Are football's new laws overcomplicating the game?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Athletic FC Podcast

Episode: Are football's new laws overcomplicating the game?
Date: March 7, 2026
Host: Duncan Alexander
Guests: Michael Cox, Mark Carey

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Athletic FC Tactics Podcast explores the upcoming changes to football's laws ratified by IFAB for the 2026–27 season. Duncan Alexander leads a lively debate with Michael Cox and Mark Carey on topics ranging from VAR extensions, time restrictions for restarts, and Arsène Wenger’s proposed offside rule. The conversation dives deep into the evolution and philosophy behind law changes, questioning whether they improve the game or add unnecessary complexity.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. History and Philosophy of Football’s Laws

Timestamps: 02:21–06:36

• Football laws have always evolved to balance physicality and technical skill.
  • Michael Cox discusses the original debates, including the ban on "hacking" (kicking shins), which led to rugby’s creation.

    “They wanted it to be about technical football...not just all about really big, strong people.”—Michael Cox [03:09]

• Even major staples like the penalty box were innovations to curb exploitative physical play as the game professionalized.
• Law changes are responses to the way teams exploit loopholes, not arbitrary evolutions.

---

2. VAR (Video Assistant Referee) Enhancements

Timestamps: 06:36–14:50

• IFAB is expanding VAR’s remit in three main ways:

  1. Red cards from a second yellow (for clearly incorrect calls):
     Consensus: Sensible, but “where do you draw the line?” What about the first yellow?—Mark Carey [07:00].
  2. Mistaken identity:
     Surprising it wasn’t already law. Quick and uncontroversial fix.
  3. Incorrectly awarded corner kicks (if corrected instantly):
     Michael Cox: Makes sense if it’s immediate; Duncan Alexander: “It feels like one of those things that’s the most evened out thing in football.” [09:16]

• Potential future: Challenge System

  • Pierluigi Collina proposes trials where teams get limited appeals per match.
  • Michael Cox’s concern: It places too much official power with coaches, breaking with football’s tradition of player-centric in-game authority.

    “If it’s a challenge, it should be about the captain...not about the manager.” —Michael Cox [12:03]

  • “If you run out of challenges and there’s a huge mistake at the end, that feels wrong.”—Mark Carey [13:10]

• Home advantage concerns: Challenge-based systems risk being swayed by crowd pressure.

  “You’d never get a successful challenge away at Anfield.” —Duncan Alexander [14:42]

---

3. Countdowns for Restarts

Timestamps: 17:28–22:12

• New proposal:
  Referees can use a five-second visible countdown for throw-ins and goal kicks if time-wasting is suspected. Afterward, possession passes (e.g. throw goes to the other team, delayed goal kick becomes a corner).

  “When I first heard it I thought it sounded slightly mad…” —Michael Cox [18:26]

  • In practice, since the countdown only begins when time-wasting is detected, it might actually delay things more.

• Substitutions:
  Players must leave the pitch within 10 seconds after the board goes up, else replacements wait until next stoppage.

  • “Substitutions were just for injuries originally, now it’s almost competitive speed!”—Michael Cox [20:37]

• Injured players must leave the pitch for a full minute post-treatment, increased from 30 seconds.

  • Mark Carey: Bad—genuine cases penalized.
  • Michael Cox: Supportive, as minor injuries have “too much stoppage impact.”

---

4. Arsène Wenger’s “Daylight Offside” Rule

Timestamps: 23:05–28:25

• Being trialed in Canada: attackers only offside if there’s clear “daylight” between them and the defender, not just a body part.
  • Michael Cox:

    “No one really had that much of an issue with it before VAR.... The whole thing is about the freeze frame and it’s a toe overhanging. I just… it’s not a trial, it doesn’t apply.” [23:38]

• It won’t solve marginal offside decisions; might even be harder to officiate without technology.
• May encourage attackers to loiter behind defenses for easy exploitation.
• Unintended consequence: Defenders may play deeper, increasing defensive football and not guaranteeing more goals.

---

5. Body Part Definitions—Offside and Handball

Timestamps: 28:25–31:05

• The distinction of which body part determines offside can be confusing, especially with the “armpit/shoulder/T-shirt line” debate.

  • “The cutoff is unclear... Trying to judge offside by this is unnecessary.” —Michael Cox [29:29]

• Only 0.7% of Premier League goals since 2018/19 were scored with a body part other than head/feet—a marginal but debated aspect.

---

6. Failed or Questionable Law Changes in Football’s Past

Timestamps: 32:43–34:53

• Kick-ins (instead of throw-ins):
  Dismissed as a misunderstanding of the throw-in’s purpose [33:00].
• Fifth and sixth officials (goal-line assistants):
  Phased out quietly with VAR’s advent.
• Marching the wall ten yards for not retreating (free kicks):
  Often counterproductive.
• Vanishing spray:
  Initially novel, now commonplace.

---

7. Panel’s Own Law Change Suggestions

Timestamps: 35:15–40:16

• Michael Cox:
  • Outlaw “kicking for touch” from kick-offs (throw-ins deep in your half could be moved up to the penalty box line).
  • Ban attackers from six-yard box at corners—to protect keepers at lower levels, emphasizing the laws should not be set just for the elite.
• Mark Carey:
  • If a goalkeeper receives treatment and stays on, require an outfielder to leave for the mandatory time instead—closing the “tactical timeout” loophole.
• Duncan Alexander:
  • Add a second on-field referee to reduce missed incidents and ref obstruction, especially in faster, modern games.

---

8. How IFAB Works and British Influence

Timestamps: 40:16–43:09

• IFAB was founded before FIFA and retains a British (home nations) majority on the board (England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland hold half the votes; 6 of 8 needed to pass changes).

• This historical setup explains why Britain has outsized influence on global football laws.

