🎙️ Football Social Daily •March 3, 2026 •⏱️ 35 min

The Rule Changes The Premier League Are Considering

1. Executive Overview: Core Theses & Key Revelations

The contemporary governance of elite football has reached a critical inflection point characterized by continuous, hyper-regulatory interventionism. On a recent edition of the industry-leading analytics podcast Football Social Daily, hosts Nile and Marley Anderson conducted a forensic examination of the structural, tactical, and commercial ramifications surrounding the latest suite of rule proposals under consideration by the Premier League and the International Football Association Board (IFAB). What emerges from their dialogue is not merely a discontented critique of specific officiating guidelines, but a comprehensive indictment of an institutional mindset obsessed with engineering deterministic perfection within an inherently fluid, chaotic sport.

At the center of the discussion are three primary analytical theses that explain the current trajectory of football officiating:

  • The Fallacy of Perpetual Engineering: Regulatory bodies (IFAB, FIFA, and PGMOL) operate under the misguided assumption that officiating controversies can be eradicated through incremental rule additions. In practice, every attempt to close an operational loophole creates secondary contradictions, escalating friction between on-field refereeing and video assistance.
  • The Law of Unintended Tactical Gamification: Modern elite managers operate as hyper-rational actors. Any rule modification introduced to curtail gamesmanship—such as strict treatment periods for injured players or countdown clocks on restarts—is instantly reverse-engineered by coaching staffs to yield tactical advantages, such as synthetic timeouts or calculated time-wasting transactions.
  • The Commercial Monopoly Insulation ("The Coca-Cola Effect"): The Premier League has attained an unprecedented level of global brand equity. As Marley Anderson notes, this market dominance creates institutional insulation, enabling decision-makers to repeatedly alter the core product's rules without incurring immediate broadcast drop-off or spectator attrition, even as the organic spectator experience deteriorates.

The episode highlights several pivotal revelations and proposals currently reshaping the governance landscape. These include the prospective expansion of VAR scope to review second yellow card ejections, the experimental implementation of Arsène Wenger’s "daylight" offside rule in the Canadian Premier League, the introduction of strict five-second countdown clocks for dead-ball restarts, the enforcement of ten-second departure windows for substituted players under threat of temporary numerical imbalance, and the ongoing exploitation of goalkeeper injury exemptions for mid-half tactical huddles.

2. Context & Background: The Landscape Leading to This Conversation

To fully evaluate the proposals debated on Football Social Daily, one must locate them within the broader historical and economic evolution of football's Laws of the Game. Since the initial codification of football rules at the Masonic Tavern in 1863, regulatory adjustments have historically occurred across long, generational cycles. The offside law, for example, remained fundamentally unchanged from 1925—when the required defensive threshold was reduced from three players to two—until 1990, when attackers positioned level with the penultimate defender were officially declared onside. Similarly, the 1992 introduction of the back-pass rule served as a single, decisive structural intervention designed to eliminate systematic goalkeeping time-wasting after the defensive stagnancy of the 1990 FIFA World Cup.

However, the launch of Video Assistant Referees (VAR) ahead of the 2018/19 European season catalyzed a fundamental shift in governance philosophy. What was originally marketed to the global football community as a lightweight safety net designed exclusively to correct "clear and obvious errors" rapidly mutated into a forensic, sub-pixel auditing system. Offside decisions, once governed by assistant referees assessing clear spatial separation, became subject to high-speed camera line projections capable of measuring margins as small as six millimeters. Rather than neutralizing debate, this technical precision introduced an uncanny valley of officiating, where decisions technically aligned with sub-pixel geometry ran completely counter to the intuitive human perception of spatial advantage.

Simultaneously, the financial capitalization of the Premier League transformed refereeing from an administrative function into a high-stakes corporate risk mitigation exercise. With every final league position valued at tens of millions of pounds in merit payments and international broadcast distributions, club executives and media rights holders began demanding absolute officiating certainty. This economic pressure forced IFAB and PGMOL into a relentless cycle of annual rule tweaks, interpretations, and seasonal directives. However, as Nile and Marley articulate, this search for regulatory perfection has ignored the fundamental nature of football: a low-scoring sport whose dramatic power relies on continuous momentum, spatial interpretation, and human subjectivity.

3. Deep-Dive Thematic Breakdown

3.1 Forensic Scope Creep: VAR Expansion into Second Yellow Cards & Micro-Outcomes

One of the most consequential proposals analyzed by the hosts is the prospective extension of VAR authority to review second yellow cards that lead to a player's dismissal. Under the current protocol, VAR is strictly limited to four operational categories: goals, direct red cards, penalty decisions, and instances of mistaken identity. Yellow cards—regardless of their downstream impact on match numerical balance—remain entirely unreviewable.

While Nile initially acknowledges the proposal as an intuitive step toward preventing unjust match-altering ejections, both hosts quickly unpick the deep structural contradictions inherent in expanding VAR's remit to second yellow cards. The core problem lies in the asymmetrical evaluation of yellow card sequences:

"If it's influencing the outcome of a match with a player being sent off, then it should be looked at... But what if that second yellow is a legitimate yellow card? The referee looks at it... and goes, 'Yep, absolutely the right call.' You'll then get fans screaming... 'Well, his first yellow wasn't even a yellow, but you didn't check that.'" — Nile

This dynamic exposes an insurmountable logic flaw in incremental VAR expansion. If a player receives an erroneous yellow card in the 12th minute for a clean tackle, and subsequently commits a undeniable tactical foul in the 78th minute, reviewing only the second caution validates an ejection that rests on a flawed foundation. Conversely, authorizing VAR to retroactively audit first yellow cards from earlier match phases would paralyze play, destroy match rhythm, and turn video officials into retroactive match directors.

Furthermore, the podcast uncovers the prospective introduction of ultra-rapid VAR checks for micro-outcomes, specifically distinguishing whether a deflected ball should result in a corner kick or a goal kick. As Nile highlights, this proposal is directly driven by the tactical explosion of set-piece efficiency in the modern Premier League. With elite clubs like Arsenal converting dead-ball corners into highly structured, high-probability scoring routines under dedicated set-piece coaches, the intrinsic value of a corner kick has escalated dramatically. Consequently, a misattributed corner decision is no longer viewed as a trivial restart, but as a direct precursor to a high-probability goal-scoring event.

