interesting concept... child can't play.. until parent takes a "dont be an arse" test

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/10/16/15717226.html

Its a story for hockey.. but I can see this going to a number of sports quite easily.

Interesting concept. Given the behaviour of some parents it's a wonder this did not happen sooner. Pity the children that are prevented from playing because their parents won't comply.

Funny, as only ONE parent has to take the course. So housewife Betty sits at home doing the course, while steaming Stewart goes screaming from the stands.

I'm curious as to what the course looks like.

if its based on the respect in sport one us coaches have to take.. it aint much, but at least its something i guess

i wonder how many of those 2500 don't have internet access?

I'd imagine it wouldn't be a high number...but there should be options available for those who don't.

The article doesn't say anything about it...perhaps there's a mail-in option?

Fantastic idea!! Is it the answer, no, but its a start.


WOuld love to see such a program for soccer parents in Winnipeg. It would probably be a benefit for all sports, as it would at least give administrators a starting point for bad behaviour on the part of parents.

A couple of weeks back, I had to intervene at a U12 girls soccer game, as a couple of parents had the young female referee in tears. I told them that the game was going to finish, whether they were watching or not and if they had anything to say, come and say it to my face, not some 14 yr old girl. One of the parents said someone was going to get hurt because of all the contact. I actually had to tell him that soccer is a contact sport, but I don't think he believed me.

Time to tell some of these guys that the size of your johnson is not determined by the number of wins that your kids team has.

umm...Freeman...
Soccer is NOT a contact sport...never has been...says so right in the rules.

as if soccer is not a contact sport.

it's not...it's actually written in the rules that it's not a contact sport.

Any contact made in soccer is incidental and may not be made with the intent of contact with a player.
The ONLY thing you are allowed to intentionally contact in soccer is the BALL.

It's the same as basketball.

CONTACT supports, require and encourage contact with other players, such as Football, Rugby, Boxing...where actually contacting players is part of the game.

Most likely, the parent's comment was that the ref was not calling some elbows being thrown, or more likely slide tackles (which would be tripping)...and were worried players would get injured for the referees unwillingness to make a call.

My comment was strictly to Freeman's comment that soccer is a contact sport...IT'S NOT.

"it's not...it's actually written in the rules that it's not a contact sport.

Any contact made in soccer is incidental and may not be made with the intent of contact with a player."

oh for f sake.. get off your high horse... I trust Freeman a heck of alot more about soccer then I would trust most people. There is CONTACT in soccer ...oooo its incidental big woop.


These parents that complain about the stuff happening on the same dumb ass parents that dont know what a handball is and scream at the ref because their little johnny kicked it at right at jimmy and hit him without jimmy making any attempt to touch the ball.

Here...from Law 12 of the FIFA book:

Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows:
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick).
Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.
LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:
• controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession
• touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player
• touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
• touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player
The indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

Now, does any of that sound like you're ALLOWED to contact an opponent?

Incidental contact does NOT make soccer a "contact" sport.
A "Contact" sport (by definition) REQUIRES contact between opponents.

whatever

HANDBALL!!!

Perhaps the parent that was complaining was correct?

@AA, as you provided "A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:"

Best not to play the game if thats your interpretation.

JTF wrote:Perhaps the parent that was complaining was correct?

No the parent was not. Contact is part of the game. Shoulder to shoulder contact is taught as a way to get an opponent off the ball.

Here's the best explanation that I can find.

Most actions on a soccer field are fouls only by degree, and become fouls only if done in an unfair manner. Players often bump into each other while running, or push past each while each is trying to avoid a collision. These actions are just part of the game, and most bodily contact is quite incidental to the players' attempts to win the ball.

Sometimes, though, players will exceed the bounds of fair play, either through enthusiasm or frustration, or simply by overestimating their body's ability to do what their brains are telling them to do. It is up to the referee to decide when those actions will exceed the bounds of fair play.

