# Small Sided Games...Changes?



## watfly (Sep 2, 2016)

I stumbled across a US Soccer Powerpoint regarding the small sided initiatives dated August 2016.  In this presentation the field sizes recommended for the small sided games are significantly larger that what was initially stated.  For example, US Soccer originally said 47 yards long and 30 yards wide for 7v7 games.  In this presentation it said 7v7 fields should be 55-65 yards long and 35-45 wide.  That's 37%-107% larger than originally recommended.  That's great news after the debacle of the tiny fields at Surf Cup.  Hopefully these new standards will be communicated to CalSouth.

Another interesting wrinkle is that the new offsides line will be the buildout line.  So no offsides between the halfway line and the buildout line.

I can't seem to link the PDF of the Powerpoint but if you google "us soccer small sided standards" you should get the result below which will allow you to download the PDF.

*[PDF]2016 US Soccer - US Youth Soccer*
https://www.usyouth*soccer*.org/FileDownload.aspx?D...3O...


----------



## BeepBeep Boop (Sep 10, 2016)

According to this PDF the build-out line should only be in effect for 7v7 games, correct? My daughter played in a 9v9 U11 game today and it was a complete clusterf***. They played on the same field as the 7v7 games (that's fine) but then the referee had it in his head that he had to enforce the build-out line with no keeper punts. Then there was confusion as to when the defending team could rush in and pressure the ball. This went on OVER AND OVER AND OVER throughout the game.

Even worse, they went to the field marshall at halftime to get clarification, and it was more of the same crap. SCDSL by the way.


----------



## Socceraties (Sep 10, 2016)

Happened in Vegas too.  I saw a u9 coach ask the referee time move the girls out of the build out area.  The ref ignored him so he said louder "Sir they are in the build out area." The ref pulled the coach onto the field yelling at him it is a foul line area and to be quiet or he would be sent off.   The coach walked back saying it is still a build out area.  The ref gave him another warning.  At half time the ref pulled out both coaches and advised them it was a build out area.  Can you imagine getting ejected for advising the ref of the proper rules based on US Soccer Initiatives.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 10, 2016)

I reffed a boys u9 AYSO extra game this morning.  Keeper punts are allowed, but there is supposed to be a build out line. No build out line drawn on the field. 
Talked to both coaches pre-game.
On goal kicks, the opposing team had to be behind the center referee (me). Once the ball crossed the 18, it was free for either team to play it. 
I called it on both teams once. 
Not really a big deal. It gives weaker teams a bit more of a chance to play the ball out on a goal kick.  But -neither team played the ball sideways to try and build up at all.  They just tried to boot it up field. 
Hopefully teams adjust and figure out how to use the extra space.


----------



## watfly (Sep 10, 2016)

It's a joke and has been that way all tournament and now starting league season.  Many ref's don't bother to read tourney or league rules.  We are playing up at 9v9 just to avoid playing the 7v7 cluster.  Nevertheless, the ref still allowed headers and only did 25 minute halves not the 30 min required. (not complaining about the heading...just not the rules).   Its been Ref Rule Roulette all year.  

Although not the ref's fault, the field was also 11v11 size.


----------



## watfly (Sep 10, 2016)

Socceraties said:


> Can you imagine getting ejected for advising the ref of the proper rules based on US Soccer Initiatives.


Happened last week at a tournament, both coaches were tossed arguing that heading was allowed in tournament which it was.  Tourney officials did the right thing and reinstated coaches for next game.


----------



## Sunil Illuminati (Sep 10, 2016)

BeepBeep Boop said:


> According to this PDF the build-out line should only be in effect for 7v7 games, correct? My daughter played in a 9v9 U11 game today and it was a complete clusterf***. They played on the same field as the 7v7 games (that's fine) but then the referee had it in his head that he had to enforce the build-out line with no keeper punts. Then there was confusion as to when the defending team could rush in and pressure the ball. This went on OVER AND OVER AND OVER throughout the game.
> 
> Even worse, they went to the field marshall at halftime to get clarification, and it was more of the same crap. SCDSL by the way.


The PDF is US Soccer's 'Recommendation." SCDSL has introduced build-out-line for the season, at all ages 2006 and below. Only time will tell whether it's a good or bad thing for the players.


----------



## meatsweats (Sep 10, 2016)

Sunil Illuminati said:


> The PDF is US Soccer's 'Recommendation." SCDSL has introduced build-out-line for the season, at all ages 2006 and below. Only time will tell whether it's a good or bad thing for the players.


Saw the first game today with the build out line. I predict this will be a one and done year with this nonsense. All I see is cherry picking coming soon. Plus, it's pretty easy to defend the roll out, period. Seemed the littles that played decent ball all summer, suddenly went backwards today. Maybe time will prove me wrong. I sure hope so.