Officiating Domain Original VAR Protocol (2018) Proposed Scope Expansion Primary Tactical & Operational Risk
Second Yellow Cards Strictly Excluded Reviewable prior to ejection Asymmetrical review logic; ignores unreviewed initial cautions.
Corner vs. Goal Kick Strictly Excluded Sub-5-second automated check Protocol creep; delay on restarts; escalation of referee friction.
Offside Line Audits Sub-pixel geometry lines Daylight boundary (Wenger Trial) Radical structural shift in defensive line height and pressing.
Restart Delays Discretionary referee timing Strict 5-second countdown clock Possession turnover; penalty box indirect free kicks.

3.2 The Offside Paradox: From Millimeter Forensic Audits to Wenger’s Daylight Paradigm

The conversation turns to the fundamental philosophy of offside regulation, sparked by news that FIFA—under the direction of Chief of Global Football Development Arsène Wenger—is trialing the radical "daylight" offside rule in the Canadian Premier League. Under Wenger’s proposed model, an attacking player is deemed onside if any goal-scoring part of their body (head, torso, legs) remains level with or overlaps the penultimate defender, even if the majority of their body has advanced past the defensive line.

Nile provides a compelling historical framing of this issue, contrasting the original spirit of offside law against the modern reality of sub-pixel forensic auditing:

"The whole point of offside was to stop people goal-hanging... It's not to stop people being a millimeter offside because Harry Maguire has got size 14 boots and Alexis Sanchez has got size seven... We've spent the last six Premier League seasons punishing six millimeters, and we're literally timesing that by 100, aren't we? Penalizing six millimeters to basically 60 centimeters." — Nile

This comparison illustrates the extreme oscillations of football governance. For six years, European football has penalized forwards for toe-cap and armpit micro-advancements measured in single-digit millimeters. The Wenger proposal swings the pendulum violently in the opposite direction, granting attackers a buffer margin of up to 60 centimeters of physical separation.

Marley Anderson offers an incisive tactical critique of this proposed shift, arguing that granting attackers such an extensive spatial advantage will fundamentally undermine defensive structures:

"Arsene Wenger and his fabled daylight rule for offsides is being trialed in the Canadian top flight... I hate the idea of it because I think you're allowing too much of an advantage... My left foot could be three meters offside, my right foot could be one meter behind that and your heel might be just overlapping my toe. I'm still gaining an advantage because my legs are so far apart." — Marley Anderson

From a tactical standpoint, the daylight rule would render high defensive lines and modern mid-block pressing schemes virtually unviable. Center-backs attempting to play an offside trap against elite sprinters (such as Erling Haaland or Kylian Mbappé) would be forced to retreat 15 to 20 yards deeper toward their own box to avoid giving attackers a running start from an overlapping stance. Far from creating more open, attractive football, the daylight rule risks forcing defending managers into low-block low-risk deep defensive structures, exacerbating the very spatial congestion FIFA purports to solve.

3.3 Operational Mechanics & Stoppage Controls: Time-Wasting, Countdown Timers, and Sin-Bins

In response to persistent fan complaints regarding dead-ball downtime, IFAB has drafted aggressive operational directives aimed at accelerating match speed. Primary among these is the implementation of a strict five-second countdown timer for throw-ins and goal kicks, enforced directly by the referee.

Should an athlete fail to release the ball within the allotted five-second window, possession is immediately surrendered to the opponent. Marley highlights the extraordinary tactical consequences of applying this rule to goal kicks:

"If the referee gives you a five-second countdown and you don't get the ball in play, it's going to be a possession switch... Imagine an indirect free kick on the six-yard line, that would be class." — Marley Anderson

The prospect of possession switches translating into indirect free kicks inside the penalty area invokes memories of historical footballing chaos. As Marley notes, indirect free kicks inside the box—famously weaponized by power shooters like Alan Shearer in the 1990s—create unscripted moments of spectacle, featuring ten-man defensive walls standing on the goal line. However, introducing such catastrophic penalties for minor timing infractions (such as a goalkeeper waiting five seconds for center-backs to split) represents a disproportionate regulatory response that would introduce arbitrary randomness into match outcomes.

A companion proposal target player substitutions, mandating that substituted athletes must exit the pitch within ten seconds of the board being raised. Failure to comply would result in the player's team being forced to play a man down for a designated penalty period. As Nile points out, this mechanism is essentially a covert entry path for sin-bins and temporary exclusions ("orange cards") into top-flight football—a concept that has met fierce resistance from traditionalists who view temporary suspensions as unsuited to football's continuous game structure.

3.4 Gamification of Medical Protocols: Goalkeeper Simulation and Tactical Timeouts

A particularly insightful segment of the podcast addresses the systemic failure of injury management rules, specifically the exploitation of goalkeeper injury exemptions. Under current directives, outfield players who receive medical treatment on the pitch are required to step off the field for 30 seconds (a duration currently proposed to increase to 60 seconds) once play resumes, ensuring their team suffers a temporary numerical penalty for stoppage time.

However, goalkeepers are explicitly exempted from this requirement due to the impossibility of playing without a designated goalkeeper. Coaching staffs have rapidly weaponized this loophole:

"Goalkeepers just sit down, ask for the magic sponge and then the managers can get the players together and deliver a mini team talk. That's insanely frustrating." — Nile

This dynamic transforms medical personnel into tactical facilitators. When a team leads 1-0 in the 72nd minute under heavy opponent pressure, goalkeepers routinely collapse to the turf claiming muscular discomfort. Because the referee cannot force a goalkeeper off the pitch, the match is paused for two to three minutes. The manager immediately gathers the remaining ten outfield players at the technical area for a mid-half tactical huddle, complete with tactical board instructions and hydration breaks.

