|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 15, 2016 8:05:19 GMT -5
So saw this first hand --
Head ball in the box, kid really had no choice and his reflexes acted to head a cross out of the box. Otherwise, would have had to duck.
Resulted in an indirect kick on the 6. Talk about more dangerous than any head ball I've ever seen in my life. a 9/10 year old lined up for an indirect kick on the 6, and the entire team stood facing the ball on the goal line. Luckily a kid didn't take the shot to the face, but it was very dangerous. A line drive shot to the face or an intentional header, I'd take the intentional header any day of the week.
Not sure whose decision it is on the penalty for a header, but all headers in the box by the defense should result in an indirect kick outside the box or at least a minimum of 10 to 15 yards away from the goal.
Taking headers away has been tough, takes the natural reactions away from the kids. Now there are these awkward 50-50 ball, and kids go in with more high kicks and flailing around because they are trying to avoid using their head.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Aug 15, 2016 9:31:16 GMT -5
Yeah the yahoo who thought all headers for u11 and down resulted in a indirect kick really wasn't thinking player safety at all. But then again it's the same thing for say a keeper picking up a pass.
And luckily they did make it kind of easy for the teenage kids that'll be ref'ing most academy or Rec games by saying all headers are banned so treat them like a hand ball.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Aug 15, 2016 22:26:00 GMT -5
I watched a u11 game a couple weeks ago and saw a number of dangerous plays (high kicks), cause kids werent allowed to head so they put their foot high to win or try to control the ball. Very stupid rule.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 16, 2016 9:01:50 GMT -5
The switch to 9v9 on the same size fields doesn't help either, middle of the fields are very congested.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Aug 16, 2016 9:17:30 GMT -5
The switch to 9v9 on the same size fields doesn't help either, middle of the fields are very congested. Agree. Another bad change. 8v8 was perfect for U11/U12. USSF calls for small-sided mandate but actually increases the # of players on the field. 7v7 for U9/U10 is even worse (6v6 was plenty for those ages). Only semi-positive thing these changes will do is even out the games a bit. Extra player will keep the games a little lower scoring.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Aug 16, 2016 11:03:13 GMT -5
The switch to 9v9 on the same size fields doesn't help either, middle of the fields are very congested. actually the 9v9 and 7v7 fields got smaller, though theres no one going to come out and measure fields from US Soccer and GA Soccer. Same with the goals getting 1/2 a foot larger. You dont see clubs going out and ordering these special Kwikgoal made only goals. As someone whos coached up north and out west where theyve been playing 9v9 and 7v7 for over a decade is does make the transition to 11v11 a lot easier. Though I still go back to with all these changes why we didnt get rid of 11v11 before U15. If 9v9 was good enough for Messi until he was 15 then why isnt it for all Americans...
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 16, 2016 11:06:12 GMT -5
I have no problem with 9v9 and 7v7, its just squeezing extra bodies on tiny fields, that I disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by alacrity174 on Aug 31, 2016 14:34:53 GMT -5
Now that we have had a few tournaments how are we finding this No Heading rule? Is it being enforced universally and are players managing to play without heading?
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Aug 31, 2016 15:47:59 GMT -5
Now that we have had a few tournaments how are we finding this No Heading rule? Is it being enforced universally and are players managing to play without heading? We were at rysa boys and even there DOC was unaware of the new rule. Had a game were the other u11 team had 3 clearing headers in the box with no calls.
|
|