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Sep 10, 2016)

meatsweats said:


> Saw the first game today with the build out line. I predict this will be a one and done year with this nonsense. All I see is cherry picking coming soon. Plus, it's pretty easy to defend the roll out, period. Seemed the littles that played decent ball all summer, suddenly went backwards today. Maybe time will prove me wrong. I sure hope so.


Cherry picking?


----------



## meatsweats (Sep 10, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> Cherry picking?


Read the new Off Side rules.


----------



## espola (Sep 11, 2016)

meatsweats said:


> Read the new Off Side rules.


Don't evade the question.  Say what you mean.


----------



## meatsweats (Sep 11, 2016)

espola said:


> Don't evade the question.  Say what you mean.


Not evading at all. 

"7v7 Build Out Line - The build out line will also be used to denote where offside offenses can be called. Players cannot be penalized for an offside offense between the halfway line and the build out line. Players can be penalized for an offside offense between the build out line and goal line." per USSF

So.....what do you think coaches and players will do when they eventually figure out all these changes?


----------



## espola (Sep 11, 2016)

meatsweats said:


> Not evading at all.
> 
> "7v7 Build Out Line - The build out line will also be used to denote where offside offenses can be called. Players cannot be penalized for an offside offense between the halfway line and the build out line. Players can be penalized for an offside offense between the build out line and goal line." per USSF
> 
> So.....what do you think coaches and players will do when they eventually figure out all these changes?


I don't see much more "cherry-picking" there than there was before.


----------



## meatsweats (Sep 11, 2016)

espola said:


> I don't see much more "cherry-picking" there than there was before.


The build out line is literally 2 yards off the box. You don't find that weird?


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Sep 11, 2016)

meatsweats said:


> So.....what do you think coaches and players will do when they eventually figure out all these changes?


Lol. If they're worth anything, they'll teach their kids to play properly.

Look. The rules are there to open up the game and keep it moving. If there's no offsides, the kids can break pressure by passing in behind the defense. 

Additionally, as defenses sag off to defend kids behind them, it allows more space.to play possession.

I'd love to see what a good group of.l kids would do a team that was "cherry picking". It'd be hilarious.


----------



## espola (Sep 11, 2016)

meatsweats said:


> The build out line is literally 2 yards off the box. You don't find that weird?


I find the whole build-out line effort to be nonsense.  It is just ensuring that the good teams and players will play no better than the weak teams and players.


----------



## meatsweats (Sep 11, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> Lol. If they're worth anything, they'll teach their kids to play properly.
> 
> Look. The rules are there to open up the game and keep it moving. If there's no offsides, the kids can break pressure by passing in behind the defense.
> 
> ...


You are assuming coaches will work on this aspect. They are quickly under pressure and there is no movement option on these small fields. They go up line or boot it. Depends not the team. The "space" you are speaking is so small, get real. Trust me. Give it 2 months. Cherry pick central. Maybe not at 08, but def at 06.


----------



## espola (Sep 11, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> Lol. If they're worth anything, they'll teach their kids to play properly.
> 
> Look. The rules are there to open up the game and keep it moving. If there's no offsides, the kids can break pressure by passing in behind the defense.
> 
> ...


My kids' rec league decided not to enforce offside until the half-way point of the season a few years ago.  That just delayed the date of the confusion.


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Sep 11, 2016)

meatsweats said:


> You are assuming coaches will work on this aspect. They are quickly under pressure and there is no movement option on these small fields. They go up line or boot it. Depends not the team. The "space" you are speaking is so small, get real. Trust me. Give it 2 months. Cherry pick central. Maybe not at 08, but def at 06.


'06s don't have the rule. 

Kids that are booting it will boot it regardless. No one cares how the crap teams play.


----------



## meatsweats (Sep 11, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> '06s don't have the rule.
> 
> Kids that are booting it will boot it regardless. No one cares how the crap teams play.


These rules affect all. Crap teams or not. I'm not sure how anyone can validate the new offside rule. It confuses all the players and coaches. So then we have to retrain and teach them in a year or two. Stupid!


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Sep 11, 2016)

meatsweats said:


> These rules affect all. Crap teams or not. I'm not sure how anyone can validate the new offside rule. It confuses all the players and coaches. So then we have to retrain and teach them in a year or two. Stupid!


Yeah. Real rocket science for legit players. 

Honestly, everyone (you too, espola) stop bitching about rules and teach kids to play properly. And if you don't know how to do that, then learn.


----------



## espola (Sep 11, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> Yeah. Real rocket science for legit players.
> 
> Honestly, everyone (you too, espola) stop bitching about rules and teach kids to play properly. And if you don't know how to do that, then learn.


