U18 Substitution/Interchange Rules

[johnydep]

It's time for discussion about the U18 Substitution/Interchange Rules for next season.

The Men's U18 league consists of many young and still developing players, I beleive that players would receive better development if the coach was allowed unlimited substitutions (as per junior rules). This would allow coaching staff to identify errors and rectify/teach player by pulling them off and explaining the issue and then re-enter them back into game.

Thoughts?

[Bomber]

I guess it's choice to use the younger players in the first place, but I figure there comes a time when you have to get used to playing 90 minutes as per normal and get used to the fact that training and pre-match talks are treated more seriously so that issues are already addressed before walking on to the park. I think interchange and/or one "time-out" be allowed but only for pre-season/trial games.

[The Kings Jesta]

I can certainly see your point.
The greatest thing the 18s league (and reserves) has going for it is that results really don't matter because they will play where the seniors play. Due to this it is the best level for development, however by 18s level it's a little too late for a lot of players if too many steps have been missed along the way.
Re: interchange, I think by this level boys also need to get used to not being able to come on and off through a game as one more year (pending age) and they will be fighting for starting 11 spots if they want to play.
I think more subs allowed would be good and a coach can choose to use on 3 players or 7. e.g. you can make 7 subs a game, if you have 2 on the bench then you can still make 7 subs but some who have some off will still be able to come back on until 7th sub has been made.
you could also name 7 on the bench and use them all if you wanted to. especially useful in the early parts of the now extended season that starts in some pretty hot weeks.

If the juniors weren't about points and was purely about development, as some people claim it is, then this wouldn't be an issue by the 18s level.

[Ibelieve]

Simple! Don't push them up to early to please parents!
And Leave kids in their proper age groups to develop if their not ready.
And relax in the EGO's

[paul merson]

I'd say copy the NYL rules and for e coaches to use all subs with meaningful game time.

[gl1968]

I'd say copy the NYL rules and for e coaches to use all subs with meaningful game time.

i agree with you paul too many players are not being given a proper go as many coaches would play theses players for 5 - 10 minutes at most so the min amount of time on the field must be implemented

[black]

Most players are selected to fill spots, (positional placings) not investments in the future, as clubs will always try to entice, select the best to the club.
IMO the topic is a little irrelevant as senior football is what is about.
Seniors - 18, ressies & first team should be hard fast and sometimes inflexible. It should reflect a tough no nonsense environment.
Quality of game will improve and interest/support will grow.
If a talented youngsters is in the mix, then the training ground is best place for them to mix it with the top players and develop, by being pushed and pushed.

Equal play time, flexible rulings with the focus on development should be applicable to juniors and supported as much as possible.
Some have suggested removing points and ladders, in certain age groups (I don't agree as I've yet to see a better measure of assessment offered) but it may work

If your club has a proactive junior development program producing notable results (to appease parents, because in juniors they are the ones that need to be convinced at the end of the day). If the players are growing towards filling available senior positions then push him up until he reaches his limits.

[johnydep]

Some valid points.

My concern is the jump from junior U16 to senior U18's. The U17 league only went ahead this year due to some clubs forcing the point with the FFSA. The FFSA eventually relented and gave us an "optional" U17 league. Next year will be another battle, and may see the end of U17 league, and possibly the U13 and U15's (all quoted as optional). On top of that we have had an unprecedented number of U18 games canceled due to bad weather and the hope of protecting pitch's for the Reserves and Senior games.

All this makes for a very unpredictable development pathway.

As for pushing players up too early; well there will always be player examples for and against. Besides, if the football governing body is pushing it, who are we to stand in the way? The league structure will be SSF, U12, U14, U16. With other age groups as optional.

For those saying 'if they haven't made it by.... they're not going to make it.' Again, there are plenty of examples to prove and disprove that theory.

Maybe I look at the U18's (and the Reserves in 2 years time) as more of a development role, rather than senior championship football. A place for qualified coaches to concentrate on developing the next senior footballers, using all the tools club and federation can give to teach and prepare for the final step into senior football.

If it's just about using those age groups to get 'used' to senior football, why not keep the same structure we had last year and year before?