Furthermore, as Nile and Marley highlight, traditional punishments for time-wasting—such as late-match yellow cards for goalkeepers—are treated by elite managers as negligible operational costs. A goalkeeper receiving a single caution in the 85th minute incurs zero structural penalty for the remainder of the match, rendering yellow cards completely ineffective as a deterrent against calculated gamesmanship.

3.5 The Law of Enforcement Decay: Seasonal Attrition of Refereeing Directives

Perhaps the most significant analytical insight offered by the hosts is the concept of the seasonal enforcement decay curve. Nile and Marley trace how major refereeing initiatives launched ahead of Premier League seasons inevitably degrade across the 38-game schedule.

At the start of every season, PGMOL issues strict directives—whether regarding added time calculations, technical area conduct, or six-second goalkeeper ball-retention rules. During August and early September, referees strictly enforce these directives, resulting in inflated match lengths (often exceeding 100 minutes) and elevated card counts. However, as the season progresses and the autumn international break arrives, officiating rigor quietly recedes:

"These rules will be enforced... for the first two months until the first international break in September... Remember when they went mad on the extra time a couple of years ago... Every game apart from one went over 100 minutes in the first couple of weekends... Then the international break came and all of a sudden it's disappeared." — Nile

This cycle of regulatory inflation followed by operational decay creates profound inconsistency across a single league campaign. Matches played under hyper-strict directives in August are effectively governed by a different set of officiating standards than matches played during the title run-in in April. This decay curve demonstrates the inherent resistance of elite match officials to sustaining unworkable, overly prescriptive administrative burdens over a full ten-month calendar.

4. Speaker Perspectives & Analytical Contrast

The dialogue between Nile and Marley Anderson provides a rich comparative study in contemporary football commentary. While both hosts share a foundational skepticism toward hyper-regulation, their analytical frameworks reveal distinct priorities and perspectives on the sport's evolution.

Nile: The Preservationist & Fan Experience Advocate
Nile's commentary is rooted in the preservation of football's emotional continuity and organic narrative flow. He evaluates rule changes primarily through the lens of match-going fan satisfaction and intuitive fairness. Nile is sharply critical of technological micro-auditing, famously decrying the six-millimeter offside calls that punish natural anatomical differences between players. His perspective emphasizes that football is fundamentally an entertainment product built on passion and flow, warning that regulatory over-engineering risks alienating the core supporter base by replacing human drama with administrative proceduralism.

Marley Anderson: The Pragmatic Systemic Analyst & Tactical Historian
Marley Anderson approaches the discussion through a structural, historical, and tactical framework. He consistently draws parallels to previous regulatory and technical shifts—referencing the aerodynamic instability of the 2010 Adidas Jabulani World Cup ball, Claudio Ranieri's managerial tinkering, Alan Shearer's indirect free-kick prowess, and the 2005 Del Horno offside interpretation adjustments. Marley excels at identifying how systemic changes create immediate tactical loopholes, as demonstrated by his incisive critique of how Wenger's daylight rule would grant forwards an insurmountable physical advantage over defending backlines.

Analytical Dimension Nile (Preservationist Perspective) Marley Anderson (Systemic Perspective)
Core Assessment of Rule Changes Over-engineered obsession with control; loss of core enjoyment. Pursuit of impossible perfection driven by financial stakes.
Offside Rule Philosophy Anti-microscope; advocates for returning to "spirit of goal-hanging". Skeptical of Wenger daylight rule due to structural tactical advantage.
VAR Expansion (2nd Yellows) Initially supportive, but exposes logic flaws in unreviewed 1st cards. Focuses on secondary friction and fan outrage over historical errors.
Stoppage & Time-Wasting Controls Frustrated by goalkeeper fake injuries acting as tactical huddles. Fascinated by tactical chaos of restart countdowns and indirect free kicks.
Commercial Landscape Warns that excessive changes make the sport unpalatable to fans. Formulates "Coca-Cola Effect"—brand power insulates against bad rules.

5. Strategic & Industry Implications

The insights articulated on Football Social Daily carry profound strategic implications for the global football industry, spanning broadcasting economics, tactical evolution, and institutional governance.

5.1 The "Coca-Cola Monopoly" Thesis & Brand Equity Insulation

Marley Anderson’s formulation of the Premier League's commercial resilience—comparing it to Coca-Cola's global brand equity—highlights a critical economic reality. The Premier League has constructed such a dominant global media ecosystem that it enjoys near-total short-term market insulation:

"The Premier League are fortunate that they've built up such stock, a bit like a brand like Coca-Cola, where it doesn't matter how many rule changes they make, they're so entrenched and established that people are still going to be drinking Coke." — Marley Anderson

This brand equity allows league executives and rule-makers to experiment with disruptive regulatory directives without facing immediate commercial backlash. However, as both hosts caution, relying on institutional momentum can lead to long-term product degradation. Just as radical changes to a classic beverage formula can eventually drive consumers to alternatives, continuous interference with football's fundamental rules risks dulling the emotional intensity that established the Premier League as the world's premier sports broadcast product.

5.2 The Tactical Arms Race and Game Theory Adaptation

From an elite tactical perspective, the proposed rule changes will trigger an immediate response from coaching staffs. If IFAB enacts a strict 60-second sideline treatment rule for injured outfield players, managers will instruct players to avoid going down unless severely injured, or conversely, to simulate injuries in areas that force match stoppages without requiring medical entry. If restart clocks are strictly policed, set-piece analysts will design rapid-release routines engineered specifically to catch retreating defenders off balance within the five-second window.

This dynamic illustrates the fundamental principle of regulatory game theory in elite sport: regulations do not eradicate gamesmanship; they merely alter the parameters within which elite actors optimize for competitive advantage.