Some coaches were having pretty good success teaching players to "play properly" before this year.  This nonsense is like punishing a whole school class for the misbehavior of a few.

A suggestion - teams who can show a panel of experts that they already "play properly" would be allowed to play under the old rules.


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Sep 12, 2016)

espola said:


> Some coaches were having pretty good success teaching players to "play properly" before this year.  This nonsense is like punishing a whole school class for the misbehavior of a few.
> 
> A suggestion - teams who can show a panel of experts that they already "play properly" would be allowed to play under the old rules.


The new rules should have zero consequence for people who know what they're doing. Zero.


----------



## espola (Sep 12, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> The new rules should have zero consequence for people who know what they're doing. Zero.


Unless they expected to be playing soccer.


----------



## OchoUno (Sep 12, 2016)

BeepBeep Boop said:


> According to this PDF the build-out line should only be in effect for 7v7 games, correct? My daughter played in a 9v9 U11 game today and it was a complete clusterf***. They played on the same field as the 7v7 games (that's fine) but then the referee had it in his head that he had to enforce the build-out line with no keeper punts. Then there was confusion as to when the defending team could rush in and pressure the ball. This went on OVER AND OVER AND OVER throughout the game.
> 
> Even worse, they went to the field marshall at halftime to get clarification, and it was more of the same crap. SCDSL by the way.


This was my biggest concern for this fall, 06s playing on a field for 7v7 games. My DD is a 06, played 8v8 last year, now playing 9v9, and playing on a field size for 7v7 would be horrible. Early on CSL noted that it has been difficult for clubs to come up with a third field size for the 06s at 9v9, so they decided to accept the smaller size field. Later they came back and agreed to accept a 45x80 field for the 06, 07, and 08s (no build out line in CSL). Our club went out and purchased new goals and painted a new field to the 45x80 dimensions. I guess its "wait and see" when we go visit other teams during league on what size field we will play on. Glad we don't have to worry about build out lines!

For reference here is the Cal South - Player Development Initiatives chart on the field sizes.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 12, 2016)

Take a step back and think about why the build out line was put into place for 7-9 year olds.
A team has one player that can boot the heck out of the ball. So he/she takes every goal kick.  Boots it up near or beyond midfield and it's race to get to the 50/50 ball.  Effective, but not good soccer.  
Or you have a team that doesn't have a single kid with a thunderfoot.  All players from both teams camp out on the top of the 18 and wait for a flubbed kick to land at their feet and have a crack at goal.  So teams leave their goalkeeper in the goal, have 1 kid line up to kick it. And leave 1 or 2 more kids inside the 18 to provide support for the flubbed kick.  Now a goal kick gives the opposing team a better chance to score than if they had a corner kick.  Moving the opposing team back another 15 yards means that the kicking team has a few more open options.
A goal kick is supposed to provide an advantage for the kicking team to get the ball back into play somewhat safely.  In the adult game, you don't see many goals happening because of a shanked / weak goal kick.  I think that in many games where you see 7+ goals scored in the younger age groups, a few of them happen because of a bad goal kick.
The purpose of the build out line is to give teams a chance to restart play and maintain possession of the ball without panicking.
Under the new rules, if a team taking a goal kick tries to boot it up the field, the build out line won't have much of an impact on either team.  
I "think" the intent of the build out line is to encourage teams to play a wide/short ball to a teammate and try to "build out" from the back.  Now it's up to coaches to actually use the extra space to teach their defenders to control the ball.  And to teach off the ball movement from teammates to get open for a pass on the ground.
People argue that these new rules make the game "not soccer."  I would argue that this makes it a bit more "like soccer" because it's making a goal kick a restart that doesn't punish a team that can't hoof it upfield.  And it let's a coach move that kid with the big foot out of the back to work on other skills than kicking it as hard as they can for every goal kick.


----------



## espola (Sep 12, 2016)

timbuck said:


> Take a step back and think about why the build out line was put into place for 7-9 year olds.
> A team has one player that can boot the heck out of the ball. So he/she takes every goal kick.  Boots it up near or beyond midfield and it's race to get to the 50/50 ball.  Effective, but not good soccer.
> Or you have a team that doesn't have a single kid with a thunderfoot.  All players from both teams camp out on the top of the 18 and wait for a flubbed kick to land at their feet and have a crack at goal.  So teams leave their goalkeeper in the goal, have 1 kid line up to kick it. And leave 1 or 2 more kids inside the 18 to provide support for the flubbed kick.  Now a goal kick gives the opposing team a better chance to score than if they had a corner kick.  Moving the opposing team back another 15 yards means that the kicking team has a few more open options.
> A goal kick is supposed to provide an advantage for the kicking team to get the ball back into play somewhat safely.  In the adult game, you don't see many goals happening because of a shanked / weak goal kick.  I think that in many games where you see 7+ goals scored in the younger age groups, a few of them happen because of a bad goal kick.
> ...


