2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[CC United]

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/2/28/championships-soccer-rules-committee-proposes-change-to-overtime-rules.aspx

I'm not sure if this has been covered already on this forum, but I thought I'd pass it along. No overtime in the regular season would be a big change. Frankly, those overtime periods are tough on athletes playing multiple games over a weekend but man they have been exciting. I have mixed feelings about that one. The No re-entry rule for players subbed off in the second half will hopefully stop all the time wasting in the second half by the team who is winning. Every team is guilty of doing it. Good change.

[camosfan]

The extra time in regular season games was a complete waste of time and very risky for students,I would welcome that change more than any other.

[VAFury]

Guess I'm in the minority, but I liked how college did OT, especially the "golden goal" rule.  Always thought that was crazy about soccer OT in travel that one team could score an OT goal, but they have to play additional time after that just in case.   I can see where factors such as a strong wind or sun positioning could make it unfair, but...   

And I hate shootouts. 

[Hopkins92]

I'm not a hyper-purist, but I do like both of these rule changes (OT and Reentry) as I think it starts to more closely align the NCAA with what happens in most other leagues.

I really don't like OT in every game. It's the regular season, you know you have a finite amount of time to score, so go out there and get it done. OT just pushes the inevitable late-game scramble off by 5-10 minutes.

And, I'll be honest, I didn't realize the reentry didn't apply in the 2nd half... Just not paying enough attention, I guess. That's a really dumb modification of the reentry rule and should absolutely be instituted for the next season.

(Found it funny they mentioned video review at the bottom. Is that just for D1?)

[Ejay]

Guess I'm in the minority, but I liked how college did OT, especially the "golden goal" rule.  Always thought that was crazy about soccer OT in travel that one team could score an OT goal, but they have to play additional time after that just in case.   I can see where factors such as a strong wind or sun positioning could make it unfair, but...   

And I hate shootouts.

Nope, I'm with you.  I like OT in the regular season.  Most teams will never get a chance to play for something. OT at least gives those players a chance to create a lifetime memory.

And Golden Goal was brilliant. I played two OT game in college and was on the wrong side of a 4-1 and 5-1 scoreline.  That sucked.

[PaulNewman]

I've ranted about this before so I won't go on and on but I hate the proposed no re-entry change.  I know many disagree and love whatever changes make college soccer seem more like "real soccer," but especially for D3 and the majority of D3 programs I think the move is disastrous.  Such a rule will severely limit how many players can get extended minutes and indeed will seriously limit how many get in the game at all.  Imagine even being players #12-#14 on a team and how their participation would be impacted.  Some starters would be significantly impacted as well.  I get how the top programs and their fans may want everything to mirror professional soccer as much as possible, but should 60-80% of D3 programs really be trying to emulate the professional leagues?

[1970s NESCAC Player]

Have to agree totally with PN on this one.  No re-entry for D3 soccer is inconsistent with the whole concept of athletics in that division for all the reasons PN identified . . .  Does anyone know if the proposed changes are limited to D1?  The link did not appear to indicate the changes would apply across all divisions.

[jknezek]

And I'm on the other shoe here. I like the no re-entry rule but I'm way less concerned with how many players get in the game. Having been the 22-24th player... I was there. I was not going to play, and Coach P was great about telling me honestly what my odds were and asking if I really wanted to sit on his bench for 3 more years.

He was right. I went and played club soccer and intramural soccer, got 2 degrees in 4 years, was editor of a student newspaper, joined a fraternity for some idiotic reason, and was on a bunch of other committees, all while having a great time in college. These were all things I wouldn't have had time to do striving to get some playing time year after year until I was a senior.

It's ok not to make it as a D3 soccer player. It's ok for the rules to encourage a style of soccer more in line with the rest of the world. It's ok to be told you aren't good enough at one thing and maybe you find something else you are good enough at.

I'm all for making rules that encourage soccer, not kickball. And if part of that is rosters of 18, not 24, that's ok also. It's not a bad thing for a first year to have very limited playing time and grow in skill, pick up some team chemistry, and learn the coach's tactics rather than being fresh legs and a long ball target for 10 minutes in each half.

If they are the 14th player as a first year or a second year, they'll probably play as a junior or senior if they want to stick around. And if they are the 19th or 20th player, well, then they can make the same choices countless others have faced. It's not like turnover isn't a big factor on all DIII teams. Outside of a few stars, there are always a lot of first years, fewer sophomores, a few less juniors, and then the survivor core of seniors. That's the truth of all D3, and a player or two extra here or there because playing time is less distributed doesn't bother me at all.

[BigSoccerFan]

No overtime and no re entry changes the way coaches coach.  Good.  Think Messiah v Eastern and Messiahs wholesale changes.  Williams v Middlebury.. Tufts may not have the season they did without golden goal.  I am for it in playoffs and NCAA s but season end in a tie.  Deeper squads benefit from the sub rule this is the obvious change.

[PaulNewman]

I love getting worked up in mid-March!

I think it depends on the lens one is looking through.

My kid started most of the games in frosh and soph years and was the first kid off the bench for most of junior and senior years....not a star by any means but still an important, regular part of the team.  The pov of players 12 thru 17-18 (and their parents) is different than 20-28 or 20-45, and yes, on the back end of the roster each kid can make a decision about whether just being a part of team with no real expectations of playing is worth it or not.  I'll add that the experience of playing, both at the time and as valuable for future pursuits, was just as important for my kid as the #4 player on the team.  Sure, he could have chosen some other activities that might have served him well, but I no doubt that the soccer experience and everything he learned therein played a role in getting him to where he is now.

