New SRI rule limiting releases to 5 per non-SRI team

[Unregistered]

Just filled out and submitted my first SRI release request for my son for the 2010-2011 season. He'll be playing for a non-SRI club registered to Mass Youth Soccer.

At the bottom of the form, it states "Effective August 1, 2010: Not more than five (5) SRI registered players shall be released to play on any non-SRI team for Out of State play. *"

Not sure why, but there's a red asterisk at the end of that statement.

I have to do the same for my daughter as her club is registered to Mass Youth Soccer.

Seeing as both my son's and daughter's teams have way more than 5 players that fall into this category, it will be interesting to see if/how SRI will enforce this. I've bee told that players beyond number 5 will be granted a waiver. But, non-SRI teams with more than 5 released/waivered (?) players are ineligible for USYSA NCS/state cup.

You guys think this rule is even necessary - especially if SRI is going to grant waivers all over the place anyway?

[Unregistered]

Just filled out and submitted my first SRI release request for my son for the 2010-2011 season. He'll be playing for a non-SRI club registered to Mass Youth Soccer.

At the bottom of the form, it states "Effective August 1, 2010: Not more than five (5) SRI registered players shall be released to play on any non-SRI team for Out of State play. *"

Not sure why, but there's a red asterisk at the end of that statement.

I have to do the same for my daughter as her club is registered to Mass Youth Soccer.

Seeing as both my son's and daughter's teams have way more than 5 players that fall into this category, it will be interesting to see if/how SRI will enforce this. I've bee told that players beyond number 5 will be granted a waiver. But, non-SRI teams with more than 5 released/waivered (?) players are ineligible for USYSA NCS/state cup.

You guys think this rule is even necessary - especially if SRI is going to grant waivers all over the place anyway?

So you "anti-rule" people are ok with say a Scorpions South team grabbing 1/2 a roster
from a RI club and then entering State Cup in RI ? Open your eyes. You're too focused on your own needs to see a bigger picture.

[Unregistered]

So you "anti-rule" people are ok with say a Scorpions South team grabbing 1/2 a roster
from a RI club and then entering State Cup in RI ? Open your eyes. You're too focused on your own needs to see a bigger picture.

YES. Of course that's ok.

If those parents want to have their kids play for Scorpions South, that's their business. Who is SRI to try to dictate where RI kids have to play? That's the biggest picture there is.

[Unregistered]

YES. Of course that's ok.

If those parents want to have their kids play for Scorpions South, that's their business. Who is SRI to try to dictate where RI kids have to play? That's the biggest picture there is.

Not if they are playing for that weasel from Westport that has his kids play for Tiverton and is in love with PM That guy's a fool.

[Unregistered]

So you "anti-rule" people are ok with say a Scorpions South team grabbing 1/2 a roster
from a RI club and then entering State Cup in RI ? Open your eyes. You're too focused on your own needs to see a bigger picture.

Just curious poster...who do you believe exactly benefits from this rule - Soccer-RI club and town association officials or the actual RI soccer families?

Don't you think RI parents have the right to decide where their kids play soccer?

[Unregistered]

Just curious poster...who do you believe exactly benefits from this rule - Soccer-RI club and town association officials or the actual RI soccer families?

Don't you think RI parents have the right to decide where their kids play soccer?

The Ray's benefit, of course. Maybe instead of playing 2 or 3 teams for the state cup, they can win by default and call themselves champions!

[Unregistered]

The Ray's benefit, of course. Maybe instead of playing 2 or 3 teams for the state cup, they can win by default and call themselves champions!

Maryland about the same demographics as RI guess how many premier clubs they have?? Anybody??

[Unregistered]

Maryland about the same demographics as RI guess how many premier clubs they have?? Anybody??

If by "same demographics" you mean 5x the population then I'll bite. How many clubs?

[Unregistered]

So this rule doesn't prevent RI kids from playing anywhere but it does prevent a non-SRI team from playing in the state cup. And it is an attempt to fit/use the 50% rule.

I don't see how this rule will benefit any RI teams directly. It will prevent a MA team with a 50% RI roster from competing in the state cup. I personally do not think that it is necessary but it would be a little disappointing to have our state represented by an out-of-state team. RI is in a precarious position due to its small size and the population density of nearby states.

Are there any MA teams with 50% RI rosters that this rule is affecting today?

The bigger factor seems to be that SRI makes it nearly impossible for a new team to be an SRI member, no matter where they are based. This is where SRI has missed the mark in an attempt to protect their existing members. SRI should let the RI soccer community grow.

[Unregistered]

So this rule doesn't prevent RI kids from playing anywhere but it does prevent a non-SRI team from playing in the state cup. And it is an attempt to fit/use the 50% rule.

I don't see how this rule will benefit any RI teams directly. It will prevent a MA team with a 50% RI roster from competing in the state cup. I personally do not think that it is necessary but it would be a little disappointing to have our state represented by an out-of-state team. RI is in a precarious position due to its small size and the population density of nearby states.

Are there any MA teams with 50% RI rosters that this rule is affecting today?

The bigger factor seems to be that SRI makes it nearly impossible for a new team to be an SRI member, no matter where they are based. This is where SRI has missed the mark in an attempt to protect their existing members. SRI should let the RI soccer community grow.

Potentially this rule DOES, in fact limit where RI parents can take their kids to play for league-play. Read the rule - if your son or daughter is the 6th RI resident who makes a Mass-registered team, SRI' s rule states that your child will NOT be granted a release.

Also, please understand that the NCS/state cup is NOT the property of SRI. It is the property of USYSA. and, USYSA policy specifically states that a team will participate in the state cup competition of which 50% or more of its players reside. The SRI rule contradicts USYSA policy.