Not soccer.


----------



## carlitos10 (Sep 12, 2016)

Actually, pretty sure the build out line rule is supplementing the no-header rule for the younger age groups. There are already plenty of coaches/teams properly teaching how to play out of the back on the ground.

Speaking of the no-header rule - it was implemented terribly (2006 boys) this weekend. I totally understand the intent to limit concussions and encourage build-out from the back.

BUT:
We now have 9 year olds completely turning around when there's an aerial ball. Limit GK punts, that's fine.  Make goal kicks be played on the ground, that's fine. That should limit balls in the air. But no headers from corners too? That's not futbol!  The ball will always be in the air because a defender clears or a long through ball is sent. Defensive mid players and defenders now are forced to let the ball go through or somehow time the ability to receive it with their chest the way the rule is being enforced. Terrible and this is what happens when you have people that shouldn't be writing rules, writing rules.


----------



## soloyosh (Sep 12, 2016)

espola said:


> Not soccer.


Totally soccer.  In case you haven't watched a Pep team play, the short goal kick unlocks all kinds of tactical advantage.  Give up position, gain advantage.  The build out line allows teams to focus on this wonderful aspect of the game.  I use build-out lines in our short sided scrimmages for U13.  It'll teach your strikers to defend from the front rather than just wait for service.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 12, 2016)

Keep in mind that this is a new rule across all of US soccer.  Kids in Iowa, So Cal, Michigan and Texas will now need to learn to play the ball out of the back.  An "A" licensed coach or a dad who doesn't know a soccer ball from a Coors Light can will now be teaching kids to play out of the back.  Rec players, club players, good players, players that can barely walk and chew gum will now be playing the ball out of the back.
US Soccer is trying to get all of the youth soccer players in the US playing the game the "right" way.  They've tried in the past with recommendations, coaching classes and strong suggestions.  But more coaches did things their own way. So now US Soccer is drawing a line in the sand to try and reduce the kickball from our soccer fields.
I remember when I played in u6 back in 1980.  We played 11v11 on a full sized field, but the field had "zones" drawn on it.  You had to stay in your "zone" or the ref would blow the whistle.  I guess someone thought that teaching positions to 6 year olds was more important than getting lots of touches on the ball.  It kept the "beehive" from happening, but it also caused 8 out of 11 players on the field to stand around with a finger in their nose waiting for the ball to come into their zone.
Maybe we'll look back in 20 years and talk about how silly we were in 2015 when we had 7 year old goalies punting the ball into a scrum of other 7 year olds.


----------



## espola (Sep 12, 2016)

soloyosh said:


> Totally soccer.  In case you haven't watched a Pep team play, the short goal kick unlocks all kinds of tactical advantage.  Give up position, gain advantage.  The build out line allows teams to focus on this wonderful aspect of the game.  I use build-out lines in our short sided scrimmages for U13.  It'll teach your strikers to defend from the front rather than just wait for service.


So they will be ready for real soccer.


----------



## New Guest from the South (Sep 12, 2016)

I think SCDSL trying to adopt the initiatives and SDDA, Presidio and CSL not adopting them is crazy as well.  Would be fun for referees too, going from one to the other......


----------



## 3JMommy (Sep 12, 2016)

Sat through 2 B08 games this weekend. Header rule really messed with our advantage on corners and we saw the same thing with boys avoiding balls that they normally would have just headed into play. Build out line treated differently in each game. Defenders were allowed to attack as soon as offense touched the ball in one game, and the other, as soon as the offense crossed the line. No punting or goal kick was a dagger for us as well since everyone had tons of time to set up for the rollout, and the opposing team could simply sit on the line and pounce when a touch or cross happened. Each rule is going to take some serious adjustment time. Hope it works out.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 12, 2016)

The build out line rule is a bit confusing and needs some serious clarification.
1.  Is it just for Goal Kicks or also for any time a GK makes a saves and is ready to distribute.  What if the GK wants to play quick and there is a defender inside of the build out? Is the no punt rule being enforced? 
2.  Does the ball need to cross the build out line for the opposing team to try and play it?  Or on a Goal Kick, does the opposing team need to be behind the build out line but the ball is live as soon as it crosses the "18" (or whatever distance the penalty area is on small fields) or as soon as it is kicked?
3. What about time wasting by crossing the build out line?  Team is up by 1 goal with 60 seconds left in the game.  Other team has a goal kick.  Keep jumping the build out line to restart with another goal kick.  Or does the restart after a build out infraction take place from the point of where the opposing player played the ball?