  “The home nations… basically have control... Only 1% of games use VAR or are professional. The laws are meant to be consistent throughout the pyramid.”
  —Michael Cox [41:13, 36:33]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "The laws aren’t adapted randomly, just to evolve for the sake of it... It’s about finding the loopholes teams exploit and reacting."
  —Mark Carey [05:49]

• "VAR will just eventually adjudicate on everything."
  —Michael Cox [07:33]

• "If it’s a challenge, it should be about the captain, not the manager... For me, football is about the players."
  —Michael Cox [12:03]

• "You never get a successful challenge away at Anfield, do you?"
  —Duncan Alexander [14:42]

• "Thirty percent of throw-ins are foul throws these days and they don’t ever bring that up."
  —Duncan Alexander [20:04]

• "We’re slightly living through an epidemic of refs getting in the way of the ball."
  —Duncan Alexander [39:42]

---

Important Timestamps

• History of Law Changes: 03:09–06:36
• VAR Extensions: 06:36–14:50
• Countdowns & Timewasting: 17:28–22:12
• Wenger's Offside Rule: 23:05–28:25
• Offside Body Part Debate: 28:25–31:05
• Failed Law Trials: 32:43–34:53
• Panel’s Rule Suggestions: 35:15–40:16
• IFAB Structure: 40:16–43:09

---

Overall Tone and Style

The debate is rigorous, witty, and rooted in deep tactical and historical insights. The panel frequently balances skepticism about change with an openness to thoughtful modernization, often using historical anecdotes and stats to ground their views. There’s both a respect for football’s traditions and a clear-eyed appreciation for the game's ongoing evolution.

---

For listeners: this episode is a rich, pragmatic examination of where the game's rules have come from, where they're heading, and how best to keep football both fair and enjoyable for all levels — not just the elite.

Transcript

[A]

The longer you stay alive, the longer you can enjoy Boost Mobile's unlimited plan with a price that never goes up. So here are some tips. Do not parallel park on a cliff if you want to enjoy an unlimited plan with a price that never goes up. Do not mistake a wasp nest for a pinata if you want to enjoy an unlimited plan with a price that never goes up. Do not microwave a hard boiled egg if you want to enjoy an unlimited plan with the price that never goes up. Stay alive and enjoy Unlimited Wireless for $25 a month forever with Boost Mobile. After 30 gigs, customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Mobile Unlimited plan.

[B]

Hi, it's Mark Bittman from the podcast Food with Mark Bittman and I'm here to tell you that Whole Foods Market is in the midst of its fabulous Taste the Mediterranean event. With terrific sales on flavors and ingredients both from and inspired by the region everyone loves. You can save 30% using your prime membership on extra virgin olive oil from California Olive Ranch Deco Pasta Rose Rao's Pasta sauces, San Pellegrino sparkling waters and flavored bubbly waters and Cedars Hummus. Save during the Taste the Mediterranean event now at Whole Foods Market.

[C]

Big news. Boost Mobile is now sending experts nationwide to deliver and set up customers new phones at home or work.

[A]

Wait, we're going on tour?

[C]

Not a tour. We're delivering and setting up customers phones so it's easier to upgrade. Let's get in the tour bus and hit the road. No, not a tour bus. It's a regular car we use to deliver and set up customers phones at home or work.

[B]

Are you a groupie on this tour?

[C]

We deliver and set up phones. It's not a tour.

[D]

Oh you're definitely a groupie.

[C]

Introducing store to door switch and get a new device with expert setup and delivery wherever you're at.

[D]

Delivery available for select devices [e-mail].

[B]

The athletic fc.

[E]

Hello and welcome to the Athletic FC Tactics Podcast. I'm Duncan Alexander. This week we're discussing football's new rules, or more accurately, football's new laws. We're going to talk some var. We're going to talk throwing countdowns and maybe have a throw around some suggestions for our own new laws. With me are two men who love laws. They're Michael Cox.

[D]

Hi Duncan.

[E]

And Mark Carey.

[F]

Hello.

[E]

So last week the International Football association board, much better known as ifab, approved a number of proposals at its annual general meeting. The changes are set to come into force from June 1, so before the start of the World cup, and apply for the 2026-27 season. Today, we're going to go through some of those proposals that relate to tactics and debate, if they're any good. We should start by saying that changes to the laws are part of the very fabric of football, from the very beginnings of football in the 19th century through to things like the 1925 offside law change to the 2018 change to goal kicks. Football is always kind of changing. It's never that constant. But one thing that probably is quite constant is that people generally don't like change. Michael, do you want to give a quick sort of overview of the history of. Of the laws of football?

[D]

Yeah, I think it's in a minute. I mean, I think it's worth pointing out that right from the outset, when the FA was formed in the 1860s, they were very clear about shaping the rules to create a particular type of sport. So the first FA meetings, one of the big debates is that one guy from Blackheath Football Club in southeast London wants there to be hacking in football. And what hacking is is basically just kicking people in the shins. No one else wanted this to be part of football and said, we're not going to do that. And he basically stormed out and said, well, I'm not going to be a part of this. And he basically formed what became rugby. And coincidentally, as it happens, when rugby formed their law, they got rid of hacking as well. But right from the outset, they said, look, we want this to be a technical game. There was a debate to be had about whether it was just going to be completely physical and the ball was almost like almost an afterthought. It was just a physical game. But, no, they wanted it to be about technical football. They wanted it to be about quality play. And I think in those early years, you can see that there is a determination for football to be able to be played by basically different body shapes. You know, it's not just all about really big, strong people. You've got to be able to accommodate small technical players. And I think that's worth considering in the light of, you know, whether we're going to talk about the thing you have at corners at the moment with crowding goalkeepers, like, football was not meant to be a purely physical game. It was meant to balance the physical and the technical components of the game. And that was true in the 1860s, and I think it should be true now.

