There'll be no rebounds from penalties if saved or hit post. Play stopped and restarted, so players wont need to be on penalty area

Goals disallowed if any part of hand used whether deliberate or not

Substituted players to leave pitch at nearest point and not half way line

Attacking players must be at least a metre from the wall at a free kick.

The penalty one is ridiculous.

I agree, totally mad, it’s an advantage to the team who has committed the offence.

VAR, and bollocks like this and they can’t even decide what is offside or not they have made the law that complicated. The game has done alright for all of these years it doesn’t need reinventing. The sub one is also farcical even though you can see the logic, players will just stand in the centre circle!! The handball one makes sense even though the law is already pretty much like that anyway, a ref isn’t going to see a player score with his hand and allow the goal.

Rules are there to be broken and weak referees allow that to happen all the time.

Once upon a time the players defended corners by trying to win the ball, now they defend by holding onto forwards. Blatant foul after blatant foul is ignored, though interestingly Harry Kane got a couple of penalties for holding in the World Cup, so maybe it's only English referees who are useless!

The rebound one is out of order, one of the biggest issue for me is the opposing player more or less standing on the keepers toes too preventing him from moving,deliberate obstruction.
The shirt pulling fouls should be a straight red card, again deliberate obstruction no matter where on the field.

The hand of God rule abolished 33 years to late.

Is this talk of a new rebound rule legit? I've looked at a dozen news sites and the only one that mentions it is Sky.
The others just mention the rule about the goalie having 1 foot on the line instead of 2.

I honestly thought the one about handball was already a rule!

I don't think the penalty rule is terrible but neither were the rules that its replaced. It seems needless.

you must be old skool mate. refereed a under 17,s game last wednesday where the home team were basically halifax town u17,s. they wanted free kicks for any slight contact they received in tackles but went ape when i penalised em for shirt and short pulling. seems the way the game is going now bit it aint the game i know.

This has now been posted after the Sky article:

"This is an updated and corrected version of this article. The first edition mistakenly referred to a rule in relation to penalties which will not come into effect".

Good. It made no sense for a missed penalty to not result in open play.

Or as the old saying goes, "Never believe anything you read in an Internet forum".

Brought to you by Montpoolier, calling out fake news since 2019.

But the one that really stands out is the hand ball goal rule. How can it be a foul in the box, but not anywhere else on the pitch? What if I accidentally hand ball it then cross it in and we score? Is that ok? Makes no sense to have different rules in different parts of the pitch.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk[/quote]
agree. seems stupid to me if a defender in his penalty area boots the ball at an attacker a yard away and the ball goes into the net he,ll get a free kick for it. think the pundits will be having a field day next season plus our old friend VAR.

Apparently there was a VAR call in the RM- Ajax game last night that took 4 minutes to resolve. I'm in favour of VAR but they need to limit reviews to 90 seconds tops otherwise they'll start sneaking in commercial breaks like in the NFL.

I’m not sure how you can limit the time if the decision hasn’t been arrived at after 90 seconds then what? It’s just makes it an even bigger farce than it already is.

VAR is not improving the game, and it’s not working any better than it did in the World Cup. It has shown than top referees make very few outright howlers so it’s not needed and the majority things it interferes with are either very marginal or subjective.

I’m still not in favour of VAR if you are still in any doubt!

I think one problem with VAR is maybe that the consultation seems unstructured. If you look at TMO in rugby there is only a very small set of specifically worded questions the ref can ask the TMO. The only instance where it takes annoyingly long is when there isn't a clear camera angle (i.e., when the ball's under a pile of bodies, which just shouldn't happen in footy). Havng said that, there are some refs who are more replay happy than others.
Football is one of the last sports to use technologicat decision aids, but I'm not sure they took the time to learn from the others.

Agree with that. It's broadly the same with cricket when it goes to the 3rd umpire. 90 seconds with VAR would be long enough to look at several camera angles. If it's not a clear the benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side.

Use technology for line decisions that can be given instantly, anything else just leave to the officials on the pitch.

Yes, that's it - same with rugby and cricket. It's the ref's job to give the benefit of the doubt!

me too. bad enough sitting in the cold watching a real shite game and its being extended by the use of VAR. like rugby league televised games the game goes on and on due to the stoppages for the video ref and most of them with all the bodies around are inconclusive from all angles so why bother in the first place.