6. Looking Ahead: Unresolved Questions & Next Milestones

As football enters another cycle of potential regulatory transformation, several critical milestones and unresolved questions will determine the sport's future trajectory:

  • The Canadian Premier League Daylight Data: Will the empirical data from the CPL trial of Wenger's daylight offside rule show a statistically significant increase in scoring, or will it show defensive lines retreating into low-block deep setups that reduce open-play goal-scoring opportunities?
  • The Boundary of VAR Remit: Will IFAB officially authorize VAR intervention for second yellow cards, and if so, how will PGMOL address the inevitable public pushback when an unreviewed, erroneous first yellow card leads to a legally validated second yellow ejection?
  • The Enforcement of Goalkeeper Time-Wasting: Can regulatory bodies formulate an effective deterrent against simulated goalkeeper injuries without compromising player welfare or mandating temporary goalkeeper replacements?
  • The Future of Fan Engagement: Will the Premier League maintain its commitment to administrative over-refereeing, or will institutional pushback from managers, players, and match-going supporters force a return to officiating simplicity?

Ultimately, the discussion on Football Social Daily serves as a powerful reminder that football's global supremacy was built not on bureaucratic precision, but on simplicity, rhythm, and passion. As regulatory bodies continue their search for officiating perfection, they would do well to remember that the beauty of the game lies in its human imperfection.

💬 Key Quotes & Speaker Breakdown

VAR protocol

"One of the good rules that is being proposed is the second yellow cards that result in a red can now be looked at by officials."

— Nile

Offside rule changes

"Arsene Wenger and his fabled daylight rule for offsides is being trialed in the Canadian top flight... I hate the idea of it because I think you're allowing too much of an advantage."

— Marley Anderson

"We've spent the last six Premier League seasons punishing six millimeters, and we're literally timesing that by 100, aren't we? Penalizing six millimeters to basically 60 centimeters."

— Nile

Premier League rule changes

"Football, in the last few years, has felt like it's obsessed with making changes... they've actually lost sight of what makes the game enjoyable in the first place."

— Nile

Restart rule changes

"If the referee gives you a five-second countdown and you don't get the ball in play, it's going to be a possession switch... Imagine an indirect free kick on the six-yard line, that would be class."

— Marley Anderson

Premier League commercialization

"The Premier League are fortunate that they've built up such stock, a bit like a brand like Coca-Cola, where it doesn't matter how many rule changes they make, they're so entrenched and established that people are still going to be drinking Coke."

— Marley Anderson

Offside rule history

"The whole point of offside was to stop people goal-hanging... It's not to stop people being a millimeter offside because Harry Maguire has got size 14 boots and Alexis Sanchez has got size seven."

— Nile

Time-wasting/Injury rules

"Goalkeepers just sit down, ask for the magic sponge and then the managers can get the players together and deliver a mini team talk. That's insanely frustrating."

— Nile

Refereeing consistency

"Remember when they went mad on the extra time a couple of years ago? Every game apart from one went over 100 minutes in the first couple of weekends... Then the international break came and all of a sudden it's disappeared."

— Nile

Arsene Wenger/IFAB

"If you signed Sebastian Squillaci at any point in your Arsenal career, I don't think you can then go on to then form the rules of the game."