[E]

Yeah, and I guess the other thing as well is that people kind Of, I think bemoan when law changes change football in a way. But football's never been constant. It's always changed, you know, from goalkeepers being able to handle the ball almost all over the pitch. And then that got reduced. Things like even nets being introduced and the changes to what lines are drawn on the pitch, things like that, through to sort of seismic changes like when the offside law was changed in 1925, which saw a huge jump in goals per game for the following seasons, probably helped Dixie Dean, but we won't talk about that.

[D]

Even something like penalty boxes, which we take for granted now, that came in because, you know, when football became professionalized and things became a bit more cynical, people realized that actually if someone was through on goal, you could just trip them and then you could put 10 men behind the ball at the free kick. And it was eventually was like, well, we're going to have to introduce some kind of clear shot penalties. Now we can have arguments about whether sometimes you get penalties for things you don't deserve and maybe whether the penalty box should be an arc or a box or things like that. But again, that was just an adaptation to say, hang on, this is too physical, this is too brutal. You shouldn't be able to succeed just by tripping someone up. We're going to basically change the geometry of the pitch to reflect that.

[F]

And that common thread is still what we're essentially talking about with this upcoming season, where teams or coaches or whoever it is, they're intelligent enough to not necessarily abuse the laws of the game, but find loopholes within it. And then you do have to have that sort of moment where you say, okay, we can't let it go on like this. So the salient one this season are kind of, yeah, the corners or maybe the throw to a certain extent and maybe players time wasting a little bit. The laws aren't sort of made or adapted rather randomly to try and just evolve it for the sake of evolving it. It's because there's just, there's sometimes a law of diminishing returns. It doesn't necessarily improve the quality of the spectacle, therefore it just needs to be tweaked a little bit rather than it just being like, we're going to evolve this because it's been this way for the past 10 years and we need a bit of a shake up.

[E]

Yeah, absolutely. So let's talk some of the new rules, starting with the increased remit of var. So there's three main changes incoming, so let's go through them one by one. The first one, red cards arising from a clearly incorrect second yellow card. Maybe an example being Jacob Ramsey's second yellow for simulation against Manchester United this week. Yeah. What do we think about that?

[D]

Good?

[E]

Bad? Indifferent?

[D]

Good.

[F]

I think this one makes a lot of sense to me. I see it, you know, we've all seen it often enough to think, well, when a red card changes the spectacle itself and the way that the game is played, then it is quite a big thing, if you know that that example is incorrect. My only query in question is what happens if it's the first yellow card that's the one that's maybe incorrect or soft? Do you then think, okay, well, the second one is valid, so we can choose one of the two that then have to be rescinded if you like. So I don't know how they'd maybe overcome that loophole, but principally speaking, I think it does make a lot of sense to do it that way.

[D]

Yeah, I broadly agree. I mean, my starting point is that I'm anti var. I'd quite like it to not exist. So I do kind of object to any kind of creeping. Because I think you can always make the next argument, as you say, what about the first yellow card? Well, you say, well, that was my fifth yellow card. I'm suspended that week. Like, do you do it for that? At what point do you say, no, we're definitely going to have a line there. I suspect there probably isn't a point and VAR will just eventually adjudicate on everything.

[E]

The second one, mistaken identity. So when the referee penalises the wrong team for an offence, that results in a red or yellow card being shown to the wrong player.

[D]

To be honest, I'm surprised this wasn't a thing already because, I mean, when I played like under nines football, it was always like, there is no appeal, apart from in the case of mistaken identity. So, yeah, I'm a bit surprised that wasn't in the laws already.

[F]

I think with all of these initial ones, they're designed to be quick decisions, if you like. Ones that aren't designed to take 3, 4, 5 minutes, which is maybe where a lot of the complaints have been for var, the ones that we're talking about so far, and I think the next one's a good example. Is it just being sort of cleaned up within 10 to 15 seconds and just clearly identifying errors, if you like.

[E]

Okay, yeah, you mentioned the next one. The next one is around. Clearly incorrectly awarded corner kicks, provided that the review can be completed immediately and without delaying the restart.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of instances where a shot takes a small deflection off a defender or maybe, you know, the goalkeeper gets a slight hand on it and you can usually tell by the reaction of the player who was shooting. So I don't object to that. I think within one replay, often television viewers can see it. Probably if you need more than one replay, tough luck. But yeah, I kind of think that makes sense.

[E]

To be honest, I actually don't agree with this one. I just think it feels like one of those things that is the most evened out thing in a game of football you'll ever see. Like, if you get one going for you in the first half, it nearly always. It just happens in reverse in the second half.

[F]

Again, though, where do you draw the line? Because you could extrapolate that out to say that the one that happened was the most salient example that cost a team a win or certain number of points that then lost them a place in the European spots or a place to stay in the league, obviously for the title. Whatever it is, it's. I don't know, you either do it cleanly and properly or.

[E]

Yeah, yeah. I just worry, I guess, that they say, without delaying the restart, but it kind of, you know, if. If you wanted to take a quick corner or quick go kick, I mean.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

Although to be fair, teams do take ages. Setting up for go kicks now. So, final one of VAR, the the chairman of FIFA's referees committee, a man we all remember, I'm sure, Pierluigi Collina, a man who, incidentally, who, when refereeing was going through a periodic meltdown in this country in the 2000s, people would often demand that Collina was parachuted into the Premier League to take over refereeing.

[D]

It was always weird that, because I don't think he was a particularly good referee. He was very distinctive looking. He clearly scared the players. He did have authority, but, I mean, his decision making I don't think was any better or worse than any other ref. And I must have seen him do, I don't know, 50, 100 games. He was all right.

[E]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he's saying that there could be further trials of a challenge system as part of a two year VAR review. This is basically an alternative to the full bells and whistles Var. This is more like a coach's challenge, which we've seen in other sports like NBA, where you get a set number of appeals per game and it's adjudicated at the side of the pitch. Essentially. It's been trialled in a few sort of smaller leagues in places like Italy and Malta. It's obviously a very different approach.