[Unregistered]

Potentially this rule DOES, in fact limit where RI parents can take their kids to play for league-play. Read the rule - if your son or daughter is the 6th RI resident who makes a Mass-registered team, SRI' s rule states that your child will NOT be granted a release.

Also, please understand that the NCS/state cup is NOT the property of SRI. It is the property of USYSA. and, USYSA policy specifically states that a team will participate in the state cup competition of which 50% or more of its players reside. The SRI rule contradicts USYSA policy.

The 6th will get a waiver but not a release. No prevention. This will mean that the MA team roster will not get to 50%. Yes or No?

[Unregistered]

The 6th will get a waiver but not a release. No prevention. This will mean that the MA team roster will not get to 50%. Yes or No?

There is no guarantee that SRI will grant a 6th player a waiver. SRI prez has told me so privately, but if someone at SRI decides not to grant it, per their rule, they won't grant it.

Some non-SRI teams - registered with Mass Youth Soccer - are made up 100% with RI players. NE Wave and RISC teams are examples of this.

[Unregistered]

This rule could potentially affect both league play and state cup play.

Think about it...if a Mass team requests releases for 6+ of its players from RI, SRI's rule says "we don't have to give players 6+ a release..." But Massachsuetts leaggues like MAPLE and MASC require a release from EVERY out-of-state player.

SRI supposedly will grant waivers for players 6+...but if that's the case, what's the point of SRI having the rule if SRI is going to break it with waivers?

The state cup part of it is just a way of keeping the USYSA RI state cup in the SRI "family". Hey, let them have the state cup. If they can't see that they've tarnished the cup for any SRI team that wins it by barring otherwise eligible teams, that's their problem.

I don't see how USYSA allowed SRI to do this, but they probably figure that RI is such an insignificant part of their NCS that they really don't care.

What will be interesting to watch is if SRI ever tries to enforce the rule for league play. Imagine SRI telling a RI Mom and Dad "we're not granting your son or daughter a waiver because she's the 6th RI resident on the NE Wave U12 team. Thus, she cannot play for the Wave - period." The lawyers would have a field day with that.

What I'd really like is for someone from SRI to explain the benefit of this rule for league play and state cup play to RI parents and their kids. Anybody out there from SRI who can actually explain what good this rule does for RI soccer families?

And, if so, please explain the need to have the rule for league play if you're going to grant waivers anyway?

We're trying to understand.

[Unregistered]

There is no guarantee that SRI will grant a 6th player a waiver. SRI prez has told me so privately, but if someone at SRI decides not to grant it, per their rule, they won't grant it.

Some non-SRI teams - registered with Mass Youth Soccer - are made up 100% with RI players. NE Wave and RISC teams are examples of this.

Seems like SRI made a mess of this one. We need to create a movement to remove the top of SRI and put in new by-laws to prevent this type of monarchical control. Let's join the rest of the country!

[Unregistered]

Seems like SRI made a mess of this one. We need to create a movement to remove the top of SRI and put in new by-laws to prevent this type of monarchical control. Let's join the rest of the country!

Yes, they did make a mess of this one.

The top of SRI is made up of genuinely nice guys. Steve, Oscar et al are good people whom I believe are trying their hardest. The problem is that their own kids are no longer playing youth soccer so they are not in touch with what RI parents TODAY are dealing with in the ever-evolving world of New England youth travel sports.

I'm guessing that the genesis of this rule started with either some town association prez or some premier club prez (or both) complaining about losing kids and/or coaches to an a non-SRI club. Could've been Cumberland complaining about the NE Wave (almost all NE Wave teams are made up of Cumberland girls). Could've been Lincoln complaining about RISC (Lincoln boys make up the majority of RISC's 6 teams). Could've been several other associations or clubs. At the same time, premier club prez's (Black Watch, Bruno, etc.) don't like having to compete with non-SRI, RI-based clubs who register in Mass. So, they probably whined to SRI that "we can't compete on a regional level unless we get access to ALL the best RI kids..."

So, Steve, Oscar, etc. tried to do something to protect their constituents, a.k.a. town and club prez's, from having their programs fall apart. Thus, the "5 release limit" rule and "no state cup for non-SRI teams" rules were born.

The problem is that SRI officials didn't consider both sides of the issue. Maybe the town associations in question were losing kids because they were doing a bad job of satisfying the needs of their town's parents and kids. Maybe the premier clubs were performing poorly as well. I can tell you from my own personal experience - this is probably the case.

So, now they've got this silly rule on the books that SRI has already admitted that they have no intention of enforcing for league play (by issuing waivers). If and when they enforce it for state cup play, the only thing that will be accomplished is the de-valuation of the state cup. You know that NE Wave parents are going to say to Rays parents "you never beat the Wave in state cup, so you're not really state champs." You think the Rays girls - who are "protected" by SRI - are going to appreciate that when they hear that in school, clinics or tournaments from Wave girls? Same goes for the Bayside, Bruno or Black Watch boys.

How many boys or girls were influenced by these rules to stay within SRI-member clubs this June? From what I observed, non-SRI clubs such as the Wave and RISC had great turnouts for tryouts. Meanwhile, Bruno and Black Watch struggled to find enough kids to fill out rosters in certain age groups.

(To be fair, I just happened to be at Bayside's tryouts at Bryant - my son was playing an AAU baseball game there. Bayside had a HUGE turnout especially for their boys teams. It just proved to me that the winningest clubs naturally attract the best players and the most players.)

Do we need to get rid of the SRI Board? Who knows? But the SRI Board needs to get back in touch with how the youth soccer landscape has changed dramatically in the past 3-4 years. Obviously, these rules are not what any parent of talented youth soccer players would be in favor of. Parents want choices. SRI needs to understand what parents want for their kids, not what town associations and clubs want for their programs.