Would you like to see Junior Varsity soccer matches lengthened to 35 minute halves in the future? Why or why not?

I don't quite understand that one of the biggest reasons against penalty kicks was how late teams got home, and now the majority wants to extend j.v. games. Also, I do not know if this is true at all levels, but my experience is that j.v. games are more often blowouts than varsity games--extending the games could intensify this and may discourage marginal players from participating.

Sure, lengthen the games, but let them end in a tie at end of regulation. there's little point to declaring a victor at this level

All JV games are supposed to end in a tie at the end of regulation per HSL rules. There is supposed to be no overtime in JV games in prep soccer.

We were told "NO MATCH SHALL END IN A TIE"
never heard anything about Varsity only.

Roger clarified this as "if the JV game will impact the start of the Varsity match, then the JV game should be terminated" -- thus end in a tie ... Varsity games cannot end in a tie with the exception of tournament games ... I'll ask for another clarification.

From Roger Hazel of the SCHSL:

I state at all my clinics that we try to plan over-time in JVs if time allows it but I do say that wherever we are in JV match and it is time for the varsity to begin warm-ups, then the match will end-even if tied. Since JV do not have playoffs, the tie is not a factor like it is in Varsity games.

A "tie" shouldn't be a factor in varsity games. Let's start allowing varsity games to end in a draw.

H: Would you want HS to a) play both extra periods w/out PKs, b) play extra periods w/ golden goal, or c) simply end it at the end of regulation? (I prefer c.)

C is correct. At least one team generally worked hard enough to earn that result.

It is a long day and long season with 2 JV scrimmages, 12 games, and potentially 6-8 tournament games. Add that to the 4 varsity scrimmages, 16 regular season games, 6-10 tourney games, and a potential 5 playoff games. Thats 57 games for a top tier program and its little bro/sis JV program. Take those JV games and add 10 minutes to them and 220 minutes (almost three more hours) gets added to your season. The coaches don't get paid extra, the officials don't get paid extra, the kids have more chance for injury (but practice as well, I know), less time for homework, and the fans get home later as well. I could probably link it to global warming if you give me enough time.

Aggregate scoring system works well if the teams play each other twice in a season. That is "if" a tie breaker is needed at seasons end to declare a winner or for playoff bracketing. There are deeper parts to aggregate as well, away goals, differentials all that stuff. No OT needed and no Pks.
The PKs do not need to take so long. I believe at the start of second OT the coaches should be ready with the five takers. The first Pk can be taken in one minute and the last in 5 minutes elapsed time. I usually know my five before the match. I have seen the first Pk take up to 10 minutes to start. This is where the time wasting is found.
And yes aggregate has been proven to stall global warming.
My vote playing time can be 40 a half. Just put the rules in to speed the restarts and find the best way to finish.

It's funny that I get home from our game tonight and read this old thread. My JV team tied Daniel tonight and I am okay with that. We were probably the better skilled team, but Daniel played HARD and really wanted it more than we did. Sometimes that happens and hopefully we learned some things about ourselves tonight. The tie was very appropriate. I am in favor of keeping the game to 30 minutes because a ten minute longer game means we have to start at 5 pm and that is just not possible without getting kids out of school early. We don't want to start varsity games later than 7 since we already don't get home from roadies until 10pm, so I am good with the way it is. Besides, I am as competetive as the next guy, but the purpose of JV is to gain experience. The real deal is with varsity.

I know in the Beaufort area, JV matches have always been 35 minutes. This surprises teams that come from outside the Beaufort-Jasper-Hampton area to play. The only rule that I have seen is that junior high matches are limited to 30 minutes.

All JV games are 30 min. This is set by the HSL. This was answerd in the rules meeting.

Having overtimes and PK's at the varsity level give players the opportunity to learn to deal with the mental pressure associated with overtimes and PK's. Doesn't it make sense that players who have experienced overtimes and PK's during four years of varsity league play are better prepared to handle overtimes and PK's during playoffs? I think so.

PK's to decide a regular season match is ridiculous. Let the draw stand.

Long time since I've posted on here... I've missed you guys!

Anyway, my two cents on this

Keep the games at 30mins e/w for a couple of reasons which have been highlighted by some of you guys here:

1) Scheduling problems with getting the kids out of class earlier to make games.

2) The most important factor in this in my opinion is that we take care of the KIDS at JV level and do everything that we can to prepare them for varsity competition, whilst protecting their still developing bodies from any unneccesary over-exertion. I appreciate that you might say "ten extra minutes will hardly kill them"... but will it be of any real benefit to them either?

3) If preparing the players for the mental aspects of overtime etc, then two sets of 5 minutes should be sufficient. It's DEVELOPMENTAL at JV level.

