# U.S. Soccer’s Player Development Initiatives



## younothat (Aug 2, 2017)

U.S. SOCCER PLAYER DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES OFFICIALLY ROLL OUT
BIRTH YEAR REGISTRATION, SMALL-SIDED GAME STANDARDS AND OTHER INITIATIVES NOW IN EFFECT
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/01/19/49/20170801-news-coaching-ed-us-soccer-player-development-initiatives-official-as-of-aug-1-2017

CHICAGO (Aug. 1, 2017) – As a part of its mission to make soccer, in all its forms, the preeminent sport in the United States and to continue the development of soccer at all recreational and competitive levels, U.S. Soccer’s Player Development Initiatives (PDIs) are now officially integrated as a part of the soccer landscape.
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/01/17/39/20170801-feat-coaching-ed-five-things-to-know-about-us-soccer-player-development-initiatives

Following a two-year implementation window with the announcement of PDIs in August 2015, U.S. Soccer’s 60 youth member organizations, including US Club Soccer, US Youth Soccer, American Youth Soccer Organization and Soccer Association for Youth are collectively set to roll out the new standards and initiatives, which include birth year registration and small-sided game standards.

“As a U.S. Soccer National Association we are proud to partner with the Federation on the implementation of the PDIs. Benefits have been already realized by our early adopters and we’ll see more as the PDI’s align with AYSO’s Vision, Mission, and Six Philosophies where the child; the player is our priority,” Scott Synder, AYSO Player Development Specialist said.

Small-sided standards, which provide a framework for field, goal and ball sizes, number of players, game length, and offside regulations as youth players progress from age six to 12, are intended to provide a consistent approach, according to developmental needs, to an on-field game environment that allows players to have a stronger opportunity to develop heightened soccer intelligence and on-the-ball skills.

Birth year registration, which requires that a youth player’s registration process is based on his/her birth year, allows for a consistent approach in how players are recognized for competition. Along with aligning the United States with the international standard observed by the majority of FIFA member nations, this step ensures that an increased focus will be on the developmental needs of the child within the context of his or her age group. Under this categorization, U-6 players for the upcoming 2017-2018 season will fall under birth year 2012, while U-12 players will be those players born in 2006. To simplify, an age group can be determined by subtracting the birth year from the year the season ends.

*Year Season Ends – Birth Year = Age Group*

2017 to *2018* – *2003* = *U-15
*
The 60 U.S. Soccer youth member organizations registering more than four million youth players in the country will observe the standards and philosophies beginning today, if they have not done so already.


----------



## younothat (Aug 2, 2017)

standards and philosophies beginning today
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/01/19/20/20170801-feat-coaching-ed-us-soccer-member-organizations-adopt-pdis-support-future-youth-development


----------



## jrcaesar (Aug 2, 2017)

Are leagues/groups also following the longer halftime breaks (longer than 5 minutes)?


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Aug 2, 2017)

Not to deter from these new standards, but will US Soccer introduce a unified curriculum?

If they are truly trying to develop players than those who teach the game need to know what direction their suppose to go in.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Aug 3, 2017)

I don't think AYSO will be doing the Build-out line. They have been doing 7v7 and 9v9 format for years and they are finally doing the age group as well but unfortunately they are still putting 2 age group for example U9 and U10 together considered U10 forcing a lot of players  to play up. Yes it's Rec but the younger one's get discouraged when the compete against players that have 1 year of experience 7v7 same for 9v9 format.


----------



## beastmodesmom (Aug 14, 2017)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> I don't think AYSO will be doing the Build-out line. They have been doing 7v7 and 9v9 format for years and they are finally doing the age group as well but unfortunately they are still putting 2 age group for example U9 and U10 together considered U10 forcing a lot of players  to play up. Yes it's Rec but the younger one's get discouraged when the compete against players that have 1 year of experience 7v7 same for 9v9 format.


Some regions are depending on their situations. The region my older non club kids are playing in are doing BOL's for 10u. They are also doing two year age group simply because of lack of coaches and field space. AYSO National is requiring all regions to be compliant by the 18-19 season. New sized goal nets as well.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Aug 14, 2017)

US Soccer has, as usual, screwed the pooch with this one.  I'm OK with the birth-year registration and restrictions on heading the ball.  But the build-out lines, no-punt rule, and changes in the offside rule are asinine, pure and simple.  These rules prevent kids from playing good soccer; they dumb down the game and stifle true development.  They help kids play better soccer to the same extent that ebonics helps kids read better.

These rules were never tested in the real world before being imposed.  In competent organizations not run on the basis on cronyism, these rules would never have gotten out of committee, because too many people dislike them and because there is no objective proof that these rules improve either the quality of team play or the "development" of any player.  A little beta-testing might have been helpful.

US Soccer is a joke.  It ruins more talent than it creates.


----------



## espola (Aug 14, 2017)

Daniel Miller said:


> US Soccer has, as usual, screwed the pooch with this one.  I'm OK with the birth-year registration and restrictions on heading the ball.  But the build-out lines, no-punt rule, and changes in the offside rule are asinine, pure and simple.  These rules prevent kids from playing good soccer; they dumb down the game and stifle true development.  They help kids play better soccer to the same extent that ebonics helps kids read better.
> 
> These rules were never tested in the real world before being imposed.  In competent organizations not run on the basis on cronyism, these rules would never have gotten out of committee, because too many people dislike them and because there is no objective proof that these rules improve either the quality of team play or the "development" of any player.  A little beta-testing might have been helpful.
> 
> US Soccer is a joke.  It ruins more talent than it creates.


The players need a representative in all those rule-making committees that asks of all proposed changes - "will this result in kids playing less?"


----------



## smellycleats (Aug 14, 2017)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> I don't think AYSO will be doing the Build-out line. They have been doing 7v7 and 9v9 format for years and they are finally doing the age group as well but unfortunately they are still putting 2 age group for example U9 and U10 together considered U10 forcing a lot of players  to play up. Yes it's Rec but the younger one's get discouraged when the compete against players that have 1 year of experience 7v7 same for 9v9 format.


Not true for AYSO Extra


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 15, 2017)

The other thing, at least for our region, is that AYSO for U8 is doing 6v6 with goalkeepers and for U7 5v5 without GK.  The issue is partly that they have a hard enough time getting enough coaches as it is and if they had to do 4v4 at U8 they'd have to say no to a lot more kids.  There's also the philosophical reason....by U8 the kids and parent coaches are smart enough to figure out one kid should serve as the de facto goalkeeper.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Aug 15, 2017)

smellycleats said:


> Not true for AYSO Extra


Extra is fading away gradually thanks to the AYSO United initiative... people will eventually find out why pay so much for AYSO United once they realize that they level of coaching is not there. The Regions should just allow the AYSO Matrix program where United is.


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 15, 2017)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> Extra is fading away gradually thanks to the AYSO United initiative... people will eventually find out why pay so much for AYSO United once they realize that they level of coaching is not there. The Regions should just allow the AYSO Matrix program where United is.


In our region and our neighboring ones, Extras usually covers the U12-U9 and United the olders.    Just anecdotal, but the U9 Extras team in our region actually had much less demand for our year (despite that they have a coach who knows what he's doing and is on par with many soccer club coaches)....though still a competitive tryout season, they wound up taking 2 players playing up and a girl (there was no equivalent U9 girls team) who is quite good.  The age shuffle really did a number on them last year and the previous winning team wasn't able to hold together (which was a deciding factor in my moving DYS to club....the other one being that DYS really wants some time between the sticks and Extras required them rotating the position around).

Anyone have any sense how the United Teams are holding up?  IIRC there still aren't very many of them but are they competitive on the club circuit?


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Aug 15, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> In our region and our neighboring ones, Extras usually covers the U12-U9 and United the olders.    Just anecdotal, but the U9 Extras team in our region actually had much less demand for our year (despite that they have a coach who knows what he's doing and is on par with many soccer club coaches)....though still a competitive tryout season, they wound up taking 2 players playing up and a girl (there was no equivalent U9 girls team) who is quite good.  The age shuffle really did a number on them last year and the previous winning team wasn't able to hold together (which was a deciding factor in my moving DYS to club....the other one being that DYS really wants some time between the sticks and Extras required them rotating the position around).
> 
> Anyone have any sense how the United Teams are holding up?  IIRC there still aren't very many of them but are they competitive on the club circuit?


I have yet to hear about any of the United teams competing in any tournaments but I could be mistaken. Yet I have heard they had their United tournament which ended up being a bunch of AYSO United teams playing against each other.


----------



## cks1450 (Aug 22, 2017)

Coached my first game with the Build out line last weekend in GU10 AYSO. Rather surreal scene. Early on their goalie was making a lot of saves. 
It started to look like a horse race starting gate on that build out line as the goalie is trying to throw the ball out. 
Not a good look at all. 
I am sitting there watching it trying to think what am I supposed to do, have my players back off so we can have something that looks more like a soccer game ?

I had a prior season worth of experience where our GK could not punt, at all. So the whole run and throw routine was easy enough to put in place.

Right now its even more turnovers than before right in front of goal and its worse than playing against teams that didn't have any players with a strong leg to clear the ball out off a goal kick.

But I guess this is where we all start churning out our own Marcelo type players and changing US Soccer forever.


