IFAB changes for 26-27

[socal lurker]

https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/changes-to-the-laws-of-the-game-202627?l=en

For those who haven’t seen that it came out.

So VAR really can only correct erroneously awarded CKs, not GKs. Weird.

And the 5 sec count applies to TIs and GKs, but not CKs

And the word jewelry is removed, and accessories can be covered taped—specific guidance on that will be interesting . . .

Managing the delays to return for injuries and slow subs are going to be interesting for those of us without 4O or ARS

At least they didn’t do anything this year to make HB worse . . .

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Law 4: How practically are referees supposed to know if an 'accessory' is dangerous if a player has covered it? Are we expected to ask all players to show us their 'accessories' before they cover them? Why no restrictions on the colour of coverings when we have restrictions on the colour of undergarments?

Law 5: YouTube refs might get worried about the change prohibiting all camera use including when not worn. Unless this is supposed to be interpreted to mean a camera is not 'used' if it is only set up to record.
Good to have permission to wear my wedding ring on the pitch if I want, and uncovered!
Disappointing that there is no deterrent introduced to address the trend of goalkeepers feigning injury.

Law 12: No punishment at all for an unsuccessful DOGSO attempt feels wrong and likely to both encourage last-ditch misconduct and discourage referees from playing advantage.

Law 17: Not specified which side the corner kick is supposed to be taken from if a player is penalised for delaying a goal kick.

'Editorial changes' Law 14: I'm unsure why they used 'Goal scored from the kick' / 'No goal scored from the kick' at a time when we are disallowing goals. It would probably be clearer to have instead 'Kick enters the goal' / 'Kick does not enter the goal'.

 

[Gabriel]

Law 17: Not specified which side the corner kick is supposed to be taken from if a player is penalised for delaying a goal kick.

Taken from the protocol published under 'Documents' on The IFAB website:

...
Award a corner kick to the opposing team on the side of the field closest to where the goal kick was to be taken

 

[betterlatethannever]

That jewellery/ accessories amendment
Does that mean as long as they’re covered players can now wear their Apple Watches or Garmins?
Are chains allowed? Nose rings? Ear rings? Lip rings? (You get the picture) - what was wrong with just a nice and easy ‘no jewellery?’

 

[es1]

That jewellery/ accessories amendment
Does that mean as long as they’re covered players can now wear their Apple Watches or Garmins?
Are chains allowed? Nose rings? Ear rings? Lip rings? (You get the picture) - what was wrong with just a nice and easy ‘no jewellery?’

going to need significant guidance otherwise it's just going to be ignored / applied differently across individuals / organisations / competitions

 

[socal lurker]

That jewellery/ accessories amendment
Does that mean as long as they’re covered players can now wear their Apple Watches or Garmins?
Are chains allowed? Nose rings? Ear rings? Lip rings? (You get the picture) - what was wrong with just a nice and easy ‘no jewellery?’

I am guessing, in part from the explanation, that it really flows from religious;medical exceptions and trying to get the ref out of the business of deciding if that bracelet really is a religious bracelet that can’t be required to be removed. But I fear there will be more chaos, not less from the change

 

[RefereeX]

My thoughts regarding jewellery is that something like a whoop band can be covered and not dangerous, but something like an apple watch or garmin would still be potentially dangerous. I don't think piercings have any way or being covered and still not being dangerous. I stand to be shot down by someone, but not sure where this leaves plain wedding bands.

Regarding the substitution 10 second ruling... totally and utterly pointless, because every player being subbed from the FOP for a team leading will be 'injured' and thus able to take more than 10 seconds.

 

[Hilly1618]

It will be interesting to see what actually is covered by this change.

Obviously a different version of football but within the FA laws for walking football since February 2025 players have been allowed to play with a plain wedding band covered by tape.

It is of course a different demographic playing the game and a common sense approach has been applied by many referees in relation to Apple Watches etc that many players utilise to monitor heart rates during games or series of games, if covered by a soft material such as a sweatband then many refs don’t go looking for such items but are encouraged to investigate if the sweatband has a bulky appearance.

Since Feb 2025 in the multitude of games I have played in or refereed I haven’t witnessed any injuries caused by an Apple Watch covered by a sweatband.

