Heading U7 - 11 rule changes

[Pembroke]

i reffed a small kiddies game yesterday.

Player headed it and ball went into his goal 2 seconds later.

free kick or play advantage?

Their very young. Do you want to be introducing complexity to children so young? Heading it might be a indirect free kick, or it might not!

As a ref I would give an indirect free kick. As a coach of a kids team in an age group that is affected by this rule, I would expect one because it is there to prevent kids heading the ball, the action of heading is to be prevented by the rule - No heading indirect free kick.

 

[JamesL]

Their very young. Do you want to be introducing complexity to children so young? Heading it might be a indirect free kick, or it might not!

As a ref I would give an indirect free kick. As a coach of a kids team in an age group that is affected by this rule, I would expect one because it is there to prevent kids heading the ball, the action of heading is to be prevented by the rule - No heading indirect free kick.

I see. So you never play advantage because it is a complexity?

Tripping your opponent might be a free kick, it might not. Pushing your opponent might be a free kick, it might not.

So when do we learn about advantage and playing on when there is a benefit to the non offending team.

Does ensuring its always an idfk not then encourage heading the ball knowing that if it ends up in the goal, you get away with one?

 

[Pembroke]

I see. So you never play advantage because it is a complexity?

Tripping your opponent might be a free kick, it might not. Pushing your opponent might be a free kick, it might not.

So when do we learn about advantage and playing on when there is a benefit to the non offending team.

Does ensuring its always an idfk not then encourage heading the ball knowing that if it ends up in the goal, you get away with one?

This effects six, seven and eight year olds.

The specific ruling is to prevent deliberate heading at specific ages U7 -9 at this point next season. There will be no heading of a ball because of risk. Heading the ball is an offence = Indirect free kick.

Six, seven, eight year olds and advantage? Best of luck there. Keep the game simple.

 

[JamesL]

Yes, but taking a goal away from a team is as much a complexity as allowing the goal...

Take your point about advantage in that age group in general but ultimately the question was asked about whether the game should be stopped or goal allowed.

Unless there is a specific provision that says advantage can't/shouldn't be applied the answer is a clear yes. Otherwise, it would only serve to encourage heading to prevent goals being scored.

 

[Pembroke]

Yes, but taking a goal away from a team is as much a complexity as allowing the goal...

Take your point about advantage in that age group in general but ultimately the question was asked about whether the game should be stopped or goal allowed.

Unless there is a specific provision that says advantage can't/shouldn't be applied the answer is a clear yes. Otherwise, it would only serve to encourage heading to prevent goals being scored.

As a coach of kids in the age group effected FA guidelines mean my coaching session must contain no heading at all now. Heading is a risk. Heading has become a safeguarding issue in my coaching.

Heading in my sessions = Not accepted = Risk. Heading in our games from September = Not allowed = Risk.

As a ref. Heading = Risk.

Heading in your games = Allowed, sometimes = No risk?

In regards to you last point, on a cognitive level it would be rare to find a six, seven year year old who would think like that. They the kids generally don't go the full John Terry, or Tony Adams v shots on goal.

 

[socal lurker]

IMHO, at young ages, advantage (for any offense) really means the ball is in the net. (In the US, advantage is explicitly not permitted for the safety violation of deliberately heading the ball.)

 

[RefereeX]

As a coach of kids in the age group effected FA guidelines mean my coaching session must contain no heading at all now. Heading is a risk. Heading has become a safeguarding issue in my coaching.

Heading in my sessions = Not accepted = Risk. Heading in our games from September = Not allowed = Risk.

As a ref. Heading = Risk.

Heading in your games = Allowed, sometimes = No risk?

In regards to you last point, on a cognitive level it would be rare to find a six, seven year year old who would think like that. They the kids generally don't go the full John Terry, or Tony Adams v shots on goal.

As a reminder, the scenario in question involves the ball pretty much immediately going in the goal that the team who headed it are defending. Why on earth would you deny a team that have done nothing wrong a goal, because someone on the other team headed it? As James said, you'd be encouraging kids to head the ball in that scenario as it stops them conceeding.
You might not have young kids that would think like that, but I guarantee you there are coaches out there who do...

 

[Pembroke]

As a reminder, the scenario in question involves the ball pretty much immediately going in the goal that the team who headed it are defending. Why on earth would you deny a team that have done nothing wrong a goal, because someone on the other team headed it? As James said, you'd be encouraging kids to head the ball in that scenario as it stops them conceding.