— Marley Anderson
📜 View Full Episode Verbatim Transcript 35,823 characters
The times they are changing in the Premier League and the rules they are changing as well because proposals have been put forward for a bunch of rule changes next season in the top flight of English football. And to be honest, I'm sick of it. We keep changing the rules, we keep messing with what doesn't need to be mess with, and so naturally we're going to mone about it on today's football social daily. My name's Nile, this is a Premier League podcast and joining me to do so, Marley Anderson. Morning, Marley. Good morning. Right, six new rules, or is it five, or is it seven? I don't know. They seem to change it all the time, but there are a load of them, and some of them involve substitutions, some of them are good, some of them are bad, but just to kind of summarise before we get stuck into this, me and you are both in the same camp. But football, in the last few years, has felt like it's obsessed with making changes, whether that be to the competition structure, whether that be to the rules, whether that be to directives, sent to referees at the start of a season, whether that be to what fans are and aren't allowed to do inside a football ground, it just feels like the game is so hung up on making sure everyone is doing their job that they've actually lost sight of what makes the game enjoyable in the first place. Yeah, we are sort of tinkering every year, you know, Claudio Ranieri was the tinker man, and I don't know if I've missed the fact that he's now in charge of the Premier League with all his tinkering going on, but it does feel like we're sort of chasing perfection, and when you dig down into it, it comes down to money, and the money on offer, and it's the price you pay of having the best product in the world, or what you claim to be the best product in the world with a million pounder place, and you know, all that sort of stuff. But we always talk about the Premier League as a product, and it is, we'd be naive not to talk about it in business terms, because that's effectively what the Premier League is, it's a functioning elite sporting business. But if you talk about the best businesses on the planet, if Coca-Cola tinkered with their recipe too much, people would stop drinking it, they'd go and find an alternative. Now the Premier League are fortunate that they've built up such stock, a bit like a brand like Coca-Cola, where it doesn't matter how many rule changes they make, they're so entrenched and established that people are still going to be drinking Coke. If they change the recipe and make it orange, people will still buy it and drink it just because of the name. The Premier League is very similar. They can change as many rules as they want. People will still watch the Premier League because it's the Premier League, and they've built such an established platform for themselves over the last few years. But I always get the sense that if we're describing this in terms of a product, if you'd change a product too much, it becomes unpalatable, no Joel was talking on yesterday's podcast about the chaos at corners. I've seen an article this morning saying, is it ruined in the game? I mean, it's just ridiculous. I feel like we're getting down rabbit holes all the time about what is improving and what isn't improving the game instead of actually focusing on what we like. Yeah, it does seem like we're sort of changing chasing perfection, like I said, but it's similar to when I said on the part of a few weeks ago about all the best scientists in the world spent ages trying to get the perfect circular ball, but nobody realized that when you get a circular ball, it runs through the air completely maniacally and just veers everywhere and the goalkeepers can't catch it and therefore it makes the product worse. The Premier League needs to have a look at how many changes are too many changes and which ones are genuinely good for the game and will stop a problem because I'd hate to be in a position of, right, you've got a right of a watertight blueprint of what football looks like, whether that's through a financial point of view or a gameplay point of view, because it's impossible, there's always ways around it. There's little ways of exploiting loopholes and playing certain ways and that's what makes the Premier League so beautiful in a way and everything really in the way football is. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I mean, the way around Tiki Taker high pressing is long ball. The way around long ball is to pass through them and sort of break the lines and push them back and make them further away from their goal so the long ball doesn't work and they can't get into your box. It's like the boxing adage, like styles make fights, a counter-punch versus a brawl as a fantastic fight, but two counter-punches waiting to put, waiting for the other ones to punch, is a terrible fight. So there's a lot of different things that can happen, but these roles changes, some of them are decent, some of them make sense, because teams, like I said, when teams have a set amount of roles for so long, it's only a matter of time before you start finding holes in them and we can exploit that and we're going to go on to talk about the faking injuries and all that sort of stuff. Some things do need to be stamped out, some things, there's an easy solution, some things, there's not an easy solution, but yeah, it seems like custom vendors are apparently in charge of football now, which again I missed. Yeah, some of awesome vendors comments about changing the length of a football match, because young people can't stay focused for more than 90 minutes. Yeah, we'll come on to those shortly, let's talk about the good rule changes first. One of them, and we've had a lot to say about VAR this week alone, especially after what happened in the Brentford against Burnley game, but just generally this season and over the last, what's it been six years now since VAR was introduced? I've never been a fan of it, I'd quite happily see the back of it, but it is here to stay, we need to accept that. One of the good rules that is being proposed is the second yellow cards that result in a red can now be looked at by officials, and I think that's important. However, I do think it's also important to distinguish those people that will say, well, what about first yellow cards? His first yellow card shouldn't have been a yellow and he's been given a second yellow and now he's been sent off. It's just an absolute wormhole, this whole thing, because I agree, if it's influencing the outcome of a match with a player being sent off, then it should be looked at, because we've seen it before. Was it two seasons ago, Diogo, Dallo got sent off for something pretty weird, like standing in front of the ball or something like that? I can't quite remember what it was, maybe the United fans listening to be able to remind us, but it was weird. Martin Eligas sent off for two yellow cards in 10 seconds or something for kicking the ball away to stop a throw in and then standing in the way of the throw in as it got taken or something like that. So if VAR look at that, are they going to say referees wrong? Because they're probably not, are they? No, probably not. They're not going to say the referees wrong. What they'll do is they'll look and see whether it's a case of mistake and identity. Someone's been booked by mistake, which has resulted in ascending off. But like I said, looking at second yellows is important, because players getting sent off definitely influences the outcome of a match. But also, what if that second yellow is a legitimate yellow card? The referee looks at it, the VAR, sorry, looks at it and goes, yep, absolutely the right call. You'll then get fans screaming in the stands and on social media saying, well, his first yellow wasn't even a yellow, but you didn't check that. So even though I think this is a good rule, it's just opening itself up to criticism already. Yeah, to be honest, I never thought of it like that, because the second yellow card, yeah, like you said, it might be concrete. The first one might be absolute BS, but you can't overturn that you can't allow for the first one to be a possible mistake. You know, you're going to well, referees going, last one wrong. We're too far down the rabbit hole. We're too far gone. We're too far gone. I mean, it's just ridiculous. It's here to stay. We're chasing, we're chasing perfection. We're chasing the jabbalani, and we should have stuck with the fever and over, but it is what it is. The one they have got right, though, is the quick, because it should be quick, the very quick look at whether something should be a corner or a goal kick. You know, when the referees just, and linesmen just have to kind of guess whether a