2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[Kuiper]

There was a time not too long ago when the US national team would have two or 3 college players or recent grads, now graduates are trying to make MLS second teams. NCAA must be aware of the trend and has some desire to keep up with the changes.

The NCAA isn't some vague bureaucracy with its own mind and motivations. The bureaucracy in Indy is only there to implement the rules and policies that are set for it at conventions. It's those conventions (i.e., the gathering of representatives from each of the member schools) that have governance in the NCAA. And within the NCAA membership, D3 is by far the biggest of the three divisions. While it's true that if D1 and D2 banded together monolithically they could outvote D3, my understanding is that in reality that never happens, and that D1 by itself rarely votes as a solid bloc in conventions. (Somebody more conversant with NCAA convention history can speak to this with more authority than yours truly.)

In other words, ruleswise D3 doesn't get pulled unwillingly in directions it doesn't want to go by the scholarship divisions -- unless it's a financial disbursement issue, which is a whole 'nother thing. And men's soccer substitution rules are not a financial disbursement matter, because D1 and D2 men's soccer programs aren't going to make more money by tinkering with substitution rules.

Of course, the corollary to all of this is that D3's weight is lost at conventions if it isn't voting monolithically.

OK! but how do new proposal get to the convention?  and are we now in a public review period before the voting?

This is a very good question. I assumed people on this board understand something about this given the amount of argument this topic of playing rules changes has generated, but apparently that is not the case.  Let's just say that DIII's size has no relationship to its influence on rule changes. 

The substitution rule change was proposed by the NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee.  The Rules Committee has 9 members, 2 of whom are from DIII (currently, 1 from the SCIAC (an Asst AD from Claremont-Mudd-Scripps who played DIII when she was in college at Juniata) and 1 coach (Bianco from Denison)), and is supposed to be divided between men's and women's reps.  (see http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=SOCRULES)

It will go before the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on April 20.  This committee has 12 members, 3 of whom are from DIII.  They are all athletic director/commissioner types.  No coaches. (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=PROP).  This committee reviews rule changes in all sports.  It's not soccer-specific.  For example, the committee reviewed changes proposed to the Volleyball rules at its February meeting.

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel is the last step for NCAA rule change proposals.  There is no vote by another body. 

[Saint of Old]

So far, both Messiah HC and Scranton HC are of the opinion that the rule change will not be beneficial to D3 schools, players, teams.  Limits getting younger players game minutes, will negatively impact player buy-in/team culture, does not account for compressed schedule, and on and on.  It's not even a close call -- let D1 go forward with the change.  D3 is a completely different set-up and should not have to follow the lead of D1 on this.

I will not argue one way or the other (in this post), but can we agree as intelligent people that these opinions above must be taken with a grain or 2 of salt.

You have to consider that these men, though both accomplished and  good educators are speaking from a subjective perspective?

Nothing wrong with that at all, but would not be smart in my view to not take that into account.

Aren't we all speaking from a subjective perspective?  What number of coaches would need to roughly agree for you to give 10 grains of salt?

The men referenced above are both "non-disinterested parties"
There. Fixed it for you.

[Gregory Sager]

There was a time not too long ago when the US national team would have two or 3 college players or recent grads, now graduates are trying to make MLS second teams. NCAA must be aware of the trend and has some desire to keep up with the changes.

The NCAA isn't some vague bureaucracy with its own mind and motivations. The bureaucracy in Indy is only there to implement the rules and policies that are set for it at conventions. It's those conventions (i.e., the gathering of representatives from each of the member schools) that have governance in the NCAA. And within the NCAA membership, D3 is by far the biggest of the three divisions. While it's true that if D1 and D2 banded together monolithically they could outvote D3, my understanding is that in reality that never happens, and that D1 by itself rarely votes as a solid bloc in conventions. (Somebody more conversant with NCAA convention history can speak to this with more authority than yours truly.)

In other words, ruleswise D3 doesn't get pulled unwillingly in directions it doesn't want to go by the scholarship divisions -- unless it's a financial disbursement issue, which is a whole 'nother thing. And men's soccer substitution rules are not a financial disbursement matter, because D1 and D2 men's soccer programs aren't going to make more money by tinkering with substitution rules.

Of course, the corollary to all of this is that D3's weight is lost at conventions if it isn't voting monolithically.

OK! but how do new proposal get to the convention?  and are we now in a public review period before the voting?

This is a very good question. I assumed people on this board understand something about this given the amount of argument this topic of playing rules changes has generated, but apparently that is not the case.  Let's just say that DIII's size has no relationship to its influence on rule changes. 

The substitution rule change was proposed by the NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee.  The Rules Committee has 9 members, 2 of whom are from DIII (currently, 1 from the SCIAC (an Asst AD from Claremont-Mudd-Scripps who played DIII when she was in college at Juniata) and 1 coach (Bianco from Denison)), and is supposed to be divided between men's and women's reps.  (see http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=SOCRULES)

It will go before the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on April 20.  This committee has 12 members, 3 of whom are from DIII.  They are all athletic director/commissioner types.  No coaches. (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=PROP).  This committee reviews rule changes in all sports.  It's not soccer-specific.  For example, the committee reviewed changes proposed to the Volleyball rules at its February meeting.

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel is the last step for NCAA rule change proposals.  There is no vote by another body.

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware that there was a Playing Rules Oversight Panel. I thought that proposed rules changes went from the rules committee of the sport in question to the convention at large.

