Deliberately heading the ball

Our local indoor facility implemented a similar rule on incidental head/ball contact, except even deliberate heading was to be a dropped ball. I did four U10 games this weekend, and it sucked.

The games got interrupted pretty regularly for balls incidentally hitting a head or face, most of the time with little force and little affect. The harder ones, I probably would have stopped the game anyway to check on the kids. The stoppage for the rest was needless and really messed with the flow of the game.

As folks mention, the dropped ball restart is really problematic. Not only is it really difficult to "restore" the game to anything fair at all, in some cases it's downright disadvantageous to one team. I deliberately "didn't see" a few times where a ball popped up and incidentally grazed a head in the midst of a scramble in the goal area.

And then there was the time where the ball brushed by a red player's head, he came over to be there for the dropped ball... and on the drop, the ball got kicked straight up and into his face. Dropped ball again! We would have been better off letting play just continue in the first place.

Justification from the facility owner? With all this stuff happening and different standards being applied, we want a rule in place so there's no question that nobody can sue us.

 

I am currently at a fairly good small sided tournament. Halfway thru my day and we bounce from u11 to u12. Readjusting is weird.

I had to call back a goal off a corner that was perfectly headed. Another player got beat on a ball over the top and just headed away to stop a breakaway. He absolutely knew what he was doing. I don't know if i am supposed to, but I did play advantage off another where a header by a defender landed right at feet of attacker.

And if you think parents don't recognize handling, they already have "figured out" that if you don't leave your feet to head

 

As promised, here's the guidance in PA-West, hot off the press. I'm glad to see a clear answer on DOGSO, even if the rationale for the answer invites some further consideration:


BELOW ARE SOME CHANGES FOR THIS SPRING SEASON,


PAWest Youth Soccer is requiring immediately, this new rules as it relates to heading, as follows:

• Players in U-11 programs and younger shall not engage in heading, either in practices or in games.
• Referees should enforce these restrictions by age group according to the specified rules. Referees will not be assessing the age of individual players on the field; they will enforce the rules for the age group.

Punishment for deliberately heading in an U11 or younger game:

When a player deliberately heads the ball in a game, an indirect free kick should be awarded to the opposing team from the spot of the offense. If the deliberate header occurs in the goal area, the indirect free kick should be taken on the goal area line at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred. If a player does not deliberately head the ball, then play should continue.


So there is no confusion, if a goal is scored by a player deliberately heading the ball into the goal, the correct decision by the referee is to, disallow the goal and restart with indirect free kick from point of header. There is no card to be given for this incident.


If there is an intentional header that prevents the ball from a goal scoring opportunity, the restart is an IFK. To be clear, Law 12 states that in order for it to be denying a goal scoring opportunity, it must be against an opponent. In this case, no opponent is involved and considered a technical offense and therefore an IFK.

 

It is essentially the same analysis that gets to the rationale that hanging from the crossbar to kick the ball away cannot be DOGSO, which seems to be FIFA's position. DOGSO-F not only requires the offense to be against an opponent* (which the header was not), but consideration of the 4Ds**-- which very rarely could be satisfied by a header.

_____
* Yes, I know that USSF, at one point, considered that DOGSO-F could also incorporate handling in the right circumstance (but I never bought the reasoning).
** And, yes, I also know IFAB doesn't call them the 4Ds, but they are the same criteria and its just easier to say . . .

 

With elite teams, the lack of heading is really weird. Especially on corners. I'm not liking it at all.

Do we all think the horse is out of the stable on this and it's going to be permanent?

Another consequence, much more raised boots at head high as the players try to sort it out.

 

I mean if the idea is to prevent head-knocks for kids under 11, maybe the ball should not be allowed to go above head height. Foot skills, and all that.

A modest proposal.

 

So what happens when you have a really small kid on the field?

It's amazing our ancestors ever survived without all these safety rules...

Google put a helmet on. Watch it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Outdoor season starts in 5 days. Local league has yet to come out with definitive rules regarding heading/no heading for combined U-11/U-12 division.

 

I had an interesting one Saturday. U9 friendly. Away coach wanted me to call deliberate heading, but the home coach did not. I told them the state is not enforcing it until later this year, and I was not going to call a rule one way for one team and differently for the other. The away team never headed the ball anyway.

I have a tournament Saturday where they are enforcing the rule on U10 and below.

 

So, just to confuse matters even more, here's what one league has put out to its teams and referees:

If the ball is headed out over the touchline, it's a throw in to the other team. Over the end line, goal kick or corner kick depending on who did the heading!! Heading now has to be deliberate! (Just what I wanted to hear!) and the no DOGSO rule applies. And apparently you can now play advantage off the defensive header!!

I hate this.

 

Soooo, safety first. *cough* Unless it is more advantageous to the attacking team *cough*

 

AYSO spring non-competitive division. The region supplies the center (me) and the 2 teams supply an AR. The ARs are mostly first time parents who just took the class. My son also just took the referee class and they didn't mention anything about this rule. I figure something coming in our fall season.

I guess one of the ARs heard about this new rule.

U10G game with black vs white. Black throws in and white heads it. AR raises flag, so I blow whistle and (figuring the thrower brought her foot up) announce the throw ins going the other way. AR exclaims, "She headed the ball, you can't do that, direct kick!" Taken aback (along with the coach), I converse with my AR and he's adamant about his call. Luckily, there's a Region Official from the board on the field (who's also a referee). I ask him and he mentions the rule's going into place in the fall.

I announce the "heading" rule will come in the fall and we restart with a drop kick.

This will be a bit interesting how this will play out.

 

They would rather play rugby anyway

 

I don't know. I saw it last night for the first time. My son was CR for a local 'A' level U-10 game. He met with both coaches and all agreed on how the rules will be enforced (it was only last Friday that the teams and refs got the 'official' rule change).

Very well played game. Only two headers the entire game (son was right on top of it, called both immediately - I missed the first one completely). Really had zero effect on the match, even on corner kicks.

More interesting to me is the whole no punting by the GK and the use of the retreat line. It was discussed before the match. It was agreed that the coaches would request the retreat. As it turned out neither team did it. The GK's were quick and decisive in distributing the ball with throws or rolls. Actually made for a better match. As both these teams were very comfortable dribbling, it was easy decisions. I can see it being used in lower level matches.

 

NPR story on heading and study showing possible gender differences:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-be-riskier-for-women-soccer-players-than-men

 

Thanks for article. It prompted me to read thru some of this thread which came out before I found bigsoccer.

Our state prohibits heading for 11U and under. And our district, being out in the boonies where most 11s play 12U does not allow it for 12U either.

Now that this rule has been in effect for a few years, I am seeing a marked decline in the ability of older players to head the ball. And an increase in high feet. Kids are not conditioned to use their head and they don't, even when it becomes legal.

I know it would be very hard to write the rule, but I wish that light touch heading would be allowed, and the prohibition would be on high balls. I've seen plays where a little head flick is just the right play and it either gets called as a foul, or just does not happen and sloppier play ensues. sigh........

 

Has this been posted already? Is this the right thread for it? (It fell conveniently to hand.)

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-be-riskier-for-women-soccer-players-than-men

 

Anyone know where I can find that article that just came out that’s claims that heading may be riskier for women? Asking for a friend....

 

Hold on - I've got it here somewhere.

 

And I think Martinez should have been booked for PIADM on his goal in the All Star match last night.

 

Here

And here

I looked around and found it somewhere else.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-be-riskier-for-women-soccer-players-than-men