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.
The Ref Stop
RustyRef said:
VAR absolutely was NOT brought in to make football perfect, they were very clear to say that from day 1. It is to correct clear and obvious errors, if the intention was to make it perfect then it would obviously need to correct 100% of errors.
Click to expand...
You say this a lot, but that in reality is not what VAR does. VAR does not correct clear & obvious errors. Someone being offside by a mm is not a clear & obvious error, but we sit for many minutes whilst they decide.
 
Runner Ref said:
In what way has it made it better? We have to sit for 5 minutes for someone to check whether someone's toenail was offside.

The nth degree that they go to with VAR would suggest they're looking for the perfect outcome.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that's a problem with implementation rather than the intent. The data backs up that there are more 'correct' KMIs than there were previously. Its better, but not perfect.
 
Viridis1886 said:
I agree, but that's a problem with implementation rather than the intent. The data backs up that there are more 'correct' KMIs than there were previously. Its better, but not perfect.
Click to expand...
So they tell us there are more correct KMI's. But we very rarely, if ever see such data.

In my opinion, football is in a far worse state since VAR came. But that's for a completely different thread!
 
Viridis1886 said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Premier League: 13 VAR mistakes in total in season so far, say chiefs

There have been a total of 13 video assistant referee (VAR) mistakes in the Premier League so far this season, say league bosses.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
But there is no true evidence. Those are just numbers in which they are basically marking themselves. Show us who has decided they're right and wrong and why. I'm sure next season they'll say its 96.8%.

As I said earlier in the thread; a lot of refereeing is to with opinion and interpretation. And whilst that will of course lead to inconsistencies to a point, it is what it is and there isn't necessarily right or wrong on those. However, when it comes to this law change, there is very little room for interpretation. Despite people in this thread trying to come up with their own theories. The goalkeeper either has control or they don't, based on the criteria for control.

I really hope this change works, as the game is starting to be ruined by the likes and timewasting and diving. And I don't fully expect grassroots officials to be going out onto pitches as martyrs. However, officials higher up the pyramid need to grow a pair and start applying laws such as this. Diving can be hard to spot and interpret, this really shouldn't.

But I guess the mental gymnastics can come into play to come up with excuses.
 
ARF said:
Don't forget in law it's 8 seconds from when the GK has control of the ball, not 8 seconds from when he can be expected to release the ball.

Maybe Turpin forgot to start counting straight away, maybe his counting just ended up being a bit slow, but ultimately we're now going to be in a position where the law won't be completely ignored, and keepers will know they can't take the piss anymore.
Click to expand...
I think clarification is needed here though, because if we cite the other part of law the goalkeeper is in control of the ball as soon as he touches it with his hand, but I really don't think that is when the countdown is expected to start.
 
RefereeX said:
I think clarification is needed here though, because if we cite the other part of law the goalkeeper is in control of the ball as soon as he touches it with his hand, but I really don't think that is when the countdown is expected to start.
Click to expand...
1000043707.jpg
No doubt they will amend or clarify something. But they really shouldn't need rewrites for something so basic
 
Runner Ref said:
You say this a lot, but that in reality is not what VAR does. VAR does not correct clear & obvious errors. Someone being offside by a mm is not a clear & obvious error, but we sit for many minutes whilst they decide.
Click to expand...
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Offside doesn't fall under clear and obvious, it never has and never will as it is black and white, one of the very few things in football that falls under that category. Even if it takes an age to sort out it is still black and white, unless the two players really are completely level to the mm and that is incredibly rare.

I'm talking about the other decisions that VAR can get involved such as penalties, red cards, etc, with, but I'm assuming you knew that.
 
RustyRef said:
Are you deliberately being obtuse? Offside doesn't fall under clear and obvious, it never has and never will as it is black and white, one of the very few things in football that falls under that category. Even if it takes an age to sort out it is still black and white, unless the two players really are completely level to the mm and that is incredibly rare.

I'm talking about the other decisions that VAR can get involved such as penalties, red cards, etc, with, but I'm assuming you knew that.
Click to expand...
Rusty, if you genuinely believe that VAR is only used for clear & obviously decisions, then that is up to you. But I think the vast majority of people can see that it has gone far beyond that. Something that is clear & obvious does not take 2,3,4,5 minutes to decide on.
 
Kent Ref said:
It's not hard to count to 8 and then blow the whistle.

It's not hard to count to 8 and then blow the whistle.

A lot of excuses being made to keep the status quo.

I still most refs will be creative and ignore or make excuses.

If a goalkeeper "goes to ground" for pointless time why should the ref wait for them to get to their feet?

Collina's statement was VERY unhelpful.

He should "tow the line" in his position.
Click to expand...

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:

... is intended to stop them from catching the ball and then theatrically falling to the ground to steal a few more seconds before standing up again.
Click to expand...

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
 
Peter Grove said:
I think the phrase, "The referee will decide when the goalkeeper has control of the ball ..." is sufficient clarification and I'm pretty sure it was put in there quite deliberately to allow the referee some discretion here.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You just know the crowds in the professional game will be doing the countdown from the stands and demanding a corner as soon as the 8 seconds are up. By the way (unless i've missed this) but how do you know which side they should take the corner from ?
 
The law seems to imply if the referee hasn't started the count then the referee has determined the goalkeeper is not in control of the ball. Which obviously isn't the intent

This bit about the referee deciding when the counts starts and when a goalkeeper is in control wasn't in the original proposal iirc. 8 seconds is more than enough time.
 
I personally think if a goalkeeper dives and holds a shot he should be entitled to a few seconds to recover / stand up before he then has his 8 seconds to release the ball. But he's in control of the ball when he saves / holds the shot. So this would contradict law. But as I said, I don't think the intention is for the 8 second timer to start as soon as law says the keeper is in control, I think the intention is for it to start when the referee believes the keeper could begin to look to release it. I may be wrong though...
 
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...
An interesting view, but not what the law states and not what IFAB Q & A indicates. Once the goalkeeper meets the "in control" criteria, the 8-second count should start.
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.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
An interesting view, but not what the law states and not what IFAB Q & A indicates. Once the goalkeeper meets the "in control" criteria, the 8-second count should start.
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 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.
 
RefereeX said:
I personally think if a goalkeeper dives and holds a shot he should be entitled to a few seconds to recover / stand up before he then has his 8 seconds to release the ball. But he's in control of the ball when he saves / holds the shot. So this would contradict law. But as I said, I don't think the intention is for the 8 second timer to start as soon as law says the keeper is in control, I think the intention is for it to start when the referee believes the keeper could begin to look to release it. I may be wrong though...
Click to expand...
See post #208
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top