Use of hand signals

[Keith]

Originally posted by deep-throat


No, it is not. His point is that in HS soccer around the country you have a huge variance in skill and knowledge level of players, coaches, spectators. The excessive hand-signals that are used may be helpful in those situations. However, under USSF there (generally) is more understanding of the game and therefore they are not needed and should not be used.


This is a typical "purist" attitude, that high school soccer is sub-standard to club ball. It's just the opposite. It's more organized, it's less geared to develop a master race of players trying to get scholarships and careers, and it involves the spirit of the COMMUNITY, rather than rich, elitist parents.

I do both and high school is in now way sub-standard to club ball. Personally I feel it's more superior. Oh, you can create a master race team taking the best players in the area or state, and create an unbeatable club team, but high school is borne out of true community competition, and with good coaching (now coming from the clubs), the high schools have far better competitive teams.

To suggest that the players and coaches and spectators are naive compared to club ball is insulting. THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE AS IN CLUB SOCCER! In Colorado there is no alternative to high school soccer during the appropriate season. You can play on the amateur adult leagues, but that's it. If high school soccer is so backward and naive, why are all the top players, coaches, and parents participating?

Lets dump this nonsense attitude.

[Keith]

Signals were used in high school soccer about 10+ years ago, and they were never a problem. Now that new high school referees are faced with a new requirement, it's becaome controversial. It worked then, it will now.

The problem is the attitude with soccer officials themselves. We enjoy being secret managers of the game. We keep time secret including when time runs out, we don't have to explain our calls, we don't have to even define our decisions. We love this power, and we relinquish it stubbornly.

How many times have we been asked "what's the call ref?" Now this comes in various "tones" and "intents." We puff up our chests and state we don't have to "explain" our decisions, well that's true when the challenge is made with the intent to "challenge" the decision or invite debate. But the prudent referee will take time to explain, if only briefly. This policy prevent any need for asking what the call is. It's signaled. Granted many will not learn them, but should the referee have to explain signals?

I feel it's arrogant of referees to suggest "if people don't know what the call is, they have not business being there." Like everyone knows what was called. Hell, the ARs don't even know sometimes. That play in the box that results in a mysterious PK call, when no player is on the ground and little or no contact is made, is always the mystery call. But when the referee signals "handling," it might be debatable, but at least it's understandable, why it wasn't obvious.

They are not "required" in the mandatory, every decision. . . sense. They are just required to be attempted. Even NFHS clearly clarifies, that referees should not hold up quick kicks or restarts, ,and get down field without needing to signal. Some of the obvious decisions, don't signal. No one is going to criticise you for not signalling. Signal when it's confusing, and time permits. THe signals have improved immensely from what they used to be. As someone said, we all use "unofficial" signals in USSF ball, to explain controversial calls, or no calls, or when the information might defuse confustion and frustration. As an assessor we're instructed not to penalize for "unofficial" signals unless they're used excessively.

Give them a chance, and if you don't officiate high school, you ain't poop ;o)

[MassachusettsRef]

Keith, without getting into the specifics of the "purist" argument you're making, let me just say that what's true in your area is not necessarily what is true everywhere else. In many areas, the more talented club players are opting not to even play high school soccer, rather training and playing year round with their clubs. Further, in some areas--I'll use New England as an example--prep school soccer, played under USSF rules, is far superior to high school soccer.

Also, don't you find it a bit hypocritical to make a "purist" accusation against deep-throat but then, in turn, make an "elitist" accusation of your own? Check out regionals or nationals. The superclubs no longer have their rosters filled with rich suburban white kids. That's a myth if ever there were one. Squads like Delco, Bethesda, PDA, Texans, etc. are some of the most diverse teams in the country. They have a mix of races and ethnicities with kids and families from both suburbia and the urban cities. If club soccer does anything, it brings together players that would otherwise never play together at a school level. A good example is the U15 Boys national champions, the Rochester Jr. Rhinos. I saw them twice at Regionals (once as a 4th on their final), and I can state unequivocally that this is not the typical "elitist" club team to which you are referring in your post.

