IFAB Law Changes for 2025/26

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Just think of all the observers who can pick you up on not having the arm straight enough!

How are we dealing with benches/players counting down out loud? I'm thinking stepped approach and treat it as dissent

 

[Gabriel]

How are we dealing with benches/players counting down out loud? I'm thinking stepped approach and treat it as dissent

I actually raised this at my local RA meeting last month. Consensus there was most would stick it in the pre-match talk with the captains (and coaches if/where applicable) that the ref, and the ref only, would count otherwise they'd be looking at sanctions if it happened too much. Soundedd perfectly reasonable to me and feels more like prevention rather than reaction then.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Just think of all the observers who can pick you up on not having the arm straight enough!

How are we dealing with benches/players counting down out loud? I'm thinking stepped approach and treat it as dissent

Reminded me of a game I refereed at the Gurkha Regiment base when they were in Hampshire.
200+ on the touchline for a Step 7 game, all wearing red tracksuits. Having awarded a free kick, I used a verbal/visual count to move the "wall" back. I was immediately accompanied by 200 Gurkha soldiers chanting "5, 4, 3, 2, 1" (although very few spoke English to a good level). Surreal!

 

[Runner Ref]

Well, it's happened. Someone has been penalised for it at the Club World Cup.

 

[Refollie]

Here we go:

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7517275738496716052

 

[Runner Ref]

It's a start. But 14 seconds is not 8 seconds, nor is it particularly close

 

[JamesL]

It's a start. But 14 seconds is not 8 seconds, nor is it particularly close

Agree, but the counter starts as soon as he catches it. Theoretically this is the start but practically no one is going to start counting exactly the moment he catches it ( have to remember 1st).
The GK is on his feet at 2s so practical application sees us at 12s in reality. Still longer than 8 but infinitely better than before the change.
And I think if you asked anyone who doesn't contribute to this forum they'd say this was acceptable tolerance level

 

[Runner Ref]

Agree, but the counter starts as soon as he catches it. Theoretically this is the start but practically no one is going to start counting exactly the moment he catches it ( have to remember 1st).
The GK is on his feet at 2s so practical application sees us at 12s in reality. Still longer than 8 but infinitely better than before the change.
And I think if you asked anyone who doesn't contribute to this forum they'd say this was acceptable tolerance level

There is no point bringing in a set time and then allowing it to have tolerance. This is exactly the reason they ended up in this situation.

I'm not expecting it to be exactly 8 seconds to the dot, but you have to at least be close to it. Once you start hitting double figures, you should be concerned

 

[Refollie]

It’s just happened again in the Real Madrid game for genuine time wasting - good to see

 

[JamesL]

There is no point bringing in a set time and then allowing it to have tolerance. This is exactly the reason they ended up in this situation.

I'm not expecting it to be exactly 8 seconds to the dot, but you have to at least be close to it. Once you start hitting double figures, you should be concerned

Its all contextual. We don't see the keepers actions for the final 5s. He may have been motioning/intimating the release which may have lead to the delay in penalising. Of course he may not have. Reality is that the practical difference is 3-4s which is nothing.
But anyway I look forward to seeing some games where refs are turbo applying 8s and the storms that follow them. Should be good fun.

 

[Peter Grove]

It's a start. But 14 seconds is not 8 seconds, nor is it particularly close

OK, but it was only 14 seconds by the count some unknown individual has put on a TikTok video. For instance, the timer on the video starts at the exact millisecond the keeper first touches the ball. It's not supposed to start until the ref decides the keeper has the ball under control.

So we don't know that it was 14 seconds by the referee's count. We don't see him start the count (and as mentioned, only the ref decides when it starts) and we don't know when he made the decision to award the corner.

I timed about 10 seconds from when I would have started the count to when we actually hear the whistle. But for all we know, he might not have blown the whistle until a second or two after he finished the count on his fingers.

A TikTok video doesn't prove anything.

Edit: Oops, I see @JamesL beat me to it.

 

[bester]

And so it begins

 

[Peter Grove]

There is no point bringing in a set time and then allowing it to have tolerance. This is exactly the reason they ended up in this situation.

Again, we can't tell from that video what (if any) tolerance there was.