[D]

Well, first of all, on the trial, I mean, they trial var and whenever I saw that being trialed, I thought, well, there's so many issues here that I don't think quite makes sense. And they basically said, yeah, it's fine, we've done the trial, we're going ahead with it. So I am intrigued to what extent this is really trial. Like, how bad does something have to be before it fails? Because personally, I think VR doesn't meet that. I also have an issue with the. This might be a weird point, but I also have an issue with just the coaches having this level of impact upon the game. I mean, we all accept that football managers, football coaches are a thing, but when you think about it, like, they don't really have that much of an official role in the game. I mean, if they, for example, if they want to make a substitution and the team is like, no, we're not making a substitute, we're not going to do that. The managers don't have any right to say what is happening. The managers don't have any official role to play at all. They are in charge of the team and they organize certain things. But I think if this is going to. If it's a challenge, it should be about the captain, don't think it should be about the manager who. You can argue whether this is right or wrong, but the manager's going to be in contact with someone who's got a screen, etc. Etc. It kind of takes it away from the pitch for me and I don't like that.

[F]

I agree. If it is just to be the players, though, the player is going to naturally then look across the touchline, look at the manager, the manager is going to look at the coach who's in the stands or looking at the screen. And it's all going to become blurred anyway, isn't it?

[D]

To a certain extent. But I think the coach. There's always been a bit of a balance, I think. And this goes for other sports as well. I mean, for example, in tennis you're not allowed to be coached from the sidelines. I think it's important to retain the balance between people always saying these days that the players don't have enough of individual authority on the pitch. Everything's structured, everything's predetermined.

[C]

And.

[D]

And even though this doesn't have that much of an impact, I do think it would be tilting the power further in favour of the Coaches rather than the players. For me, football is about the players. The coach is there to organise. I don't think they're there to actually interfere with essentially the referee's decision. For me, that's the captain's job.

[F]

Having a finite number of challenges as well just doesn't sit right with me where I think you retain the challenge if you get it correct. Don't you like other sports? But what happens if you do get two wrong and then there's a really glaringly obvious mistake in the final 10 minutes, but then you've run out of challenges. I don't know if the that sits right with me either, that you still have an inequality there that doesn't work.

[D]

But the VAL would still be able to interfere. Right?

[E]

Well, I think this would replace VR.

[D]

This would replace VR.

[F]

Right?

[D]

Okay. Yeah.

[E]

And you could also see the reverse situation where a team kind of stalls them up. Nothing much debatable has happened in the game, but they want to kill the game at the end of the match so they like, oh, you know, start appealing very spurious things. So I can see the appeal for smaller leagues, but I think I agree with both of you that it's, you know, as bad as, or as controversial as the current VAR system is, at least it's kind of independent. It's an independent, referee, organized thing.

[F]

The other thing I think as well, which we've spoken about on this podcast recently in terms of home advantage, is that there might be, if the home team, the home fans are kind of with them on that decision, try to make a certain challenge. I feel like there's going to be a slightly more skewed view, implicitly, not consciously, but by the referees and the sort of the wider official team to try. And actually, if the home team said we have an issue with this versus the away team, I just feel like there would be an unconscious bias there to try and not fulfill the demands of what the home team is necessarily doing, but would feel greater pressure to adhere to what their challenge is.

[E]

You'd be doing it with the crowd, what, five metres away. You never get a successful challenge away at Anfield, do you?

[F]

Right, that's what I mean.

[B]

Foreign.

[G]

This episode of the Athletic FC podcast is sponsored by BetterHelp. The 8th of March is International Women's Day, and this month BetterHelp wants to celebrate female strength and progress, while also recognizing that between caring for others and managing unseen responsibilities, their emotional well being can easily be overlooked. So once you've listened to this ad, why not take a moment to reflect on the special woman or women in your life your wife, your mother, your daughter, your sister, your beloved aunt and the expectations placed on them and the pressures they feel. Maybe you want to suggest that therapy can help create balance, set healthy boundaries and support overall well being for everyone. BetterHelp is one of the world's largest online therapy providers, serving over 6 million people globally. Just fill in a short questionnaire and they'll pair you with a therapist based on your preferences, needs and goals. If you aren't happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist at any time, safe in the knowledge that better health therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are licensed in the US Your emotional well being matters. Find support and feel lighter in therapy. Sign up right now and get 10% off at betterhelp.com fcpodcast that's betterhelp.com fcpodcast One last time betterhelp.com fcpodcast or all one word with no spaces.

[B]

Time is valuable. That's why Lowe's Blueprint Takeoffs turn blueprints into quotes faster. Bring us your plans and we'll generate itemized material lists to make quoting easier so you can get back to Building Plus. At the Lowes Pro desk you get access to thousands of building materials not sold in store and when your order's ready, we'll deliver everything to the job site. Improving is easy at Lowe's Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing.

[C]

You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com print postage on demand 247 and schedule pickups from your office or home to save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days.

[E]

Okay, next we're going to look at countdowns for things like goal kicks, throw ins and substitutions. Obviously quite a quite a thing in the news this week with Fabian Herzler complaining about Arsenal's delays and in Arsenal's win at Brighton. And obviously we've seen recently the the law brought in where if a goalkeeper holds onto the ball for too long, the ref can award a corner, which I saw in the Wickham Burton game last week. But it's nice to see one. So they're going to expand this kind of approach. So here's what IFAB have said. They said if the referee considers that a throw in or goal kick is taking too long or being deliberately delayed, a five second visual countdown will be initiated. If the ball is not in play at the end of the countdown, the throw in will be awarded to the opposing team, while a delayed goal kick will result in a corner kick being awarded to the opponents. So let's deal with that one first. What are your thoughts about that? It's similar obviously to the current holding the ball when the goalkeeper's got possession.