Charging

Soccer is a contact sport. This means that the players can use their bodies and muscles to try to win the ball. On the other hand, soccer is not ice hockey; and unlike some other sports, soccer players are not supposed to crash into each other, or body-check their opponents. For the referee trying to keep things under control, the important thing will be the force of the contact, as well as the targeted area of the opponent's body. Also, once the goalkeeper collects the ball, opposing players may not lawfully try to play it.

Fans and players often hear about "shoulder-to-shoulder" charges, and these are the charges that most coaches try to teach. Unless undertaken with a running start, most shoulder charges will be allowed, but this is not, strictly speaking, a requirement of a fair charge. Owing to human anatomy, though, most fair charges will come in the general direction of the shoulder area, not by use of the hips--and never directed toward back or the spine. If performed with clearly undue force, particularly toward the small of the back, a charge may be deemed reckless or worse, and punished with a caution and a yellow card--or, in extreme cases, with a red card and send-off.

I don't know Freeman's involvement in soccer...considering he's at a youth game, I'll assume he's either a coach or parent, possibly even a referee (though not at that game).

That said...it doesn't matter how much experience he has...his statement was incorrect, that was my only point.

I've PLAYED soccer for nearly 20 years, and refereed for 3 years before coming to Winnipeg. The rules (FIFA) are the same.

Of COURSE I know there's contact in the game...I've been knocked cold as a goalie by knees and been kicked in the hand and head more times than I want to remember.
Slide tackles aren't always clean, and the referee can't see everything.

I also agree that parents are usually POOR sports...and are quick to yell at a referee for things they may see that the ref missed...and as a current referee with MVOA (Volleyball), I can assure you...it's not limited to soccer or hockey.

MOST parents remember the rules from when they were kids, and don't realize (or accept) that the rules DO change over the years...and what may have been legal/illegal in the rules then...are the opposite now.

To address the topic of the thread though...I do have mixed feelings about the requirement.

On one hand, I understand what they are trying to do...and I commend that.

On the other though...I see a few issues that can't/won't be addressed by the new rule.
1) As mentioned...mommy takes the clinic so the kid can play, and daddy goes to the game and acts like an ass.
2) Or...a parent takes the course, and uncle joe and friends go to a game and create a havoc.
3) junior wants to play hockey, but he's only got one parent, who either doesn't care, or refuses to take the course to support the kid, so the kid does what? goes out and commits crime cause he can't play the game now? (this one concerns me the most).

In volleyball (my current experience, might apply to other sports today), when we do age-specific or school matches, a building manager/court manager is assigned. Should we as referees have a problem with a spectator, we are directed to stop the match and have that manager address the person/problem to either control them or have them leave.
Non-compliance could result in a forfeit match for:
If it can be determined which team the person came to the match to support...that team.
If not...the home team.

Deank wrote:whatever

HANDBALL!!!

HANDBALL is a completely different sport entirely .

I swear that my head was deliberately targeted a few times in ping pong. Nothing is safe any longer.

Freeman...we're arguing semantics here...but I'll clarify with definition...and apparently a term-change (at least in the US).
CONTACT SPORT
Any sport in which the impact of one person against another is an inherent part of the sport. Contact sports include boxing, football (especially American football and rugby), ice hockey, lacrosse, martial arts, and wrestling. Contact sports carry a high risk of injury and some people are advised not to take part in them: for example, those with a history of epileptic seizures triggered by a collision, and those suffering from certain contagious skin infections (e.g. impetigo, herpes, scabies, and boils). It is also unwise for any injured person to compete in a contact sport until completely recovered (see concussion).

Apparently though...to clarify the difference between CONTACT SPORTS, and those which may have contact (soccer, basketball, etc.) the term COLLISION SPORT has been adopted (in the US):

Many sports involve a degree of player-to-player and/or player-to-object contact. The term "contact sport" is used in both team sports and combat sports, medical terminology and television game shows, such as the Gladiators and Wipeout, to certain degrees. Contact between players is often classed by different grades ranging from non-contact, where there is no contact between players, to full-contact or collision sports, where the rules allow for significant physical contact.