So, as a reminder this is being put in place by the FA for age groups U7 - U9 (non competitive football) , and this is being put in place because of the risk to children. Heading should also not be part of training.

Would you ignore the rules and the FA?

 

[RefereeX]

So, as a reminder this is being put in place by the FA for age groups U7 - U9 (non competitive football) , and this is being put in place because of the risk to children. Heading should also not be part of training.

Would you ignore the rules and the FA?

Utterly ridiculous assertion. If we play advantage from from an act of serious foul play because the ball is about to hit the back of the net are we ignoring the rules and the FA? This is no different. The header is an offence, but we are entitled to play advantage (unless someone can show me UK guidance to suggest otherwise...)
We're talking about an event that has happened. What is the benefit to anybody of disallowing a goal to come back for an indirect free kick when it is the defending team that offended? We're not preventing anything by not playing advantage in a situation where we end up denying a team that haven't offended a goal.

Should we play advantage in the middle of the park when a player heads it? No. What about if it looked like a promising break might be on? Probably still no. But when we're talking about a ball about to hit the back of the net, much like serious foul play, you'd be upsetting a whole lot of people by pulling it back...

 

[Pembroke]

Utterly ridiculous assertion.

No it was not ridiculous. It was factual. The FA have introduced a new ruling, and do have guidelines for training in place for no heading in specific age groups. Heading is a risk. Heading in age groups U7 - 9 will be an offence.

. If we play advantage from from an act of serious foul play because the ball is about to hit the back of the net are we ignoring the rules and the FA? This is no different. The header is an offence, but we are entitled to play advantage (unless someone can show me UK guidance to suggest otherwise...)
We're talking about an event that has happened. What is the benefit to anybody of disallowing a goal to come back for an indirect free kick when it is the defending team that offended? We're not preventing anything by playing advantage in a situation where we end up denying a team that haven't offended a goal.

Should we play advantage in the middle of the park when a player heads it? No. What about if it looked like a promising break might be on? Probably still no. But when we're talking about a ball about to hit the back of the net, much like serious foul play, you'd be upsetting a whole lot of people by pulling it back...

So, you will be ignoring the FA rules, and guidelines. I will not as a ref and as a responsible coach.

There is an obvious issue with the new ruling. Whats happens when teams go back to front constantly, Keepers going long and high straight into the opposing box?

Do we here as refs remind the coaches of what the FA expects, and what the game in the foundation non competitive phase should be?

 

[Pembroke]

IMHO, at young ages, advantage (for any offense) really means the ball is in the net. (In the US, advantage is explicitly not permitted for the safety violation of deliberately heading the ball.)

Yes, utterly logical. There should be no ambiguity, this is an issue of safety, there is no grey area, it is safety that is the paramount concern.

 

[RefereeX]

No it was not ridiculous. It was factual. The FA have introduced a new ruling, and do have guidelines for training in place for no heading in specific age groups. Heading is a risk. Heading in age groups U7 - 9 will be an offence.

So, you will be ignoring the FA rules, and guidelines. I will not as a ref and as a responsible coach.

There is an obvious issue with the new ruling. Whats happens when teams go back to front constantly, Keepers going long and high straight into the opposing box?

Do we here as refs remind the coaches of what the FA expects, and what the game in the foundation non competitive phase should be?

No, it was a ridiculous assertion that playing advantage as a ball is about to hit the net would constitute 'ignoring FA rules and guidelines'. It's absolutely not factual, unless you can provide me with evidence of the FA issuing guidelines that in no circumstances should advantage be played on this offence?

I also can assure you that I will not be 'ignoring FA rules and guidelines' regardless as I don't referee those age groups.

You're still yet to justify the fact that by pulling a goal back and awarding an indirect free kick to a team that haven't offended you create an incentive to head the ball, not a deterrent?

The referee may play advantage whenever an offence occurs but should consider the following in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

• the severity of the offence – if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal
• the position where the offence was committed – the closer to the opponent’s goal, the more effective the advantage can be
• the chances of an immediate, promising attack
• the atmosphere of the match

As above, heading the ball is an offence. We may play advantage whenever an offence occurs. If it's a severe offence (which I'll accept it could be considered to be given that it's a safety directive) we can still play advantage if there is a clear opportunity to score a goal.