I agree with development 100%, maybe 60 minutes is a good max time for a typical 7-10th grader.
With a longer match time I could develop more players. I tend to keep as many on the roster as I can in the 7-9th grade level becase I don't know where they will be in a few years.
Maybe a honor code that has a 70-80' match time with a max 60 minutes on a player?
On overtime I can go with a draw at JV.

You're right Tim, but the point which I don't think I made is that I feel that a change of focus is needed within the JV game as a whole.

I think the definition of a successful JV team is a Varsity team that is achieving and exceeding its goals. By that statement I mean that the focus of a JV coach is to develop and produce players who can perform under varsity (and higher) conditions. The players need to be prepared for Varsity competition as much as possible but without a focus on game results. It is very similar to the academy system here in Europe; many top level teams are more concerned with who their academy team is beating rather than how many first team players their academy is producing... this is a pitfall into which I think most JV teams fall.

I agree with on the JV assessment. Youth coaching and coaching in general can be tough. I've played kids in tie games that I knew in my gut were just going to blow it. One part of my brain sees a weakness in the other team that I wish to exploit then the other side sees a player sitting on the bench unplayed. I tell myself it's development.

Another side of the equation is this. If I have done my job as a coach (in practice) I should be able to play any player on my bench. I like that challenge because it forces me to always be prepared.

With no prior knowledge and seeing only an hour of practice, I think the majority of people would see Stalin a better coach than someone like Clive Charles or Anson Dorrance. Yes I know Stalin got some important home draws and did well against the Bundesliga.

Gee whiz these kids are a lot of fun aren't they?

I appreciate exactly where you're coming from on wanting to go for the win. It's a natural thing, and you would have to be a coach very dedicated to his coaching philosophy and the developmental philosophy of his club/school (an enlightened AD would help!).

Giving players minutes vs securing results is a real example of a decision that millions of coaches all over the world face every single day... and one that sums up this particular dilemma perfectly. But every problem presents an opportunity; (I am basing this suggestion on the assumption that the player to be introduced is a weaker player than those already on the pitch)
Can the new player bring information on to his team-mates??

Can you as the coach involve the player in recognizing the weakness in the opponent (be it tactical or in personnel)?

Can you as the coach involve the player in the decision making process which is how best to capitalize on this weakness?

Can you as a coach put faith in your coaching philosophy and in your players, introduce your substitute off the bench and still do it again next week even if it goes wrong?

These, I believe are the questions that you have to ask of yourself and of your players. If you can empower a player to make their own decisions and recognize situations for themselves you are giving them a personal responsibility for their own decisions that will stand to them for the rest of their lives, both on the pitch and off it.

Regarding the coaches you mentioned at the end of your post - I've never heard of two of them, but I am aware of Anson Dorrance (having read the biography "The Man Watching"). His coaching methods are outlined in adequate detail in the book and I think the results are there for all to see. However, I do think that he won A LOT of titles when anyone who could recruit a half decent team had a shot at a National. I do admire him though and his methods (although I would consider them to be VERY dated) have stood the test of time, it is after all, a very simple game. He has very good long standing relationships with all of his players, past and present, which should tell you really all you need to know about the man behind the coach. And, for the record, his fall-outs with the governing bodies only puts him higher in my estimations (I've got plenty of first hand experience of Football Association nodding dogs).

That is not to say that I am being hypocritical either as it appears that I am contradicting what I said at the start of my post - Anson is at the sharp end of athletics; he is in the results business. He does develop his girls of course, but they are there to win championships, the development of course comes in tandem, but their principal aim is to win titles and if they produce some national team players or another phenom like Mia, then thats just an added bonus.

The bad news: Our JV girls had one win last season, in the next to last game. Everybody played and had their chances on the field; there was some discouragement about the lack of wins, but the girls maintained a positive attitude.

The good news: The girls who have moved up to varsity from last year's JV squad are already having an impact, and several of them are getting field time in what has so far been a great preseason start.

I'd say something is working. Thanks, Tim.

Andrew,

Of the two coaches (the non-Anson ones) Coach Tim mentioned that you didn't recognize, I believe he was drawing a metaphor with Josef Stalin of WWII Russia--the "we must win at all costs, even if it means shooting our own men" attitude.

Quote:

---

Andrew,

Of the two coaches (the non-Anson ones) Coach Tim mentioned that you didn't recognize, I believe he was drawing a metaphor with Josef Stalin of WWII Russia--the "we must win at all costs, even if it means shooting our own men" attitude.

---

I was trying to figure that out - I thought it was Stalin, with the Bundesliga being Nazi Germany, but I thought it was a bit too much and it must be some guy I'd never heard of!! Would you believe I majored in History!!