[D]

When I first heard it, I thought it sounded slightly mad because I thought the throne was going to count. The countdown was going to start basically as soon as the player got the ball, but it's actually once the referee decides the player is time wasting, so it doesn't really matter. I mean, if anything, I think maybe they'll get five seconds more than they used to.

[F]

Yeah, and it seems subjective. That's how I feel about the current one that's been brought in at the start of this season. With the goalkeepers holding onto it for too long, they're trying to impose something a little bit more objective with maybe a 5 second countdown or with the case of the goalkeepers, an eight second countdown to something that is still perceived as subjective. As in this case, if the referee is deeming it to be that the player is taking too long. Are you doing a stopwatch or are you not? It feels like there's neither one nor the other. The other thing with the throw ins is that obviously it's been a main theme of the Premier League this season, but I think there's an extent to which the teams who have done it well introduced it going back as far as Stoke City. But you know, Brentford in more recent memory, they do it really well to great effect. And it's been such a key creative weapon for them to level themselves up, if you like, against those elite sides. And then those elite sides have used it and it's being kind of used and abused and it feels like those sorts of teams have ruined it for everyone. Because you can get a lot of upside by having creative set plays or whatever it may be. That's never been the issue. I think it's the fact that it's kind of the gluttony of players doing it across the whole league and then taking so much time with it. If I was a Brentford fan, I would feel aggrieved that it's like, well, hang on, that was a really useful weapon for us and that's been maybe taken away or at least curbed a little bit when that was the very thing that I Mean, to a certain extent has kept them in the league.

[E]

Yeah, I mean, my view would be that the throw in in its current form has been part of the laws since 1883. And yet I don't think we've ever seen such a low standard of throw ins in the Premier League. Like I'd say 30% of throw ins are foul throws these days and they don't really ever bring. Bring that up. Okay, next one is substitutions. So what's proposed is the player going off will need to leave the pitch within 10 seconds of the substitute board going up. And if they don't, the player coming on will have to wait for at least one minute and until the next stoppage in play to enter the field.

[D]

Yeah, it basically seems fine. I mean, when substitutions first came in they were really just designed for injuries when a player really couldn't walk. So they probably wouldn't have been able to leave the pitch within 10 seconds. Whereas it's now you have to leave the pitch in 10 seconds, which I think is probably quite a funny shift. But yeah, I mean it's basically fine.

[E]

Okay, and last one on this theme. Injured players now have to go off the pitch after treatment for one minute. Obviously recently it's been for 30 seconds in one word answers. Good, bad, indifferent.

[F]

Bad.

[D]

Yeah, I'm fine with it. Yeah, I think it's. I do think players need treatment too often.

[F]

That's the deterrent against.

[D]

Yeah, there's not, there's not that much a physio can do within one minute. I know sometimes you do have serious physical issues, but actually I do think players just go down too much and the game has stopped too much and the video comes on doesn't really do anything. We don't really need that in football.

[F]

That's actually. This isn't what we're going to necessarily speak about today, but I do find that it's difficult because there are obviously cases where players are genuinely injured. But I like seeing the referees let the game flow a little bit and quite often the player who is rolling around and then realises that they're costing their team because they're not getting back into shape when they do get back up. I feel that the referee feels validated to not stop the play because there's just been an increasing amount of times in recent seasons where the referee has stopped the play, the player has treatment for a matter of seconds, they are obviously fine and then everyone's frustrated because the flow of the game has been disrupted. The difficulty is that how do you know for sure, whether that player is genuinely injured or not.

[D]

I mean, a lot of the time there's a thing with football where you get injuries where they are genuinely really painful for one or two minutes, but then you're fine and the physio can't really do much. It's kind of like if you step on a plug or something, it's like on like. It's true. I've. I've like broken my arm playing football and like, it wasn't painful at all. I bet it was a serious injury and I've trod on a plug and in the first one or two minutes, treading on a plug is absolutely the more painful thing. But you can play on after one or two minutes and I think sometimes we just have to, you know, okay, if it's a foul, it's a foul, but sometimes if you get a kick on the foot, you're going to be limping for a minute, but the physio ain't going to be able to do anything really. So I do think we need to cut. Well, maybe, but I do think we need to cut down on these stoppages where as your players just temporarily hurt, like it should be, where you need medical treatment, not just you need a bit of time to get over it, in my opinion.

[E]

I agree. We also got the news that Arsene Wenger's controversial offside rule is set to be trialled in the Canadian Premier League. It's always interesting to see which leagues get to get to trial stuff. The Isthmian League got to trial kick ins back in the 90s, but the Canadian Premier League is going to trial the new daylight offside. So essentially that means that rather than the attacking player having to be behind or level with the defender, they will only be offside if there is a clear gap between them and the defender. It doesn't seem to solve many of the issues that people currently have with offside.

[D]

