I need your help. I have a question.

[Sam]

Not even close. It's like leasing a car for 8 months. In month 6, you decide you want another car instead. Your agreement says that you can't do this without paying a penalty. You knew about the penalty, agreed with it and signed the agreement. Now you want to complain about it and paint the dealer as unfair because you can't do what you want to do.....funny.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree on the vital importance of commitment.
I will use your great analogy to illustrate the other view.

A couple of years ago I leased a slightly lifted hummer. It was a 1 year lease, free maintenance. I started my lease in August.
It was a pricey lease, about ten thousand a year, about $350 startup $100 a month including dark out, fund raising, lessons ect.
It was nice and had a purpose, that summer we were going four wheel camping hunting, fishing on the way to nationals.
I also live on a long bumpy dirt road and this would make the journey special.
In June after the dark out period, I brought it in for an oil change. When I picked it up this is what I got. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... =0&ndsp=36
Same Vin. number but not the same, I tried to explain to the leaser this was not what I committed to,,he said he improved it, and it was still the same vehicle. NOT!
Guess we can try to go four wheel camping hunting fishing another year. Too bad the money is gone.
I did pay off the lease, left the hummer there. What is the penalty for changing the suspension and dynamics of a team?
Case by case, not all situations are in one mold.

The problem is that the lease says the lessor can do exactly what they did. You want to turn the vehicle in, make no more payments, waive the penalty foe early termination and walk away to immediately lease another vehicle.

Rules are written to benefit the sport, not you personally. You may have had a bad situation. Learn from it. Don't expect the rule to be changed, especially when your suggestion would result in chaos.

[PDad]

Your stupid comment on agreement/contracts only applies if the coaches were kicking kids off the team after they qualify and not releasing them. That is not happening.

Of course they aren't kicking them off the team - that would cost them money (e.g. dues / refund). So, they just sit them.

You know many teams are not operated like you have operated teams. You also aren't shy about blasting coaches for just about everything under the sun, so I don't understand why you're so adamant about holding players to a higher standard of commitment than coaches.

[AlwaysImprove]

Your stupid comment on agreement/contracts only applies if the coaches were kicking kids off the team after they qualify and not releasing them. That is not happening.

Of course they aren't kicking them off the team - that would cost them money (e.g. dues / refund). So, they just sit them.

You know many teams are not operated like you have operated teams. You also aren't shy about blasting coaches for just about everything under the sun, so I don't understand why you're so adamant about holding players to a higher standard of commitment than coaches.

I guess I do not see it as holding one side or another to a 'higher' commitment. Just that there is a necessary evil.
Here are the constraints:
- Teams have to be formed.
- Teams have to have more than 9 players.
- Berths have to be won in a qualifier.
- Once qualified, that should be the teams roster.

That pretty much guarantees a group of less than happy people on every team. Coaches do need to be able to set a lineup and decide who they feel is going to get the win.

Anything super unfair this coach was doing should have been easily resolved before the berth was secured. Correct?

To me, I would have to hear a lot more about the specifics of the unfairness to even get close to deciding if moving makes sense, or not. So I think you get back to my list of questions. Trying to determine if the level of butt hurt to actual unfairness.

[Safebyahare]

Anything super unfair this coach was doing should have been easily resolved before the berth was secured. Correct?

To me, I would have to hear a lot more about the specifics of the unfairness to even get close to deciding if moving makes sense, or not. So I think you get back to my list of questions. Trying to determine if the level of butt hurt to actual unfairness.

If we are talking 16u-18u divisions the change is not noticed till June and a little later for the San Diego folks. if the coach picked up more players .
You come out of the HS season and jump into June. That only gives you 2 weeks to figure out what happened and the coaches new aggressive approach to qualifying.

In the younger divisions who play through out year, Yes this should be picked up before June.

General theory: It is the picking up of players toward the end of season that displaces and displeases so many subs or fridge players on a team

I want to see the level of but hurt exam. That sounds fun. .
I found a form!!!! http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/60713-butthurt
Just needs to be modified for softball.