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 22, 2017)

cks1450 said:


> Coached my first game with the Build out line last weekend in GU10 AYSO. Rather surreal scene. Early on their goalie was making a lot of saves.
> It started to look like a horse race starting gate on that build out line as the goalie is trying to throw the ball out.
> Not a good look at all.
> I am sitting there watching it trying to think what am I supposed to do, have my players back off so we can have something that looks more like a soccer game ?
> ...


My GK son in U9 is similarly struggling with the build out line.  On the one hand, he thinks it's great because it reduces his chance of making a mistake and accidentally goalkicking or punting it to an opposing player (which he did a lot in the spring), and then facing a one v. one and the team is building out the back more.  On the other hand, he had gotten his goalkicking technique to be pretty good and is now reverting to bad habits.  It's kind of a myth that goalkicks are about a big leg.....there's quite a bit of technique to it including keeping the right shoulder back (for a right legged player), getting under the ball and following through...even a mediocre kid without a really big powerful leg can do a decent goalkick with proper training.

I was watching a few rival and girls U9 games at a tournament over the weekend.  Some teams, including a RealSoCal team, adapted by having the GK pass to a designated defender who was then instructed to smack it up the line to either the winger or the center forward (who was usually the strongest player on the team).   After watching the same play being run time and time again I began to wonder what exactly they are supposed to be teaching the kids.  It just seems to just shift the pressure from the GK to the designated big legged defender.


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 22, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> My GK son in U9 is similarly struggling with the build out line.  On the one hand, he thinks it's great because it reduces his chance of making a mistake and accidentally goalkicking or punting it to an opposing player (which he did a lot in the spring), and then facing a one v. one and the team is building out the back more.  On the other hand, he had gotten his goalkicking technique to be pretty good and is now reverting to bad habits.  It's kind of a myth that goalkicks are about a big leg.....there's quite a bit of technique to it including keeping the right shoulder back (for a right legged player), getting under the ball and following through...even a mediocre kid without a really big powerful leg can do a decent goalkick with proper training.
> 
> I was watching a few rival and girls U9 games at a tournament over the weekend.  Some teams, including a RealSoCal team, adapted by having the GK pass to a designated defender who was then instructed to smack it up the line to either the winger or the center forward (who was usually the strongest player on the team).   After watching the same play being run time and time again I began to wonder what exactly they are supposed to be teaching the kids.  It just seems to just shift the pressure from the GK to the designated big legged defender.


There are also fewer fast breaks off a catch and javelin throw because the kids (rather than risk a turnover) play it conservatively and wait for the ref to enforce the build out line (at which all the forward opposing players line up like a line of scrimmage).  Would like to see more coaches instructing players to look for the fast break rather than play the set piece of pass to the defender with the big leg and boot it up the CF.


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 28, 2017)

3 tournaments in 3 weeks now and the hardest thing my DS is struggling with is the various rule changes re distribution at U9.  For the first one he had full options (punting, throwing, kicking) and no line...still struggling goalkick judgment but his technique improved greatly over the summer and the turnovers that happened were judgment related, not technical.   Second one had a build out line...his reaction...whew the pressure is off...but there were very few fast breaks and the pacing of the game slowed down a lot...most teams just played it out to the defender and some had designated big leg kickers whose job was to bang it down from the defensive corner up to the wings.  Third one had no line but no punts and classic offside rules....had a couple pretty fast breaks off the javelin throw...like the dynamic on this one too but the team was frazzled...used to now building up the back and they flubbed a couple of potential fast breaks...DS was confused between going for the long goalkick or playing it safe to a defender (who'd sometimes try to switch it across the middle of the goal).  Wish they'd all get on the same page for what they are doing.  On the one hand, I suppose it's useful the teams get to operate with different rules that challenge them in various unique aspects of the game....on the other hand, it makes a mess of system if the team tries to put one in place (other than pass it to the big legged defender and boot it).


----------



## timbuck (Aug 28, 2017)

I like the initiatives but the  tournament season needs to fall in line. 
My 07 daughter played this past weekend.  They play 9v9.  This tournament had 9 and 10 year old girls playing on the same size field as the u18 kids. They just put in a smaller goal for the youngest. The new initiatives are supposed to teach how to play on small spaces and stop the kickball.
I guess there was some good in playing 3 games, but they'd have been better off playing futsal instead of on a 100 yard field in 100 degree weather.


----------



## mirage (Aug 28, 2017)

Do you suppose all the great players of the game had all these rules.

Are there a build out line for pickup/street soccer?

Thankfully my kids were left to just have fun playing when they were these ages.  Probably both would have quit playing if there are too many rules - takes the fun away with too many restrictions and confusion.

Well, we'll see how much better these kids are by the time they reach older and into college ages.  Also it would be interesting to see attrition rate for kids returning with and without the new initiative...


----------



## Justafan (Aug 28, 2017)

mirage said:


> Do you suppose all the great players of the game had all these rules.
> 
> Are there a build out line for pickup/street soccer?
> 
> Thankfully my kids were left to just have fun playing when they were these ages.  Probably both would have quit playing if there are too many rules - takes the fun away with too many restrictions and confusion.


That's the point Mirage, there is no street soccer in the USA, at least relatively speaking.  Trust me, I wish there was street ball down at the corner, but I've never seen it in any suburb. It's just not in our culture like it is in other countries. Futsal is probably the closest thing we'll ever have to street soccer in the USA and that's why I'm all for more futsal.

I always give this example when talking about the difference between soccer in the USA and other countries.  In other countries, I always picture little kids, almost as soon as they can walk, kicking a soccer ball around in the living room/patio/backyard.  As they age a little I can picture them playing with siblings/cousins/friends wherever they can simulate a game, be it in the house, street, against a wall, etc.

Compare that to the very first time my dd's were introduced to soccer at age 5.  First practice was at a middle with a field the size of Montana.  And what's the first thing they do?  Drills! Then more drills.  Shoot, how many times have seen warm up drills with little kids doing double scissors, step overs, helicopters, etc. I bet you we'll kill other countries when it comes to drills.  Soccer IQ, touch, instincts is a while different ballgame.  I think that's what we're trying to address in the USA.


----------



## Lambchop (Aug 28, 2017)

Daniel Miller said:


> US Soccer has, as usual, screwed the pooch with this one.  I'm OK with the birth-year registration and restrictions on heading the ball.  But the build-out lines, no-punt rule, and changes in the offside rule are asinine, pure and simple.  These rules prevent kids from playing good soccer; they dumb down the game and stifle true development.  They help kids play better soccer to the same extent that ebonics helps kids read better.
> 
> These rules were never tested in the real world before being imposed.  In competent organizations not run on the basis on cronyism, these rules would never have gotten out of committee, because too many people dislike them and because there is no objective proof that these rules improve either the quality of team play or the "development" of any player.  A little beta-testing might have been helpful.
> 
> US Soccer is a joke.  It ruins more talent than it creates.


And you know this how?  How long have we been all playing with the new rules?  Maybe give it a "little" more time to see what develops.  Maybe it won't develop players or maybe it will.  Time will tell.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Aug 28, 2017)

Lambchop said:


> And you know this how?  How long have we been all playing with the new rules?  Maybe give it a "little" more time to see what develops.  Maybe it won't develop players or maybe it will.  Time will tell.


I don't think the build-out line, no-punt rule or the offside rule changes deserve even a "little" more time to "see what develops."  These new rules stink.  They slow down development.  They take away initiative.  These rules penalize the fastest and best players so that the slow and stupid ones can keep up.  They dumb down the game so it can be played without speed, pressure or intensity.  These rules are stupid, and if you support them, then so are you.

Your philosophy ("hey, let's just see what happens") is the whole reason why US Soccer sucks.  You would impose rules without having any idea "what will happen."  When businesses do this, they go out of business.  Which is why competent businesses actually test products before putting them into the market stream.  They see how the product actually works, and they work the bugs out before they pass them on to their customers.  

Your product, namely, dumbed-down socccer, doesn't work.  We've seen it tried for a year, and it just plain sucks.  I don't have to "give it a little more time" to see how it plays out.  I've already seen how the rules have negatively impacted the game.  If you can't see it, then you are even stupider than I thought, or you are personally invested, which puts you into a position of having to defend the new rules regardless of their idiocy.


----------



## espola (Aug 28, 2017)

Lambchop said:


> And you know this how?  How long have we been all playing with the new rules?  Maybe give it a "little" more time to see what develops.  Maybe it won't develop players or maybe it will.  Time will tell.


It won't.


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 28, 2017)

Justafan said:


> That's the point Mirage, there is no street soccer in the USA, at least relatively speaking.  Trust me, I wish there was street ball down at the corner, but I've never seen it in any suburb. It's just not in our culture like it is in other countries. Futsal is probably the closest thing we'll ever have to street soccer in the USA and that's why I'm all for more futsal.
> 
> I always give this example when talking about the difference between soccer in the USA and other countries.  In other countries, I always picture little kids, almost as soon as they can walk, kicking a soccer ball around in the living room/patio/backyard.  As they age a little I can picture them playing with siblings/cousins/friends wherever they can simulate a game, be it in the house, street, against a wall, etc.
> 
> .


