The Ref Stop

IFAB Law Changes for 2025/26

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Status
Not open for further replies.
At some point IFAB would have to separate (and I believe they would) when the referee should start the count, and when the keeper is in control of the ball. The two may be the same but aren't always.

Until then, see my earlier post about understanding the intent of the law and using common sense 😊
 
The Ref Stop
Russell Jones said:
I don’t see anyone defending the status quo
Click to expand...
Cos I can barely raise the effort..... 😴 I'm never keen on the anonymity of the referee being compromised. I do not relish applying this spectacle
I'd just apply the existing rule, maybe after one clear warning. I don't care much for the argument that an IDFK in the PA is difficult to manage.

The status quo was broken from day one simply because referees everywhere sh1t themselves (or their coaches and regional associations did) and didn't apply the rule. We as individuals were forbidden from applying the rule as it was because we'd be on our own. That's ridiculous, yet typical of football

I would much prefer the change without the visual count. Warn the keeper when he/she is messing about and then penalise it. Simple
The game is too much about the referee these days. The countdown has a gimmicky feel to it and is subjective anyway, just as ref's call would be in the absence of the spectacle
 
Last edited:
Runner Ref said:
The whole point of this is apparently to speed the game up. Is the goalkeeper in a state where they can be challenged by an opponent? If yes, count doesn't start. If no, count begins.

That is all the referee needs to think of.
Click to expand...
Unless told otherwise, this is exactly how I was intending to apply it.
 
Runner Ref said:
If the goalkeeper is deemed to be in control with the ball in their hands, they can't be challenged. If its at their feet, they can.

Once the criteria of can't be challenged comes into play, the referee is judging the goalkeeper to be in control.
Click to expand...
#150 in this thread states the relevant law . . . which is what we should all be using.
 
Runner Ref said:
A goalkeeper can be challenged as long as they dont have control with their hands. If they aren't able to be challenged, the count should be starting
Click to expand...
Sadly, but not unexpectedly, several members, including you, are creating alternatives to the LOTG, which will not help control in their matches and will be the latest incarnation of "Last week's referee" and thus make life more difficult for those who apply this simple law change.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Sadly, but not unexpectedly, several members, including you, are creating alternatives to the LOTG, which will not help control in their matches and will be the latest incarnation of "Last week's referee" and thus make life more difficult for those who apply this simple law change.
Click to expand...
How so? I am all for applying the change. As are others. I'm not looking at ways to not apply it. Some are.
 
Peter Grove said:
I'm not aware of anything suggesting a referee should wait for a keeper to get to their feet, no matter how long they stay down. The wording of the law certainly doesn't state that.

Maybe, if the goalie "bounces" back up more or less straight away, the ref might allow for that - but not if they remain prone for several seconds, obviously trying to waste time. That would be completely against the intent of this law. Also, the referee shouldn't allow them to flop to the ground after catching the ball, and not start counting if they do that.

The only thing I've seen attributed to Collina in this regard indicates that he stated the law:



So pretty much the opposite of what you're implying.

Goalkeeper time-wasting will lead to corners being awarded from 2025-26 in IFAB rule change
Click to expand...
post 102 shows what he said. i cannot see your link as its paywalled.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
If your version were to be introduced, coaches of a team winning 1-0 would be screaming "Close him down!" when the opposing goalkeeper gains possession.
Click to expand...
If the opposition are winning 1-0 though, then the goalkeeper is less likely to be wasting time surely and will want to be releasing the ball back into play quickly? And if they’re obstructed from doing that by an opponent then we give the foul, as we would currently.
 
Kent Ref said:
@Runner Ref has been advocating applying the new law. confused.
Click to expand...
The change in law is simple to implement, yet @RunnerRef has introduced various elements which are irrelevant and confusing for our newer colleagues who follow this forum.
Others are indicating that they will use variants to make life easier.
LothianRef said:
If the opposition are winning 1-0 though, then the goalkeeper is less likely to be wasting time surely and will want to be releasing the ball back into play quickly? And if they’re obstructed from doing that by an opponent then we give the foul, as we would currently.
Click to expand...
But under current law (see #150 in this thread) an offence occurs as the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball. Prior to that, an opponent can be adjacent to the goalkeeper.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
The change in law is simple to implement, yet @RunnerRef has introduced various elements which are irrelevant and confusing for our newer colleagues who follow this forum.
Others are indicating that they will use variants to make life easier.

But under current law (see #150 in this thread) an offence occurs as the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball. Prior to that, an opponent can be adjacent to the goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
How am I introducing elements to confuse people? I am literally saying how easy it is to implement. Other people are coming up with various variants in which to delay the count. This is what will confuse newer referees and the wider football audience

How exactly is the idea below difficult?

Can the goalkeeper be challenged?
Yes= count doesn't start
No= start count
 
Last edited:
Runner Ref said:
How am I introducing elements to confuse people? I am literally saying how easy it is to implement. Other people are coming up woth various variants in which to delay the count. This is what will confuse newer referees and the wider football audience

How exactly is the idea below difficult?