I look forward to seeing what the detail is regarding this.

 

[santa sangria]

Law 4: How practically are referees supposed to know if an 'accessory' is dangerous if a player has covered it? Are we expected to ask all players to show us their 'accessories' before they cover them? Why no restrictions on the colour of coverings when we have restrictions on the colour of undergarments?

Law 5: YouTube refs might get worried about the change prohibiting all camera use including when not worn. Unless this is supposed to be interpreted to mean a camera is not 'used' if it is only set up to record.
Good to have permission to wear my wedding ring on the pitch if I want, and uncovered!
Disappointing that there is no deterrent introduced to address the trend of goalkeepers feigning injury.

Law 12: No punishment at all for an unsuccessful DOGSO attempt feels wrong and likely to both encourage last-ditch misconduct and discourage referees from playing advantage.

Law 17: Not specified which side the corner kick is supposed to be taken from if a player is penalised for delaying a goal kick.

'Editorial changes' Law 14: I'm unsure why they used 'Goal scored from the kick' / 'No goal scored from the kick' at a time when we are disallowing goals. It would probably be clearer to have instead 'Kick enters the goal' / 'Kick does not enter the goal'.

I also don’t like the Dogso change. It is asking players to cheat, foul etc. more. Not much more, but more. It wasn’t broken and didn’t need fixing.

 

[Kent Ref]

FIFA etc don't like red cards.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

FIFA etc don't like red cards.

There is no change to sending off offences, although it could result in fewer second cautions. The DOGSO change means a player will no longer be cautioned following a goal scored after advantage.
i.e. it will now be
DOGSO offence, no advantage, free kick awarded = sending off
DOGSO deliberate handball or foul with no attempt/challenge for the ball, no advantage, penalty kick awarded = sending off
DOGSO non-deliberate handball or foul with attempt/challenge for the ball, no advantage, penalty kick awarded = caution
DOGSO offence, advantage played with no goal scored as a result = caution
DOGSO offence, advantage played with goal scored as a result = no sanction

 

[DavidObs]

There is no change to sending off offences, although it could result in fewer second cautions. The DOGSO change means a player will no longer be cautioned following a goal scored after advantage.
i.e. it will now be
DOGSO offence, no advantage, free kick awarded = sending off
DOGSO deliberate handball or foul with no attempt/challenge for the ball, no advantage, penalty kick awarded = sending off
DOGSO non-deliberate handball or foul with attempt/challenge for the ball, no advantage, penalty kick awarded = caution
DOGSO offence, advantage played with no goal scored as a result = caution
DOGSO offence, advantage played with goal scored as a result = no sanction

So the introduction of IFAB to make the Laws of the Game simpler and worldwide are continuing to become more complicated. I truly do understand what they are trying to do (well, I think I do), but apart from the basics, they are becoming more unwieldy.

 

[Kent Ref]

DOGSO offence, advantage played with no goal scored as a result = caution
DOGSO offence, advantage played with goal scored as a result = no sanction

These two will encourage more cheating. Poor decision.

 

[Archer]

Maybe, just maybe that advantage DOGSO goal... maaaaybe the challenge was "reckless" cough wink etc.

 

[RefereeX]

Maybe, just maybe that advantage DOGSO goal... maaaaybe the challenge was "reckless" cough wink etc.

A reckless shirt pull?

 

[ARF]

A reckless shirt pull?

Showing a lack of respect for the game?

 

[DJIC]

going to need significant guidance otherwise it's just going to be ignored / applied differently across individuals / organisations / competitions

Me thinks same as the micro shin pads, don’t going looking for issues, if jewellery is covered then that’s fine.

 

[socal lurker]

Me thinks same as the micro shin pads, don’t going looking for issues, if jewellery is covered then that’s fine.

For earrings, too? Or are those going to be different?

The covered nose rings and lip rings will be interesting . . .

 

[RustyRef]

I don't think the DOGSO change will make a huge amount of difference as how often is advantage currently played on a DOGSO challenge? Fairly rare I would guess.

 

[socal lurker]

I don't think the DOGSO change will make a huge amount of difference as how often is advantage currently played on a DOGSO challenge? Fairly rare I would guess.

So why make the change at all?