No, I mean, I don't understand this at all. Not just the rule, but I mean, this is a VAR issue. No one really had that much of an issue with it before var. The Canadian Premier League doesn't use var, so I don't really understand how this is going to solve anything. The whole thing is about the freeze frame and it's a toe overhanging. If it's just doing it in kind of regular play. I just. It's not a trial, it's just not. It doesn't really apply to. I mean, I watch football every week that isn't at a VAR level. And no one really talks about this kind of daylight offside. It's just not a thing. So I don't understand that. I mean, I don't really understand what the rule solves. There's still going to be marginal decisions. It just means that the margin will be in a different place. I think there would be a lot of goals that we just feel offside that count. And maybe you could argue that's better than the current situation, where I think a lot of goals that feel onside are ruled out. But I just. I mean, are you not just going to get strikers who can linger two yards behind the defense and then kind of dip a leg backwards into an onside position and hope that one of the four defenders is half a yard behind? I just don't really understand how it works. And again, to kind of make the reverse argument, the whole point of football's laws is they're meant to be consistent across the game. And while this could in theory work in VAR leagues, I just don't understand how you would officiate on that if you don't have the television as a backup. I think it'd be really, really difficult because I think there's a danger a player will stay in an offside position constantly and just one tiny bit will be offside. I think that'd be really difficult for a linesman to cope with. And I think it's worth pointing out, maybe it doesn't matter that much, but the Canadian Premier League is quite a low level. I mean, it's. You know, I was looking at the top scorers of the league last year. None of them have played an international game. Top scorer in the Canadian League last year has just moved to Sweden, which is usually kind of the 20th, 25th best league in Europe. So that was clearly a step up for him. So it's not a terrible level of football, but it's not. I'm not sure how much of a useful trial it is, considering the standard and the lack of var.

[E]

You wrote an article, didn't you, about Wenger and his sort of curious understanding of what makes football good?

[D]

I do, yeah. I slightly struggle with. I think when he's talking about the kind of spatial things in football, I do find it difficult to understand his rationale for certain things. And again, I just don't think it makes any sense, really. I think people have a problem with real marginal offside decisions. But as soon as you use technology, you have to draw the line somewhere. And so I personally don't think this will solve anything.

[F]

Is it because, well, he said that he wants to give the advantage to the attackers. But to your point, Michael, in terms of changing laws to sort of benefit everyone, would that not almost then diminish the quality of really good defending and really good defensive lines where it's just like. Well, you can. It's far easier to abuse that as the attacker, to not only dip the toe back to stay onside, but also use that as a force to spring off from to give yourself an extra advantage. It feels like his main reason is to give the advantage to the attackers, but that in itself feels skewed only one way.

[D]

Yeah, and I don't think football particularly needs to make an attacking shift. I mean, we don't want to see goals that fit feel onside being ruled out. And understand when someone's offside by a toe. It is frustrating. But I would argue that in certain situations, actually attackers have the advantage in offside in ways that we don't even think about because we just take it for granted. But I mean, attackers can stand offside and not interfere with play and that's fine. And we all think that is fine. But a defender can't do that. Do you know what I mean? A defender, because that is the offside line. So I think actually when the offside law was really, really strict, you did need to make allowances for attackers. But yeah, I don't think in itself just saying attackers need to have the advantage really means anything unless it is a clear solution. And I don't think that this is really.

[E]

Well, when they relax the offside law and allow people to be offside, but then, you know, come back in to an onside position, people thought that would ruin the game and it clearly didn't. And we also this kind of obsession with more goals, we need more goals. I mean, 23, 24 was the highest scoring English top flight season since the 1960s and that was, you know, with all the current restrictions. So. And even this season is not exactly dipped super low. So I think.

[D]

And also there's a concern, I'm not sure completely whether this would be the case, but there's a concern that actually defenders would then just play deeper and actually teams would come become more defensive. So what would be intended to benefit attackers might not necessarily do so.

[F]

Not necessarily the daylight thing, but I think the whole torso element of the. Is it the shirt line and the shoulder and stuff like. I think that bit is maybe a little bit extreme. There was the recent example with Jayden Anthony for Burnley against Brentford at the weekend where it was a shoulder. Like no part of his. Well, this is the thing. No part of his body that he could score a goal was offside. But then I was going to say, then it's the shoulder. But interesting that you say that because I looked into the numbers on it and since 2018, 19 in the Premier League, there have been 59 goals scored. This is taking our own goals, 59 goals scored that have not been with the left foot, the right foot, the head. There have been 8,449 goals in total in that time. So 0.7% of total goals in that time have been scored by an other body part from a certain player. So it feels to me, maybe it's just my opinion, but I feel like that Jayden Anthony example of it being a shoulder that's ahead should be head, not shoulders. Knees and toes. Knees and toes, basically. My opinion is maybe that was a bit of an extreme example.

[D]

Does that include own goals?

[F]

That number that removes own goals?

[D]

It takes our own goals. Okay. Interesting. Yeah, yeah. Again, I just don't think it's easy to see the cutoff point. It's not a clear. When you actually look at what the T shirt line means, it's quite confusing because it's not. It's not the T shirt sleeve and it's not basically the point where the arm of a T shirt joins the torso of a T shirt. It's kind of in between from your armpit across. And so when you're trying to. When the VAR is trying to find the point on the slow mo, it's very, very difficult to be sure about that. I don't think it makes any sense.

[E]

That was a really good example this week in the Fulham West Ham game where Alex Iwobi. It basically came off that exact point. And I think you could have given the penalty and in the end they didn't give the penalty. But both were probably correct and. Or incorrect decisions. There's such a sort of variance there.

[D]

I mean, I do appreciate that for handball there has to be a cutoff point, but I don't necessarily think that has to be the same cutoff point for offside. I think for offside you can just say like. Like you can just take the position of the feet or head or whatever, really, and do it that way. But when you're trying to judge offside by this, I mean, the armpit thing is a little bit of a misnomer, but you can't be sure of the. The position of the body part because it's not a distinct thing, and I think that is unnecessary. I just don't think offside has to be related to the handball law. Basically, I think they're two different things.

[B]

Over 90 of the top 100 US accounting firms trust bill to handle bill pay processes. Why? Because our tools are built on over a trillion dollars of secure payments. We're not just moving money, we're powering financial workflows for half a million customers. That's a level of expertise you just can't fake. Ready to talk with an expert? Visit bill.comproven to get started and grab a $250 gift card as a thank you. Terms and conditions apply. See Offer page for details.