  Having done quite a bit of reading and on the ground investigation now in South America and Italy, I think this is partially true.  It's true that at the earliest ages they are getting more informal and frequent touches on the ball and having parents that played also helps.  But the days of Pele coming out of the barrio and joining a national team have rapidly come to a close.  For the last 10 years or so they've gone on an academy system which sorts in the kids into future footballers and also rans.  Most people in those nations play for the love of it....not because they think they'll turn pro someday...they play rec without the expectation that will amount to something.  Europe, in both sports and academics, much more closely tracks and sorts talent from a very young age, directing resources where they'll be spent most efficiently, though it means late bloomers may be sacrificed as a result.  And those on the academy track aren't really inclined to do pickup games because they are spending all their time in soccer anyways....it's both a job and a passion to them.

My father was one of those street soccer kids in Latin America.  Our arrangement was originally he was going to coach the kids.  That didn't work out so good.  His lack of formal training showed even at an early age with the kids.  The deficiency in his knowledge really hit home to me at one tournament when he was yelling "off sides" to a ref on a throw in...the ref lectured him "you can't be offsides on a throw in sir".  Street soccer is somewhat overrated....though for the under 7 set it is invaluable to grow up living and breathing it.

The big reason we don't have any street soccer (or pickup games in any sport) is because we have fewer kids in the US, and the kids we have are very overscheduled.  Free ranged parenting, for better and for worse, has fallen out of favor, not just in the US, but across western civ.  There are variety of reasons for why kids no longer hang out in the neighborhoods: moms working, government nannies, emulation of Asian principles, college competition, overworry about kids getting hurts, there are just plain less of them, etc.


----------



## mirage (Aug 29, 2017)

So couple of things @Grace T. and @Justafan, about both of your comments.

The notion of lack of street soccer/pickup game is overused excuse, frankly, in my mind.  You're right we don't have it like many other countries but I would argue that just go look at Santa Ana, Pomona, Moreno Valley, Chino Hills and so on on the weekends and even week nights.  There are games going on constantly in the hispanic community leagues.  NOT club soccer but family-based community soccer.  Kids of all ages playing - boys and girls and often coed teams.  And as you would guess, no real restrictions other than just fouls.  Sometimes fights breakout too - amongst parents and coaches.

As for technical skills, it only comes when the player wants it bad enough.  No amount of rules and approaches can substitute time with the ball at the kid's feet.  First touch you say, well, kick the ball against the wall or high up in the air and learn to trap without a big rebound and settle the ball.  My kids used to spend 15-20 min/day, every school day morning before being picked up in their carpool with a ball doing just that for 4 years until the older kid started driving.  They did on their own.  Both kids are very technical and have a great first touch today.

Creativity can be stifled when constrained too much.  All these rules work just against players becoming creative.  My older kid's first club coach told him to watch as much soccer games as he can on TV so that he can learn how the game is played (early soccer IQ).  Couple of years later, another coach refused to instruct players where to be and put in set pieces because he wanted players to figure out what needs to be done (of course he gave hints and options).  To this particular coach, having players figure it out and learn by doing in live situation was more important than wins.  They finished in the middle of the table in Flight 1 that year.  Some parents didn't like it and left the team then...  I guess they didn't realize winning at U12 is absolutely meaningless in a big picture. 

The point is, while I fully appreciate standardization and consistent and repeatable process, its not a one size fits all type of solution.

At the end of the day, if a kid wants to be great, the kid will work on it.  It there are too many distractions, kid needs to make a choice and simplify.  Its also okay just to be a player with bad first touch and very little soccer IQ, as long as its meeting the players expectations.

We sometime forget that even a child has his/her own perspective and ambitions.  Just recognize that they may or may not match yours, and certainly not USSF's.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 5, 2017)

CalSouth this weekend rolled out the modified laws of the game, complete with build out line, for 2008s and 2009s.  I'm assuming this means all fall games for 2008/2009 will be required to implement?  As I mentioned before, the summer tournaments seemed to be all over the place, and they didn't have it in place for some leagues in spring.   Note too the offside rule modification....offsides only on the opposing 1/4 of the pitch....guess that will mean even more confusion as parents will keep yelling at refs "offsides" in now non-offside situations.  

I expect more teams will introduce the tactics we saw at some tournaments....keeper kicks it back to the big legged defender on the wing that boots it up the line.

http://media.calsouth.com/data/Downloads/Referees/2018/7v7.pdf


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 9, 2017)

Ugggg.  More build up line confusion for dys first games.  Both teams adopted the strategy of gk sends it to the defender who boots it after drawing in the forward opposing line sitting on the build up line. Ugly soccer

Ref insisted goalkeepers had to put it in play with a roll instead of a gk which I'm sure is wrong under at least the cal south rules. Also insisted the gk had to wait for the line to set on a save, which removes any chance for a fast break off the javelin, which may or may not be right under the rules (there's some ambiguity there).  By second half both teams were parking their cf past the half in formerly offside positions waiting for the fast break. The offside rule in particular is a total mess. Hate this format and clearly not all the refs and coaches are getting it and since they are using the rules to their advantage it's not encouraging back passing at all.  We backpassed more in classic format since dys had the option for a long ball which removed pressure. I've never had to lawyer a soccer game before


----------



## GKDad65 (Sep 9, 2017)

I'm glad my GK's are aged out of this nonsense.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 9, 2017)

I watched 2 U12 games today officiated by the same refs who decided applying the modified rules of the game was how it was supposed to be for U12 girls which is not the way it was supposed to be done. If they had simply read the quick memo before each game http://media.calsouth.com/data/Downloads/Referees/2018/9v9.pdf they would have seen what the rules should have been.  I know the transition is painful but a 5 minute read before each game officiated would have prevented so much confusion.  The team I was rooting for got an indirect kick because the opposing team headed the ball.  A girl on the opposing team got a yellow card for not following the incorrect rules and the ref. had already told her once.   The reason she didn't remember is because she wasn't trained that way and rightfully so.  She is 11 years old.  My 11 year struggles to remember to wash her hands after going to the bathroom that she has done 1,000's of times.  I watched my goalkeeper daughter totally confused as to what was going on and I still don't think she understands.  I didn't bother to explain.  LOL  I know a ref.'s job is a thankless one but please do some due diligence with the new rules to prevent so much confusion.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Sep 9, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> Ugggg.  More build up line confusion for dys first games.  Both teams adopted the strategy of gk sends it to the defender who boots it after drawing in the forward opposing line sitting on the build up line. Ugly soccer


Sounds like your coach had no strategy on how to take away the options if the opposing team was doing that. Was this a Boys or Girls team? I know that there was no build out line at Silverlakes but a lot of the coaches placed some markers so the players can use it as a reference point.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 9, 2017)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> Sounds like your coach had no strategy on how to take away the options if the opposing team was doing that. Was this a Boys or Girls team? I know that there was no build out line at Silverlakes but a lot of the coaches placed some markers so the players can use it as a reference point.


Boys 08. We do fine without the build up line even under classic rules with no punt.  A built out line + full stop takes away options. Coaches are using the defender boots it move because it works- the 9 or 11 previously in an offside position do great with it. 2/3 of our goals were on this gk. At one tournie in the summer I even saw a well respected high level club coach use it over and over.  Doesn't teach very much but it's a winning strategy. You can't pass it out beyond the build up line because most coaches are lining up 3 players on the line...otherwise the gk could just smash it to 9 for the quick 1 v 1.  The defender can't pass it back to the gk for the switch because the gk will be swarmed by 2 maybe 3 opponents before he can switch it. The long ball would force team to pull people back from the build line.  This current rule gives you the worst of both worlds.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Sep 10, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> Boys 08. We do fine without the build up line even under classic rules with no punt.  A built out line + full stop takes away options. Coaches are using the defender boots it move because it works- the 9 or 11 previously in an offside position do great with it. 2/3 of our goals were on this gk. At one tournie in the summer I even saw a well respected high level club coach use it over and over.  Doesn't teach very much but it's a winning strategy. You can't pass it out beyond the build up line because most coaches are lining up 3 players on the line...otherwise the gk could just smash it to 9 for the quick 1 v 1.  The defender can't pass it back to the gk for the switch because the gk will be swarmed by 2 maybe 3 opponents before he can switch it. The long ball would force team to pull people back from the build line.  This current rule gives you the worst of both worlds.


Hearing the teaching method of the coach, its apparent he has not shown the players how to create options which will hurt the team in the long run.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 10, 2017)

I dont mind the build out line for the purpose of building out.  But for an offside line, it is really stupid.  It teaches your backline to stick on the 18 and not push up to get involved in the attack.

I really wish someone at US Soccer would have put some pilot games in place to watch and see how coaches adapt to the new rules.  And how they find ways to take advantage of things that are not in the spirit of the intended change.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 10, 2017)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> Hearing the teaching method of the coach, its apparent he has not shown the players how to create options which will hurt the team in the long run.



