Bewerbungen » r parents to affect their judgment on playe

Richmond boss Brendon Gale has backed Ty Vickery, while admitting he is unsure whether the maligned key forward will stay at the AFL club.One of the first jobs for new football boss Neil Balme will be to oversee their trade and draft decisions over the next few weeks at a crucial time for the Tigers.After making three elimination finals, the Tigers plummeted out of the top eight.Their playing list needs an overhaul and there is speculation Vickery, a free agent, could go to Hawthorn.Asked on Monday if Vickery would stay, Gale told 3AW: Im not sure ... that will be (left) to others better-placed than me.Ty has been a very, very important player for our footy club.We didnt play in a way that made his job much easier this year.Unfortunately, he seems to be a bit of a whipping boy.Richmonds disastrous season was a catalyst for the Focus On Football rebel ticket, which seeks a spill of the club board.The current administration appeared to head the rebels off at the pass on Monday when they announced Balme would join Richmond from Collingwood as their football department boss.Gale denied Focus On Football had anything to do with Balme returning to Richmond for the first time since 1979, saying he first approached the respected football administrator near the end of the season.The Richmond chief executive agrees with coach Damien Hardwick that must aim to return to the finals next season.Wed won 54 per cent of our games over the (previous) three years - this year we lost ground, Gale said.I have no reason not to believe that we can play finals next year.Thats the aspiration to start with and we have a crucial post-season list management process.Adding having someone like Neil involved, and his experience and judgment, can lend great support through that process. Louie Dampier Jersey . 8 Iowa State on Saturday, sending the Cyclones to their third consecutive loss. The Longhorns (14-4, 3-2) got their biggest win of the season with their third in the row in the Big 12. Coby Dietrick Jersey . For the Wild it was their first win of the season and they now have a record of 1-1-2 while the Jets fall to 2-2. Jets start a six game home stand Friday with another divisional game, home to the Dallas Stars. https://www.cheapspurs.com/816j-malik-rose-jersey-spurs.html . The mixed zone is not a place to make friends. Bruce Bowen Jersey . It was hard for Luck to pull off another comeback, or even get into the end zone, while standing on the sideline. Rivers threw a 22-yard touchdown pass to rookie Keenan Allen and Nick Novak kicked four field goals to give the Chargers a 19-9 victory against the Colts on Monday night. San Antonio Spurs Shirts . The giant slalom world champion slipped during her first run in the morning, landing on her back and then twisting forward before getting her leg caught in the protective material on the side of the slope.An interesting question was posed to me on Twitter the other day: Should parents be allowed to coach their own children in soccer? From a practical standpoint, I see nothing wrong with it. As a nation, we have such a dearth of coaches in soccer that our recreational system is entirely dependent on volunteer parent coaches. If not for these willing volunteers, many of our children simply wouldnt be able to play organized soccer. Those volunteer coaches undoubtedly need more training and support, but their selflessness is essential to the growth of the game in Canada and they should be embraced, not shunned. The question wasnt posed in reference to recreational coaches, though. Most people concede that parents are more than capable of coaching their own children in recreational soccer, where the emphasis is on fun, friendship and fair playing time. The question was posed in reference to high-performance programs, where coaches are paid a salary by their club or academy to coach players. The general sentiment from many people (some of whom are directly involved in such programs) is that paid staff coaches should never be allowed to coach their own children. Their main argument is that there is an inherent conflict of interest for any parent coach. How does the coach allocate playing time? Is it done fairly - based on merit - or is there bias shown towards the coachs child? That conflict of interest is further emphasized in a high-performance environment, where playing time is seen not just as a development opportunity, but also as a showcasing tool. Critics argue that no matter how hard the coach tries, he or she will always be accused of favouring his or her own child over the other players. While there is some legitimacy to this argument - there are plenty of parent coaches out there who think they are "managing" their childs "career" - I think that the criticism is entirely unfair. How do teachers allocate their time in a classroom when it happens to contain their child as one of the students? Do those teachers hover over their childs desk, lavishing them with attention and instruction, while the other children in the class are left to fend for themselves? Of course not. They allocate their time and instruction according to the development needs of eeach student.dddddddddddd. Their goal as a teacher is to equip each child with the skills needed to progress to the next level of the educational system. They dont direct all of their efforts into teaching their own child at the expense of the other students - which is the implication being made about the motives of parent coaches in high performance soccer programs. For me, the issue should not be about "parent coaches vs. non-parent coaches". The issue should be about "good coaches vs. bad coaches". Good coaches are able to separate their role as a parent from their role as a coach. They put as much time and effort into developing the soccer skills of each player under their care as they do into developing the skills of their own child. Good coaches allocate playing time based on performance - not based on parentage. They do not allow personal relationships with other parents to affect their judgment on players, and they consistently put the needs of the players ahead of all else. Good coaches dont play favourites - they demand the same level of commitment and effort from all of their players. In return, the players know that their coach will treat them all fairly, and that their playing time - what all players crave most - will be allocated as such. Critics will argue that there are very few good parent coaches out there - but that has nothing to do with them being parents, and everything to do with them being poor coaches. Banning all parents from coaching in high-performance programs - because there are definitely some misguided parent coaches out there - will only serve to lower an already shallow talent pool of coaches in our country. We cant afford to do that. We need to embrace our coaches; identify them, train them and support them. Some parent coaches simply do not have the time in their schedules to coach a team other than the one that their child plays for. Should we abandon some of these talented coaches, simply because their children happen to be talented players as well? Absolutely not. Instead, the technical leaders of the clubs and academies, the Technical Directors and Club Head Coaches, must do a better job of identifying the good coaches from the bad ones - whether those coaches have kids playing or not. ' ' '