If club soccer is "elitist" in any way, it is only so in the manner that it tries to but the best talent together on the same team.

Your comments might be directed at some local lower-level club teams, which, I concede, are often just part of schemes to make some easy money for weak coaches. However, once you reach a state/regional/national cup level, you have the best players in the country competing together for the best teams in their states. And there is no doubt that these superclubs are bringing together kids that might not even play against each other--nevermind with each other--at a school level. Indeed, as I said, many of these players are opting out of high school soccer altogether.

[artigiano]

A few hand signals for the more common fouls might be appropriate in all games. Or maybe the ref could signal only when two players collide in a way that leaves some doubt as to who was at fault.

I think I understand the rules and the laws as much as the next fan. But, I still find myself asking "What's the call ref?" during games in which I am playing. I am the captain so the ref usually gives a prompt and short reply. Sometimes, even after the explanation I'm not sure what he saw that I didn't. But at least I understand what infractions the ref is sensitive to and can pass it on to teammates at halftime.

As captain, part of my job is to read which fouls a ref is a real stickler for, and pass this on to my teammates. Hand signals would make my job as captain easier

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by artigiano
A few hand signals for the more common fouls might be appropriate in all games. Or maybe the ref could signal only when two players collide in a way that leaves some doubt as to who was at fault.

I think I understand the rules and the laws as much as the next fan. But, I still find myself asking "What's the call ref?" during games in which I am playing. I am the captain so the ref usually gives a prompt and short reply. Sometimes, even after the explanation I'm not sure what he saw that I didn't. But at least I understand what infractions the ref is sensitive to and can pass it on to teammates at halftime.

As captain, part of my job is to read which fouls a ref is a real stickler for, and pass this on to my teammates. Hand signals would make my job as captain easier If you dont know what the reff is calling when he TELLS you, how are hand signals that are LESS discriptive going to assist you in your honest attempt to understand what the secretive referee is trying to call?
I am all for better communication with players, hand signals are not the way to accomplish this goal.

[whipple]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
-I'll use New England as an example--prep school soccer, played under USSF rules, is far superior to high school soccer.


If club soccer is "elitist" in any way, it is only so in the manner that it tries to but the best talent together on the same team.

Indeed, as I said, many of these players are opting out of high school soccer altogether.

MR,

I wouldn't be so quick to indict our local public high school programs, we actually have some very good ones in spite of all the foolishness out of MIAA. I also do some of the prep schools, and though they are not MIAA, and some will use the DSC if the commissioner can find enough bodies, they are still the NF rules, not USSF laws. I am not aware of any school soccer being done under USSF in MA.

But, as to our "elitist" clubs, I think Keith owes it to himself to come out and maybe get in a couple of LASA games. It might be fun to assist. Kieth, how is your Portuguese?

[Scott Zawadzki]

I'm wondering how the display of signals will effect the protestability of HS soccer matches. Just yesterday I was having a conversation with a local high school ref who gets many high level boys matches. I just mentioned that I guess now when a player gets taken down, the high school refs won't be able to come up with some trumped up IFK. His response was "Well, it all depends on the intent and the degree of force in the take-down"......another season of totally screwed up Massachusetts high school soccer on the horizen?????

Scott

[pkCrouse]

If you dont know what the reff is calling when he TELLS you, how are hand signals that are LESS discriptive going to assist you in your honest attempt to understand what the secretive referee is trying to call? I am all for better communication with players, hand signals are not the way to accomplish this goal.

The captain may be 100 yards from the point of infraction. Although he can't hear the ref at that distance, he can see the signal. NFHS has made it clear that the purpose of these signals is to improve communication with the players, as well as the coaches and the spectators. Whether or not we agree with the merits of their goal, that's what NFHS has decided, based upon what their member schools have told them. Ignoring this fact makes the rest of the debate meaningless. The only way to communicate with all of these people, especially in a high school stadium, is with visual signals, unless of course we're going to put microphones and transmitters on the officials.