----------



## BarcaLover (Sep 12, 2016)

timbuck.....here's some clarification in the Build Out Line.

If the GK makes a save, the restart is with the ball in his hand.  The opposing team must retreat behind the line and cannot cross the Line until the ball is out of the GKs hand.

On a Goal Kick, the ball is restarted the same way, the only difference being that the ball must exit the 18 before the team with the ball may touch it.

If a GK chooses to "go early" before the defense gets behind the Line, that is fine, but the defense can then go directly for the ball.

The "No GK Punting" is being enforced.

Not too sure about the "time wasting" issue.


----------



## New Guest from the South (Sep 12, 2016)

So does the defense on a goal kick enter only after ball has been touched outside the 18 or on first touch?  I've seen first touch the few times I've seen it this summer.  Thus, all the kids line up on the build out line and coaches have pretty much went to kicking it away.  Maybe if they moved the build out line further back, it would give greater time to pass out of the back.  Currently the lines I've seen are 2-3 yards off of the 18 which on the small fields really isn't very different.

On another initiative, I know there are issues with it, but what was the purpose of no offsides between mid-field and the buildout line?  I like most of the new initiatives and wish they were using them here in the south, but that one I can't quite see the purpose in how that helps build soccer IQ.


----------



## Dos Equis (Sep 12, 2016)

Why not just follow the European example of how to implement the "Build Out Line."  After all, most acknoweldge European soccer is the standard of development and style of play we aspire to attain.  Surely they must have successfully incroporated this concept into their youth programs.  US Soccer would not be so bold as to invent/create an entirely new rule with such a broad impact (and unintended consequences) without knowing it worked in the programs we wish to emulate.


----------



## Thunderstruck (Oct 7, 2016)

carlitos10 said:


> Actually, pretty sure the build out line rule is supplementing the no-header rule for the younger age groups. There are already plenty of coaches/teams properly teaching how to play out of the back on the ground.
> 
> Speaking of the no-header rule - it was implemented terribly (2006 boys) this weekend. I totally understand the intent to limit concussions and encourage build-out from the back.
> 
> ...


Now that we are a month in, it has been amazing to watch the younger kids adapt.  It is beautiful to see an 8 year old be able to both time and have the ability to receive and control the ball with their chest!  That is player development!


----------



## Eagle33 (Oct 7, 2016)

There is other, dark side to no heading rule, that should be reviewed before next season.
I was watching this very competitive boys U10 game last weekend. Forward gets the ball and shoots from about 18 yards. Lofted ball is going over the goalkeepers hands into the goal. So here comes this defender diving behind the keeper and heading the ball out of bound for the corner kick. Beautiful save.....Not that fast. With new rules, referee stops the game, awards indirect free kick to attacking team just outside 18. Guess what happens when good 9 yo takes the shot from there? Goal. I don't think it's right.....Not allowing headers in the middle of the field - I have no problem with that, but scoring and defending in front of goal? that's too much.


----------



## outside! (Oct 7, 2016)

Because of course the integrity of the game is more important than brain development. I do not agree with the way the heading ban was instituted, but I am glad that they have at least done something.


----------



## espola (Oct 7, 2016)

outside! said:


> Because of course the integrity of the game is more important than brain development. I do not agree with the way the heading ban was instituted, but I am glad that they have at least done something.


To say they have "done something" implies that the current program will have make real difference to the situation as it was before.

I doubt it.

Unless by "done something" you are recognizing the collapsed before the threat of a lawsuit.


----------



## wildcat66 (Oct 7, 2016)

I am undecided on the header rules.  The vast majority of concussions that I have seen did not come from heading the ball.  They were the result of collisions with other players and contact with the ground as result of collisions with other players.   The only way to stop them would be to ban contact which in my opinion would ruin the game.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 7, 2016)

Even banning contact wouldn't help much. We had a girl get hit in the head with a driven ball from about 10 feet away.  She wasn't trying to use her head.  But the ball did know know that. She was out 2 weeks with a concussion.


----------



## espola (Oct 7, 2016)

wildcat66 said:


> I am undecided on the header rules.  The vast majority of concussions that I have seen did not come from heading the ball.  They were the result of collisions with other players and contact with the ground as result of collisions with other players.   The only way to stop them would be to ban contact which in my opinion would ruin the game.


You would also have to ban contact with the ground and contact with goal posts.  And you would have to decide what the ban would look like on free kicks - do you penalize the kid who is hit in the head while standing in a 1-yard wall?  or the kicker?


----------



## wildcat66 (Oct 7, 2016)

Perhaps helmets or scrum caps are the answer.    Hope it doesn't come to that but in our "make everything safe" society it may come to that.


