The "Build out" line is already a thing for ulittles so goalies not being able to punt until 11v11 isn't that big of a deal.Interesting thought experiments - but as far as I can tell some of them are so divorced from reality that it's unlikely. Goalie punt bans & 5 passes before goal may be able to be implemented, it's just unlikely to catch on. Basketball does some similar things for the youngers, for example not allowing a young team to press - sometimes throughout the game, sometimes all but the last quarter, etc. The intent is to keep a strong team from entirely preventing another team from even learning enough to get to offense - instead of being pressured to the extent that they aren't actually learning anything useful in their own backcourt.
I do squint a bit at all of the recommendations to focus on development over winning. Of course that's the end goal, the primary goal, etc. But raise your hand if you yourself kept your soccer-crazed kid on a losing team for more than a year or two. It's like there's this belief that there are all of these teams that are doing incredible development work but end up with teams with terrible records - and more enlightened parents should be choosing those instead of teams/coaches that are winning - but winning the "wrong" way. Would be great to highlight some (or any) such clubs/teams - because I'm not sure they actually exist.
Because what I have seen instead - over quite a few years of this silliness with multiple kids and various teams, leagues, and even sports, is that if a team is consistently losing the team will fail to exist in a year or two. Whether you ride it to the end as the rosters completely turn over every season, or are the first ones out the door - the end result is the same - there aren't ever going to be enough players to stick around as a cohesive unit to learn/grow/mature on a consistently losing team, perhaps unless geography/logistics means there are really zero other options.
I fully understand, and have experienced, that there are clubs/teams who aren't fully optimizing for wins at all costs - to promote development of many/all players instead - and these are probably where you'd want to end up if given various options. It's just that those same teams/clubs/coaches, are usually quite successful (even when judged small-mindedly only by wins), even without such a focus or optimization for wins.
Top teams already implement 5 passes before shooting when they're blowing out a competitor.
Only one goal per player per game would drive parents and coaches insane. But, it would also highlight the player that scored for recruiters. It would prevent the boot it up to the big fast kid teams from winning.
Teams swapping half their players before a game would dramatically make everyone playing better. Now not only are players being forced to play against players that they're not used to (which is the why we play games against other teams) they're also being forced to play with players that they're not used to. This is what's going to happen anyway (play with and against players they're not used to) if they play in college or pro might as well get players used to it when they're young.
The teams swapping half their players concept also diffuses concerns from both teams that if they play one will gain while the other potentially loses a ranking. Would drive the pay to play parents and win at all costs people nuts.