OHSAA 5 player limit in off-season club teams

A

anonclubcoach

New member
I posed this question to OHSAA - interested in other's takes on this topic as to how this rules is administered.

I understand only 5 players may play on an organized soccer team outside of their school soccer season.

My question is in regards to an official US club soccer roster that has 5 players from one HS team on it officially rostered. If a 6th player from the same HS who is NOT on the club team's roster wants to substitute for a player that is one of the 5 on the roster in any one LEAGUE game but is not carded for that team (because they play on another), can they serve as a guest player? If so, could they serve as a guest in a particular game even if all 5 of the normally rostered players are also playing? Lastly, what about a US Club soccer tournament that is not part of the Us Club team's league schedule - would the rules differ at all there?
 
 
anonclubcoach said:
I posed this question to OHSAA - interested in other's takes on this topic as to how this rules is administered.



I understand only 5 players may play on an organized soccer team outside of their school soccer season.



My question is in regards to an official US club soccer roster that has 5 players from one HS team on it officially rostered. If a 6th player from the same HS who is NOT on the club team's roster wants to substitute for a player that is one of the 5 on the roster in any one LEAGUE game but is not carded for that team (because they play on another), can they serve as a guest player? If so, could they serve as a guest in a particular game even if all 5 of the normally rostered players are also playing? Lastly, what about a US Club soccer tournament that is not part of the Us Club team's league schedule - would the rules differ at all there?
Click to expand...



According to the OHSAA rules, no more than 5 players from the same high school team can be on a club team. Adding a rotational player or guest player from that same high school is a violation of the rule. The rule does not make an exception for the type of league, tournament, etc. It doesn’t use the term “club team.” Instead, it refers to non-inter scholastic team. So, it doesn’t matter if its a US Club soccer tournament that’s not part of the league schedule. The only exception is for futsal leagues and pick-up games


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
That's an antiquated rule that harms schools in smaller communities that don't have access to multiple clubs. It has literally created the money-oriented club development industry.

In Indiana they switched from 6 per club to 7 last year. It's a help but still a rich get richer proposition.
 
I agree with you that it's an antiquated rule that really serves no legit purpose in today's environment. However, your implication that new clubs are formed today because of it is a bit ridiculous. And the whole rich get richer thing... good grief -- capitalists gonna capitalist.
 
The intent of the rule is keep high school teams from competing and trainer together as a team once the high school season ends. The belief is that some teams would have an unfair advantage if training was allowed to continue beyond the season.

For soccer, this is antiquated because it implicitly assumes that high school soccer has more prominence in the echo system than it really does. The overwhelming majority of players that play in college are recruited via the club system, not the high school system. This is the reason that club soccer has grown.

Requiring a per team limit causes club’s to artificially break-up teams. In some instances, a player has to leave a club all together. In other instances, the player can stay with the club but ends up being demoted or playing with another age-group. This can negatively impact their ability to be recruited.

The OHSAA rules are not necessarily designed to protect the athlete. They protect the schools and the association. Another bad rule is the rule prohibiting players from participating in ID camps during the high school season.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Its purpose runs parallel to that of competitive balance. Regardless of where high school soccer falls in the echo system chain of recruitment (and I'm not disagreeing with that point made), it doesn't negate or antiquate the original intent of the rule of balancing "advantage" which I think still has merit.

In theory I see the "unfairness" behind having to artificially break up a team, however I'd be curious to see data on how often it actually happens. In reality, because club teams are by birth year and JV & Varsity teams are mixed ages, it doesn't have much of a real chance to become limiting until junior/senior, by which time I imagine the club teams are already experiencing some natural fluctuation.
 
Conan73 said:
According to the OHSAA rules, no more than 5 players from the same high school team can be on a club team. Adding a rotational player or guest player from that same high school is a violation of the rule. The rule does not make an exception for the type of league, tournament, etc. It doesn’t use the term “club team.” Instead, it refers to non-inter scholastic team. So, it doesn’t matter if its a US Club soccer tournament that’s not part of the league schedule. The only exception is for futsal leagues and pick-up games


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's actually an interesting question though that I bet could be challenged pretty easily based on wording of the rule. With U.S. Club, you can add/remove players from the roster on a per game basis; and if only 5 are on the roster at any one point from a school then they are technically still following the rule aren't they? Example, players 1-5 are on team A and player 6 is on team B; if player 1 can't be at a game and player 6 takes that spot and there are still only 5 on the field together and they don't practice together so never "technically" violate the rule do they?