cross was deflected back off the defender or whether it came off the attacker, like that can be cleared up in less than five seconds. By the time the ball has got to the corner flag for the corner, the referee can go hang in a minute, they've told me it came off you last. And that is irrefutable proof. It doesn't need the rest to go to a monitor. It needs to be, you know, Johnny Bolbach in the VR thing at St. George's Park scene. That came off the defender. It's actually a corner. I'm going to be Charlie Sinek for the the whole duration of this episode. You say it should take no more than five seconds to clear up, but it will. It will. Oh, it will. It'll take forever. It will take a minute. It'll take 90 seconds to figure out whether it's a throw in a goal kick or a corner. The corner will get given and it won't even get past the first man and it will be a waste of time. And to be honest with you, I think the only reason that this has been pushed after six years of this being quite simple addition to VAR's remit is because of the amount of goals being scored from corners. We spoke about it yesterday on the podcast. Arsenal have made a season's habit of scoring goals from corners. It has been one of the cornerstones, no pun intended, to their success in the Premier League this season. Because goals are coming from corners, they've all of a sudden taken on a brand new importance in this sport. And that's why I think they've decided, oh, I tell you what, that might be quite important decision. That might be quite an important decision given a goal kick instead of a corner. Because why not do this in the last six years if it's such an easy fix? I don't think they were, they were wary of over referee in the game, but then we do over the over referee for that. I can't even speak. I need VAR to go back and check my speech and check I've not had a bloody stroke because that was always a terrible effort. But yeah, we are, I think at the start they were probably like, right, all that a bit, you know, the referee should get that right. But again, you have opened, you know, you've sort of pulled that, it's like a game of cup lung. You've actually, you know, you've pulled that stick out and all the marbles are falling. It's not a reference, I think. I would, I thought I would ever hear on football social daily, but you know what, I'm quite happy for it. You've got to expect the unexpected really. Plunk. Do they have curplunk in the game? Maybe it's an American game, I don't know. Surely they've got curplunk in America, surely. Yeah, maybe. Do they have, do they have? Leave a comment on us, but if I will, we'll find out. Yeah, do they have curplunk in America and Canada? Speaking of Canada, arson vengue and his fabled daylight rule for off sides is being trialed in the Canadian top flight, which begins in April, I believe. And if you're not aware of this, well, first of all, if you're not aware of arson vengue, he's the former Arsenal manager, legendary managerial figure in the Premier League, who seems to have taken a seat in the ivory tower over the last three or four years since his retirement, advising FIFA and iFab on rule changes and he made this comment like I spoke about earlier over the last World Cup in Qatar four years ago, saying that young people don't have the attention span to watch football for 90 minutes. So therefore we should shorten the matches or we should change the way that the stopwatch is done. No, the way that the games are timed, which I just thought was peculiar and odd, I just think it's a man trying to appear in touch with the kids when clearly that's not what he is. But this daylight rule, I do have a bit of time for it, however, I also think there are loads of pitfalls with this. We have been so cemented in the thinking that offside is offside, it's black and white, even if you're marginally offside by a toenail, you're off, you've gained an advantage, therefore the goal should be to sell out or the decision should be given against you. The daylight rule is slightly different, it means that unless there's clear daylight between two players, attacker and defender, the flag will stay down. I like the concept, I think when applied, I think it's dangerous, because is it daylight between bodies? Is it daylight between bodies? For instance, it's really hard to explain this via the medium of a podcast, but imagine you're someone really tall like Peter Crouch and you're running and you're back leg, which is longer than most people's legs, is still alongside your opponent who you've tried to burn away from. Is that offside? Even though your body is three feet in front, but your leg is still level, does that count as daylight? Are we talking daylight between what's the decision going to be here? Because I've spoken about this a few times when it comes to the application of VAR for offside, and I'm pretty sure in the Dutch League for a while they tried this thing where you know when we were drawing the lines, we have semi-automated now in the Premier League, so it doesn't matter. But at the time when lines were being drawn, the lines were agreed to be a certain thickness, and if the lines were touching, so even if it was a margin offside but the lines were touching, then it was considered fair. If the lines there was a gap, then it was considered offside. I like that. I think it's clear enough. I think it gives enough benefit of the doubt to the attacker, but daylight doesn't necessarily do that. So where do you sit on this one? I hate it. I hate the idea of it because I think you're allowing too much of an advantage. There's been situations in the past where people are now pointing them out on social media and saying if these laws get approved, this goal will have stood, and it's an attacker way, way ahead of a defender. You said there about Peter Crouch and like his leg span. I seen one yesterday of Raheem Sterling, who's one of the smallest players in the Premier League, and he's the way the daylight thing will work, it's the attackers furthest back point of their body, which is nine times out of 10, their heel. If that is in line with any of the nearest defender, if there's any overlap, that is onside. That's what I mean. It's ridiculous. It's utterly ridiculous. That's so silly, because as you say, Peter Crouch is a freaking sample because he's two meters tall, but a leg span, if you think about it, a leg span is at least a meter and a half on most people. So you're talking, you can get a meter and a half away from your defender. Now we spent the last six Premier League seasons or whatever it's been, punishing six millimeters, and we all agree that there should be some middle ground, or a lot of people do. I'm quite happy with it being black and white. I don't really care right now that the offside rule is offside, and you can be offside by a fingernail or a hair, or in jawwilkskiss, three weeks ago, the skin on his forehead, where he was offside against spurs. But we're literally times in that by 100, aren't we? Penalising six millimeters to basically 60 centimeters. That's the situation we're going to get into here. Yeah, absolutely. We're going to see some ridiculous goals, get green lighted if this comes in, but I don't know where I have some venga sort of, I know he was an legendary manager and stuff, but where's all of a sudden he's just in charge of football, like this is a man who, I tell you what, you know, hasn't managed for so many years, and it's a man who once signed Igor stepping off because Dennis Burkamp was playing a prank on him. You know what I mean? He signed, if you signed Sebastian Squatchy at any point in your arsenal career, I don't think you can then go on to then form the rules of the game. If I'm being honest mate, it's starting to piss me off. Do these people even watch the sport? Does Venga even sit down in his spare time and watch football matches anymore? He managed thousands of them, is he just jaded and fed up with it? Do Ifab watch any games or they just locked in the microcosm in their little bubble of speaking to referees and managers and officials and important, high-brow people within the game? I'm not saying that the fans should vote on what the rules should be, but everyone knows what you just said. The microscopic element of VR for off-sides, it is so irritating and it sucks the joy out of the game. Are you really gaining an advantage by an eyebrow hair, as in the case of Joe Willock the other day? Probably not technically yes, but probably not really. So six millimeters, but that's two narrow, right? That's two narrow, and then Venga's solution is daylight, which is too big. So why is no one sat down with Venga and well, I understand your concept, Arsene, but it's too big a gap the other way, and it's just reflective of society, you're either one side extreme or the