----------



## outside! (Oct 7, 2016)

Who said concussions are the only issue? There is mounting evidence that repeated, sub-concussion impacts are not a good thing. Until we know better, what is wrong with taking a conservative approach with the youngers? As I have said, I would have implemented this differently, but at least they are trying.


----------



## espola (Oct 7, 2016)

outside! said:


> Who said concussions are the only issue? There is mounting evidence that repeated, sub-concussion impacts are not a good thing. Until we know better, what is wrong with taking a conservative approach with the youngers? As I have said, I would have implemented this differently, but at least they are trying.


Let's just ban all kicks that rise higher than shoulder height.  In the event of such a kick, the ball is placed at the point where the kick was taken, indirect free kick for the opponents, with all the goal area and build-out line exceptions you can stand.

In case you think I am serious --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastaball


----------



## espola (Oct 7, 2016)

Even safer --

http://battle-balls.com/


----------



## softwaretest (Oct 10, 2016)

outside! said:


> what is wrong with taking a conservative approach with the youngers?


That's what I said last year too, but the problem is: what is "the conservative approach". With the implementation of these rules I'm seeing WAY more high kicks than last year and that combined with referees who refuse to call blatant fouls is going to cause way more injuries.


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 10, 2016)

softwaretest said:


> With the implementation of these rules I'm seeing WAY more high kicks than last year and that combined with referees who refuse to call blatant fouls is going to cause way more injuries.


Are you saying that there are actual Kicking Fouls occurring (due to "WAY more high kicks") but no calls? Contact from player's boot to opponent's head? Or you are saying that you think there is Dangerous Play occurring but the referees don't agree? Not all "High Kicks" are Dangerous Play. (Most aren't.) BTW, I'm not seeing this (players attempting to kick the ball above the waist) as much as I'd expected in the club games I watch or the AYSO games I referee.

Or are you talking about completely different "blatant fouls" that referees "refuse to call"?


----------



## softwaretest (Oct 10, 2016)

jrcaesar said:


> Are you saying that there are actual Kicking Fouls occurring (due to "WAY more high kicks") but no calls? Contact from player's boot to opponent's head? Or you are saying that you think there is Dangerous Play occurring but the referees don't agree? Not all "High Kicks" are Dangerous Play. (Most aren't.) BTW, I'm not seeing this (players attempting to kick the ball above the waist) as much as I'd expected in the club games I watch or the AYSO games I referee.
> 
> Or are you talking about completely different "blatant fouls" that referees "refuse to call"?


After I posted I thought that might not read quite right.  I believe I'm seeing more high kicks that I would call dangerous as most are happening within the attacking third.  Is there a mechanism being used to track statistics on concussion and other injuries before and after these rule changes?


----------



## outside! (Oct 10, 2016)

softwaretest said:


> After I posted I thought that might not read quite right.  I believe I'm seeing more high kicks that I would call dangerous as most are happening within the attacking third.  Is there a mechanism being used to track statistics on concussion and other injuries before and after these rule changes?


Concussions are not the only issue. Repeated, sub-concussive blows may also be damaging, especially to young developing brains.


----------



## Soccerlife (Oct 10, 2016)

Our referee this week for an SCDSL game was enforcing offsides from the half-line. When the parents questioned it, another referee who had just finished his game was on the sideline. He said that the referees had been informed about two weeks into the season to start enforcing offsides at the half-line, not the build-out line, to limit confusion. Can anyone confirm?


----------



## softwaretest (Oct 10, 2016)

Soccerlife said:


> Our referee this week for an SCDSL game was enforcing offsides from the half-line. When the parents questioned it, another referee who had just finished his game was on the sideline. He said that the referees had been informed about two weeks into the season to start enforcing offsides at the half-line, not the build-out line, to limit confusion. Can anyone confirm?


UPDATED 9/15/16. The build out line will NOT be used to denote or determine offside. Normal offside rules will apply and are not tied to the build out line. 

http://www.scdslsoccer.com/docs/SCDSL Rules_2016Update.pdf.pdf


----------



## Canicas (Oct 12, 2016)

Is the Coast League using the build out line and no heading rule for 06's and up? If not will these new rules apply in State Cup and doesn't this place CSL teams at a disadvantage if they have not been accustomed to playing under these requirements.


----------



## softwaretest (Oct 12, 2016)

Canicas said:


> Is the Coast League using the build out line and no heading rule for 06's and up? If not will these new rules apply in State Cup and doesn't this place CSL teams at a disadvantage if they have not been accustomed to playing under these requirements.


Coast isn't using build out lines at 06. I have the same question about state cup. I don't think it's a disadvantage and even if it were it's better for development so put it in place in whatever tournament you'd like.