[Keith]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Keith, without getting into the specifics of the "purist" argument you're making, let me just say that what's true in your area is not necessarily what is true everywhere else. In many areas, the more talented club players are opting not to even play high school soccer, rather training and playing year round with their clubs. Further, in some areas--I'll use New England as an example--prep school soccer, played under USSF rules, is far superior to high school soccer.

Also, don't you find it a bit hypocritical to make a "purist" accusation against deep-throat but then, in turn, make an "elitist" accusation of your own? Check out regionals or nationals. The superclubs no longer have their rosters filled with rich suburban white kids. That's a myth if ever there were one. Squads like Delco, Bethesda, PDA, Texans, etc. are some of the most diverse teams in the country. They have a mix of races and ethnicities with kids and families from both suburbia and the urban cities. If club soccer does anything, it brings together players that would otherwise never play together at a school level. A good example is the U15 Boys national champions, the Rochester Jr. Rhinos. I saw them twice at Regionals (once as a 4th on their final), and I can state unequivocally that this is not the typical "elitist" club team to which you are referring in your post.

Obviously you are offended by my "purist" and "elitist" labels. That was my intent, but you're handling it sensibly. I tire of this elitist attitude of soccer "purists" who believe in order to create a master race of soccer players to complete at the world level, we must start our players very young, and they must play year round, they must not participate in "bastard" soccer like high school or college, but train, train, train. We must have farm clubs, academic schools devoted solely to soccer in order to achieve these objective, because, hey. . other countries do it this way.

Well while I'd love to have a world competitive team, I'm not willing to expend the youth of our nation to achieve this objective to fullfil the self serving satisfaction of the soccer afficianatos. Bragging rights are just not worth stealing a kid's youth. And apparently I may not be necessarily "right" as the purists are "wrong." The U.S. with all it's part-time soccer, and bastard versions of soccer managed to be ranked 9th in the world ahead of long time traditional soccer powers. So we must be doing something right in spite of the lack of purity.

You're right I don't know what other states do, but I'm make an assumption they all have high school soccer. I've never heard of high school soccer played under USSF laws, but if you say it's being done, I'll believe it. But I'll bet that's an exception, and hardly the rule. I'm guessing high school soccer in Colorado is very typical of high school soccer played elsewhere. While I believe it's true, I highly doubt the majority of players choose to skip high school soccer because it's too impure, and choose to simply train. . rather than play. I know the soccer purists would suggest this, but I think soccer players enjoy the competion, more than just the development. They may not agree with some of the high school modifications, but any way you spin it, it's still soccer, and for once in their lives their playing for their community, rather than some private club.

To suggest that club soccer is not "elitist" when they're selecting the cream of the crop, I don't know what is. High school, though degenerating to more elite teams, selects the players available from the school, rather than the entire state. The premier club player may be able to brag he's on the best team in the state or region, but the only one else that can join in is the parent and try to take credit. In high school the entire community and student population can join in on the bragging rights. More "American?" Maybe. But the goal is competition and esprit de corps, rather than developing the ultimate team. The NY Yankees are successful in baseball because they can "buy" the best players.

You're right club soccer is no longer about rich white kids, but it is about elitism in the best players available regardless of income or race. I wouldn't exactly consider this some form of diversity, but rather elitism, because only the best players make the team. The super clubs were borne out of this concept. Making the best of the best. I have not problem with this idea. It's made soccer development better in America. But putting down high school soccer as being naive, and ignorant, and sub-standard just isn't realistic.
Originally posted by MassachusettsRef

If club soccer is "elitist" in any way, it is only so in the manner that it tries to but the best talent together on the same team.