Not the Coach.  Coaches. This is now the 4th coach I've seen adopt this approach, including one which in our area everyone says is among the best. Not sure what else they could do. Kick it back to the keeper then the keeper is instantly pressed by 2 opponents really close to the goal...may teach the keeper the back pass but he's going to get killed doing it.  Pass from the keeper to the winger?  Keeper needs a leg that is high enough to get over the defenders on the build and far enough to get over the build. Few keepers at this age can do both. Defender who receives could dribble it (which is our back up move) but will be double teamed and 1/2 time will lose it.   Defender could pass to the pressing 6 but again he's under pressure from 2 opponents and the 6 is in the center.  Without spreading the opposing line with a punt there's no way most teams (except the most highly skilled teams) can do much more.  If the keepers were allowed to kick it long maybe they could long ball it getting the other side guessing about whether to press or guard against the cherrypicking forward.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 10, 2017)

Problem is that at this age, kids should be spending a LOT of time in practice on skills, 1v1, 2v2, 3v2, etc.
In order to teach "building out of the back", you need to spend quite a bit of time rehearsing patterns and off the ball movement.  It can be done.  But if a kid can't collect a pass or pass properly, all of the pattern play in the world won't matter much.  And for proper pattern play, it really helps to have a kid play the same position all the time.  Not really best for overall development.
Pattern Play Example:
Keeper rolls it out to an outside back, who should be pretty far back.  I've seen some of these outside players positioned really close to the BOL.  This gives them no time to collect and think.
As the outside back receives the ball, the center mid makes a checking run to the top of the box.  The outside mid stays wide.  The center forward positions himself between the center mid and outside mid.
If the outside back plays to the checking center mid, that center mid can either turn, or play the ball back to the outside defender on the other side of the field, who then should have some time to dribble out and utilize the switch to get forward.  If the checking center mid is covered, the outside mid or the center forward need to move to get open closer to the ball.
Here's a pretty good session on how it can look at practice:  




But again -  If your team can't get a decent touch on 75% of passes coming to them, all of the pattern play in the world won't make a difference.  
Before the BOL, teams had a kid that would try to hoof it over the top.  Some teams had this player, many don't.  So a goal kick was usually an advantage for the other team.  They just had to sit on the top of the penalty area and wait for the ball to hit them in the feet and then beat the keeper 1v1.  Teams would try to counter this by having 3 kids inside the PA to help recover once the other team won the goal kick.


----------



## Primetime (Sep 10, 2017)

Sorry but If your asking for real soccer your forgetting its a small sided game therefore it's not real soccer it's a modified version of it from the start.   At the younger ages your team getting a goal kick shouldn't be a disadvantage which is what it turns into with out a buildout line.   And don't even try to tell me punting is good for the game either.   Goalies punting back and forth to eachother is a joke.  Or better yet a goalie punting into the other teams 18 to a lone forward who crashes in for a goal.  Your totally right, that's  "The Beautiful Game" hahaha.   The idea that's it's on the coach to teach the kids to play the right way is a fantasy, Your living in la la land and giving all these coaches too much credit.   If that was the case I wouldn't have to watch game after game after after game after game of coaches and parents cheering for blasted punts that give up possessions half the time or more.   Yesterday's a perfect example, watching half a dozen 06' games and on multiple occasions there's was possessions where the keepers punted back and forth to eachother 3-4 times in a row.   That's terrible.   Give me the buildout line back anyday.   But by your guys theory lets go ahead and do away with Flag Football.   I mean if you can't tackle it's completely useless right ?


----------



## espola (Sep 10, 2017)

timbuck said:


> Problem is that at this age, kids should be spending a LOT of time in practice on skills, 1v1, 2v2, 3v2, etc.
> In order to teach "building out of the back", you need to spend quite a bit of time rehearsing patterns and off the ball movement.  It can be done.  But if a kid can't collect a pass or pass properly, all of the pattern play in the world won't matter much.  And for proper pattern play, it really helps to have a kid play the same position all the time.  Not really best for overall development.
> Pattern Play Example:
> Keeper rolls it out to an outside back, who should be pretty far back.  I've seen some of these outside players positioned really close to the BOL.  This gives them no time to collect and think.
> ...


You seem to be suggesting that all teams be required to play at the same level as the weakest.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 10, 2017)

espola said:


> You seem to be suggesting that all teams be required to play at the same level as the weakest.


Nope. I'm saying that teams that care to learn to use the build out line the right way can do it, but it's not easy.


----------



## espola (Sep 10, 2017)

timbuck said:


> Nope. I'm saying that teams that care to learn to use the build out line the right way can do it, but it's not easy.


Some teams are better than others, and that is unpleasant to the weak ones, so we are going to change the rules to take away the advantage of the strong teams.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 10, 2017)

Primetime said:


> Sorry but If your asking for real soccer your forgetting its a small sided game therefore it's not real soccer it's a modified version of it from the start.   At the younger ages your team getting a goal kick shouldn't be a disadvantage which is what it turns into with out a buildout line.   And don't even try to tell me punting is good for the game either.   Goalies punting back and forth to eachother is a joke.  Or better yet a goalie punting into the other teams 18 to a lone forward who crashes in for a goal.  Your totally right, that's  "The Beautiful Game" hahaha.   The idea that's it's on the coach to teach the kids to play the right way is a fantasy, Your living in la la land and giving all these coaches too much credit.   If that was the case I wouldn't have to watch game after game after after game after game of coaches and parents cheering for blasted punts that give up possessions half the time or more.   Yesterday's a perfect example, watching half a dozen 06' games and on multiple occasions there's was possessions where the keepers punted back and forth to eachother 3-4 times in a row.   That's terrible.   Give me the buildout line back anyday.   But by your guys theory lets go ahead and do away with Flag Football.   I mean if you can't tackle it's completely useless right ?


Punting it to a loan striker whose sitting behind the defensive line should trigger an offside call.  Inexperienced keepers punt it either into an offside position or into the scrum where possession is 50/50.  Punting is an art which isn't coached well...the keeper should be taught to look for the open team mate, and if there isn't one, to go for the short distribution.

I don't have a problem with the build out line.  I have a problem re the way CalSouth has implemented it.  The removal of the offside rule to apply only behind the build out line is encouraging the defenders to boot it rather than truly build up.  The counter is going to be some defender is going to have to drop back to cover the 9.  A smart team would then have the 6/8 check and press into the now open center.  The keepers also need a long option so that the opposition isn't stacked up on a line of scrimmage...they should allow the keeper to javelin throw on a fast break before the build up line is set, and to long ball goalkick it...with those changes you wouldn't have the forward offensive line sitting on that line of scrimmage.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 16, 2017)

O.k.  I've now reffed 2 games with the new build out/offsides rule; seen 3 of DYS games, and seen 2 games for girls...every single team has employed the same strategy (oh sure, some have keeper dribble to the corner, some use the javelin, some have the keeper go to the corner and roll, some have the defender hang back and take the role from the keeper but it's always been the same from there)...keeper gives it to the big legged defender, big legged defender boots it to a forward or winger in a formerly off side position, the striker of course is usually the marquee player and if the forward/winger manages to maintain possession it's usually a one v one situation with the keeper.   Ugly soccer, teams passing back a whole lot less than they used to (in 3 games DYS keeper has had 1 back pass whereas before he'd average 1-2 a game).  Hate the new rule...have no problem with the build out line but the new offside rule is horrible.  Rant complete.


----------



## Dos Equis (Sep 17, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> O.k.  I've now reffed 2 games with the new build out/offsides rule; seen 3 of DYS games, and seen 2 games for girls...every single team has employed the same strategy (oh sure, some have keeper dribble to the corner, some use the javelin, some have the keeper go to the corner and roll, some have the defender hang back and take the role from the keeper but it's always been the same from there)...keeper gives it to the big legged defender, big legged defender boots it to a forward or winger in a formerly off side position, the striker of course is usually the marquee player and if the forward/winger manages to maintain possession it's usually a one v one situation with the keeper.   Ugly soccer, teams passing back a whole lot less than they used to (in 3 games DYS keeper has had 1 back pass whereas before he'd average 1-2 a game).  Hate the new rule...have no problem with the build out line but the new offside rule is horrible.  Rant complete.


Terrific feedback.  

I expect most of us would like to see more youth teams focus on passing/posession, use the keeper as an option, and build out of the back. Yet you get to the core reason why some of us think this build out line the wrong approach.  Unintended consequences exactly opposite of their goals.  If you keep the line but move offside back to midfield, imagine the crowd of players gathered in a 10-15 yard area. It would look like swarmball, or the kick would go over the top and the game would become a series of footraces.

You need to change the mindset and coaching, not the rules.   I will ask again -- which European or other system we view as a success/model has implemented this rule?


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Sep 17, 2017)

Dos Equis said:


> Terrific feedback.
> 
> I expect most of us would like to see more youth teams focus on passing/posession, use the keeper as an option, and build out of the back. Yet you get to the core reason why some of us think this build out line the wrong approach.  Unintended consequences exactly opposite of their goals.  If you keep the line but move offside back to midfield, imagine the crowd of players gathered in a 10-15 yard area. It would look like swarmball, or the kick would go over the top and the game would become a series of footraces.
> 
> You need to change the mindset and coaching, not the rules.   I will ask again -- which European or other system we view as a success/model has implemented this rule?


Problem is you cannot change the mindset and coaching - impossible. Most parents want one thing (win), clubs wants one thing (parents money) , and coaches (most unqualified) want one thing (keep both happy to keep their job). Even though we probably have more 'soccer' educated parents on this forum, most posts tend to focus on ranking, predictions, scores, etc. The majority of the posts for 9 year olds here are ranking teams and bragging about winning. It is FUBAR.