Also, at least in the D3 world, the claim that the soccer is better with fewer subs seems pretty fallacious.  Almost all of the best teams that I can think of, including those with a reputation for playing good, attractive soccer, sub a ton, and regularly use 16/17 to 19/20 players. 

And playing at Tufts, W&L, Messiah, Amherst, Calvin, Kenyon, etc, including the expectations around playing for such programs, imo can be wildly different than playing for Hiram, Hendrix, New England College, Millikin, Baldwin Wallace, Medgar Evers, etc.  I don't see any reason why the rule change would be helpful to any the schools in that second group.

[camosfan]

Teams will make the adjustments, you will see the subs come in with 20 minutes to go in the first half and leave after 15 in the second, I think that rule change would make it align with some US youth soccer leagues.

[Kuiper]

I found this perspective on the substitution rules from a recent DIII OWU player.  He offers a decent view of why reentry can be uniquely bad in DIII men's soccer:

https://www.d3soccer.com/columns/ryans-ruminations/2016/ruminations-10-28-2016

The Division III game magnifies the problem. I always thought Division I games were too direct because players' athletic abilities were so much greater than their soccer abilities. Division III was different, because there was a smaller gap between skill and athletic ability. With more and more soccer players in this country, however, the D-III game has seen increased athleticism and depth without the requisite increase in skill. Now we have a ton of athletic players and substitution rules that allow teams to rotate them in with no concern for fatigue. Few teams have the skill to combat such tactics, and that means we see more direct play and less good, attacking soccer.

I'm not sure he's right (or still right) about the bigger gap between athletic ability and skill in DIII, but I do think the ability to have reentry in the second half does allow for a certain style of play that mucks up the game.

I'm also not sure it's bad for substitutes, although not for the reason he suggests (which is just an anecdote about his brother).  In the MLS Next youth league at the older age groups, for instance, they allow 7 subs in 3 moments (plus half is an extra moment I think), with no re-entry permitted in either half.  What I've seen is that instead of using that bottom of the 18 kids for a couple of minutes here or there for time-wasting, coaches are developing them more.  The core play the full 90 and have to learn to increase their fitness and manage their runs, but a group of players effectively split 2/3 and 1/3 and they get all of their time in one chunk.  The players in the 1/3 get a better feel for the game and more opportunity for touches.  I could see the same thing under this proposal.  Because college soccer would allow a player to reenter after they have been subbed out in the first half, you might see some of those minutes in the first half rather than the second and another set of those minutes (possibly for different players) in the second half, but it's the same effect of committing to a bit more minutes and not only minutes when the game is out of hand.  Obviously, the college game is different with 30+ player rosters and very limited available minutes, but if you can increase the meaningful minutes to 60-65% of the roster instead of 50% the roster, that might be better than a game in which 70% get some time at all in a game, but only 50% get meaningful minutes.   

[Saint of Old]

I've ranted about this before so I won't go on and on but I hate the proposed no re-entry change.  I know many disagree and love whatever changes make college soccer seem more like "real soccer," but especially for D3 and the majority of D3 programs I think the move is disastrous.  Such a rule will severely limit how many players can get extended minutes and indeed will seriously limit how many get in the game at all.  Imagine even being players #12-#14 on a team and how their participation would be impacted.  Some starters would be significantly impacted as well.  I get how the top programs and their fans may want everything to mirror professional soccer as much as possible, but should 60-80% of D3 programs really be trying to emulate the professional leagues?

Depends on what you mean by player 12-14

12-14 players may be among the top 5 or even 4 weapons on the team.
Coaches simply have to work harder to switch shape and strategy within the game.

Good for football all round. We will get to see who the real ballers are more now.
College is about evolving and becoming the best version of yourself. Maximizing your potential.
Speaking as someone who was #20-22 on a22 man squad and overtime became a weapon for the team, the journey is what is key here.

Few players are just studs and come in and destroy the competetion, many others had to add a bit of calm/toughness/speed/thinking/fitness to their game to get where they need to be.
I see good things from this change.
Looking fwd to it.

I am not one for the no OT though... this will hurt the teams who win4 of 5 OT games and tie the other.
Not many things better in the game than scoring an OT goal on the road to win a game after almost losing before equalizing with 5 minutes to go on the road to keep a win streak alive, but I digress

[EnmoreCat]

Having watched last Fall how a highly ranked D1 programme seemed to use substitutions almost like a volleyball rotation at times, I am less convinced about the ability to re-enter full stop.  If players are going to develop then I would think learning how to manage a full 90 minutes is part of that process.  If a player is part of a rotation on for maybe 25-30 minutes and then comes off, it implies to me a more likely disjointed approach to things, this goes for both the players exiting and entering.  Ultimately, coaches do their best to maximise outcomes based on whatever the rules are, but I am not sure that re-entry serves a greater good, particularly if you want soccer to be about skill AND athleticism.  I understand that many programmes run big squads, well perhaps it becomes about having more reserve competitions to ensure those players further down the list do get game time.

[College Soccer Observer]

Have to agree totally with PN on this one.  No re-entry for D3 soccer is inconsistent with the whole concept of athletics in that division for all the reasons PN identified . . .  Does anyone know if the proposed changes are limited to D1?  The link did not appear to indicate the changes would apply across all divisions.

Under the existing NCAA constitution, playing rules must be the same for all divisions.  You cannot have a separate rule book for D1 vs D3.  It is permissible to have different rule books by gender within the same sport.  Basketball, for example, has two different rule books.  If confirmed, all of the proposed changes will apply across all divisions.