[D]

Taste the Mediterranean at Whole Foods Market with a vibrant selection that captures the flavors of the region. Shop coastal favorites like responsibly farmed whole Bronzini and jumbo white shrimp and pair them with specialty pastas, robust olive oils and aromatic sauces directly sourced from the Mediterranean. Want a fast and easy din? Grab refreshing Greek salads and tortellini from the prepared foods department. Taste the Mediterranean now at Whole Foods Market.

[C]

Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com print postage on demand 24, 7 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days.

[E]

So before we get into our own law suggestions, what are the worst suggestions that have come before? Because obviously, as we've discussed, the laws of the game have been tweaked for nearly over 150 years. There's been various things that I think we can say have been pretty successful, but quite a few that haven't worked.

[D]

Michael yeah, I mean you mentioned kick ins earlier, but I do think that fundamentally misunderstood the value of a throw in or the value of the throw in in relation to football, which is that it's not the same as a free kick and it shouldn't be the same as a free kick. If you get a free kick on the touchline, which essentially a kick in is you're essentially saying that having the ball kicked off you and it goes over the touchline is as bad as a really bad tackle, which is not the point of the throw is that his value is limited. Most players can only threat 20, 25 yards. Okay, if you Got a specialist pellet into the box. That's fine, that's part of the game. But yeah, that didn't make any sense. They tried it in the Isthmian League and I think in the Bulgarian Top Division, somewhere like that, and yeah, it didn't work.

[F]

I haven't necessarily got any suggestions of bad suggestions, but we were talking before, weren't we, about ones that have sort of come and gone, faded away of the fifth and sixth, I think officials where they would stand essentially next to the goal post and I think this was. Was this in a pre VAR era where they would try to flag, if you like, even though it wasn't actually a flag, it was more of a wand for any sort of penalty appeals. There's been a few like that where. Why did that go away? Maybe in this instance it was because of var, but there have been some that have kind of come and gone, but with sort of not too much fanfare when they've left and sort of not entirely sure why.

[E]

Yeah, similar one I always remember is, remember when the era of if the ref, if the wall didn't retreat to the right position, the ref would march on another 10 yards. And I mean, often it sounds like a good idea, but often moving a free kick closer to the penalty area is less optimal for the. For the team. Tasia, remember obviously the Ferrari slash excitement in 2014 at the World cup when the vanishing spray was brought in, that was.

[F]

That was impressive, which for three or

[E]

four months seemed like the maddest thing you've ever seen on a football pitch, but now people see it all the time, it doesn't even register. So, yeah, I mean, stuff does make its way into the game and just become fabric of it. Okay, then let's become lawmakers ourselves. If we had to propose one rule to change to make it better, quicker, whatever, what would you choose?

[D]

Well, I've always, I think I've said this before on the podcast, but I'm really against the idea that you can basically kick for touch, particularly from kickoffs. We've seen it a few times in the Premier League this year and a few times over recent decades. And obviously the problem is that if you get a throw in really close to the corner flag, there's a limited amount of space you can throw it to because you can't go backwards, you can't really go towards the keeper. That's too dangerous. And so actually kicking for touch and boxing teams in is quite beneficial. So what I would do is that if you get a throw in really deep in your own half, you can bring it to level with the edge of the penalty box so then you can throw the ball backwards.

[E]

Sounds a bit rugby to me.

[D]

To be honest, I don't really know enough about how rugby works. But basically, if you were to have it on the edge of the 18 yard line, it'd be harder to box in, you'd have more space and if you do just end up hurling it down the touchline, then you can see possession, let's say 35 yards from your own byline rather than 18 yards. So I would change that. Also, I actually looked this up. It was seven years ago today, by complete coincidence, I wrote a thing for ESPN about law changes and I said then that basically attackers should be banned from the six yard box at corners because I was just sick of not really in the Premier League level because it wasn't a thing then, but a lower league level.

[E]

Why did Arsenal do this seven years ago?

[D]

Well, I think that is a valid question. I mean my memories of like playing under nines football and I know that under nines don't really play on like proper pitches these days, but you would just like the keeper would often be quite short, wouldn't be able to touch the crossbar, you would just float the ball in, in swinger, get a couple of men around him and it would go in. And again, the point of football's laws, and this is a bit of a problem I have with ifab, is I think one, they're really reactive and second, I think they're reactive to what's happening at the top level of football. And I don't think that's what it's about. The laws are consistent or they're meant to be consistent throughout the pyramid and throughout youth levels and everything. And only 1% of games use VAR or on television or are professional. Vast majority of football games. You should be accounting for basically people who aren't that good, who can't always retain possession. So it's things like the misting with corners and with the throws where it's not just about whether it's an issue at Premier League level, it's about your Sunday League team. Like you just shouldn't be, in my opinion, you shouldn't be able to constantly score goals by crowding the keeper at corners and you shouldn't be able to kick for touch and box in because, you know, do you really want teams to be spending their one hour training a week working on getting out throws in by their own corner flag? Of course not. Again, it's Just about balancing the physical and technical components of football.

[F]

Well, for mine, I had this thought this morning, but then I have since looked it up and it's already been suggested elsewhere. But I think that the whole goalkeepers going down has been in football for quite some years. That's obviously true. But the fact that it is like we're speaking about in general, in terms of making the law changes, is that it's being abused just a little bit too much. And of course, we know that goalkeepers are the ones who go down because they're the ones who can't then subsequently go off the pitch. So then it allows players to have. They call them sort of tactical timeouts now, but the idea that they can go have a quick drink, have a bit of a huddle and, you know, try to sort things out a little bit tactically. My sort of proposal would be that if that were to be the case, it might be. Well, it can't be the goalkeeper who can go off, but they have to then elect. If you're going to have treatment, they then have to elect for any outfielder, and they can choose to then be the one who subsequently goes off for. Could be 30 seconds, could be a minute, depending on what the latest law changes are. But that you do have to have some sort of form of deterrent to stop the goalkeepers doing that, because at the moment, the officials are kind of helpless to the fact that it is a loophole within the laws that are, as I say, being not only used, but abused, and quite regularly at that. And there's so much in all of these. I think there's a lot of copycat culture. You can talk about it from a corner perspective, long throws, et cetera, where everyone's looking at each other and thinking they seem to be having some success there, so we're gonna do the same. And when that just kind of ripples through the whole. Granted, talking about more of the Premier League here, but it can ripple across wider leagues, then I think that's when something has to be done about it. So I'd maybe say an outfielder has to go off the field for a certain period. If it is the goalkeeper who goes down, okay.

