the Team B player deflected the ball and it went directly into the goal in the air. Neither coach heard the referees whistle stopping the play. Both coaches agreed that even if a whistle was blown, the referee would not have had time to blow his whistle before the ball flew into the goal.

Coach B reported that his player has already served the automatic one game suspension for receiving the red card.

This situation was part judgment and part misapplication of the laws.
 
Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:
1. The protest is granted and the game will be replayed in its entirety.
2. The ten disciplinary points assessed to the Team B player are waived and will not be counted. 
 
U10/L Protested Game       
A hearing was held to review the protest filed by Team A in the above referenced game.  The basis of the protest was a Team B parent served in the capacity of an assistant referee without the knowledge and agreement of both coaches.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

In the first half, Team A claimed that the Team B parent volunteer flagged an offside call against Team A, which caused the referee to whistle stoppage of play.  This offside call by the Team B volunteer parent denied a goal scoring opportunity.  During the second half, Team A alleged that Team B scored a goal while a Team B player who received the ball was offside. The referee conferred with the Team B parent and allowed the goal to stand.

Team B stated that they were asked to provide a volunteer parent to serve as a linesman.  The center referee was informed that the volunteer was a certified grade 9 referee.  Team B did not dispute the facts that the volunteer linesman contributed to the offside calls.  Team B claimed that it is fairly common in this division for the volunteer to call offside.  The Team B parent volunteer was unaware of NCSL rules that as a volunteer she cannot signal offside or fouls.

The referee felt that he was working with a potentially new referee and that she may have influenced a couple of his calls.  The referee further stated that it was not a difficult game to do since Team B dominated the match.

There is no dispute that Team B violated league rules by allowing a parent volunteer to serve as an assistant referee without the agreement of both coaches.  However, in order for a protest to be granted, two criteria must be met.  There must be a misapplication FIFA or league rules and this misapplication must have affected the outcome of the game.  In the unanimous opinion of the committee, the outcome of the game was not affected.
 
Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:
The protest is denied and the score stands Team B 6 vs. Team A 0.

U10/L Inappropriate Behavior
A hearing was held to review the allegation of inappropriate behavior by Coach A during the above referenced game.
 
The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams, as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.  For the record, Coach A although required to appear, did not attend the hearing.  Coach A in an e-mail to the R&D Chairman waived his right to represent himself before the committee.

Team B filed a complaint with the R&D Committee claiming that Coach A, during the match, instructed one of his players to trip Player B to prevent a goal from being scored.  Player B was headed for the goal and Player A was coming from behind and following his coachs instruction, intentionally tripped Player A.

The referee reported that he heard Coach A yell instructions to Player  A to trip him, trip him. Player A who was slightly behind, followed the coachs instruction, and took out Player A by giving him a hard two handed shove from behind.  The referee immediately whistled a stoppage in play and red carded Player A.  Before play resumed, the referee went over to the Coach A and issued him a stern warning.

In Coach As written statement, he acknowledges that he did yell out instructions to his player to trip the Player B.  He admitted that it was a poor choice of words on his part and that it is not the intention of his team nor players to purposefully injure anyone.  Coach A apologized to the Team B and Player B.  The Team A manager, stated that he was shocked when he heard the instructions yelled out by Coach. A  The Team A Manager claimed that this was a single incident and not typical of the behavior of Coach A. 

In the opinion of the committee, Coach As direction to his player was totally unacceptable and a most significant violation of the NCSL Leaders Code of Conduct.

Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows: 
Coach A is suspended for six games.  This suspension must be served in the next six NCSL games.  If Coach A changes teams at the end of this season, the unserved sit-outs remain with him and must be served with any new NCSL team he joins.