It looks like high school soccer in the US is getting even closer to the LOTG. http://nfhs.org/articles/eight-rules-changes-approved-in-high-school-soccer/
It has been for many years thankfully. So it looks like there's two significant rule changes for next fall. The elimination of almost all IDFKs for a team in possession of the ball when play is stopped for an injury and stopping the clock in the final 5 minutes for a winning teams sub. Sensible rule changes.
Sheesh, the IFK instead of drop ball was the one difference I liked. Allowed me to avoid potential headaches with high school aged idiots.
Stopping the clock on subs seems a solution in search of a problem, at least to me. I don't see teams that I do abusing this and the option to stop the clock was already there, along with the added bonus that you could consider it unsporting behavior. And I like the IDFK stoppage for an injury. The team in possession keeping possession always seemed fairer.
Thankfully my state has an unwritten rule that we don't stop the clock for anything except injuries if the score margin is "large enough" (about 5 goals) so the 5 minute provision won't impact those games. For closer games I think it makes a lot of sense. Most coaches in my area seem to know exactly the right number of extra subs to make at the end of a game to burn more time when winning without crossing the line into misconduct. And even if they do get warned or cautioned it's after they've already burned enough time that it's worth it to them. Stopping the clock as a rule would help stop that behavior.
It seems that some of these rule changes are bringing high school more in line with the college rules. The change about stopping the clock in the last 5 minutes if the winning team is subbing is directly from the NCAA rule book. Same thing with the drop ball restart on an injury, unless the goalkeeper has possession, then it's an IFK. Hopefully, players and coaches will understand these changes and adjust easily.
"A change to Rule 9-3 eliminates free kick opportunities by replacing an indirect free kick with a drop ball if the ball was not in the goal area and in possession of the goalkeeper during cases of temporary suspension due to injury or an unusual situation." error in article or really weird rule??
No kidding... It's HS, so we will have: Ball out for a throw in, glance at clock reading 5:02. tweet, "hold the throw", turn, beckon subs... Coach that's down 6-2, "HEY! You've gotta stop the clock!!!" as it now reads 4:58... Like you said, the option to manage it was already there; we've used it. That was the one HS rule I wouldn't have minded finding it's way into my lower USSF matches... just to have the option. Expected attention to injuries is inversely proportional to age/level of play. Too many don't know/follow the "unofficial steps" to sportingly stop & restart if that's what they're trying to accomplish. Been asked during play, "Should I kick it out?". There's always that one guy that then tries to chase down his team's sporting restart with his teammates yelling "No! No!!! Let them have it!". But, the exception for GK in possession is good to have codified since it is HS... Oh... well, oops... guess had I glossed over that little procedures difference. This assumes coaches that need to will actually read them, right? Yeah, awaiting the official posting of the 2019-20 changes... http://nfhs.org/activities-sports/soccer/
Eww. No. At the levels that stats are actually recorded and analyzed almost 30% of goals are scored off free kicks. Giving a team a free kick and thus a high probability of scoring a goal in their attacking third or forward part of the middle third just because they had possession is grossly unfair to their opponents. Can't believe it's taken this long to get rid of this stupid rule.
I remember at least three times last year where an attacking IDFK after an injury led directly to a goal.
To me this was all about managing the situation. If the offense has a chance to score and a defender goes down, I am not usually stopping for that injury unless it is serious. and in that case I don't think the defense is complaining about a IDFK in a good position. If it is the offensive player going down, It is up to their teammates to decide to stop the play for their player, in that case they would have to throw the ball out. I don't think I ever gave away a IDFK to a team in the attacking 3rd. Now if the score from a IDFK from the middle 3rd or defensive 3rd well, shame on the other team.
Can you elaborate on the "unofficial steps". I believe that I work this situation well and fairly, but I'm always up for a different way that might be better.
I think this is the crux of the situation. In the cases I've seen, the injury occurred in the attacking third by a team that didn't have a chance to score. They were mostly moving sideways or trying to find a lane to attack. If the injury was bad enough to stop, or if play reversed back to the area of the injured player, play had to be stopped. We then had to give a team in possession, but not attacking, an IFK. I've seen CRs delay the call and hope for a change in possession, or for the ball to go out of play so they could attend to the injured without giving an IFK. That shouldn't have to be a consideration.
By "steps" I just meant how players can choose to execute a sporting restart, like after a ball is kicked out so an injured opponent can get treatment... uncontested dropped ball, passed to opponent's keeper to pick up; or leaving a defender alone so they can receive the opponent's throw in. "Unofficial" as we obviously cannot force or even "instruct" them to do so; they're common gestures of sportsmanship but not defined in the rules/LOTG. In my area (not a soccer mecca), there are plenty of players somewhat aware of the concept yet literally don't know how to execute it without instruction. A teammate's "No! Let THEM have it!!!" is not rare. They simply haven't been taught or haven't learned watching televised matches. I'll offer them an example of what "they can choose to do" if they appear lost and ask. *Edit: and without interfering with coaches instructions.
Two years ago the large school state title game in my state was decided by this very play. 1-0 in the second overtime.
I learned this lesson in one of my first high-school games. I centered a not very high level JV boys game, and the only attacking play of the entire game was the IDK after injury from about 30 yards out.
Before the restart, to restarting player: "What do you intend to do with this restart?" Wait for answer. Followed loudly for the audience: "Can you tell me what the defense expects you to do right now?" Wait for answer. Restart play. Now you have the stated intent in public and drastically reduce the chances of divergent understandings. There are no accusations of coaching or forcing anyone to do anything.
I'm glad that you believe you know how to manage certain situations. Many referees do. Unfortunately, 90% of high school referees don't. Hence the need for the rule change as others have noted it quite clearly creates unfair goal scoring opportunities that didn't otherwise exist and you have multitudes of referees out there doing high school games that have never even played much less understand what game management even means. As @Ickshter pointed out, we just need to be aware of what's going on and manage accordingly. Personally, I just avoid the IFK in attacking thirds all together. Possession? Looks like you had a defender closing in fast to me, that's questionable! It's all ITOOTR. You'd never see me giving a team an IFK in their attacking third. Thankfully it looks like they are getting rid of the dumb rule for us now.
I love love love the new under 5 sub rule by boat loads. Because the HS clock IS THE clock, the under 5 rule eliminates the consternation brought about from the slow walk and sub. Although we were always able to stop the clock, we didn’t really have a basis if that was the way the subs had gone for the game.
Begin argument from the contingent that think a “roll” does not constitute a kick. (I am not one of them btw)