 

[Pembroke]

No, it was a ridiculous assertion that playing advantage as a ball is about to hit the net would constitute 'ignoring FA rules and guidelines'.

Yes the assertion is heading a ball in the U7 - U9 age group next season is an offence. In any of my games I will not ignore that rule based upon safety. I will not ignore FA guidance in my training as a coach.

It's absolutely not factual, unless you can provide me with evidence of the FA issuing guidelines that in no circumstances should advantage be played on this offence?

You might want to reflect on this. Where is your guidance that supports ignoring a rule that is based upon a risk to six, seven and eight year old children?

You're still yet to justify the fact that by pulling a goal back and awarding an indirect free kick to a team that haven't offended you create an incentive to head the ball, not a deterrent?

Safety. The safety of children. Primary school aged children. There is the justification. It is the why the no heading rule was created.

 

[RefereeX]

Yes the assertion is heading a ball in the U7 - U9 age group next season is an offence. In any of my games I will not ignore that rule based upon safety. I will not ignore FA guidance in my training as a coach.


You might want to reflect on this. Where is your guidance that supports ignoring a rule that is based upon a risk to six, seven and eight year old children?


Safety. The safety of children. Primary school aged children. There is the justification. It is the why the no heading rule was created.

But the header has already happened. No safety risk is created by allowing the goal. There is also no incentive to make additional headers happen by allowing the goal, so 'safety of the children' is not a reason not to allow the goal. It's just bizarre logic.

My guidance that supports playing advantage after any offence is what you replied to, a quote from IFAB's additional guidance, but you conveniently ignored it.

It's quite clear you're not going to change your stance on this, and we're going round in circles, but you've still not provided a valid reason to not allow the goal. Disallowing the goal does not negate any risk whatsoever and allowing it doesn't create any incentive for further headers to take place.

 

[Pembroke]

But the header has already happened. No safety risk is created by allowing the goal. There is also no incentive to make additional headers happen by allowing the goal, so 'safety of the children' is not a reason not to allow the goal. It's just bizarre logic.

My guidance that supports playing advantage after any offence is what you replied to, a quote from IFAB's additional guidance, but you conveniently ignored it.

It's quite clear you're not going to change your stance on this, and we're going round in circles, but you've still not provided a valid reason to not allow the goal. Disallowing the goal does not negate any risk whatsoever, neither does it create any incentive for further headers to take place.

The guidance from IFAB. It is not for a rule change for England and U7 -U9 football that will be implemented in my region in September.

Yes, I am going in circles because you are ignoring the issue of child safety. You are missing consistently the child there. These are not adults. This will apply to very early children's ages of football. A valid reason was provided. The safety of the kids takes primacy. Refs, coaches have safeguarding duty. The game is now (soon) a non heading game in these age groups.

I note you did not the obvious questions regarding keepers going long and high into the opponents box? Any issues there? What should refs do? Remind coaches what the FA expects? Leave the game as it looks?

 

[RefereeX]

The guidance from IFAB. It is not for a rule change for England and U7 -U9 football that will be implemented in my region in September.

Yes, I am going in circles because you are ignoring the issue of child safety. You are missing consistently the child there. These are not adults. This will apply to very early children's ages of football. A valid reason was provided. The safety of the kids takes primacy. Refs, coaches have safeguarding duty. The game is now (soon) a non heading game in these age groups.

I note you did not the obvious questions regarding keepers going long and high into the opponents box? Any issues there? What should refs do? Remind coaches what the FA expects? Leave the game as it looks?

You're just totally ignoring the fact that there is no safety risk. You can quote safety as much as you like. The safety risk has already occurred, playing advantage creates zero additional safety risk. Explain to me how you think it would do?

I didn't answer the other question because I don't have the experience to do so and it's totally irrelevant to the matter I'm actually debating with you.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

To save another two pages of ping pong, I have asked IFAB for an answer

 

[Kent Ref]

We were told all FK's are direct so a penalty would have been awarded if i didn't play advantage (it was in the area he headed it).

It was a defender who headed it.

I was also told a header that stops a goal is a red card. That's harsh.

 

[Ross]

Heading is punishable by an indirect free kick outside the area if it happens inside

 

[Kent Ref]

Heading is punishable by an indirect free kick outside the area if it happens inside
View attachment 7429

Contrary to the county training session i attended.

I will e-mail the RDO to let them know.