----------



## Monkey (Sep 17, 2017)

Maybe we will just have to wait a generation to have a larger pool of parents that have played soccer and can appreciate the value of playing out the back and thus find good coaches accordingly.  There are a few clubs that have the moto of playing out the back from an early age, but still all the parents of the sidelines cringe when a defender pass the play back.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 17, 2017)

Well, my complaints are actually two fold: 1) I don't think the rule is accomplishing what it's supposed to and 2) the roll out hasn't been particularly smooth. In now 4 of DYS games they've all been called differently:

1. Ref 1: keeper can only roll his goalkicks, must wait for the build out line
2. Ref 2: keeper must kick goalkicks, can roll, throw or kick a save and can wait or not wait for the build out line.
3. Ref 3: keeper must kick goalkicks, must wait for the build out line even on a save
4. Ref 4: keeper can roll or kick his goalkicks, and can wait or not wait for the build out line

I asked two of them (ref to ref) why everyone is calling them differently.  Roll out may be smoother in the south from what some of the refs say here on these boards but the ones I've asked all said they are getting differing instructions, notwithstanding what's on the printed rules.  

Finally saw one good team actually pass back the ball to the keeper but even this really great team them had a tendency to lose the ball on the swing out to the defenders.  You could seem them trying to keep their style under the new rules but struggling under the pressure.  Still nice to see a team actually back pass it.


----------



## espola (Sep 17, 2017)

On my way to the store today, I passed by Arbolitos Fields in Poway.  There was a girls game going on, so I stopped to watch for a while - it was 2005 girls, so they were playing 11 a side, full-size field with no buildout line, and heading the ball when it seemed appropriate.

On my way back from the store, I stopped to watch a different game - Mexican league, boys about 10 - playing 11 a side, full-size field with no buildout line, and heading the ball when it seemed appropriate.


----------



## PaytoplayinLancaster? (Sep 17, 2017)

The build out line needs to go.  We suffered through it last season (SCDSL) only to have it not mandated at State Cup.  CSL teams had a marked advantage for not following these rules.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Sep 17, 2017)

PaytoplayinLancaster? said:


> The build out line needs to go.  We suffered through it last season (SCDSL) only to have it not mandated at State Cup.  CSL teams had a marked advantage for not following these rules.


That's CSL for you LOL


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 18, 2017)

Call me a geek but I was reviewing the links on the US Soccer Initiatives at the Cal South website. I read the link for 2018/2019 season and freaked out when I saw that G2006 will still be playing on a small sided field next year and adding 2 players per team.   This has to be a typo because it is so painful to watch G2006 (that are huge on our team as the average height is about 5'3" or taller) play on the small sided field.  It just looks like the battle of bodies rather than soccer.  I don't think they are getting more touches on the foot and the potential for injury is much greater.  It is just a game of foul after foul after foul which is what you would expect when you cram too many large players into a small field.   Many of the goalkeepers at this level can touch the top post with little or no effort.   I went to the US Soccer site and read the information they put out and couldn't find anywhere that U13 in the 2018/2019 season will still have to play on a small field.  Please tell me this is a typo on Cal South's part.  If it isn't, someone from US Soccer needs to come watch a couple of games.   http://media.calsouth.com/data/Downloads/PDIs/USSF_SSG_Chart_update51117doc2_2018-2019.pdf?rev=A6A8


----------



## chargerfan (Sep 18, 2017)

Keepermom2 said:


> Call me a geek but I was reviewing the links on the US Soccer Initiatives at the Cal South website. I read the link for 2018/2019 season and freaked out when I saw that G2006 will still be playing on a small sided field next year and adding 2 players per team.   This has to be a typo because it is so painful to watch G2006 (that are huge on our team as the average height is about 5'3" or taller) play on the small sided field.  It just looks like the battle of bodies rather than soccer.  I don't think they are getting more touches on the foot and the potential for injury is much greater.  It is just a game of foul after foul after foul which is what you would expect when you cram too many large players into a small field.   Many of the goalkeepers at this level can touch the top post with little or no effort.   I went to the US Soccer site and read the information they put out and couldn't find anywhere that U13 in the 2018/2019 season will still have to play on a small field.  Please tell me this is a typo on Cal South's part.  If it isn't, someone from US Soccer needs to come watch a couple of games.   http://media.calsouth.com/data/Downloads/PDIs/USSF_SSG_Chart_update51117doc2_2018-2019.pdf?rev=A6A8


How in the world is the average size on an 06 team 5'3? What's in the water up there?


----------



## Lambchop (Sep 18, 2017)

chargerfan said:


> How in the world is the average size on an 06 team 5'3? What's in the water up there?


Eleven year old girls, that's how.  Some twelve year old girls are even taller, much taller 5'9, 5'10.  That's only one year difference.


----------



## Dargle (Sep 18, 2017)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> That's CSL for you LOL


Actually, CSL and Cal South were playing according to the US Soccer guidelines.  SCDSL decided on its own accord to go beyond those guidelines and use a build-out line for U11 (2006 last year) where it was not recommended by US Soccer.  Don't think SCDSL ever explained its rationale.  That's SCDSL for you.


----------



## BeepBeep Boop (Sep 18, 2017)

chargerfan said:


> How in the world is the average size on an 06 team 5'3? What's in the water up there?


Fields are too small right now with 9v9. I really hope that's a typo.


----------



## chargerfan (Sep 18, 2017)

Lambchop said:


> Eleven year old girls, that's how.  Some twelve year old girls are even taller, much taller 5'9, 5'10.  That's only one year difference.


My daughter's 04 team must be full of midgets. They average about 5'3. I don't see many girls at 5'9 or 5'10, even at this age.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 21, 2017)

chargerfan said:


> How in the world is the average size on an 06 team 5'3? What's in the water up there?


LOL.  My daughter is 5'1" and just turned 11 the other day so she is one of the younger ones on her team.  There are many girls on her team that are taller than her.  She has always been in the 85th or 90th percentile yet she is shorter than most of the Keepers we play against.  At this age, the kids are all over the map because they are at different stages in their growth spurts.


----------



## younothat (Sep 22, 2017)

Bit long topdrawersoccer.com/podcast but some good discussion about US Soccer's Player Development Initiatives — are you behind the build-out line?   
https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/force-cdn/highwinds/thetopdrawersoccershow/TDS-Sep20-2017PDI.mp3


----------



## boomer (Sep 22, 2017)

BeepBeep Boop said:


> Fields are too small right now with 9v9. I really hope that's a typo.


Why do you think they're too small? 2004 boys played 9v9 in DA last year after playing 11v11 the year prior. At first it felt too small. After they adjusted the benefits of the small field and less players on the field became very clear...tighter spaces, quicker thinking, higher tempo, and more touches. It was just what they needed. If your kid's team is struggling on the smaller field, good for him/her and teammates. They will be better for it in the long run.


----------



## Dos Equis (Sep 22, 2017)

boomer said:


> Why do you think they're too small? 2004 boys played 9v9 in DA last year after playing 11v11 the year prior. At first it felt too small. After they adjusted the benefits of the small field and less players on the field became very clear...tighter spaces, quicker thinking, higher tempo, and more touches. It was just what they needed. If your kid's team is struggling on the smaller field, good for him/her and teammates. They will be better for it in the long run.


If you reduced the player count to 5, made the field even smaller and harder and perhaps made the ball less lively, you would get even more of those benefits. And so no one is confused, you could call it something cool and foreign sounding, like "Futsal." 

Always thought at u11, 10 year olds, was a bit early for large fields. But 12 year olds who are likely in their 4th-5th year of club soccer (last year's 04 teams),  are probably ready for the challenges of a larger field and 11v11, at least in some quantity. Then benefits/skills  you outline already received both at younger ages and during training. 

I am curious, when is 11v11 introduced in Spanish, German and English youth clubs?  Honestly do not know.


----------



## Eagle33 (Sep 22, 2017)

Dos Equis said:


> If you reduced the player count to 5, made the field even smaller and harder and perhaps made the ball less lively, you would get even more of those benefits. And so no one is confused, you could call it something cool and foreign sounding, like "Futsal."
> 
> Always thought at u11, 10 year olds, was a bit early for large fields. But 12 year olds who are likely in their 4th-5th year of club soccer (last year's 04 teams),  are probably ready for the challenges of a larger field and 11v11, at least in some quantity. Then benefits/skills  you outline already received both at younger ages and during training.
> 
> I am curious, when is 11v11 introduced in Spanish, German and English youth clubs?  Honestly do not know.


Why are we always trying to follow or implement some other counties system? Why don't we just focus and build our identity in the soccer world?


----------



## timbuck (Sep 22, 2017)

Eagle33 said:


> Why are we always trying to follow or implement some other counties system? Why don't we just focus and build our identity in the soccer world?


Because all of our "best" coaches are rejects from the U.K.   We need to follow someone.


----------



## BarcaLover (Sep 22, 2017)

Eagle33 said:


> Why are we always trying to follow or implement some other counties system? Why don't we just focus and build our identity in the soccer world?


We have an identity....it's called "panic under pressure and hoof it forward."

That is why the USSF is trying to implement the Player Iniatives that other countries have used, so that our players CAN play under of pressure.  