other side extreme, it's binary. You know, football and off-side isn't always black and white. Off-side is one of those things that maybe can be considered black and white. You're either on or you're off a bit like goal line technology. Fouls are subjective. We know that. Football is not a game where the rules are cemented in every single match the same way. We know that. Their framework is not rules technically. So who's sat down with Venga and gone? Actually, Arsene, I think you've just gone a little bit too extreme the other way. Daylights are a decent idea, but maybe we should narrow it down so it's a little bit more leeway to the attacker, but not to the extreme where the defenders basically got no chance. I just wonder whether these people actually watch the game because it just takes a conversation like we're having now, and applying a bit of common sense to go, well, the millimetres is ruining the game. Changing that to 60 to 80 centimetres is going to ruin the game for off-sides. How about somewhere in the middle? Is that such a hard concept to come up with? I'm not sure it is. I honestly think I just sort of repeat myself, but I don't mind that that we get we get tight calls. I understand that some things are tight. Like when Joe will look at that gull disallowed, I kind of laughed because it was so close, but also that's the rules. His head was off-side. Do I agree that his head should be the line, like should be the point at which you measure it from? No, and I'll go on to what I think the off-side rule should be judged in a minute, but when something is, like you say, off-side is binary, it is black or white is he gay or not? The reason off-side was brought into the game, but he's never going to be able to judge that though, but if you're never going to be able to judge whether someone, so some decisions just have to be tight, which have to have that rule of this is off or on? Which I get, but if Joe will look is falling over and his head's off-side, is he gay in an advantage? Not really. At the moment that the ball is played and his head's further ahead than the defender, yes he is, but if you can just tell that he's about to fall over or he does fall over, then he's not gained an advantage, as he is surely, I mean we forget, we forget that off-side was brought in to stop people standing 10 feet beyond the defensive line, and ball being smashed over the top 100 years ago, that's why off-side was brought in. As the game has developed and become more and more elite and professional over the years, off-side has changed with that. It's an archaic rule which we've been trying to adapt year on year on year, and this is why we've got ourselves into this situation. Nobody has ever sat down and thought, is off-side still fit for purpose? They've asked that question, but they've not changed the fundamentals of the rule, they've just tweaked bits and pieces here and there. The whole point of off-side was to stop people goal-hanging and smashing the ball 50 yards over the top of the defenders and gaining an advantage that way. It's not to stop people being a millimeter off-side because Harry McGuire has got size 14 boots and Alexis Sanchez has got size seven. That's not the reason that off-side was brought in. It was never meant to be done forensically like this. So actually, Vengue's point of daylight is probably what assistant referees years ago, decades ago, were looking at to make their decisions. Listen, it's a key part of the game off-side, so I'm not saying we should get rid of it or anything like that or make too many radical changes. I just think it's a very old rule which has been changed and bastardised so many times that I think people are trying to find a solution to something that was brought in to solve a problem that no longer exists. But if you took it away, it would exist again, wouldn't? Of course it would. Everyone's looking for that little millimeter advantage. I don't mind that some decisions are tight. It's the nature of the game. We don't say it that often, but I think if all of a sudden I'm asking Vengue and I'm in charge of football and I'm laying out these rules, what frustrates me as a fan is, when they draw a line from a debatable, not obvious part of the body, for example, the armpit, which is bizarre because you sometimes see players leaning and it's like, right, they draw a line from the armpit. Now you can't tell me that you're getting the exact point right on every player because everyone's built differently and stuff like that. You can't be exact about it. So what I would do is draw the line for off-side from the player's foot which is in contact with the floor because that is a definite position when your feet are on the floor or at least near to the floor in the case of a jump or a stride, like mid-stride, it's obvious where that line will be because it's such a short amount of space between foot and grass. So if players feet are overlapping, draw the line from the toe in the heel and if those lines are crossing over the guys on side, if there's a gap, he's off-side. Like I don't like seeing, for example, the jaw will look though and I said how it didn't annoy me and I laughed. I laughed because it was silly that his forehead was the thing playing him off-side. When his forehead had nothing to do with what was happening in the future, he ran onto the ball, got it with his feet and at the end of the day, this is football. You should have more importance on your feet. That's the most important part of the game. That's what everyone kicks the ball with. Yes, I don't have a part of the game in everything as well, but if you're going to gain an advantage, it's from where your feet are. It's not from where your shoulder is or your ear or your head. It's from where your feet are because that dictates where your body position is. So as you said with a dear light rule, my left foot could be three meters off-side. My right foot could be one meter behind that and your heel might be just overlapping my toe. I'm still gaining an advantage because my legs are so far apart and yours are overlapping me so therefore I'm on side, but in reality I've actually gained a lot of advantage there. I've found an article from the 15th of July 2005 about off-side. Like most things in football, the off-side rule is pretty simple, but SEA Dale Hornos disallowed goal for Chelsea against Birmingham on Saturday has redrawn the gray areas once more. Dale Hornos scored from an on-side position, fellow defender Ricardo Carvalho attempted to head the ball, having come back from an off-side position. And so an amendment to the rule was introduced that as long as you are not actively involved in play, you are on-side, interfering with play means playing or touching the ball past or touched by a teammate. This is 20 years ago, we're having the same conversations. The changes apply to all levels of football and Manchester United's Rude Van Nistory often exploits this rule by standing in an off-side position as a free kick is about to be taken. Because he isn't playing or touching the ball, he's considered as on-side. It's just like how far do we want to go back? 1883? There was a rule change in 1990 for off-side. I mean, these things happen every now and again like I say, off-side gets tweaked and changed. For better or for worse, unfortunately it looks like the Canadian League is going to be the guinea pig for this to see whether it actually works. Yeah, I don't know if the Canadians have done to deserve that, but I might get some more viewers on the Instagram channels when they go like viral for this now isn't off-side and everyone gets up in arms about how BS the rules have become. It's going to happen right then, a couple more rules and then we'll finish off today's football social daily. The countdown on restarts for goal kicks and set pieces. I think is going to be about five seconds, is that right? Yeah, I think so. I think it's five seconds if when you get the ball at a throw-in, for example, you've got five seconds to throw it back in, which seems fine. Again, players will probably find ways around it because when you put a rule in, there's always 14 whirs around it, but yeah, apparently for throw-ins and goal kicks, if the referee gives you a five-second countdown and you don't get the ball in play, it's going to be a possession switch, which I assume from a goal kick would be a corner of the opposite way. Imagine his grip on the six-yard line, that would be f***ing class, wouldn't it? Indirect free kick from where the goal kick was about to be taken, the chaos would be unbelievable. Yeah, absolutely. There's nothing more exciting than an indirect free kick from like seven yards where the goalkeeper can sort of be the first one to it. Sheeran was vital from them positions he was absolutely. Someone would just tip