I'm curious if this tactic has been used at any point previously by NPL clubs in the area.
 
What happens is that it has taken the impetus for development away from schools. I don't know that that's bad but for those kids who can't/won't drive an hour to practice or can't play club fees there's no alternative for development.

Western Ohio is a lot eastern Indiana in that there are huge pockets of non-competitive schools because of old school development. Indiana has offered some changes, but really the rule does more harm than good.

If the rule was designed to keep high schools from training and competing in the off season, it's failed to keep up with the evolving system. BeaverCreek's team all trained and competed during the off season, just not together. I'd say that's a substantial advantage over some other GWOC schools like West Carrollton or Piqua. The rule no longer achieves it's original aim.
 
Hoosier Parent said:
If the rule was designed to keep high schools from training and competing in the off season, it's failed to keep up with the evolving system. BeaverCreek's team all trained and competed during the off season, just not together. I'd say that's a substantial advantage over some other GWOC schools like West Carrollton or Piqua. The rule no longer achieves it's original aim.
Click to expand...


The rule was put in place back in the 80's and the purpose of the rule was to prevent high school coaches from monopolizing the kids time. That was it. In Dayton there were a few "club" teams. Jamestown had 1 until we became freshmen.
 
I get the reason for it, but that doesn't mean I like it.

But, I do like it for this reason: imagine the amount of complaints that would be on this board if Summit, Moeller, Mason, etc. would have if they played year-round and others didn't. Yappi would be unbearable with those complaints.

As mentioned previously, the rule does hurt rural areas more, but it's not like there are club kids all over the place in rural Ohio (and those other states that have the same rule).
 
"As mentioned previously, the rule does hurt rural areas more, but it's not like there are club kids all over the place in rural Ohio (and those other states that have the same rule)."

It is not the fact that there might not be "high" level club kids in rural and i will add lower income areas of Ohio. It is the fact that by limiting the number to 5 kids, the players that want to become better by playing club are denied this opportunity. Alot of these areas only have the local rec league to play in. At the older age groups in Rec alot of players have to play up just to have team, once the player reaches freshman year this is no longer possible due to the OHSAA rule.
 
belied dat said:
I get the reason for it, but that doesn't mean I like it.

But, I do like it for this reason: imagine the amount of complaints that would be on this board if Summit, Moeller, Mason, etc. would have if they played year-round and others didn't. Yappi would be unbearable with those complaints.

As mentioned previously, the rule does hurt rural areas more, but it's not like there are club kids all over the place in rural Ohio (and those other states that have the same rule).
Click to expand...

Two thoughts on this:
1) Those kids from Summit, Moeller (I'm assuming) and Mason are playing year round now, only at area clubs. They all play in similar enough system that teaches similar tactics and technique. It's the kids from urban and smaller rural schools that aren't playing year round (Which is the point). Large donut schools (Schools outside public urban school like Centerville, BeaverCreek, Springboro in Dayton) and urban privates like Summit are all club girls. The Greenvilles and Piquas are not.

Your second paragraph reiterates my point.
 
scsweeper19 said:
It is not the fact that there might not be "high" level club kids in rural and i will add lower income areas of Ohio. It is the fact that by limiting the number to 5 kids, the players that want to become better by playing club are denied this opportunity. Alot of these areas only have the local rec league to play in. At the older age groups in Rec alot of players have to play up just to have team, once the player reaches freshman year this is no longer possible due to the OHSAA rule.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with what level of club.

Rural areas do not possess, in my history, the mentality of playing club soccer. Those athletes are more apt to be required to participate in other sports to fill rosters rather than commit to one sport. My coaching and playing career has mostly been in rural areas (in multiple states), there were very few players who would commit to any club because of the multi-sport OR an even less desire to do more with soccer.

Hoosier Parent said:
Two thoughts on this:
1) Those kids from Summit, Moeller (I'm assuming) and Mason are playing year round now, only at area clubs. They all play in similar enough system that teaches similar tactics and technique. It's the kids from urban and smaller rural schools that aren't playing year round (Which is the point). Large donut schools (Schools outside public urban school like Centerville, BeaverCreek, Springboro in Dayton) and urban privates like Summit are all club girls. The Greenvilles and Piquas are not.
Click to expand...