I'm not saying the Build Out Line will eventually make our NTs look like Spain or Germany, but at least they are TRYING to do something to get better.


----------



## boomer (Sep 22, 2017)

Dos Equis said:


> ...12 year olds who are likely in their 4th-5th year of club soccer (last year's 04 teams),  are probably ready for the challenges of a larger field and 11v11...


Are you speaking from experience? I think the smaller fields are ideal for prepubescent kids. Really hard to put an age on it though since the age of puberty is all over the map. Fair to say "most" will get to it by 13-14yrs old. My kid is a tall 13yr old and has started to to physically mature. He loves the bigger field, but there are plenty his age that still aren't physically ready to be effective on an 11v11 field.

Overall, the 4v4/7v7/9v9/11v11 graduated system recently adopted is a massive improvement to the approach. Wish it was in-place when my kid was a little guy. And I agree 100% on futsal. My kid played for years. Loved it and got a lot out of it.

My take...keep your kids playing short-sided as long as possible and as often as possible. Find a place for regular futsal games and push your club to put teams in the the spring league they put on in the South Bay.


----------



## Eagle33 (Sep 22, 2017)

BarcaLover said:


> We have an identity....it's called "panic under pressure and hoof it forward."
> 
> That is why the USSF is trying to implement the Player Iniatives that other countries have used, so that our players CAN play under of pressure.
> 
> I'm not saying the Build Out Line will eventually make our NTs look like Spain or Germany, but at least they are TRYING to do something to get better.


BOL line will not just magically change the way kids play. It's all about COACHING. Good coaches always used playing out of he back way before BOL was implemented. Bad ones will "hoot it forward" as you very well noted, and already found a way to do it even with BOL in place.


----------



## BarcaLover (Sep 22, 2017)

Eagle33 said:


> BOL line will not just magically change the way kids play. It's all about COACHING. Good coaches always used playing out of he back way before BOL was implemented. Bad ones will "hoot it forward" as you very well noted, and already found a way to do it even with BOL in place.


Totally agreed!

Coaching is the key for sure.  I watched in a G06 game last season a coach have his GKer get the ball in her hands and walk to the top of the 18.  She then turned around and rolled the ball backwards to her CB who was standing on the 6, who then whacked it to midfield.  

This is obviously NOT what USSF had in mind when they introduced the Build Out Line.  That's a coach that would rather find a way around the rule instead of using it's benefit to teach his team how to play out of the back.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 22, 2017)

BarcaLover said:


> Totally agreed!
> 
> Coaching is the key for sure.  I watched in a G06 game last season a coach have his GKer get the ball in her hands and walk to the top of the 18.  She then turned around and rolled the ball backwards to her CB who was standing on the 6, who then whacked it to midfield.
> 
> This is obviously NOT what USSF had in mind when they introduced the Build Out Line.  That's a coach that would rather find a way around the rule instead of using it's benefit to teach his team how to play out of the back.



Every team I've watched so far except 1 (both boys and girls) has employed this strategy.  They like it because formerly the striker or winger would be in an offside position but now because of the maneuver the backline is forced to defend back towards goal (on top of the opposite BOL).  So the tradeoff is its teaching the front line to press, but the backline is being taught the opposite...to play AYSO ball and hang back.

DYS team used to pass back to the keeper every once in a while...they've only done it once on BOL games so far.  I saw one really really good team that should have been able to pass circles around DYS team actually use the goalkeeper but it was difficult for them because of the high press.  I saw them do it before in the past too...was a thing of beauty...now it's just a rushed hot mess....they still whipped us but it was closer than it should have been.  The new rules require a great deal of skill if a team is to be built out properly, and except for the more advanced teams, most at this age lack the skills to do it properly.

I get that the change to the offside rule was made so that you wouldn't have all 6 opposite players lined up at the build out line, but more often than not it is resulting in run and smash ball.

My modest proposal: keep the old offside rule so the defensive line can also learn to push up and on the punt an offside can be enforced if it goes to the lone striker.  Allow the goalkeeper to punt but it can't cross the opposite buildout line (or its ruled offside automatically), keep the buildout line, but opposing players can only cross line when another player receives the ball.  Coaches then have the discretion....bad coaches who instruct a punt will quickly find they lose the ball in 50/50 situations or it goes offside easily on the smaller fields, coaches that send it to a defender will have the advantage.  Still would teach the front line to press and the side with the ball the ability to react to pressure.  The punting option would penalize those teams that line up 5 or 6 players on the line.  Punting is an art too and few keepers are taught how to do it well...my proposal has the added benefit of teaching the goalkeeper when its appropriate to play the long ball v. when to build out the back.  If it's accompanied with data to coaches that shows teams more often than not lose the ball on a punt and that the punt should only really be used to relieve pressure, I think it would work better.


----------



## watfly (Sep 22, 2017)

BarcaLover said:


> I'm not saying the Build Out Line will eventually make our NTs look like Spain or Germany, but at least they are TRYING to do something to get better.


The buildout line is as effective as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".  I'm sure it looked like a great idea on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters but it will have negligible impact on kid's long term building out the back and possession skills.  As we have all seen its far bigger impact has been to create confusion for everyone.

Without the soccer culture changing...I agree that the best way to improve the quality of American soccer is to improve the coaching.  If US Soccer was serious about improving play they would invest in making training easier for coaches to obtain.  Right now its too expensive and classes are offered too infrequently.  Maybe US Soccer could even offer certificate courses in "Possession Play" or special training for DA coaches.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 22, 2017)

watfly said:


> The buildout line is as effective as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".  I'm sure it looked like a great idea on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters but it will have negligible impact on kid's long term building out the back and possession skills.  As we have all seen its far bigger impact has been to create confusion for everyone.
> 
> Without the soccer culture changing...I agree that the best way to improve the quality of American soccer is to improve the coaching.  If US Soccer was serious about improving play they would invest in making training easier for coaches to obtain.  Right now its too expensive and classes are offered too infrequently.  Maybe US Soccer could even offer certificate courses in "Possession Play" or special training for DA coaches.



Totally agree, and one of the most immediate changes they could make is to give coaches an actual education in goalkeeping.  For the E license, there was zero and while the instructor had a chance to hand out a goalkeeper assignment as part of the test, he didn't...even the exercises involved in building out the back didn't include goalkeeping (I showed up with my old gloves, ready to give it the ol college try and was called upon only 1 out of 14-16 exams to keep).  On my own exam, I was reprimanded for in a crossing exercise giving a coaching point to the keeper.  On the D license, DYS trainer says that he got just an hour or two.  And to get your goalkeeper license, you have to obtain your B license first.  Few coaches we have know what to do with the goalkeeper (which is why they instruct them to just punt it which is poor technique....also most kids could be taught the long goalkick if coaches put in the time, but the system discourages from doing so...any kid can goalkick).  Of the instructors we have, most of their technique is old (DYS has had so many instructors teach the scoop with the bended leg instead of the forward dive, or the old technique of pressing slowly on the one v one).  Many of the goalkeeper trainers are highly expense.  In short, US goalkeeper education is horrible, and then we turn around and wonder why we can't build out the back (which naturally starts with the goalkeeper).


----------



## BarcaLover (Sep 22, 2017)

watfly said:


> The buildout line is as effective as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".  I'm sure it looked like a great idea on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters but it will have negligible impact on kid's long term building out the back and possession skills.  As we have all seen its far bigger impact has been to create confusion for everyone.
> 
> Without the soccer culture changing...I agree that the best way to improve the quality of American soccer is to improve the coaching.  If US Soccer was serious about improving play they would invest in making training easier for coaches to obtain.  Right now its too expensive and classes are offered too infrequently.  Maybe US Soccer could even offer certificate courses in "Possession Play" or special training for DA coaches.


I will say this in regards to the Build Out Line....if the coach knows his stuff it allows his team the time to build out of the back and have some success.

But if he doesn't know how to teach playing out of the back, then the Build Out Line is a giant waste of time and only creates confusion.

I totally agree on your "Possession Play" certificate idea or maybe a "How to Build Out of the Back" curriculum.  That way more coaches would know how to take advantage of the Build Out Line and the kids could learn the principles of playing out from the back.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 22, 2017)

BarcaLover said:


> I will say this in regards to the Build Out Line....if the coach knows his stuff it allows his team the time to build out of the back and have some success.
> 
> But if he doesn't know how to teach playing out of the back, then the Build Out Line is a giant waste of time and only creates confusion.
> 
> I totally agree on your "Possession Play" certificate idea or maybe a "How to Build Out of the Back" curriculum.  That way more coaches would know how to take advantage of the Build Out Line and the kids could learn the principles of playing out from the back.



No, it requires 3 stars to aligns.  1) the coach needs to know his stuff and how to build out the back, 2) the players need to have the requisite skill to build out the back, UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE, and 3) parents need to be supportive of the coach while the team is learning (and getting killed due to the high pressure) so winning isn't everything.  Any of these are missing and it doesn't work.  As I said, have seen 1 team use it like it was intended and it was sloppy and ugly against DYS far weaker team...put the team I saw up against a silver elite team and they wouldn't be able to do it either.