[College Soccer Observer]

The NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules committee voted in its rules changes for 2022 and 2023 during its annual meeting in February.  Following that meeting, there was a two week period from March 14 to March 28 for coaches from all divisions to comment on the proposed changes.  The committee met last week to consider the feedback provided in those comments.  I am not yet at liberty to say what the outcome of that meeting was, but the committee has the freedom to make changes in what gets sent forward to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP).  In other words, it is able to withdraw proposals that do not generate substantial support from the coaching community.  PROP is the final step in the process.  They will meet on April 20.  After that meeting, there will be clarity on what the final changes are for the next two seasons. 

[Saint of Old]

The NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules committee voted in its rules changes for 2022 and 2023 during its annual meeting in February.  Following that meeting, there was a two week period from March 14 to March 28 for coaches from all divisions to comment on the proposed changes.  The committee met last week to consider the feedback provided in those comments.  I am not yet at liberty to say what the outcome of that meeting was, but the committee has the freedom to make changes in what gets sent forward to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP).  In other words, it is able to withdraw proposals that do not generate substantial support from the coaching community.  PROP is the final step in the process.  They will meet on April 20.  After that meeting, there will be clarity on what the final changes are for the next two seasons.

You Sir, have an appropriate name.

[PaulNewman]

So far, both Messiah HC and Scranton HC are of the opinion that the rule change will not be beneficial to D3 schools, players, teams.  Limits getting younger players game minutes, will negatively impact player buy-in/team culture, does not account for compressed schedule, and on and on.  It's not even a close call -- let D1 go forward with the change.  D3 is a completely different set-up and should not have to follow the lead of D1 on this.

I will not argue one way or the other (in this post), but can we agree as intelligent people that these opinions above must be taken with a grain or 2 of salt.

You have to consider that these men, though both accomplished and  good educators are speaking from a subjective perspective?

Nothing wrong with that at all, but would not be smart in my view to not take that into account.

Aren't we all speaking from a subjective perspective?  What number of coaches would need to roughly agree for you to give 10 grains of salt?

The men referenced above are both "non-disinterested parties"
There. Fixed it for you.

What?

One of us (or both) are gonna tear an ACL in here.

Are there any "disinterested parties"?  Do you contend that posters on this board are disinterested and therefore more reliable as a gauge than coaches?  Like who exactly falls into the disinterested category?

You're making a bold move here.  One of the most important stakeholder groups when it comes to the issue at hand is the coaching group (and so far we have a small sample size about their views and recommendations so perhaps the majority will still side your way), but in your opinion we should cancel this highly relevant and highly knowledgeable group?

[Hopkins92]

Thanks to CSO and Kuiper for VERY informative contributions to the process question. Very interested to see how the feedback is factored into the panel's recommendation.

[Kuiper]

21st century model was tabled by the D1 Council until at least the May/June meetings. 

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/4/13/media-center-di-council-tables-most-pending-legislation.aspx

That isn't the same as the re-entry and OT rule changes, which are not legislative proposals and are at a different stage, but I've always viewed the D1 support for not allowing re-entry in the 2d half to be linked to the legislative proposal to extend the season over two semesters in D1.

[College Soccer Observer]

D1 men have been asking for much closer adherence to FIFA rules for a long time.  The 21st century model would also be a desired change for them, but the two are not necessarily linked.  If they don't get the 21st century model, they would still want the re-entry restrictions.

[College Soccer Observer]

Official announcement made today by PROP.

Substitution rules will be status quo from this year.  Rules committee heard and acted on feedback that D2 and D3 men and all divisions in women's soccer were opposed to this change.  All other proposed changes were approved, including the elimination of overtime in the regular season and getting rid of golden goal for post season.  All post season OT will now be played to completion, regardless of number of goals scored. 
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/4/20/media-center-prop-approves-changes-to-soccer-overtime-rules.aspx

Fire away with questions/comments on the process.

[jknezek]

That's about what I expected. The OT changes are reasonable as is the no vote on the sub rules. Obviously not what I would have preferred, but it all makes sense given the compact season.

[CC United]

Now it's time to get ride of the backward counting clock and to give the ref control of the time. 

[CC United]

Now it's time to get ride of the backward counting clock and to give the ref control of the time.

Excuse the typos. I'm watching Arsenal v. Chelsea.

[College Soccer Observer]

The clock issue raises as many problems as it solves.  Feedback from coaches was split on this.
Some wanted timing done like it is done in the rest of the world.  Others basically said we can't get enough good refs right now, why would I want to place more on their plate?  Many coaches and administrators have pointed out that there are fancy scoreboards in a lot of places, and that knowing the exact time is part of the game day experience.

Here is my analysis of the situation:

A move to change the timing rules would get rid of controversy about whether the ball went in the net before time expired, because when referees control the time, almost no one ever chooses to end the game while a shot on goal is being taken.  On the other hand, the controversy would now be about the amount of stoppage time.  Add in that many games at the D3 level do not have 4th officials, and this becomes a pretty cumbersome process.  My own experience as a high school varsity coach is that whenever the referees keep time on the field without a scoreboard clock, the full and correct time is never played.  In other words, without a visible game clock, refs do not follow the existing timing rules. 

Bottom lines is that I do not see this changing any time soon.

[Hopkins92]

I don't think this is OT... 3 guys that played college soccer and went on to play professionally and for the MNT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjLmvF7V_Ew

Skip ahead to about 18:30 (third segment) if you want to skip ahead to the discussion of the proposed split schedule.

All 3 of these guys think it's a good idea for D1. Hard to argue with their experience and opinions. This is a really good example/discussion of the difference between high level D1 and D3.