They are already playing year-round, but people do not want those major programs to compete together year-round. It's an "unfair advantage" to those in areas that may not be as competitive already, regardless of the club capabilities. If this rule was lifted, do you think Piqua would become anything more competitive? What do you think would happen to Beavercreek? Indian Hills? The gap would still be extremely large.
 
I see your point on rural culture and small school athletes playing multiple sports.

But I'd argue that yes Piqua could become more competitive. I'm a coach of a school or 1300. We are an hour plus from Dayton/Cinci/Indy/Ft Wayne. Like schools with enrollments of 400 we have athletes who will play basketball in the winter, then run track or play tennis in the spring. I can run a team in our version of OSSL/Buckeye State, which is ISL. I can schedule so that out spring sport girls can do their thing and at least get a foot on the ball in the spring. I can implement some tactical concepts, like playing to space, overlaps, switching the point of attack etc.

Right now the IH or BC coach brings his girls in during the summer and sets up a system based on his players strengths and weaknesses. He doesn't have to teach much. Meanwhile the Piqua type school coach is bringing his girls in and teaching them the fundamentals that club girls are learning at U10.

If suggesting that it would create a bigger disparity between the haves and have nots, you may be right, but I'd ask if you think Mason, BC, or Indian Hills will be able to create training at the level of OE, CDA, or even TFA, Warren Co, or Galaxies? Because that's where their roster is training now.
 
I personally cannot speak of the individual make-up of the rosters of each of these HS teams. But, I do know that many of the players do not play club or even a high level of club. Yes, there is probably a large percentage that do play high level.

Didn't OHSAA pass that players can train with their coaches out-of-season in small-group settings? Correct me if I have this wrong. I know it was being talked about.

I would think that some of these HS teams can beat numerous club teams. Especially if they continue to train together longer.

I'm not a fan of the rule. I see why it exists though. And, as a rural coach/player, there are minimal resources and coaches available to better each sport with this rule in place. Ideally, it would be nice if more rural players put more emphasis in their own development and did more themselves. But, that's not the culture with soccer.
 
You clearly get it dat. It is a largely a cultural thing. I'm more familiar with Dayton area schools. I think if you look at the rosters of the aforementioned schools, I'd be willing to bet that the top 11-13 players, at least, have played club soccer.

We went to the Centerville-BeaverCreek game a couple of years ago and my daughter knew well over thirty girls from both teams from club. Ironically she knew more players on that field and bench then any game she played in Indiana.

I would argue that success if generally based on the number of girls a school has that play club. Ironically I sit in some of these coaches meetings and listen to coaches with 6 or 7 DA/ECNL girls on their roster, who pat each other on the back. I've seen some really nice coaching in the sticks with coaches who have built players/systems from scratch. (Not us, we've had 1 D1 level girl on our roster for the last 6 years, and put a bunch of athletes around her)
 
Hoosier Parent said:
You clearly get it dat. It is a largely a cultural thing. I'm more familiar with Dayton area schools. I think if you look at the rosters of the aforementioned schools, I'd be willing to bet that the top 11-13 players, at least, have played club soccer.

We went to the Centerville-BeaverCreek game a couple of years ago and my daughter knew well over thirty girls from both teams from club. Ironically she knew more players on that field and bench then any game she played in Indiana.

I would argue that success if generally based on the number of girls a school has that play club. Ironically I sit in some of these coaches meetings and listen to coaches with 6 or 7 DA/ECNL girls on their roster, who pat each other on the back. I've seen some really nice coaching in the sticks with coaches who have built players/systems from scratch. (Not us, we've had 1 D1 level girl on our roster for the last 6 years, and put a bunch of athletes around her)
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get though...if so many kids are playing club, why do people consistently dog HS? It doesn't matter much of the schools, except many of these outliers that we've both experienced and described, many kids these days play club.

Yeah, it's easy to scapegoat and blame the HS coach with some of this. But, if these clubs were doing their jobs, the players should still be able to play with other club players at a combined HS. Yet, that's not the case and HS soccer continues to get the negative reviews -- while club is praised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top