Answer: The local Pop Warner group in our community had a
rule at the Mighty Mite level a few years ago that would only allow a
player to play either offense or defense in each half but not both offense
and defense in the same half (i.e. the team had to be split into
offensive and defensive teams for each half). A player could not play both
offense and defense in a half. However, if the player played on offense in
the first half he had could change and play on defense in the second half.
Pop Warner rescinded that rule after a few years.
I coached in Pop Warner at the Mighty Mite level
when that rule was in effect and I never really liked it because it
limited the learning and enjoyment experience for the kids. But I
understood the reason the rule was there.
The intent of that rule was to increase playing
time for lesser skilled players by not allowing the better players to play
both ways - which, by the way I totally support. Too many coaches who
care only about winning, will try to do everything they can to keep their
best players on the field for the maximum amount of time, usually at the
expense of playing time for other players.
The rule was an attempt to offset the negative
effects of "win at any cost" coaches but I believe it detracted
from the kids experience and enjoyment. It was analogous to "throwing
the baby out with the bath water."
I didn't need such a rule to force me to play all
my players or insure that all my players got meaningful playing time.
I believe that kids should receive instruction in
all positions during practice and should be encouraged and allowed to play
various positions, on both offense and defense, in games. I always made
sure that every player on my team played extensively ‹not just the
minimum required number of plays. To do that some of the more skilled
players had to sit out at times.
While I didn't need that rule to get all my
players in the game, lots of other teams with overzealous coaches did.
When coaching under that rule, I would let different kids play offense in
the first half and defense in the second half and every player played
extensively and in meaningful situations.
As I said before, this rule, like the minimum
play requirement, is an attempt to mitigate poor coaching by adults who
don't have the interest of all the players first and foremost - they are
too focused on winning.
While on the subject of minimum play
requirements, let me add; a minimum play requirement of 6 plays in a
football game that is comprised of 60-80 plays is ridiculous. Players who
practice three or four times a week for several hours a day and only get
to play 6 plays in a game (usually less than 10% of the plays) are being
mistreated by the coach. Those kids aren't playing football. They are just
being used as "practice fodder" by the coach. No wonder kids are
quitting sports before they are 12 years old. If youth football programs
are going to have a minimum play requirement then it should be meaningful
such as at least half of the game.
Because of situations similar to what you have
described, I stopped coaching in Pop Warner and formed a special and
unique football program in our community that focuses on fun,
participation and player enjoyment and development. It eliminates the
problem of overzealous coaches and playing time. I will be posting an
article on my web site shortly describing this program in more detail.
I hope this answers your questions.