Can the goalkeeper be challenged?
Yes= count doesn't start
No= start count
Click to expand...
Whether or not one agrees with this law change is largely irrelevant - it's happening.
The previous change of this nature some 26 years ago went smoothly at first, then over a period of time referees at all levels began to ignore it, hence the need for this change.
The new wording of the law is fine, yet over 12 pages in this thread we have your opinion that it will only work for a short period, that the 8 seconds should be in the visible count rather than the last 5, that it was devised to make the law makers feel important, your version of the wording (which paraphrases the new wording anyway), etc., etc.
The change should be simple.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Whether or not one agrees with this law change is largely irrelevant - it's happening.
The previous change of this nature some 26 years ago went smoothly at first, then over a period of time referees at all levels began to ignore it, hence the need for this change.
The new wording of the law is fine, yet over 12 pages in this thread we have your opinion that it will only work for a short period, that the 8 seconds should be in the visible count rather than the last 5, that it was devised to make the law makers feel important, your version of the wording (which paraphrases the new wording anyway), etc., etc.
The change should be simple.
Click to expand...
What are you going on about?

At no point have I said I don't agree with the change. Quite the opposite, I'm all for it as long as its implemented consistently.

I agree the wording is just fine and pretty straight to the point. It is others who are coming up with ways to delay the count e.g. the goalkeeper needs the ability to release the ball- this is not mentioned in the law change

When did I say 8 seconds should be in the visible count? I simply want them to consistently start the count once the goalkeeper has control. I don't care whether they count it on their fingers, toes or don't visibly count it at all

Do I think it will only work for a short period? Based on guidance we see that is often overlooked after a few weeks, I'm happy to admit I'm very skeptical on this.

Do I think this change was made to justify IFAB having a fancy get together? Again, I'm skeptical on this considering what @Kent Ref has mentioned Collina apparently said

So........... at what point have I said I don't agree with the change coming in?
 
Last edited:
Runner Ref said:
What are you going on about?

At no point have I said I don't agree with the change. Quite the opposite, I'm all for it as long as its implemented consistently.

I agree the wording is just fine and pretty straight to the point. It is others who are coming up with ways to delay the count e.g. the goalkeeper needs the ability to release the ball- this is not mentioned in the law change

When did I say 8 seconds should be in the visible count? I simply want them to consistently start the count once the goalkeeper has control. I don't care whether they count it on their fingers, toes or don't visibly count it at all

Do I think it will only work for a short period? Based on guidance we see that is often overlooked after a few weeks, I'm happy to admit I'm very skeptical on this.

Do I think this change was made to justify IFAB having a fancy get together? Again, I'm skeptical on this considering what @Kent Ref has mentioned Collina apparently said

So........... at what point have I said I don't agree with the change coming in?
Click to expand...
We know you are in favour of the change (I have not stated otherwise), and we know you are understandably sceptical about whether it will work after the first few weeks - a concern many share.
What is confusing for our newer colleagues is that you have introduced wording other than that in what you agree is already a well worded revision.
Re the visible count, you suggested in #31 that the 6-second count should be visible.
Others in this thread have indicated that they are unlikely to implement the revised law, which is unfortunately not unexpected.
Your uninformed comment about a "fancy get-together" follows similar comments of yours in other threads about the football hierarchy, and appears to be irrelevant here.
In the next couple of weeks those who are bothering to watch the Club World Cup will be able to advise us whether the revised law is being applied.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
What is confusing for our newer colleagues is that you have introduced wording other than that in what you agree is already a well worded revision.
Click to expand...
In which bit did I do this?

ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Others in this thread have indicated that they are unlikely to implement the revised law, which is unfortunately not unexpected.
Click to expand...
So I think those are the people you need to be having a go at for being 'last weeks ref', not me. So, go on. Tell them they're wrong.

ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Your uninformed comment about a "fancy get-together" follows similar comments of yours in other threads about the football hierarchy, and appears to be irrelevant here.
Click to expand...
How exactly do you know it is uninformed? The get togethers are held in very fancy environments- they aren't meeting in a Travelodge off the M1. It is entirely relevant at this point, as we need to see whether their get togethers are actually worthwhile. If this change is followed by officials at the highest level on a consistent basis, then it would suggest their meetings have worth. If referees go back to stretching the parameters, as has been done for many years with the 6 second rule, it would suggest their meetings are pretty pointless. Or maybe the officials they're advising to follow this simply ignore them
 
They should have just changed the Law to a CK instead of an IDFK
I could live with that. Ten seconds feels about right to me (6s was perhaps part of the problem)
Gives everyone time to get to their feet and move away from the GK
Just enforce it. No stupid countdown, no drawing attention to yourself. Anyone undermining/berating us during that 10s is guilty of a worse offence and it's them who should be sanctioned. Take charge and Referee the game. None of this 'selling stuff cr4p'. Just consistent, impartial, fair and firm application of the rules. I can't abide the term, 'selling a decision' because it reflects a flawed culture of match officiating

I'm cynical because I have no faith in IFAB
Any change they make is very likely to cause further detriment to the game
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top