Precisely! This is my point. And as I said, nothing wrong with that, but this IS elitism, where high school soccer doesn't go. Maybe I find that more admirable? Only about 15 players get to say they're the "best team in the state." But thousands can claim their the best soccer team in high school in the state. Kind of sharing of the glory. More nationalism?
Originally posted by MassachusettsRef

Your comments might be directed at some local lower-level club teams, which, I concede, are often just part of schemes to make some easy money for weak coaches. However, once you reach a state/regional/national cup level, you have the best players in the country competing together for the best teams in their states. And there is no doubt that these superclubs are bringing together kids that might not even play against each other--nevermind with each other--at a school level. Indeed, as I said, many of these players are opting out of high school soccer altogether.
I don't disagree, nor feel this is wrong. In the process of developing these elite teams, it causes competition to generate more development in other players. While we agree other "B" teams get less attention (development?), they still serve a purpose. I'm not putting down club soccer, I'm just trying to defend high school soccer as a comparable venue, where in some arenas is better than club, and in some arenas less than club soccer. But I disagree with this notion that all these players are rushing to not play high school soccer with their friends and teammates and community, just to practice and develop more with club soccer teams. THIS is very purist. Maybe some states allow club soccer at the high school ages to complete with high school soccer. Here they don't allow it, and I think it makes for better enjoyment of the sport, and less conflict for the players. Only those who besmirch high school soccer are offended by this. I feel the players enjoy the alternative, and opportunity to play for their school like their friends in other sports who play football, basketball, and baseball for their schools.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00
If you dont know what the reff is calling when he TELLS you, how are hand signals that are LESS discriptive going to assist you in your honest attempt to understand what the secretive referee is trying to call?
I am all for better communication with players, hand signals are not the way to accomplish this goal.
When a player asks you "what's the call ref?" . . is it alway made with the tone you find acceptable? Do you ever find it a "challenge" to your decision rather than a sincere attempt to understand? Is your response ALWAYS to explain the call, or do you sometime refuse to "explain" your calls? Doesn't the signal erase some of this confusion and frustration?

As this captain just stated, it's information that valueable to him. The "collision" scenario is classic for wanting of a explanation, that a signal may say everything in a simple expression. If we "explain" our decision using the wrong verbs, adjective or tone, we could get a reaction such as dissent or disagreement. Why go there? Very, very seldom will we take the time to go into a lengthy, detailed explanation to explain our decisoins. We resent this. We want to convey the decision as simply and courtesly as possible, and the signal maybe a better way.

I'm not suggesting signals will resolve all inquiries or that they'll always be agreed with, but it's simple information that I feel we should be sharing with the participants, and keeping them our little secret is a bit fanatical.

[Keith]

Originally posted by whipple

But, as to our "elitist" clubs, I think Keith owes it to himself to come out and maybe get in a couple of LASA games. It might be fun to assist. Kieth, how is your Portuguese?
I assure you Mr. whipple, I've done my share of ethnic teams where I'm clueless of what their saying to me and dissenting. I cut my teeth on youth and amateur adult soccer like everyone else. I just find high school a little more "rewarding" in the way of pay, schedule opportunity (weeknights leaving weekends more optional with the family), and a better atmosphere of competition. Sad to hear some states have a mixed bag of prep soccer. By "prep" do you mean "private" high schools? We use the DSC here for all varsity (though were slowly changing over to the "double dual" which will become standard someday; I predict), and two man for sub-varsity.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Scott Zawadzki
I'm wondering how the display of signals will effect the protestability of HS soccer matches. Just yesterday I was having a conversation with a local high school ref who gets many high level boys matches. I just mentioned that I guess now when a player gets taken down, the high school refs won't be able to come up with some trumped up IFK. His response was "Well, it all depends on the intent and the degree of force in the take-down"......another season of totally screwed up Massachusetts high school soccer on the horizen?????

Scott
At first I was goint to respond with "ITOOTR," but realized you make a valid point. How many times have we seen a contact foul in the PA, and the ref cops out with an IFK. He doesn't have to explain his call, but if he does, he may ignorantly say "dangerous play," which we all know is not applicable to such fouls. Having to signal dangerous play will expose the true intent of the referee, and possibly a misapplication. But hardly protestable, just challengeable.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by whipple

I am not aware of any school soccer being done under USSF in MA.
ISL (the New England prep schools) is assigned by Al and played under USSF laws (though I'm not sure if they are technically "affiliated" with USSF, or if they just choose to adopt their laws).