----------



## socalkdg (Oct 13, 2016)

Everyone knows the heading rule changed due to a lawsuit?    What is interesting is this quote  "According to the original filing in the case, nearly 50,000 high school soccer players sustained concussions in 2010 — more players than in baseball, basketball, softball and wrestling combined."   Since the change didn't affect High School Soccer, how did the changes address this issue? 

Since I have a 2005 kid that plays club and AYSO, I've noticed a couple things.  AYSO went with the rules this year, so no heading.  Club still allowing heading.   I've noticed a few more high kicks in AYSO compared to club as the girls haven't come up with an alternative way of playing the ball.


----------



## espola (Oct 13, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> Everyone knows the heading rule changed due to a lawsuit?    What is interesting is this quote  "According to the original filing in the case, nearly 50,000 high school soccer players sustained concussions in 2010 — more players than in baseball, basketball, softball and wrestling combined."   Since the change didn't affect High School Soccer, how did the changes address this issue?
> 
> Since I have a 2005 kid that plays club and AYSO, I've noticed a couple things.  AYSO went with the rules this year, so no heading.  Club still allowing heading.   I've noticed a few more high kicks in AYSO compared to club as the girls haven't come up with an alternative way of playing the ball.


Not stated in that statistic is that the majority of concussions suffered by soccer players did not occur while heading the ball.


----------



## Canicas (Oct 13, 2016)

Thanks. The biggest problem right now with the build out line play is the inconsistency with refs knowing the rule. While it may help with development it only works when the refs properly manage and enforce the manner in which it is intended to be used.


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 13, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> AYSO went with the rules this year, so no heading. Club still allowing heading.


The rules impact all 2006s/11Us, and since AYSO U12s include 2006s it impacts their U12s. U12 Extra plays with headers, but U11 Extra does not (no headers).


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 23, 2016)

From what I have seen, SCDSL teams are playing with the restriction line.  CSL teams don't seem to have changed anything.  The smart folks at USSF have a theory that this will finally help teach the American men's team how to build out of the back.   (Really, though, the folks at USSF are trying to blame youth soccer coaches for USSF's own inability to field quality teams.)  From what I have seen, young keepers don't have the strength to throw a ball more than 5 or 10 yards, so the defending team has no incentive to protect the midfield.  They all crowd the restriction line and as soon as the ball leaves the keepers hand the swarm is on.  Most goals are scored off the "build out."  The team with the most effective swarmers scores the most goals.


----------



## RedHawk (Oct 23, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> From what I have seen, SCDSL teams are playing with the restriction line.  CSL teams don't seem to have changed anything.  The smart folks at USSF have a theory that this will finally help teach the American men's team how to build out of the back.   (Really, though, the folks at USSF are trying to blame youth soccer coaches for USSF's own inability to field quality teams.)  From what I have seen, young keepers don't have the strength to throw a ball more than 5 or 10 yards, so the defending team has no incentive to protect the midfield.  They all crowd the restriction line and as soon as the ball leaves the keepers hand the swarm is on.  Most goals are scored off the "build out."  The team with the most effective swarmers scores the most goals.


That's not what I've seen.  Are you watching bronze, flight 3 games?


----------



## BeepBeep Boop (Oct 24, 2016)

RedHawk said:


> That's not what I've seen.  Are you watching bronze, flight 3 games?


I'm in the "pro-buildout line" camp.

I've seen some SCDSL 2006 Flight 1 games lately and it's been interesting to see how the "top teams" handle this. There is one team that will surely finish top 4 in State Cup that doesn't even pretend to care about the buildout line. Their CB has a big kick, so instead of distribution the goalie rolls it out and she hoofs it down the field. This is also a team that relies on speed and physicality, so getting the ball into the opposing half and then letting your players harass the opposition and cause turnovers is a winning strategy. I'm not hating, just stating facts. It's pretty entertaining, but what happens two years from now when that CB with the big boot has what would be considered an average kick on a full sized field?

Two other teams (one I predict to be a top 4 finisher, the other a top 8 finisher) played out of the back so beautifully that I was immediately jealous and wondered why my daughter's team wasn't doing the same thing! They towed with our high-pressing forwards, sucking them in and then passing it to the open teammate, composed and calm on the ball. *Sigh*

You need a few things to make this work. 1) The coach needs to trust the players and 2) The players must have the skills and confidence


----------



## Kicker4Life (Oct 24, 2016)

BeepBeep Boop said:


> You need a few things to make this work. 1) The coach needs to trust the players and 2) The players must have the skills and confidence


3) supportive parents who understand that in learning to build out of the back at this age will result in lots of mistakes and subsequent goals against. 