[E]

I mean, I think mine would maybe be bring in an additional referee on the pitch, which obviously was a thing in the 19th century. It's a thing in sports, like American football, where I think they spot more stuff. And I think we're slightly living through a slight epidemic of refs getting in the way of the ball. I think it's happening, happening more now than ever before and there's so many drop balls. Maybe bring back the old competed for drop ball while we're at it, but I just think it would help refs to kind of, you know, manage a half rather than, you know, as the game gets ever more physical and faster than try and keep up with the whole game.

[F]

Would that supersede Var in that you're having more officials but just on the pitch?

[E]

Possibly. But I think to Michael's point a minute ago, it's something you could introduce at all levels. I mean, obviously there is a cost in terms of finding officials and stuff, but. But I think it was. It's a lot more roll outable to lower leagues and then finally just. I mean, Michael touched upon it. But ifab, it's quite a. I mean, I'll ask Michael to give a sort of quick explanation of how it's made up, but it's quite a curious kind of setup really and it's quite, I was going to say fun, but inverted commerce, fun thing you can actually go through in the minutes for every IFAB meeting back to the early 20th century, maybe even beyond or online you can actually go through. If you go to the 1992 meeting, you can see them come to the decision to bring in the back pass law. And it is, you know, it's quite nice just seeing it there. But Michael, do you want to kind of explain how it's made up and why that gives British and Irish football such a big advantage?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, the interesting thing about the IFAB is that it was actually formed before FIFA. So FIFA was formed at the start of the 20th century. Home nations wanted no part of that, but they had already formed IFAB basically to be in control of the laws of the game. And originally it was just four members, I think England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. And now it's only eight members of which half of them are still those four associations. So the home nations do and always have basically had control over the lords of the game because even now there's eight people on the board and you need six votes to get anything through. So any law change, any proposal or change needs buy in from at least two of the home nations for it to go through. And one of the classic examples of this where there's always been, well, pretty much always been a bit of a difference between the home nations and what the rest of the world thought was the concept of substitutions. So the home nations were always against substitutions. It was 11 players, actually. It was one area where, if you look at south america in the 1940s or 50s, they just kind of ignore the laws of the game and have substitutions. I think I'm right saying Di Stefano's games for Argentina, he actually came on as a sub and played really well and so he kept his place in the team and that wouldn't have happened anywhere else. And it was only World Cup 1970 where eventually it was agreed that substitution should be part of the World Cup. They'd been introduced in the 60s in Britain, but that was a hundred years after football had been created in Britain and it was a constant thing where yeah, everyone else was proposing it and the home nations were like, no, we just think it's about stamina and endurance. And to a certain extent we're still having this debate now because I'm really against five substitutions. But obviously, I mean you look at the 1950s cup finals where players just keep on getting injured and this is the one game a year on TV and it's constantly ruined because someone's gone off injured. I mean, it's mad really. But that was maybe the biggest dividing line between I think the home nations view of football and everyone else.

[E]

Newcastle's last domestic trophy before they landed, the Carabao cup last season, the FA cup in the 50s. They play Manchester City and one of the City fullbacks did his ACL in the first minute and that was that. So I mean, as a spectacle, that's not very good. Well, on that pleasant note, we will bring today's podcast to an end. A big thank you to Michael to Mark and producer Mike. As always, send us your thoughts and topic suggestions in an email to tacticspod theathletic.com Enjoy the laws of the game.

[B]

The Athletic FC.

[C]

My dad taught me a lot, including how easy it is to forget to cancel things. So I downloaded Experian, my bff. Big financial friend Experian could help me cancel my unused subscriptions and lower my bills, saving me hundreds a year. Get started with the Experian app today. Your big financial friends here to help you save smarter. Results will vary. Not all bills or subscriptions eligible savings not guaranteed $631 a year average savings with one plus negotiations and one plus cancel paid membership with connected payment account required. See experian.com for details.

[B]

Experian over 90 of the top 100 US accounting firms trust bill to handle bill pay processes. Why? Because our tools are built on over a trillion dollars of secure payments. We're not just moving money, we're powering financial workflows for half a million customers. That's a level of expertise you just can't fake. Ready to talk with an expert? Visit bill.comproven to get started and grab a $250 gift card as a thank you. Terms and conditions apply. See Offer page for details.

[H]

Hi, I'm Liv Perez and I'm the host of the let's Get Dressed podcast. This spring I'm on the hunt for those quality closet essentials that will work for all of the getaways and gatherings that I have on my spring calendar. I always think of Banana Republic first when it comes to these occasions. They have such a great travel inspired heritage, but also have a very refreshing take on the everyday classic. Their clothes are known to stand the test of time, which is something that is so important to me when I'm building a foundational wardrobe. I love their new spring collection. It's infinitely versatile, effortless pieces that you can pack for vacation and also pick out for a special vacation. And the nicer the weather gets, the more I'm looking forward to styling all of those pieces. Relaxed suits, airy dresses, all made from 100% European flex linen that just feels so soft and lived in and effortless. I also love their mix and match sets. There's no easier way to look put together. They're easy, flexible and you're maximizing all of your outfit options without any extra effort. Plus, there's a wide range of cotton poplin skirts, open weave knits and denim that can be styled well into the season. So go shop new arrivals right now at Banana Republic.