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by Keith

Obviously you are offended by my "purist" and "elitist" labels. That was my intent, but you're handling it sensibly. I tire of this elitist attitude of soccer "purists" who believe in order to create a master race of soccer players to complete at the world level, we must start our players very young, and they must play year round, they must not participate in "bastard" soccer like high school or college, but train, train, train. We must have farm clubs, academic schools devoted solely to soccer in order to achieve these objective, because, hey. . other countries do it this way. I wouldn't say that I'm offended at the 'purist' label, but I obviously did miscontrue--partly--your intent when you used 'elitist'. Anyway, I don't argue with your point in this paragraph about what's happening (though your language about "master races of soccer players" is a little over the top), but I would say two things in response. First, it's not the norm. Only a tiny minority of the country's youth players are playing on these superclubs. Second, have you ever contemplated the possibility that these kids are doing it because they want to? I'll concede the point that an 11 or 12 year old really can't determine what he or she wants, however, most players don't move from their local clubs to their state's superclubs until a later age.

I've been around these tournaments and these kids seem to love every minute of it. A team like Delco, while not only winning honors, will travel, in a given year, to Arizona, Florida, Europe, Baltimore (x2), San Diego, plus regionals and possibily nationals. That alone--the travel and camaraderie, is a unique experience that few other sports, if any, in the US, offer. And yes, on top of those points, kids on these clubs have better opportunities at high school and college scholarships.

I don't think we disagree on facts here, we just disagree on whether or not it's a good or bad thing. As I said before, I do think that lower level clubs (for those in Mass., think of all the MAPLE clubs that have been springing up for the MAPLE-D division in the past 5 years and never making it to State Cups) are money-making schemes for coaches of dubious quality. I think that the players (and parents) who are being suckered into those teams because they think club soccer is the greatest thing in the world are probably better off playing town and school ball. Club soccer, to me, serves its purpose for the best players in the US. However, it has expanded so much that it's brought in players who would be better off in a recreational setting. I think it's up to parents to make the correct decision as to where their kids should play.

The U.S. with all it's part-time soccer, and bastard versions of soccer managed to be ranked 9th in the world ahead of long time traditional soccer powers. So we must be doing something right in spite of the lack of purity. Up to this point, neither of us has been right or wrong, but here you are definitely incorrect. Take a look at where the men on the USMNT WC02 roster played soccer throughout there youth and you'll see a roll call of the best superclubs across the nation, not to mention the regional and national ODP programs. The club system, while not good for everyone as I've said, has made our top players that much better, and has led to our national team being more competitive at the world stage.

You're right club soccer is no longer about rich white kids, but it is about elitism in the best players available regardless of income or race. I wouldn't exactly consider this some form of diversity, but rather elitism, because only the best players make the team. The super clubs were borne out of this concept. Making the best of the best. Ok, as is now obvious, I misintepreted your use of "elitist" (although you did use the words "rich" alongside it originally). I agree that it's "elitist" insofar as skill, I just don't think that's bad. It, most especially the level that the superclubs are at, has its purpose for certain players, while town and school soccer has a different purpose for a much larger array of players. They are, obviously, two different entitities. And, I think that they serve two completely different functions, neither of them being bad. In fact, I think they are both good (I agree that most kids want to play with their friends against rival schools, etc.).

[monop_poly]

It's ludicrous to try and educate the parents, kids or coaches through signals, especially signals which appear to be conveniently borrowed from basketball or American football.

If I watch water polo, which I don't understand, I don't feel that I should be entitled to an explanation every time the whistle blows (which is all the time).

Few signals are part of the game. Maybe I'm a cynic, but this strikes me as an attempt to satisfy people who don't know the game but are screaming for yellow cards and PKs when their kid goes down. You'll never please them.

The US should insist on adapting to international norms and let the game be.

[csc7]

Originally posted by Keith



This is a typical "purist" attitude, that high school soccer is sub-standard to club ball. It's just the opposite. It's more organized, it's less geared to develop a master race of players trying to get scholarships and careers, and it involves the spirit of the COMMUNITY, rather than rich, elitist parents.