the ball off to him. I remember he scored a couple for England. I think one might have been against Luxembourg, don't ask how I remember that, but he used to be able to just like fizz the ball into the top corner from any sort of angle. It was quite fun to watch. Yeah, it used to be like, it used to get all-in fakes as well, like when everyone knows he's about to be set, so everyone's like f***ing and jumping on this sort of shot to try and race out and block it, but yeah, bring back more of them, I won't walk chaos, I don't want these corners, I want these, the chaos of the indirect free kicks, but yeah, there's a few more. Soaps must leave the pitch within 10 seconds, again, feels absolutely, it feels like a loop ball that should be easy to close, but again, we'll have to wait and see. There's the sort of punishment for that is feeling to do, so could mean the team plays a man down for a set period. So I don't know why that set period would be, would it be? Basically a sim in it, that's code for sinbin. We're going to sinbin a player. I mean, orange card to be on the way soon. We've spoken about this before on the pod. It's just, it's exasperating, you know, you kind of just like drop your shoulders and go, oh, God's sake. What they're going to change next, it's just, it takes the enjoyment out of the game, honestly, I genuinely do think it is that significant. When it comes to offside though, what I thought was interesting, because you mentioned indirect free kicks there. I was speaking to someone about this, the game I was at, at the weekend. Offside results in an indirect free kick. So let's say someone is given offside and you have the indirect free kick halfway inside your own half and you spot the goalkeeper off of his line. And you're a centre back and you think, I fancy this, if you're minor figure or precisely, if you take that free kick for offside and you lift it over the goalkeeper's head and it bounces in and you scored, you haven't scored. Because it doesn't count, because it's an indirect free kick, because it's indirect free kick from offside. I'm surprised that that hasn't happened yet, but there will be a day. Trust me, there will be a day where someone is given offside, a free kick is taken quickly by a defender. He's lobbed it over everyone including the goalkeeper and scored from it and it will be disallowed and because nobody knows that offside are indirect free kicks because you never get shooting opportunities from them because they're always inside your own half. Then the world is going to go up and arms about it. It's going to go ballistic. That's the world's problem though. You should know that. You should know that, you should know that rule. Like if Paul Robinson fancies a ping from 70 yards, you know that you see it with the referee, the referee holds his hand up and as soon as that ball gets touched, the first contact, the hand gets struck back down again because then the ball is in play. So in reality, if you see a ball come into odds here from 70 yards and some goalie or centre back salad ping at you. The best thing for a goal is to let it go in because it's not a corner, doesn't it, or a goal kick or something? I'm not sure. Can't remember what happens, but it won't be a goal. Sure. Yeah. Another couple of rules to go through. Conscious it. We're boring the ears off of our listeners here. 30 seconds at the moment. If you receive treatment, you have to go and sit off on the side lines. You mentioned this just a few minutes ago. Now it's going to be one minute. Let's just dig back into that briefly. One minute's a long time. We've seen a lot of things happen in 30 seconds in a game of football. One minute. Bigger. Bigger deterrent. It is a deterrent, but what about the people that legitimately injured? Well, they get subbed. And they've got 10 seconds to get off. So the physios are going to have to do the bleep test a few more times to make sure you can get stretcher off in 10 seconds. But yeah, I don't mind it. We do need to do something about the fake injuries and stuff. Well, the goalkeeper ones is what the problem seems to be because they don't have to off the side. So goalkeepers just sit down, ask for the magic sponge and then the managers can get the players together and deliver a mini team talk. Yeah. And that's that's insanely frustrating when that happens. Because do you know if you go to one up after 70 minutes, the best thing to do is log on to your betting app and put a fiber on the opposing goalkeeper getting booked because he will happen. He'll take yellow card. He's not going to get 10 in the space of a season. Is he really? Not realistically and serve a one match banner, whatever it is. So you know, you must be really desperate for points if your keeper's getting booked 10 times in a season for wasting time. Exactly. It's ridiculous. But that is one that something needs to happen with that because but what is it? You can't make a team play without a goalkeeper. That's that's extremely. Too much, isn't it? Extreme. Yeah. All right. Well, I think we'll leave it there because I'm sick to the back teeth are talking about rule changes. We had to address it because these rules might come into play in the Premier League next season. I think what we might see though, Marley, just as a final point on this is what always happens at the start of the season for the first two months until the first international break in September. These rules will be enforced. Remember when they went mad on the extra time a couple of years ago. And I think every game apart from the one. Every game apart from one went over 100 minutes in the first couple of weekends of the season. Then the international break came and all of a sudden it's disappeared. Now listen, we still see five, six, seven minutes of added time, far more regularly than we used to. But that first weekend of the season was ridiculous. Where referees are hot on it, they're told we're going to be watching you. We need to make sure that you add the respective amount of added time on and then it faded away. This will probably happen as well. I mean, five seconds for a throw-in, first few weeks of the season, people will be getting pulled up on it. By the end of the season, it'll be back to normal. Always happens that way. Yeah, it happens now. If you look at it, you know, you look at the goalkeepers with the eight-second rule. Sometimes the referees don't start counting until they've had the ball for three seconds. So really that's 11 seconds and then you see in, you know, one thing that gets me is throwing, being taken from ten yards up the pitch. I hate that. That's so frustrating and pre-kicks not being taken from the same, you know, within ten yards sometimes of where it's been given. Remember, Andre Onana a couple of years ago, when he knicked, he tried to nick about 30 yards and got called up for it, but then tried to nick 25, got called up, then tried to nick 20 and then eventually he finally took it from the right position. But things like freebie and being diligent, but things like moving ball from a free kick, like if the ball's rolling ever so slightly, you see it in Sunday League, ball was moving, who cares? The whole point of the rule is to stop someone rolling the ball towards you and you smashing it back where it came from to help you make a pass forward. That's the whole point of it. If the ball's just rolling ever so slightly and it's like half a revolution before it comes to a stop and then you're playing it, who gives a f*** like who cares? Who cares? But people do, people do care. They care a lot and it's, it's maybe the money, not even that. It's just the game. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, difficult. Difficult to tell, isn't it? I'm sick of talking about rules. Let's leave it there, Marley. That's enough for today's Football Social Daily. I promise you listeners, we'll talk about something more fun over the next couple of days on Football Social Daily. If you want a fun version of FSD, then why not subscribe to FSD extra time. That's where myself, Marley and Joel cut loose, an unedited raw version of FSD goes out completely as it's recorded when we talk about loads of random stuff, conspiracy theories, roast dinner, full English breakfast ingredients, whatever you want to talk about, whatever you want us to talk about, we'll talk about it. If you send us some messages on social media and let us know what you want the topics to be, but in order to listen to that show, you have to be a subscriber to FSD extra time. The link is in the description thanks to all of you that have already committed your time to FSD extra time. We really do appreciate it and hopefully we can see some more of you there very soon, but that is it for today's regular FSD. We'll catch you on the next one. Bye for now.