Current medical terminology in the United States uses the term collision sport rather than contact sport to refer to Rugby football, American football, and Lacrosse. The term contact sport is used to refer to sports, such as association football[citation needed] that allow limited contact. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2001 entitled "Medical Conditions Affecting Sports Participation" that included the following definitions:

In "collision" sports (eg, boxing, football, and rodeo), athletes purposely hit or collide with each other or inanimate objects, including the ground, with great force. In "contact" sports (eg, basketball), athletes routinely make contact with each other or inanimate objects but usually with less force than in collision sports.
—Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics, [1]

This terminology may have evolved from a quote attributed to both Vince Lombardi[1] and Duffy Daugherty:[2] "Football isn't a contact sport; it's a collision sport. Dancing is a contact sport."[citation needed]

Contact sports have a higher risk of transmission of blood-borne disease between players.[3]

I think the respect in sport for spectators should be taken by not only both parents, but by grandparents, brother and sisters who are over the age of 12. At least this way, anyone who may be bringing a child to a hockey game will know what is expected of them in the stands as a spectator.

I haven't noticed at the few facilities I've been to...but a simple sign installed at the entrance point to a court/field SHOULD be enough.

Something simple, that says:
Fair play and sportsmanship is part of any sport, and the responsibility of all those participating: players, officials, spectators.

Unsportsmanlike conduct will NOT be tolerated and anyone determined unsportsmanlike will be asked to leave the premises immediately!


Or make it bullet-point, etc.
It's going to be a near-impossible "sell" to get anyone who wants to attend a game/match to have to take an hour-long presentation.

"I haven't noticed at the few facilities I've been to...but a simple sign installed at the entrance point to a court/field SHOULD be enough."

LOL... oh man thats funny.

Those signs have been up at all Hockey rinks for a number of years, result = nothing

I remember when my daughter played premier soccer (before the respect in sport program) we as parents, had to sign a "contract" with the team and the club stating that we would not coach or criticize from the sidelines, we could not comment or yell at a player or ref nor could we encourage unsportsmanlike play by any player on our team, but we could praise and encourage players in a positive manner. And any parent who broke those rules was banned from being on the sidelines. If the parent did not take the ban seriously and showed up for a game and refused to leave, our coach would forfeit the game (and he did once to make the point that the contract was serious). We had a few parents who were banned over the years for a game or two. There was also one father who was banned for the balance of his daughter's playing career with that team (it ended up being a 5 year ban and it extended over to his son's team as well). So there are ways that parents can be "controlled" per say. I also know that as a coach not only are you responsible for the actions of your players, but you are also responsible for the actions of the fans that are associated with your team. This is why the establishment of a team/parent liason has become part of the team staffing component. There is a great sign that is on the wall of the arena at I beleive, Lockport/St Andrews that the RCMP have put together that is a fair play creed. It has been a while since I have been to a minor hockey game so can't remember what it says but it is all about respect and fair play. Should be something that each arena should have as everyone comes in. Unfortunately, when you have a ref that is 14, 15 or even 18 trying to enforce rules on a bunch of out of control adults, it can be quite scary. The best I have ever seen is a 16 year old female soccer ref call a game midway through, and give the game points to the team whose parents were not disruptive and threatening. The police were called and were at the field within 5 minutes to disburse the parents and players while the ref was escorted home.

best ever

end of an absolutely brutal hockey game for 11 year olds.

13 year old ref tossed 4 family members from the other team and threatened them with awarding the game to us if they did not leave immediately before we got off the ice.

Deank wrote:"I haven't noticed at the few facilities I've been to...but a simple sign installed at the entrance point to a court/field SHOULD be enough."

LOL... oh man thats funny.

Those signs have been up at all Hockey rinks for a number of years, result = nothing

I don't have any hockey players (and don't play myself) so don't go to the rinks.

I haven't noticed at any of the (50 or so) v-ball courts I've worked, or few football/soccer fields I've been on.

And it's a suggestion...something to backup that referee who is throwing unruly parents out...so the parent can't claim they "didn't know"...cause it's in their face when they enter.