I do both and high school is in now way sub-standard to club ball. Personally I feel it's more superior. Oh, you can create a master race team taking the best players in the area or state, and create an unbeatable club team, but high school is borne out of true community competition, and with good coaching (now coming from the clubs), the high schools have far better competitive teams.

To suggest that the players and coaches and spectators are naive compared to club ball is insulting. THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE AS IN CLUB SOCCER! In Colorado there is no alternative to high school soccer during the appropriate season. You can play on the amateur adult leagues, but that's it. If high school soccer is so backward and naive, why are all the top players, coaches, and parents participating?

Lets dump this nonsense attitude.


I know there has already been a bit of an argument over this, but I can't let it go. As someone who played on a decent club (won state cup twice, but ended up near the bottom at regionals) and on high school, I feel pretty qualified to speak to this.

First, I want to recognize that HS soccer varies throughout the country. In my case, HS soccer was vastly inferior to club. The only good HS teams were ones that had club players. Just for the record, my club split basically onto 2 HS teams during our season (which was in the winter, between fall and spring club). HS soccer had little support outside our friends and family.

My club, however, supported the other teams within our club. Often in tournaments, the younger teams would come watch and cheer the older teams on. Our real instate rivalries occurred at the club level because we played the same teams, with most of the same players, for 6 years. At HS, these teams got broken up (by the way, the only good HS teams were the ones with club players) and while there might be one or two players you dislike, there was no real animosity with a team.

Beyond that our club team formed a great bond over all the trips and years of development. We liked playing high school simply because we liked soccer, but we really cared about our club team. When I reflect on my playing days, I think overwhelming of club soccer.

So lay off club. there are "superclubs" and they're good for the game in the US, I enjoyed playing them even though we usually were significantly defeated. Beyond that, all the die hard supporters that clubs like mine created, are in my opinion one of the fundamental support bases (if not THE) of soccer in the US.

Without club, I would have learned nothing about the game, I wouldn't follow it now, and I wouldn't have played. Without HS, I would have been a little out of shape when club started back up in the spring.

[Keith]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
I wouldn't say that I'm offended at the 'purist' label, but I obviously did miscontrue--partly--your intent when you used 'elitist'. Anyway, I don't argue with your point in this paragraph about what's happening (though your language about "master races of soccer players" is a little over the top), but I would say two things in response. First, it's not the norm. Only a tiny minority of the country's youth players are playing on these superclubs. Second, have you ever contemplated the possibility that these kids are doing it because they want to? I'll concede the point that an 11 or 12 year old really can't determine what he or she wants, however, most players don't move from their local clubs to their state's superclubs until a later age.

I've been around these tournaments and these kids seem to love every minute of it. A team like Delco, while not only winning honors, will travel, in a given year, to Arizona, Florida, Europe, Baltimore (x2), San Diego, plus regionals and possibily nationals. That alone--the travel and camaraderie, is a unique experience that few other sports, if any, in the US, offer. And yes, on top of those points, kids on these clubs have better opportunities at high school and college scholarships.

I don't think we disagree on facts here, we just disagree on whether or not it's a good or bad thing. As I said before, I do think that lower level clubs (for those in Mass., think of all the MAPLE clubs that have been springing up for the MAPLE-D division in the past 5 years and never making it to State Cups) are money-making schemes for coaches of dubious quality. I think that the players (and parents) who are being suckered into those teams because they think club soccer is the greatest thing in the world are probably better off playing town and school ball. Club soccer, to me, serves its purpose for the best players in the US. However, it has expanded so much that it's brought in players who would be better off in a recreational setting. I think it's up to parents to make the correct decision as to where their kids should play.

