Deliberately heading the ball

I assume this is for the U10 and below groups, but the email was written really poorly so who knows.

 

Yea the IDFK was discussed previously but as there was no law text (and thus no limiting it to "deliberately") there mainly just was confusion about how it would work IRL.

 

Agreed, this memo sucks, but here it is:

Yet another casualty in USSF's auto-dopeslap campaign around age brackets and game specs and fundamental project management.

U10 saves a goal off the line with his head. Now instead of "attaboy" it's DOGSO.

When do we expect the guidance around the head (not) being in an unnatural position?

 

"Ball to head, not deliberate, nothing there!"

 

Our rec program has had no heading rules in U8 (and no slide tackle rules in U10) for ages. It works. But I agree it will be slightly harder to judge deliberate headers when it gets extended to older ages.

One problem we might have is that our age group is U12 - we don't have a separate U11 rec group. It might have to be extended an extra year in our case.

 

That is a great question. I assume since it results in an IDFK, it is like PIADM and not DOGSO resulting in a PK. But you know what assuming gets you.

I assume (there I go again) ball to head is nothing, head to ball blows the whistle.

 

I might be misinterpreting you but an IDFK offence in a DOGSO situation would lead to a IDFK and a sending-off, it just wouldn't turn into a PK if it took place in the PA.

 

Yes, for DOGSO-H (handling, not heading) the D's don't apply. Anyway aren't the four Ds no longer official guidnace even in the US?

EDIT: Also I can't imagine ever sending off at U11 or below for any DOGSO.

 

A ref colleague who was also a coach said that if he was unethical, he'd have taught his U8 players to bat the ball down with their hands whenever it would have been going into the goal. Because no one would send off a U8. And there's no PK's for U8, everything's an IFK. Moved out to the top of the unified goal area / penalty area line. If you're unethical, why not take advantage?

I only say this to emphasize "never say never". Rarely send off a u-little, certainly. But not never. Not when I've seen U11's that are gaming the system.

 

Went to my recert yesterday. Since these are still recommendations, we were told to wait for the ROC to see what will be decided. Season starts in 3 weeks.

 

I haven't heard anything from any of our local leagues.

 

Yep, agree with both of you.

I'm thinking more along the lines of, will there later be anything about head position similar to when a defender makes himself big and then the ball hits his outstretched arm. The meta-question being: Can a head even be in an unnatural position?

 

Good lord, just when your job isn't tough enough.

IHMO, phase in this 'rule', first with one season where the coaches work directly on avoiding heading at practice. If headed during game, have coaches (or if close enough and easily done enough, the ref) remind players not to head ball. Keep playing. Next season, phase in no heading in games, giving refs leeway to let game continue if it appears to be ball to head. No penalty for heading ball, as far as cautions, and IFK from outside box if done in penalty area. If a coach really wants to have his team head ball in area and ignore rule during game (at U-10 for goodness sakes), let ref put that in report. I can just see it now - Hey Ref, his his shoulder, not head. How is hitting cheek same as head? It just skimmed her hair.

 

[snappy answer]
[stop and think]
[refrain]
[/snappy answer]

 

Of course it can, but at that point you really should be calling an ambulance, not ponder over there has been an offence or not.

 

The 4 D's are right in the I&G, they just aren't called that . . .

The ATR did two things. It reworded the second bullet so it could use a D and have a mnemonic device, and it included language that all of them were needed, as opposed to being the factors to be considered. (I suppose it also adds the gloss about the 4Ds applying only to DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H really only being DOG-H, but that's a bit different.)

(While his doesn't differentiate between a DOG offense and a DOGSO offense, I think the reality is that all but the second bullet are essentially relevant to determining if a goal is actually scored.)

All this said, IMO, at any level in which it makes sense to make heading an offense in the current vision, in makes no sense whatsoever to make it a DOGSO-eligible offense. (Indeed, I wouldn't mind having DOGSO not apply at the younger levels, at least with the exception of a truly cynical foul.)

 

Good thing I won't have to worry about this. I don't do games below U14.

 

Diving header? One of my coach friends, and, yes, I do have friends who are coaches, told me that a 10 year old on his U-12 team has attempted a diving header. They see somebody in the EPL doing it and ......

 

I just received this email, which apparently is the decision of the AYSO National Board regarding headers:

So no DOGSO for this no matter what, at least in AYSO.

Edit: Here it is on the AYSO website: http://www.ayso.org/For_Volunteers/...s__Heading_the_Ball_s4_p3600.htm#.VsN-9XRum5N

 

Thanks for posting this. (I am hoping this is the conceptual release and that it will be more crisply written when it actually goes into a formal rule.)

 

Well, at first blush I'd say a diving header corresponds more to the active variant of deliberate handling, i.e. not the ball striking an unnaturally posed forearm. So a diving header would definitely be IDFK, a ball that hits a kid in the back of his head (i.e. he's not looking) is "nothing there!" and somewhere between is a bunch of stuff that makes my head hurt.