 

[Runner Ref]

I'll agree with @JamesL that it was 2 seconds in before goalkeeper was on his feet. But it's then still another 12 seconds from there.

Excuses can be made, but counting down from 8 is not difficult. Either apply the law consistently, or don't bother at all.

 

[Runner Ref]

Again, we can't tell from that video what (if any) tolerance there was.

Well we can, as it was 14 seconds that he blew up on. Take 2 seconds off for him being on the ground. That's a 4 second tolerance. If he hasn't started his count from when the goalkeeper is stood up, what is he doing or waiting for? There's no reasoning for him to delay the count.

One thing fans are always asking for from referees is consistency. We are fully aware that consistency can be nigh on impossible, as its very rare that 2 decisions are remotely the same. However, this law is very very simple to be consistent with. I know people on here will come up with many, many excuses as to why someone hasn't blown up, but it really does referees no favours.

 

[RustyRef]

Well we can, as it was 14 seconds that he blew up on. Take 2 seconds off for him being on the ground. That's a 4 second tolerance. If he hasn't started his count from when the goalkeeper is stood up, what is he doing or waiting for? There's no reasoning for him to delay the count.

One thing fans are always asking for from referees is consistency. We are fully aware that consistency can be nigh on impossible, as its very rare that 2 decisions are remotely the same. However, this law is very very simple to be consistent with. I know people on here will come up with many, many excuses as to why someone hasn't blown up, but it really does referees no favours.

Because the referee decides when they have it under control there will always be some debate on this. Someone posted in an earlier chat that the broadcasters would would start a timer, and I said at the time that would be pointless as they wouldn't know when to start it.

Let's look at the facts. Would this have been penalised last season? Absolutely not. So does that make it a change for the better, even if it was 12 seconds instead of 8? Absolutely yes. Perhaps the referee isn't great at estimating a second, perhaps he was just trying to give the keeper the benefit of the doubt, either way it is a big improvement on what we had previously.

This almost feels a bit like VAR but specific to referees, people on here and other refereeing forums have moaned for years about keepers wasting time. The authorities try to do something about that, but rather than support it the same people that were moaning just find fault with the new process.

 

[Runner Ref]

This almost feels a bit like VAR but specific to referees, people on here and other refereeing forums have moaned for years about keepers wasting time. The authorities try to do something about that, but rather than support it the same people that were moaning just find fault with the new process.

Not finding fault with the process, I think the process is just fine. I have issue with the application of it. Based on people's feedback here, this is going to be very very inconsistent. Which would suggest they may as well not bother.

 

[Russell Jones]

Not finding fault with the process, I think the process is just fine. I have issue with the application of it. Based on people's feedback here, this is going to be very very inconsistent. Which would suggest they may as well not bother.

With more than 35,000 referees in England alone, application of ALL laws will inevitably be wildly inconsistent. From how much leeway to give on throw in locations, to what exactly constitutes a reckless tackle. From the measurement of 9.15m to whether / how much time to add when a ball gets booted 50 metres off the pitch. To jump to we ‘may as well not bother’ seems somewhat fatalistic and melodramatic

 

[Runner Ref]

With more than 35,000 referees in England alone, application of ALL laws will inevitably be wildly inconsistent. From how much leeway to give on throw in locations, to what exactly constitutes a reckless tackle. From the measurement of 9.15m to whether / how much time to add when a ball gets booted 50 metres off the pitch. To jump to we ‘may as well not bother’ seems somewhat fatalistic and melodramatic

I said above refereeing can be difficult as it's nigh on impossible to be consistent on many things. But this is one of the times in which consistency is very much possible.

Do I think this change was brought in to allow consistency and allow the game to flow? Not a chance. As I said in a previous post, it's almost a token gesture, just to keep some overpaid individuals looking busy.

 

[one]

I'm with @Runner Ref. The timer on the video doesn't help, but there is no way this referee applied the 8 seconds law strictly and the law is specifically brought in to be strict about the timing (rid of triffling). Otherwise we may have as well stuck with the old law.
We need a few top tier brave referees to call this on high profile games on time for the less brave referees to follow suite.

I honestly think the Collina statement did a lot of damage for the law.