"over the top?" That's my intent, not to offend, but to emphasize the spin/mantra. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not putting down club soccer. I think it's a must and the best thing around for developing youth. I agree it probably does more to develop soccer players for scholarships and careers. But it's not a panacea for all soccer develoment and enjoyment, and soccer is "not" life. I won't go into the "save the children" rant about kids deserve a life outside of parents living vicariously or trying to spend their entire youth lives living and breathing soccer, just to attempt to make the few spots available on the U.S. pro circuit. But youth development in soccer seems to start a lot earlier in youth, than other sports. Kids are playing soccer at what? . . 4? 5? Isn't that a little young to be thinking "scholarship material?" You're right 11/12 year olds don't have the maturity to decide what is best for them, but it seems there is a big drop off in the quantity of soccer players at the U15 level, when kids are starting to make decisions for themselves. This suggests, that maybe not all of them DO love soccer the way the soccer afficianatos want them to be so they can live vicariously throgh them as well as the parents. I'm not involved with the player side of soccer, and don't get involved, but I do observe things from my position as a referee.

Again, club soccer is not a "bad thing," but I think year-round soccer is a bad thing, when it's not a mature personal choice by the youth themselves. My objective was to defend high school soccer, which so many put down as needing signals because they are so backward and ignorant they don't understand what the referee is calling. This was suggested many times on this forum. The put down of high school soccer offends me, and it should offend all of the tens of thousands of players, and hundreds of thousands of participants and spectators who appreciate this venue. To say only club soccer leads to college scholarships is fool hearty. It's "supposed" to be about academics first, and if you don't have the academic ability, and just soccer abililty. Try trying out for some pro team, and skip that education.

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Up to this point, neither of us has been right or wrong, but here you are definitely incorrect. Take a look at where the men on the USMNT WC02 roster played soccer throughout there youth and you'll see a roll call of the best superclubs across the nation, not to mention the regional and national ODP programs. The club system, while not good for everyone as I've said, has made our top players that much better, and has led to our national team being more competitive at the world stage.
[/B]
Again, misunderstanding. I completely agree. I'm not suggesting high school soccer developed the U.S. national team; club soccer did. But I'll bet everyone of them played high school and college soccer? My point is, that HS and collegiate soccer is part of the mix and part of the tradition of soccer here; so live with it. I want the purists to stop trying to put it down and kill HS/collegiate soccer, even though it's fruitless. I've listened to the purists rant and rave, about high school/collegiate rules "bringing down the game," and players should be playing year round club ball, with soccer schools, farm clubs and all this master race building talk, because they claim it's the only way we can develop a national team that compete with the world. Well it looks like they were wrong. Our national team didn't need farm clubs, or soccer schools, or year round soccer without HS and college. All these distractions seemed to make them very competitive. So the formula for the master race or perfect team doesn't hold water. We used to kick ass in the Olympics in basketball and baseball. Now that other teams have taken up the sport, and is a much less casual/less serious mode then it's developed here, we seem to have some stiff competition. . . again proving, you don't need to "live and breathe" a sport to excel at it.

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Ok, as is now obvious, I misintepreted your use of "elitist" (although you did use the words "rich" alongside it originally). I agree that it's "elitist" insofar as skill, I just don't think that's bad. It, most especially the level that the superclubs are at, has its purpose for certain players, while town and school soccer has a different purpose for a much larger array of players. They are, obviously, two different entitities. And, I think that they serve two completely different functions, neither of them being bad. In fact, I think they are both good (I agree that most kids want to play with their friends against rival schools, etc.). [/B]
I think we're getting closer to agreement. "Rich" was intended to suggest only the rich can buy in, but being "rich" helps be a member of a super club. If not, you'd better have enough talent for a club "scholarship" or sponsor. I don't get involved with the player/club talk, but I sure hear a lot of whining about super clubs being elitists from the parents and players, after their kid was displaced off the "A" team by a better player, and pushed down to the "B" club, . . . and how the "A" team gets all the club coach attention and funding and travel, while the "B" team is just a transition medium, and the "C" and "D" teams are just there for providing funding. True? Probably. But that's the way of the capitalism and our society. No one expects a YMCA approach where everyone plays, and we mix the best with the worst. But there's a lot to be said about elitism here, and while it's not all bad, it's has some negative connotations. Is it possible to go "too far?" Some feel it's already there. Others feel we're heading there. I try to stay out of it.

