In my soccer team's only preseason match in August 1998, we were winning, 3-0, at the half.

During the opening 45 minutes, I used the player I believed was going to be our starting goalkeeper for that season. He had not played the previous fall. However, from what I saw during our spring practices, I believed he would be our No. 1 choice for most of the 1998 season.

At the start of the second half, I decided to give another goalkeeper a chance to play. This goalkeeper, whom I considered our back-up, had been training hard and was a candidate for a starting job. However, I definitely felt he was the No. 2 keeper. But I inserted him in this preseason match so he might have the experience of being "in the team" in a "game setting."

Surely, I thought, he would be called on to play at various times during the regular season when the starter was sick or injured, or perhaps off form. Amazingly, though, none of those situations arose.

Once we started playing "for real," our starting keeper played every minute of every game. He was never sick, injured or off form. In fact, his form was so good that he earned first-team all-America honors while leading our team to a Division II playoff berth. During the 20 official contests that we played during the 1998 season, there was just never another opportunity to insert the back-up goalkeeper, even to just get him into a game.

When the season was over, the back-up goalkeeper came to me and said, "I did red-shirt this season, didn't I?" I said, "I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I'm fairly sure that an NCAA rule says that if you play against any outside competition, you've used a season of eligibility." He said, "How can I lose a season of eligibility for playing only 45 minutes in a preseason exhibition match? That doesn't seem fair." I said, "I agree with you, it doesn't seem fair. However, I think that's the situation. I will check on it for you, and if indeed you are going to be charged with the use of a season for the 45 minutes played, I will ask our athletics director to appeal for a waiver."

Sure enough, Bylaw 14.2.4.1 (Minimum Amount of Competition) reads, "Any competition [including a scrimmage with outside competition (except for approved two-year college scrimmages per 14.2.4.1)] regardless of time, during a season of intercollegiate sport shall be counted as a season of competition in that sport."

Such a rule leaves no margin for error.

We initiated the waiver process, but when we inquired whether we had grounds for an appeal, we were told there was a good chance our request would be denied based on case precedent, unless there were some additional extenuating circumstances involved.

There are many student-athletes out there who use an entire season of competition even though they played in only a game or two. Might not this current legislation, with its "any competition ... regardless of time" be too strict? Might too many waiver appeals be denied just based on precedent? Is there no margin for error?

We decided to go forward with an appeal. We chose as our "extenuating circumstances" the fact that the student-athlete being charged with the loss of a season of eligibility had no control over the situation. The coach (me) put the player into the one preseason exhibition match. Because I told him to go in, he did. Then, the coach (me) never put him in another game. The player could not put himself in. Yet, it is the player being penalized, and penalized for something over which he had no control. This is grossly unfair to a young student-athlete.

Seeking a solution

Our request for a waver was denied. Repeated inquiries for an appeal also were unsuccessful, even though we heard from several people that there was merit in modifying the legislation to allow for at least a small amount of competition.

The 1999 soccer season has gone by, yet I am still as interested in this matter today as I was when I started the waiver process for my player more than a year ago.

However, my player's fate is no longer the issue. At the start of the 1999 season, he sustained a back injury and missed the entire season. Recuperating now, he will be able to play during his fifth year in school. So the waiver I originally sought for him is now a moot point. Since he can only participate in four seasons of competition during his first 10 semesters, sitting out the 1999 season due to injury will take him to the limit of his eligibility.

So my continued interest in Bylaw 14.2.4.1 is not for my player. I am still concerned about an athlete -- any athlete -- losing a year of eligibility for something over which he or she has absolutely no control.

I'm concerned that in the case of Bylaw
14.2.4.1, there is no margin for error. I made an error in putting my player into one preseason exhibition match. He got charged with the penalty. Perhaps the legislation needs some modification to allow for at least one or two appearances in competition before a player would be charged with a season of eligibility. This would allow for at least some margin for error.

And to ensure that such modification doesn't open the legislation up to abuse, perhaps these appearances should be limited to either just preseason exhibition contests or (at a more liberal application) to contests occurring during the first 10 percent of those allowable for the season.

As right as I think I am about this, I know that not all will agree with me. However, I do hope that it will be a topic of conversation within conferences and that one or more would take up this cause and propose legislation for a vote at the 2001 Convention.

Jack Mackenzie is the men's soccer coach at Quincy University.