----------



## BarcaLover (Sep 22, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> No, it requires 3 stars to aligns.  1) the coach needs to know his stuff and how to build out the back, 2) the players need to have the requisite skill to build out the back, UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE, and 3) parents need to be supportive of the coach while the team is learning (and getting killed due to the high pressure) so winning isn't everything.  Any of these are missing and it doesn't work.


The whole purpose of the BOL is that the kids have more time on the ball initially so that they have a chance to play out of the back and learn the principles.  The "UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE" is held back for a moment so that the player receiving the first pass has a chance.

If the team rehearses the proper off the ball movements and knows what the available options are when receiving a pass AND they have the technical skills to make accurate, properly weighted passes AND they can receive the ball cleanly with the correct foot, then they have a chance to build out of the back  .

The BOL simply gives a team a chançe to play out of the back.

But I agree with your "3 stars must align" idea.....if any of those 3 are off, disaster is awaiting.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 22, 2017)

BarcaLover said:


> The whole purpose of the BOL is that the kids have more time on the ball initially so that they have a chance to play out of the back and learn the principles.  The "UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE" is held back for a moment so that the player receiving the first pass has a chance.
> 
> If the team rehearses the proper off the ball movements and knows what the available options are when receiving a pass AND they have the technical skills to make accurate, properly weighted passes AND they can receive the ball cleanly with the correct foot, then they have a chance to build out of the back  .
> 
> ...



The unintended consequence of removing the punt is that it has the effect of allowing the opposing team to line up 3 people on the buildup line to rush the defender (usually 2 rush the defender and the winger on the far side cover the keeper since the defender is unlikely to be able or want to cross it over his own box).  If you listen to the podcast that was posted, they specifically say that one of the intended effects is to teach the front line how to press high.  By taking away the long option, and starting the clock as soon as the keeper releases, they've actually increased the pressure and rendered those additional seconds meaningless.  It removes pressure from the keeper and transfers it to the defender.  That's why if they were to start the clock when the defender receives it, and couple it with allowing a punt with the old offsides rules, you'd see more teams building out the back, plus teach the keepers when and how to build out the back v. a long ball.


----------



## BarcaLover (Sep 22, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> The unintended consequence of removing the punt is that it has the effect of allowing the opposing team to line up 3 people on the buildup line to rush the defender (usually 2 rush the defender and the winger on the far side cover the keeper since the defender is unlikely to be able or want to cross it over his own box).  If you listen to the podcast that was posted, they specifically say that one of the intended effects is to teach the front line how to press high.  By taking away the long option, and starting the clock as soon as the keeper releases, they've actually increased the pressure and rendered those additional seconds meaningless.  It removes pressure from the keeper and transfers it to the defender.  That's why if they were to start the clock when the defender receives it, and couple it with allowing a punt with the old offsides rules, you'd see more teams building out the back, plus teach the keepers when and how to build out the back v. a long ball.


Last year in the G06 age group the way the rule was enforced was the opponent could not enter until the defender touched the ball, not when it came out if the GKers hand.  I guess that got changed this year?


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 22, 2017)

BarcaLover said:


> Last year in the G06 age group the way the rule was enforced was the opponent could not enter until the defender touched the ball, not when it came out if the GKers hand.  I guess that got changed this year?


Yes, but there's a lot of confusion surrounding the rules as well this year (if you read above).  They also changed the offside rule which has also had its unintended consequences (again, see why they did it...don't want 6 people on the line ready to rush the defender, but teams can still afford to put 3 on the line).


----------



## Dos Equis (Sep 22, 2017)

boomer said:


> Are you speaking from experience? /QUOTE]
> 
> Yes, I am. And on this board, that is becoming an increasingly lonely place.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 24, 2017)

boomer said:


> Why do you think they're too small? 2004 boys played 9v9 in DA last year after playing 11v11 the year prior. At first it felt too small. After they adjusted the benefits of the small field and less players on the field became very clear...tighter spaces, quicker thinking, higher tempo, and more touches. It was just what they needed. If your kid's team is struggling on the smaller field, good for him/her and teammates. They will be better for it in the long run.


Speaking for the 2018/2019 Soccer Initiatives posted on Cal South Website, it says G2006 U13 will continue to play on the field size that we are playing on right now yet we will be adding 2 more players to each team or 4 more players to the field of play (2 for each team).  That doesn't make sense to me which is why I think someone got it wrong.  There is nowhere on the US Soccer site that speaks to changes for U13.  Their initiatives are confined to U12 and below.  http://www.ussoccer.com/coaching-education/resources/us-soccer-player-development-initiatives


----------



## soloyosh (Sep 25, 2017)

Keepermom2 said:


> Speaking for the 2018/2019 Soccer Initiatives posted on Cal South Website, it says G2006 U13 will continue to play on the field size that we are playing on right now yet we will be adding 2 more players to each team or 4 more players to the field of play (2 for each team).  That doesn't make sense to me which is why I think someone got it wrong.  There is nowhere on the US Soccer site that speaks to changes for U13.  Their initiatives are confined to U12 and below.  http://www.ussoccer.com/coaching-education/resources/us-soccer-player-development-initiatives



Isn't G06 U12?  We are a B04 team and we are U14.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 25, 2017)

soloyosh said:


> Isn't G06 U12?  We are a B04 team and we are U14.


Next year/season which is what my post is related to G06 will be U13.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Sep 29, 2017)

timbuck said:


> Because all of our "best" coaches are rejects from the U.K.   We need to follow someone.


haha some are just straight frauds. then they get questioned about background and coaching methods by legit coaches and they get offended - then leave with half the team from club to club. each time they move they have less kids until they only have their own kid on the team. US Soccer has some real $ in the bank now, time to use it - but they wont. unless its to make more $ or throw at some big name coach


----------



## Keepermom2 (Oct 4, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> Totally agree, and one of the most immediate changes they could make is to give coaches an actual education in goalkeeping.  For the E license, there was zero and while the instructor had a chance to hand out a goalkeeper assignment as part of the test, he didn't...even the exercises involved in building out the back didn't include goalkeeping (I showed up with my old gloves, ready to give it the ol college try and was called upon only 1 out of 14-16 exams to keep).  On my own exam, I was reprimanded for in a crossing exercise giving a coaching point to the keeper.  On the D license, DYS trainer says that he got just an hour or two.  And to get your goalkeeper license, you have to obtain your B license first.  Few coaches we have know what to do with the goalkeeper (which is why they instruct them to just punt it which is poor technique....also most kids could be taught the long goalkick if coaches put in the time, but the system discourages from doing so...any kid can goalkick).  Of the instructors we have, most of their technique is old (DYS has had so many instructors teach the scoop with the bended leg instead of the forward dive, or the old technique of pressing slowly on the one v one).  Many of the goalkeeper trainers are highly expense.  In short, US goalkeeper education is horrible, and then we turn around and wonder why we can't build out the back (which naturally starts with the goalkeeper).


I just seem to keep agreeing with everything you say no matter what the post.  Just recently a parent on the sideline yelled to my daughter to drop to her knee for a scoop which can and often results in the ball bouncing off of a foot or knee if not done perfectly and limits the ability to move fast for the next move.  I explained that technique is not utilized with the professional goalkeepers nor does her trainer teach that.  Her response was that is the first time she had ever heard that.  Not sure if she was presuming I was wrong or not but I did just watch a video of the training for U17 National Team goalkeepers and her trainer is teaching her to do exactly what they do with both the scoop and frontal.    You also don't see College Keepers doing it so why teach the kids to do that now to later have to break a habit?  I did see one Keeper from another country use that technique in the Olympics and the ball still went through her legs.  My poor daughter keeps getting taught various techniques for a variety of things which has caused her considerable confusion.  I watch a lot of soccer and I have just recently decided we needed to pick a road and that road is the approach that most closely resembles what is being done in the professional world and tell whom ever is training her that is what she is going to do because the confusion is causing her to make mistakes.  I am sure the folks are thrilled when I do that because I am a parent that doesn't know anything.   She is finally training with 2 trainers that are teaching consistent approaches and I can see a difference in her game.   US Soccer should establish some standards that should be taught based upon proven methods and put it in the training for all coaches.  That wouldn't even take that long to do.  There aren't that many moves with controversial methods.


----------



## RedNevilles (Oct 4, 2017)

One initiative I would love to see for the youngest age groups - No Coaching during games.  Both parents and coaches should let the kids discover the game.  Yes positioning may not be great but more touches on the ball and the freedom to think for themselves will make all the difference in the world.


----------



## Grace T. (Oct 4, 2017)

Keepermom2 said:


> I just seem to keep agreeing with everything you say no matter what the post.  Just recently a parent on the sideline yelled to my daughter to drop to her knee for a scoop which can and often results in the ball bouncing off of a foot or knee if not done perfectly and limits the ability to move fast for the next move.  I explained that technique is not utilized with the professional goalkeepers nor does her trainer teach that.  Her response was that is the first time she had ever heard that.  Not sure if she was presuming I was wrong or not but I did just watch a video of the training for U17 National Team goalkeepers and her trainer is teaching her to do exactly what they do with both the scoop and frontal.    You also don't see College Keepers doing it so why teach the kids to do that now to later have to break a habit?  I did see one Keeper from another country use that technique in the Olympics and the ball still went through her legs.  My poor daughter keeps getting taught various techniques for a variety of things which has caused her considerable confusion.  I watch a lot of soccer and I have just recently decided we needed to pick a road and that road is the approach that most closely resembles what is being done in the professional world and tell whom ever is training her that is what she is going to do because the confusion is causing her to make mistakes.  I am sure the folks are thrilled when I do that because I am a parent that doesn't know anything.   She is finally training with 2 trainers that are teaching consistent approaches and I can see a difference in her game.   US Soccer should establish some standards that should be taught based upon proven methods and put it in the training for all coaches.  That wouldn't even take that long to do.  There aren't that many moves with controversial methods.