[Keith]

Originally posted by monop_poly
It's ludicrous to try and educate the parents, kids or coaches through signals, especially signals which appear to be conveniently borrowed from basketball or American football.

If I watch water polo, which I don't understand, I don't feel that I should be entitled to an explanation every time the whistle blows (which is all the time).

Few signals are part of the game. Maybe I'm a cynic, but this strikes me as an attempt to satisfy people who don't know the game but are screaming for yellow cards and PKs when their kid goes down. You'll never please them.

The US should insist on adapting to international norms and let the game be.
I think you might be a cynic. I'll bet I can take you to any soccer game, and you can't tell me exactly what 70% of the calls actually are. Oh, you'll understand there was a foul, but not what specific foul. Maybe that's satisfaction enough for you, but others might want to know more. It's not about ignorance of the sport, it's about trying to read the referee's mind. It's about enjoyment; something soccer referees sometimes fail to consider or appreciate not just for the participants, but for the spectators as well.

[Keith]

Originally posted by csc7



I know there has already been a bit of an argument over this, but I can't let it go. As someone who played on a decent club (won state cup twice, but ended up near the bottom at regionals) and on high school, I feel pretty qualified to speak to this.

First, I want to recognize that HS soccer varies throughout the country. In my case, HS soccer was vastly inferior to club. The only good HS teams were ones that had club players. Just for the record, my club split basically onto 2 HS teams during our season (which was in the winter, between fall and spring club). HS soccer had little support outside our friends and family.

My club, however, supported the other teams within our club. Often in tournaments, the younger teams would come watch and cheer the older teams on. Our real instate rivalries occurred at the club level because we played the same teams, with most of the same players, for 6 years. At HS, these teams got broken up (by the way, the only good HS teams were the ones with club players) and while there might be one or two players you dislike, there was no real animosity with a team.

Beyond that our club team formed a great bond over all the trips and years of development. We liked playing high school simply because we liked soccer, but we really cared about our club team. When I reflect on my playing days, I think overwhelming of club soccer.

So lay off club. there are "superclubs" and they're good for the game in the US, I enjoyed playing them even though we usually were significantly defeated. Beyond that, all the die hard supporters that clubs like mine created, are in my opinion one of the fundamental support bases (if not THE) of soccer in the US.

Without club, I would have learned nothing about the game, I wouldn't follow it now, and I wouldn't have played. Without HS, I would have been a little out of shape when club started back up in the spring.
Well your experience is rather limited to just one team in club and one in high school wouldn't you say? I've experienced 17 years of hundreds of teams, new players every year, and so my experience is more broad in nature. I'm sorry your high school experience wasn't rewarding. It's my experience that high school tends to be more rewarding in the friendship experience than club, and it seems only obvious. You're playing with kids from your own community and neighborhood. In club you're playing with kids from all over the area, all chosen by their skills rather than their address, from which the elitist term applies. This isn't bad, but it's not negative to high school soccer either. The atmosphere in high school is so much improved all around. In club soccer, you have the players, the coaches, and parents of these players . . cheering for the team. If a player gets bumped to another team or chooses to join another club, the alligiance transfers, but still limited to the participants. In high school the entire school student body is there to support the team, parents of kids who don't play are there, the community is there to support the team. This is true American sports. Club soccer has it's place, but so does high school soccer. Maybe you'd prefer to play year round club soccer, but is this option available to you? Apparently not if you're playing high school, and not enjoying it as much. Apparently others or the majority feel high school soccer has it's merits too.

[Claymore]

yackity yackity yack....:D

Back to hand signals. I personally think it's ridiculous that HS federations find it necessary to complicate a simple game. They don't want to use a three-man system because it costs too much, and then they complain that the two-man system they've forced on the game results in some bizarre and inconsistent calls, which in turn causes them to make hand signals mandatory, which in turn will probably do nothing more than make it easy for the coaches and players to challenge every single call ("that wasn't a push, that was a shove!!"). YEESH.

Like I said earlier in the thread - have fun, guys. If that makes me an elitist and a purist, so be it.