I do see the benefits but I also see some doors closing, in a time when we need to keep all options open. We don't have the football culture of the great footballing nations, there are too many greater sports in this country to compete with and very little resources and support. We don't develop enough players, yet we lose too many every year.

Teaching talented young players senior football quickly, may bring out some great talent but it may also cause us to lose or miss some as well. Each and every U18 player should be looked at as a rough cut diamond waiting to be polished, we need to take the time to hone and polish the skills and talent of as many as possible.

[Coach_Mulatinho]

Some valid points.

My concern is the jump from junior U16 to senior U18's. The U17 league only went ahead this year due to some clubs forcing the point with the FFSA. The FFSA eventually relented and gave us an "optional" U17 league. Next year will be another battle, and may see the end of U17 league, and possibly the U13 and U15's (all quoted as optional). On top of that we have had an unprecedented number of U18 games canceled due to bad weather and the hope of protecting pitch's for the Reserves and Senior games.

All this makes for a very unpredictable development pathway.

As for pushing players up too early; well there will always be player examples for and against. Besides, if the football governing body is pushing it, who are we to stand in the way? The league structure will be SSF, U12, U14, U16. With other age groups as optional.

For those saying 'if they haven't made it by.... they're not going to make it.' Again, there are plenty of examples to prove and disprove that theory.

Maybe I look at the U18's (and the Reserves in 2 years time) as more of a development role, rather than senior championship football. A place for qualified coaches to concentrate on developing the next senior footballers, using all the tools club and federation can give to teach and prepare for the final step into senior football.

If it's just about using those age groups to get 'used' to senior football, why not keep the same structure we had last year and year before?

I do see the benefits but I also see some doors closing, in a time when we need to keep all options open. We don't have the football culture of the great footballing nations, there are too many greater sports in this country to compete with and very little resources and support. We don't develop enough players, yet we lose too many every year.

Teaching talented young players senior football quickly, may bring out some great talent but it may also cause us to lose or miss some as well. Each and every U18 player should be looked at as a rough cut diamond waiting to be polished, we need to take the time to hone and polish the skills and talent of as many as possible.

club can have 2 teams per age group. amateurs could be part of the solution. i think u18 competition and reserves (u20 in the future) should always be part of a development program from the club and not to get used to senior football like you said

[de niro]

Some very good points made by Johnnydep here. While not necessarily being a supporter of the move to U18/U20 I do understand the rationale behind it. In only going half-baked, the FFSA with U18 & Res will create some real problems for many kids who will be lost to the sport or forced to Amateurs in 2014. There will be many 18 year olds too old for U18 but not able to force out 'journeymen' Reserves players. By the time U20 is instituted many will already be lost. FFSA should have either stuck to their guns with U19/Res or pushed ahead with U18/U20. I believe U20s will allow some over-age players, so player losses may have been minimal. Now, some clubs could be looking at whole U18 sides with nowhere to go.

Introducing U20 will mean some long-serving players, no longer in line for a first team spot will also be lost. They may not be part of the 'pathway' anymore but are still important club members and may eventually bridge the gap to the next generation, so clubs don't want to lose them.

Why not introduce a 4th senior team? 4 games on the one day might be physically possible but would put too much added pressure on pitches. Why not then play the 'Reserves' game at the opposing venue ie. if U18/U20/Snr are at home, then Res are away. Game could be scheduled at same time as U20 and allow players to attend first team match if they're motivated enough. Also gives older players returning from injury a place to get some game time.

[paul merson]

I believe a couple of more experienced players in reserves helps with the development of the others, especially GK's.
I'd be happy to have a GK in his 20's, even a captain thats in his 20's.

[matty2323]

I believe a couple of more experienced players in reserves helps with the development of the others, especially GK's.
I'd be happy to have a GK in his 20's, even a captain thats in his 20's.

This is a huge point, and is something a lot of people underestimate. I coached u15's last year, and im proud that 90% of my squad have stepped up to u18's/reserve level, but at the same time pushing that many kids up can have a negative effect on their development if they aren't receiving the correct instructions on and off the pitch. "senior" or more "experienced" players at reserve level to help guide kids on the park, to ensure heads are kept high when things go wrong and just add general stability is very important.