[PDad]

I guess I do not see it as holding one side or another to a 'higher' commitment. Just that there is a necessary evil.
Here are the constraints:
- Teams have to be formed.
- Teams have to have more than 9 players.
- Berths have to be won in a qualifier. Except for returning, invites and at-large berths.
- Once qualified, that should be the teams roster.

There's the rub - coaches can add players up to the 20 player limit, even after they've qualified. On top of that, players have to get a release as soon as they're on the roster, regardless of whether the team has qualified or not. It's not equitable because there is very little commitment by the coach.

Anything super unfair this coach was doing should have been easily resolved before the berth was secured. Correct?

Wrong. The topic is coaches releasing players and that is an issue whether the team has qualified or not. Getting a release from a qualified team requires additional scrutiny from PGF before it is granted.

[AlwaysImprove]

I agree. If coach picks up players before qualifier, you should be released.

You are right, coach is a bit of a dbag. Adding players before qualifying and refusing to release someone, that is a bit of a dbag.

Players move onto and off of a team. So it can be really hard to understand how things play out. Sometimes coaches are right to add players, as they have lost a few before. If they have staffed up a bit, and that staffing squeezed/negatively changed your dd's role on the team, then he should be more than willing to provide a release.

I do like the butt hurt test. The one for softball would be very similar.

[Sam]

Wait a second. The 20 player limit is IN THE RULES. You should ask the guy in January if he is going to add players after they qualify. If you failed to do so, tough $hit. This information is easy to find out.

Even if he/she tells you that they WILL pickup players after qualifying, the coach will tell you that the new players will have to compete for their positions. The parent will certainly believe that their little Susie will be up to the competition and won't care that they are adding players because it won't affect their kid.....until it does.....and thats when, all of a sudden, the coach isnt living up to their word.

[AlwaysImprove]

Wait a second. The 20 player limit is IN THE RULES. You should ask the guy in January if he is going to add players after they qualify. If you failed to do so, tough $hit. This information is easy to find out.

Even if he/she tells you that they WILL pickup players after qualifying, the coach will tell you that the new players will have to compete for their positions. The parent will certainly believe that their little Susie will be up to the competition and won't care that they are adding players because it won't affect their kid.....until it does.....and thats when, all of a sudden, the coach isnt living up to their word.

I agree. If coach announces he will be looking to add players, hard to listen to complaints of not living up to their word.

You would have to almost be at the meetings to even get a sense of what has occurred. It will be impossible for a third party to figure out what was said, what happened and who did or did not live up to their end of the deal.

[fastpitchdad05]

Wait a second. The 20 player limit is IN THE RULES. You should ask the guy in January if he is going to add players after they qualify. If you failed to do so, tough $hit. This information is easy to find out.

Even if he/she tells you that they WILL pickup players after qualifying, the coach will tell you that the new players will have to compete for their positions. The parent will certainly believe that their little Susie will be up to the competition and won't care that they are adding players because it won't affect their kid.....until it does.....and thats when, all of a sudden, the coach isnt living up to their word.

If he's picking up players and your DD is not playing all that much then how much does he really need your DD? Sounds like the coach has plenty of players, right?

Why not just let her go if she wants to go? Doesn't seem too earth-shattering for either side if they agree to a release in a case like that.

[PDad]

Wait a second. The 20 player limit is IN THE RULES. You should ask the guy in January if he is going to add players after they qualify. If you failed to do so, tough $hit. This information is easy to find out.
(blah, blah, blah)

Asinine response. First, we're not just talking about picking up players after qualifying. Second, the coach's answer won't be actionable regardless of what they say. 98.37% of the coaches won't paint themselves into a corner by ruling it out. The only ones that don't live up to their word are the ones that naively say they won't and end up doing it.

Back to the OP. I agreed with your early posts that coaches can/should refuse to release players they need to keep the team viable. However, I see no reason why a coach should refuse to release a player that no longer fits into their plans because they've added other players.