7v7 was a joke at SURF CUP

I've seen this issue at a few tournaments since May, most recently at Slammers where the U10 (G2007) fields were set at the standards minimum. The length of the 7v7 field was the same as the width of 9v9 field right next to it, and yeah there were a couple GK punt bounce goals. The field didn't even have a goal box painted in, just a small box the width of the goal and maybe 4 feet out, too small to be useful for anything, and refs allowed the goalies to pick the ball up pretty much anywhere. It's weird when a 9 year old can throw in to the back post. The issue is amplified when a team is significantly better than another, where 5-0 or 6-0 games on larger fields turn into 12-0 and 15-0 games.

The biggest issue though has been inconsistency with the rules. GK punts/no punts, offsides/no offsides, full defense drop backs behind the mid line on goal kicks or not. I've seen it all over the place and somewhere in between. I know this is new and everyone is trying to adapt, but the kids need some consistency here.
 
GunninGopher said:
Did you measure them to see if the met any particular standard? I think the message thread title (another person I know) is a bit provocative if Surf Cup met the USYSA standards.

47x30 yards is the max size for the 7v7 game in USYSA standards. The FA has it at 60x40 yards (FIFA is similar). That is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

The CAL SOUTH chart I have says 47x30 minimum to 70x50 maximum for 7v7 games. 47x30 is really small (witnessed personally at Slammers last month) so it sounds likely that this was the field size for the Surf Cup U10 games.
 
JayWill said:
The issue is amplified when a team is significantly better than another, where 5-0 or 6-0 games on larger fields turn into 12-0 and 15-0 games.
Click to expand...

From what I saw this past weekend and how today's semi results played out, I would actually say it is the great equalizer, as lesser teams can play the punt, goal kick and kickoff game with their strongest footed kid.
 
watfly said:
From what I saw this past weekend and how today's semi results played out, I would actually say it is the great equalizer, as lesser teams can play the punt, goal kick and kickoff game with their strongest footed kid.
Click to expand...

Hmm yeah maybe so, if they play that game I guess. I know it's mostly the big clubs and big tourneys that are generally talked about around here, but not all U10 girls teams have even one big foot though. There was a team in my kid's bracket in a recent tourney that had a -40 GD over 4 games on a small field. I felt bad for them but it seemed they held their heads high and made the best of it.
 
JayWill said:
The CAL SOUTH chart I have says 47x30 minimum to 70x50 maximum for 7v7 games. 47x30 is really small (witnessed personally at Slammers last month) so it sounds likely that this was the field size for the Surf Cup U10 games.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out.

The message I posted (3 or 4 above) has an attached document (Standards Chart SSG.pdf) which is currently available on the USYS website. It clearly says that 47x30 is the maximum field size. The document that you are probably referring to is currently available on the Cal South website (USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf attached below) which lists that as a minimum. Some ambiguity there, but I suspect that the USYS document has a typo and it should read "Minimum Field Size" for 47x30. The document available on Cal South says "Revised 11/23/15: 7v7 field range corrected to reflect accurate field dimensions" at the bottom, so would appear they caught and corrected the mistake, but USYS still hasn't updated the document on their site.

Nobody that is complaining about Surf Cup 7v7 field sizes has yet posted what they actually were. In situations where I've felt that a field was sub-standard, I've paced the lines to determine the approximate distances. Hopefully someone that is complaining about the field size felt strongly enough to actually validate their opinions.

I'd say that if the fields in question were near the Cal-South minimum, they have a valid complaint. This tournament advertises itself and is perceived to be a high standard competition. Using the minimum standard field, if that is actually the case, is not in keeping with that ideal.
 

Attachments

  • USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf
    182.2 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
GunninGopher said:
Thanks for pointing that out.

The message I posted (3 or 4 above) has an attached document (Standards Chart SSG.pdf) which is currently available on the USYS website. It clearly says that 47x30 is the maximum field size. The document that you are probably referring to is currently available on the Cal South website (USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf attached below) which lists that as a minimum. Some ambiguity there, but I suspect that the USYS document has a typo and it should read "Minimum Field Size" for 47x30. The document available on Cal South says "Revised 11/23/15: 7v7 field range corrected to reflect accurate field dimensions" at the bottom, so would appear they caught and corrected the mistake, but USYS still hasn't updated the document on their site.

Nobody that is complaining about Surf Cup 7v7 field sizes has yet posted what they actually were. In situations where I've felt that a field was sub-standard, I've paced the lines to determine the approximate distances. Hopefully someone that is complaining about the field size felt strongly enough to actually validate their opinions.

I'd say that if the fields in question were near the Cal-South minimum, they have a valid complaint. This tournament advertises itself and is perceived to be a high standard competition. Using the minimum standard field, if that is actually the case, is not in keeping with that ideal.
Click to expand...
 
