http://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/coaching-and-practice/10-seconds-elite-soccerfootball-coach/ I improved the link.
An NSCAA instructor in NJ who is a big fan of Doug's teachings (he is also a teacher) was big on the choosing your language carefully. I thought the topic was something else.
I understand the teaching technique and think language is extremely important. Not simply what you say, but how you say it too. Essentially this is just using mnemonics, but I don't, however, see how this helps a youth coach teaching kids fundamentals that are meant to be ingrained until kids perform instinctively. Where I see the value is in short term recall of things like the 4 steps of an instep drive during a practice session. After awhile the kids will use the proper technique without thinking about it. At that point the mnemonic device is no longer needed. Training sessions yes, but I would not try to correct technique during a match using a mnemonic device or otherwise. For older teams, like a high school team, I can see the value of using a mnemonic device for a specific game plan. For youth I think it is important to keep the system and tactics simple enough that the kids won't need mnemonic devices to remember what to do in a match. [Edit: On second thought for some things, like opening up on a transition to attack, it would be useful to have a mnemonic device that the youth players could yell to cue the change of shape during a transition. I think that would be much more beneficial to development on a number of levels than to have the coach yelling instructions at the team.] I believe unrestricted play is important to development, but I understand some very good coaches put restrictions on youth players during matches in order to increase their training value. This is exactly like game plan adjustments for older players, but the purpose of the plan is to increase development rather than increase the chances of winning the match. Mnemonic devices would be useful during youth matches in that instance as well. A priority for me was to ensure that I was only teaching the kids things that would be consistent with what they would encounter in the future. I didn't make up any words or phrases or use special systems or tactics tailored for youth matches. I didn't teach anything that they wouldn't use in the future. Soccer is confusing enough for youth without adding a bunch of unnecessary new terms to the load. A pet peeve is people who call the back line "defenders" instead of "backs." Everyone does it now, USSF, NSCAA, USYSA, and Soccer America. It is at least inartful if not incorrect. It implies that the other two lines are not defenders and that the backs are not attackers. I blame a generation of parent coaches teaching kids to call the back line "defenders" instead of "backs." Now when I say "everyone is both a defender and attacker" a lot of people don't believe me. But for the misleading label, I wouldn't have to say it. Language changes constantly and sometimes for the worse.
Once you have established the technique, then young players don't need an in-depth coaching point everytime. Boiling it down to a three or four word phrase encapsulates a lengthy coaching point(s). In games, it can be used to reinforce the technical coaching point very effectively.
I don't question the effectiveness of the technique. I question the advisability of correcting technique during a match. I also caution against the overuse of the technique which I suspect at some point would distract from learning to play. To be most efficient, I believe coaching points during a session should be narrowly focused on a few objectives.