My youngest DD's team is committed to learning. We've lost games where the other team lines up on the build out line and swarms the ball forcing quick decisions, we panic, turn it over in a dangerous area and they score. But what I appreciate is that our coach does not waiver on this commitment to style of play.  Our parents have bought into it as well which turns the loss from a disappointing event to an educational experience. 

It is easy in SCDSL to ID the clubs committed to building versus what I will call "the blitzkrieg".


----------



## MakeAPlay (Oct 24, 2016)

BeepBeep Boop said:


> I'm in the "pro-buildout line" camp.
> 
> I've seen some SCDSL 2006 Flight 1 games lately and it's been interesting to see how the "top teams" handle this. There is one team that will surely finish top 4 in State Cup that doesn't even pretend to care about the buildout line. Their CB has a big kick, so instead of distribution the goalie rolls it out and she hoofs it down the field. This is also a team that relies on speed and physicality, so getting the ball into the opposing half and then letting your players harass the opposition and cause turnovers is a winning strategy. I'm not hating, just stating facts. It's pretty entertaining, but what happens two years from now when that CB with the big boot has what would be considered an average kick on a full sized field?
> 
> ...


This is very interesting.  I can tell you that simply having a big kick is not going to get the player to the next level.  The best CB can solve pressure with their skill and can connect with the wide backs and midfield.  A well timed chip over the defense has it's place but at the higher levels and in college a player that can't build out of the back will be playing for a kickball team in college (assuming that they are athletic enough).  I like the idea of a build out line and if my player had a coach that wasn't using it the way it was intended would not be getting my player for another year.  Rules and concepts only work if the coaches AND parents embrace them.


----------



## MakeAPlay (Oct 24, 2016)

Kicker4Life said:


> 3) supportive parents who understand that in learning to build out of the back at this age will result in lots of mistakes and subsequent goals against.
> 
> My youngest DD's team is committed to learning. We've lost games where the other team lines up on the build out line and swarms the ball forcing quick decisions, we panic, turn it over in a dangerous area and they score. But what I appreciate is that our coach does waiver on this commitment to style of play.  Our parents have bought into it as well which turns the loss from a disappointing event to an educational experience.
> 
> It is easy in SCDSL to ID the clubs committed to building versus what I will call "the blitzkrieg".


Your player is lucky to have a coach with the long view of this game.  Many don't.


----------



## MakeAPlay (Oct 24, 2016)

BeepBeep Boop said:


> I'm in the "pro-buildout line" camp.
> 
> I've seen some SCDSL 2006 Flight 1 games lately and it's been interesting to see how the "top teams" handle this. There is one team that will surely finish top 4 in State Cup that doesn't even pretend to care about the buildout line. Their CB has a big kick, so instead of distribution the goalie rolls it out and she hoofs it down the field. This is also a team that relies on speed and physicality, so getting the ball into the opposing half and then letting your players harass the opposition and cause turnovers is a winning strategy. I'm not hating, just stating facts. It's pretty entertaining, but what happens two years from now when that CB with the big boot has what would be considered an average kick on a full sized field?
> 
> ...


Mistakes are fine at 10 years old.  Trust me it is better to learn when the trophies are meaningless.  You don't want your player panicking during an ACC game where pressure is coming from everywhere!


----------



## tabletop (Oct 24, 2016)

BeepBeep Boop said:


> Two other teams (one I predict to be a top 4 finisher, the other a top 8 finisher) played out of the back so beautifully that I was immediately jealous and wondered why my daughter's team wasn't doing the same thing! They towed with our high-pressing forwards, sucking them in and then passing it to the open teammate, composed and calm on the ball. *Sigh*


Just out of curiosity, which were the two teams that played composed?


----------



## zebrafish (Oct 24, 2016)

Kicker4Life said:


> It is easy in SCDSL to ID the clubs committed to building versus what I will call "the blitzkrieg".


I would agree that this has some positive elements. The build-out line has helped my own kid's team even out the game a bit -- their coach had them build out of the back before the build-out line was implemented. High-pressure teams scored on them. We used to face a lot of goalies who could simply punt 2/3 of field and boomer teams who fire a goal kick 30 yards down field-- the rule has helped combat this "strategy". I think it has been good overall.


----------



## MakeAPlay (Nov 4, 2016)

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/70980/the-build-out-line-a-wonderful-idea-that-needs-an.html


----------



## espola (Nov 4, 2016)

MakeAPlay said:


> http://www.socceramerica.com/article/70980/the-build-out-line-a-wonderful-idea-that-needs-an.html


The author seems to think that goalkeepers punting the ball into the other half is to be avoided.  Has he not watched any adult teams play.

Might as well tell a Little League slugger to avoid the home run because we want to work on team base running.


----------