I was coaching this weekend, it was hard to stomach. I am not sure what the idea is behind the small field size, but it took away from the game. In the BU10, two teams from out of town that are not near some of our local teams will win due to the size of the fields. There are some on here that think the point is to put the ball in the net, but is that really the reasoning behind these changes? You can't have it both ways. The problem is, punting and goal kicks were allowed and it completely destroyed the game. Crossfire was the most to benefit from it, they score 95% of their goals off of goal kicks. With no offsides on a goal kick, the coach would stick his kids right in front of my keeper and if he didn't upper v it from the goal kick, they would deflect it, own goal, etc. I am sorry, this could not be the intention behind these moves. The premise is ok, but it doesn't work unless rules are in place to keep this from happening. It was not soccer in any way, great teams like TFA are penalized for being the one team trying to play. If you look at the finals, it was the two teams best at hitting it from way out. Is that going to make our kids better?
 
GunninGopher said:
Nobody that is complaining about Surf Cup 7v7 field sizes has yet posted what they actually were. In situations where I've felt that a field was sub-standard, I've paced the lines to determine the approximate distances. Hopefully someone that is complaining about the field size felt strongly enough to actually validate their opinions.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring my measuring wheel to the game but they could have been 47 yards although they seemed shorter. No way they were over 47 yards, the fields were tiny. Regardless, there was no need to measure the fields as what we actually saw played out on the fields is plenty of evidence to validate the opinions. Some, but not all, of it could have been mitigated if Surf had implemented the rules associated with the small fields like no punting and buildout lines. Kick offs and goal kicks on 7v7 fields still need to be addressed by US Soccer if they are going to stick to this concept although I feel the overall concept is structurally flawed.

I'm sure it looked good on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters; however, for the coaches and kids whose priority is winning, US Soccer just made it much easier for them to play kickball.
 
The goal of the small sided initiatives as I understand it is to make fast on the ground connections in small spaces and execute accurately. The goal of Surf Cup is to win a trophy. Maybe confronting the issue of why those might appear to be incompatible is something we collectively as a soccer culture have to go through. A bit ago my kid played on one of these academy type teams where the scrimmages were split the field in half, narrow it up, keep the ball on the ground and play fast. For the goalies no punts, no goal kicks, be the defender that sets the line. Futsol? Yeah, pretty much-bit more width to play with. But about the most exciting youth soccer you could hope to see. Reading this thread and thinking how much I enjoyed watching that.
 
watfly said:
I didn't bring my measuring wheel to the game but they could have been 47 yards although they seemed shorter.
Click to expand...
You can always pace it out by walking at an even pace. You know that the regulation penalty area is 44yards (18+8+18). Count the steps that you take to walk the penalty area along the goal line. Divide the 44 yards by that number of steps, and that is your yards per step (bring it to 2 decimal places). It will probably be around 50. Then multiply the number of steps you seek to measure by that factor and you will get the approximate yardage.

watfly said:
I'm sure it looked good on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters; however, for the coaches and kids whose priority is winning, US Soccer just made it much easier for them to play kickball.
Click to expand...

USYS field dimension conform the FIFA and FA guidelines, so they stand in good company. If the tournament chose utilize the lower standard which was likely intended for lower level play, it sounds to me like your beef is with Surf Cup.
 
Surf Cup field size was 47x30. And this hasn't been mentioned yet but the refs gave a full 10 yards on every free kick on that size field.
 
Did teams really pay $950 to play a game of punt and sprint?
Teams might have been working for a few weeks on improving their short passing game and getting out of tight spaces. They should have been working on trapping or volleying balls out of the air as they come from 37 yards away towards your goal.
Has anyone seen yet what the various fields for this age group will look like this Fall? Will there be big discrepancies from field to field with the minimum and maximum dimensions?
I tried looking at the SCDSL and Cal South Websites, but I couldn't find what format of play and field sizes the 06-08 teams are playing this year. Are they 7v7 on small fields and will build out lines be used? Have teams started to practice with this in mind?
 
GunninGopher said:
The message I posted (3 or 4 above) has an attached document (Standards Chart SSG.pdf) which is currently available on the USYS website. It clearly says that 47x30 is the maximum field size. The document that you are probably referring to is currently available on the Cal South website (USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf attached below) which lists that as a minimum
Click to expand...
I still can only find Cal South charts that have the 05s playing 11 v 11 on the smaller range fields (75x47 to 90x60). Where is the new chart that you posted found? Thanks.
 
timbuck said:
Has anyone seen yet what the various fields for this age group will look like this Fall? Will there be big discrepancies from field to field with the minimum and maximum dimensions?
I tried looking at the SCDSL and Cal South Websites, but I couldn't find what format of play and field sizes the 06-08 teams are playing this year. Are they 7v7 on small fields and will build out lines be used? Have teams started to practice with this in mind?
Click to expand...

Well, my U10 (2007) DD has participated in 5 tournaments since May and the rules and field sizes have been all over the place. Only her first tournament played no punts and a build out line, but midfield was used as the build out line rather than a 14 yard line which I believe is intended. Since then there's been almost zero consistency. I guess it's at the discretion of the tournament directors and how the refs are briefed on the game rules. Hopefully this all gets straightened out by the time the fall regular season starts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top