I think the point is that they want teams to be able to play it short without a swarm of pressure camped out at the edge of the 18. At the young ages, not every team will have a player that can smash it long and out of trouble. So they want to teams to be able to play soccer instead of "try to boot it past the wall standing on the edge of the 18."Today I witnessed my first BU9 game using the build out line. What is it they are trying to teach with that?
Would it be legal for the keeper to dribble the ball out and then kick the ball long?
I think the point is that they want teams to be able to play it short without a swarm of pressure camped out at the edge of the 18. At the young ages, not every team will have a player that can smash it long and out of trouble. So they want to teams to be able to play soccer instead of "try to boot it past the wall standing on the edge of the 18."
Good idea on paper.
But you have some coaches who will play it short and then smash the next ball forward anyway.
And then you have other coaches who will have the same "camp out at the build out line and send a wave of players forward" to try and stop the build out.
Or you have some other coaches who look for loopholes like "lets have the keeper dribble it for a touch and then smash it forward" or "play a ball out to your center back who will softly play it back to the keeper who will then smash it forward."
In each of these cases you have 1-2 extra passes. Still better than what we had.I think the point is that they want teams to be able to play it short without a swarm of pressure camped out at the edge of the 18. At the young ages, not every team will have a player that can smash it long and out of trouble. So they want to teams to be able to play soccer instead of "try to boot it past the wall standing on the edge of the 18."
Good idea on paper.
But you have some coaches who will play it short and then smash the next ball forward anyway.
And then you have other coaches who will have the same "camp out at the build out line and send a wave of players forward" to try and stop the build out.
Or you have some other coaches who look for loopholes like "lets have the keeper dribble it for a touch and then smash it forward" or "play a ball out to your center back who will softly play it back to the keeper who will then smash it forward."
Yes, the idea is good. Unfortunately, I saw most U12 (first year without the build out line rule) teams punt exclusively.The build out line is great for youngers. Not sure how one could argue that forcing players to learn how to pass the ball out of the back is a bad thing.
Yes, the idea is good. Unfortunately, I saw most U12 (first year without the build out line rule) teams punt exclusively.
This is a solid session on how to train for it. These players appear to be about 11 or 12 years old. You'll notice that they play the ball in the air when it should be on the ground. They don't give perfect passing angles to be open. They don't always scan the field by constantly checking over their shoulder.
.
The build out line is great for youngers. Not sure how one could argue that forcing players to learn how to pass the ball out of the back is a bad thing.
You say there's no benefit with BOL and that kickball is even worse...yet offer up no alternative solutions. Forcing youngers to play out of the back is a great way to get away from horrible kickball games that we know the youngers can devolve into quickly if the BOL rule did not exist. Most U-10 teams (and younger) do not know how to play out of the back effectively...and that's OK. It's a learning process that takes years to develop and the BOL is helping them to think of basic passing/spacing concepts at an earlier age.Unfortunately, I haven't seen any real tangible benefit to the BOL. Coaches that don't teach Building out the Back ("BOTB") just figure out ways around the BOL to boot the ball. It might assist those coaches that teach BOTB but that benefit is negligible and doesn't compensate for the game time lost waiting for the kids to get behind the BOL. (Particularly when you still have certain refs that make the opposing team retreat behind the BOL and don't allow a quick restart.) Its also counter intuitive since to be most effective, BOTB has to be done quickly. To me the BOL is an unnecessary complication of a simple game. Personally I would rather have BOTB taught and not legislated by changing the laws of the game. (Unfortunately USSF would rather makeup rules to change the game then to make coaching education more accessible).
Trust me, I hate keeper punts, they're probably the least effective play in soccer. You give up possession over 50% of the time and it is often turned into a counter attack by the opposing team. However, I don't think the BOL has done much to change that in the long term.