The problem is that goalkeepers are an afterthought for US Soccer.  As I wrote, there was nothing in the E License for the goalkeeper and very little in the D.  The instructor didn't even bother to hand out a goalkeeper assignment and I brought my gloves for nothing to the exam and got reprimanded for giving the keeper instruction during a crossing exercise (so since there were no keeper exercises, and I'm not supposed to coach the keeper during other exercises, that means the keeper gets no training from the coach?)  And to get your keeper license, you have to get at least a B level on your field licenses.

Even if they wanted to, though, it would be tough since there isn't an agreement internationally of what keepers should be doing.  It's an oversimplication but there are 3 basic styles of keeping...the tall keeper (where the keeper basically hangs back and uses extension almost like a basketball player, but doesn't catch....he punches...it's the most common European model), the fast keeper (where the keeper charges a lot and plays out of the box like Manuel Neuer) and the big keeper (which basically is used like a fusball keeper, and best associated with the old English style).   Thankfully some consensus is coming together now and Neuer's play more than anyone has contributed to showing what keepers can do, but there's always going to be some variance so it's important that keeper trainers keep up to date with all the latest techniques so they are able to apply what works for a particular keeper.  The US philosophy has been, to some extent, that it doesn't need to figure this out because lots of kids grow up playing sports with hands (baseball/basketball/football) so it's easy to get keepers who convert from other sports...some have even speculated that it might lead to a new keeper format (an American one) with an emphasis on catching....but to get there we need to do a better job on training.


----------



## Grace T. (Oct 4, 2017)

RedNevilles said:


> One initiative I would love to see for the youngest age groups - No Coaching during games.  Both parents and coaches should let the kids discover the game.  Yes positioning may not be great but more touches on the ball and the freedom to think for themselves will make all the difference in the world.


This has pros and cons too.  I like a lot of it including that kids would learn to think for themselves, and it treats the game kind of like an exam (what have the kids learned?).  The biggest obstacles however, even at the lower levels, is the pay to play system (since parents will question coaches that are silent...what are we paying you for?) and that the system is a competitive one that keeps score (since parents will blame the loss on the coaches keeping silent).  Dear niece's coach (the one I wrote about in the other form) doesn't say much during the game (other than to remind them to play possession and not kick it wild, or to not dive in on defense)....it's one of the reasons parents are in an uproar.


----------



## RedNevilles (Oct 4, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> This has pros and cons too.  I like a lot of it including that kids would learn to think for themselves, and it treats the game kind of like an exam (what have the kids learned?).  The biggest obstacles however, even at the lower levels, is the pay to play system (since parents will question coaches that are silent...what are we paying you for?) and that the system is a competitive one that keeps score (since parents will blame the loss on the coaches keeping silent).  Dear niece's coach (the one I wrote about in the other form) doesn't say much during the game (other than to remind them to play possession and not kick it wild, or to not dive in on defense)....it's one of the reasons parents are in an uproar.


I completely understand this but that is the current climate we are in.  To change the process we need to change our thinking and if it is an initiative that all have to follow then there won't be such uproar.  Currently the playstation coaches who tell their players everything to do will get results over the ones sitting back and letting them play and as results are tracked this causes the discontent with parents.  If all coaches sat back and said nothing in games, only before, half time and end then you will really start to see which ones are good trainers as the players will show what they are taught in practice without constantly being told what to do


----------



## TangoCity (Oct 4, 2017)

RedNevilles said:


> One initiative I would love to see for the youngest age groups - No Coaching during games.  Both parents and coaches should let the kids discover the game.  Yes positioning may not be great but more touches on the ball and the freedom to think for themselves will make all the difference in the world.


That's called recess at school.


----------



## Grace T. (Oct 4, 2017)

RedNevilles said:


> I completely understand this but that is the current climate we are in.  To change the process we need to change our thinking and if it is an initiative that all have to follow then there won't be such uproar.  Currently the playstation coaches who tell their players everything to do will get results over the ones sitting back and letting them play and as results are tracked this causes the discontent with parents.  If all coaches sat back and said nothing in games, only before, half time and end then you will really start to see which ones are good trainers as the players will show what they are taught in practice without constantly being told what to do


Agree it would require changing the climate, but I think getting people to abandon the competitive model would be difficult.  The U.S. soccer recommendations to reduce competitiveness at the younger ages have been widely ignored (they made them recommendations instead of mandates, and they were treated as such). The pendulum has also culturally swung hard from the Millenial everyone-gets-a-trophy days to the hypercompetitive iGeneration .  I've made the point before: U.S. Soccer takes all these initiatives and wants to try and emphasize development over winning, we criticize the parents for following "winning coaches", but then we build a system where winning seems to be very important (whether for rankings, ascension, tournaments, or medals), then we act all surprised the parents are chasing the teams that kickball and win.   I would see too much of a blowback: "that's what pickup is for" or "go back to AYSO".


----------



## Keepermom2 (Oct 4, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> The problem is that goalkeepers are an afterthought for US Soccer.  As I wrote, there was nothing in the E License for the goalkeeper and very little in the D.  The instructor didn't even bother to hand out a goalkeeper assignment and I brought my gloves for nothing to the exam and got reprimanded for giving the keeper instruction during a crossing exercise (so since there were no keeper exercises, and I'm not supposed to coach the keeper during other exercises, that means the keeper gets no training from the coach?)  And to get your keeper license, you have to get at least a B level on your field licenses.
> 
> Even if they wanted to, though, it would be tough since there isn't an agreement internationally of what keepers should be doing.  It's an oversimplication but there are 3 basic styles of keeping...the tall keeper (where the keeper basically hangs back and uses extension almost like a basketball player, but doesn't catch....he punches...it's the most common European model), the fast keeper (where the keeper charges a lot and plays out of the box like Manuel Neuer) and the big keeper (which basically is used like a fusball keeper, and best associated with the old English style).   Thankfully some consensus is coming together now and Neuer's play more than anyone has contributed to showing what keepers can do, but there's always going to be some variance so it's important that keeper trainers keep up to date with all the latest techniques so they are able to apply what works for a particular keeper.  The US philosophy has been, to some extent, that it doesn't need to figure this out because lots of kids grow up playing sports with hands (baseball/basketball/football) so it's easy to get keepers who convert from other sports...some have even speculated that it might lead to a new keeper format (an American one) with an emphasis on catching....but to get there we need to do a better job on training.


Thanks for the info!!!!  Very helpful for understanding!


----------



## Grace T. (Oct 4, 2017)

Keepermom2 said:


> Thanks for the info!!!!  Very helpful for understanding!


You can see a lot of the styles at work BTW, with the LA Galaxy Keepers.  Diop was raised in the European tall keeper school...punches or slaps it rarely catches it which sometimes leads to some ugly rebounds...either the Galaxy have asked him to try or he's just done it himself to try and play the fast keeper Neuer style...it's led to some mistimed runs however and empty goals when he is way out of the box...he's not suited for that style of play.  Rowe is the quintessential American keeper...catches it a lot more, and uses his feet to block (which is more rarely done in Europe), doesn't go too far out.  Kempin tries to play like Neuer style (like most younger keepers these days), but is also heavily influenced by the American...he's young still and probably playing conservatively given where the Galaxy are, but he's the closest thing they have to the fast keeper, IMO.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Oct 5, 2017)

Grace T. said:


> You can see a lot of the styles at work BTW, with the LA Galaxy Keepers.  Diop was raised in the European tall keeper school...punches or slaps it rarely catches it which sometimes leads to some ugly rebounds...either the Galaxy have asked him to try or he's just done it himself to try and play the fast keeper Neuer style...it's led to some mistimed runs however and empty goals when he is way out of the box...he's not suited for that style of play.  Rowe is the quintessential American keeper...catches it a lot more, and uses his feet to block (which is more rarely done in Europe), doesn't go too far out.  Kempin tries to play like Neuer style (like most younger keepers these days), but is also heavily influenced by the American...he's young still and probably playing conservatively given where the Galaxy are, but he's the closest thing they have to the fast keeper, IMO.


Very interesting.  I am so clueless about style that I have been focused on logic based upon what the trainers that I trust have taught her rather than a style.  My daughter is probably closer to the Neuer style which I think is more predominate in US women's soccer but I of course don't know.  My daughter is thin with really long legs and is quite frankly crazy so you would probably see her tongue rolled under while running with determination to get the ball at the opposing players feet.  She thinks it is fun to slide at people's feet and always has thought it was fun.  She used to yell while doing it because she is a nut job! LOL  At one point I had to ask the trainer to teach her to do it correctly because I was so worried about her beautiful face and he dubbed the technique "The pretty face technique".  LOL  Thanks for all of the info!


----------