We have already made it so "experienced players" at senior level now cost too many points. As a 16 year old making my debut at Playford, and then 17 at Metro, i was surrounded by players with so much experience. These days 18 year olds are teaching 16 year olds.

As for under 18s interchange, im all for it. Spoke to Carl Veart, and he was particularly disappointed by the lack of focus on development at u18 level considering their results have no effect (they play were the seniors play). Interchange gives coaches more of a chance to introduce new players and ensure appropriate game time for their squad. Also means that you can start introducing u17 and u16 players for the last 10-15minutes and not "use a sub".

[Nova]

18's and even reserves to a lesser degree is "still" about developing!
Particularly in the 18's, all players should play a minimum of 90 minutes over 2 games!
Interchange will always get abused by some and will get used to slow down play to protect a score and so on!
You can train as much as you want but the only way to get better at this sport is to play the game, and as much as possible

[Con M]

In March this year the Laws of the Game Board (I.F.A.B.) approved a 2-year Trial of rolling substitutions for youths Under 19 in Britain.

I think Mers should use his influence on that referees committee and at the FFSA to get similar permission for us here in S.A. to conduct that trial too in season 2014.

It's sad when one sees young ones getting a token 5 or 10 minutes, particularly when it's used to hold up momentum of the other side. And remember, in the U18s & Reserves the ref isn't allowed to add on time for those useless substitutions to be conducted because it could encroach onto the Seniors' 3pm k.o.

Anything less than a 22-minute (quarter of a game) run by a sub is awful IMO as it takes at least that long to warm up and adjust to the pace of the game and fit in.

Google "Grassroots football set for rolling substitutions"

[on-side]

Totally agree.

Only getting 5 - 10 minutes is not sufficient game time and you are absolutely right about giving enough time to adjust to the pace of the game. Young players being thrown in the deep end and then criticised for not playing well enough.

[paul merson]

I agree Con re kids not getting realistic match time, but I cant say I have that much pull at the FFSA, but I do voice my opinion of course!

Had a conversation with Ivan Karlovic re under 18's this morning and he had a great idea/plan, there's no way you'd be able to get all clubs on side but its some master plan!

He needs to get it on paper and submit it, it kills many birds with 1 stone.

[Con M]

I agree Con re kids not getting realistic match time, but I cant say I have that much pull at the FFSA, but I do voice my opinion of course!

Had a conversation with Ivan Karlovic re under 18's this morning and he had a great idea/plan, there's no way you'd be able to get all clubs on side but its some master plan!

He needs to get it on paper and submit it, it kills many birds with 1 stone.

G.r.e.a.t., Mr Mers!

Publicize this when ready or PM me.

ps, stop being shy & humble about your long experience in the game - you have been mentioned positively in dispatches around town. Try and make them trial that rolling sub I.F.A.B. thing in the NPL S.A. Premier League & State League in season 2014. And while you're at it, make them look into the insignificant cost of the vanishing spray trial that's been so effective in keeping back defensive walls 10 yards at free-kicks in the recent Confederations Cup.

[paul merson]

I agree Con re kids not getting realistic match time, but I cant say I have that much pull at the FFSA, but I do voice my opinion of course!

Had a conversation with Ivan Karlovic re under 18's this morning and he had a great idea/plan, there's no way you'd be able to get all clubs on side but its some master plan!

He needs to get it on paper and submit it, it kills many birds with 1 stone.

G.r.e.a.t., Mr Mers!

Publicize this when ready or PM me.

ps, stop being shy & humble about your long experience in the game - you have been mentioned positively in dispatches around town. Try and make them trial that rolling sub I.F.A.B. thing in the NPL S.A. Premier League & State League in season 2014. And while you're at it, make them look into the insignificant cost of the vanishing spray trial that's been so effective in keeping back defensive walls 10 yards at free-kicks in the recent Confederations Cup.

Haha thanks Con, I think they are going to be trialing the spray next year, I'm pretty sure.

Happy to keep feeding ideas!

IK's ideal is pretty bold, would assist in making development prominant in the 18's.