Well, even better, it would be subject to VAR review if a goal was scored, right? Because it would be an APP infraction. So it would become like penalty kick encroachment. Referees just wouldn't call it at all. They'd proactively warn players if they were pushing it, but it would become an objective decision via VAR. So if you made this rule with the intention of it having teeth, you'd get 100% objective enforcement if a goal was scored or penalty was subsequently awarded (or, potentially, if a corner kick resulted from the initial corner kick). I'm actually sympathetic to this suggestion. Calling penalties for holding on corner kicks has always been hard and it's only getting harder. Adding in the growing tactic of messing with goalkeepers and there just aren't enough eyes to do this well in real-time. Plus, the tactic isn't great for the game. To me, this is one of those rule changes that is less about fixing failed refereeing and more about just improving the game. I'd have to think it through more and I don't love the VAR eventuality I just noted above, but at first brush I think there's some merit here.
Most simply it would mean a player in early can’t touch the ball, radically reducing the incentive to get in there.
I think you'd have to do it as a black-and-white thing and not have the Law 11 impact standards apply. For the reason @StarTime points out. You're in the goal area when a corner kick is taken? Then any goal scored or penalty kick awarded is annulled, period. That's the only enforcement mechanism that would lead to the rule being effective. And I agree about trials. I tend to think that opening up that space would actually lead to more goals, but I could be wrong. Of course, if IFAB still cared about promoting attacking soccer and more goals, VAR could turn wrongly awarded goal kicks into corner kicks this summer. So consider me skeptical about that still being a prime motivation in law-making.
Teams are obviously taking this to an extreme where they weren't 20 years ago. So, yes it has become harder. Also, teams know how the sausage is made in regards to what referees will punish and not (i.e. they know you can hold if the attacker has no chance to get to the ball). But they are also pushing it to an extreme because VARs and referees haven't been punishing it enough both ways. So it is a little bit of the chicken and egg thing there. Regardless, the work around for this will be where teams have two players ready to take the corner kick and just play it short to one guy and, then they move in and crowd the goal area. Also, what do you do with free kicks that are near the goal line and corner flag that isn't a corner kick?
I agree with this sentiment. Viewing with arsenal colored glasses, i think the game wants this called. To be sure, consistency is a huge issue, but I don’t think most of arsenal’s set piece goals involved an arm bar across the throat/upper torso combined with jersey pull on the gk who is about to catch. But to me the larger issue is how hesitant a referee is to call anything, knowing that it will get readjudicated if the ball ends up in the net. Of course it’s impossible to see everything in the box on a corner kick, but my feeling is that referees are even worse at discerning now than before VAR. This whole issue is unpleasant and unsatisfying.
Which foul on the play do you pick to call? The most egregious? The most impactful? The first foul? The last foul? Fair to say Arsenal create these scrums on their own corners. While I am biased, I feel like you need to take the good with the bad if you initiate this level of contact. My issue is that a line in the sand has been drawn by the referee. He has established a level of contact and grabbing and holding that is acceptable and when called to the monitor must readjudicate based upon the letter of the law and not according to the temperature of the match that he has created.
Cann is a legend, so I'm willing to hear what he has to say and I'm not totally against his suggestion. We all officiate different skill levels and will agree it's hard to manage the issue of team tactics with players bumping/touching into the keeper just before a corner kick takes place and we'll agree it's only getting worse. The negative of his idea is now you'll have more VAR reviews to see if a guy had his left foot touching the goal area at the kick-point on a goal. Do you we really want this? I don't know. Also, this would not eliminate the grabbing of players during corners that is worse near the end of a match since few will whistle it despite what domestic league or competition it is. With such a rule change, they'll be grabbing 7 yards away instead of in the goal area. With a well placed and well timed corner on an inswerve, these guys are near the goalkeeper in a second, so this would not resolve all of the issues on these corner kick foul/no foul calls.
Trying to make new laws like cann’s suggestion doesn’t matter when all people will do is find reasons to criticize enforcing it, just like they do with current laws. Calling all the holding on corner kicks whether offensive or penalty would likely get people to stop, but instead you get “oh well the player is not involved so don’t call it, oh well it’s just part of the game now so we can’t call them all as it will ruin the viewer experience etc”. cann’s suggestion would be great to stop the BS with the goalkeeper, but now people will have the excuses of “but that means VAR would have to see if a toe is on the GA line, the game doesn’t want that delay”, etc. Doesn’t even matter at this point, the complaints will come no matter what.
Consistency is EXACTLY the complaint. A few weeks ago, an Arsenal defender (Rice) was all over a player in the box on a corner, handled the ball, and the ref didn't give a penalty as the defender was 'in a tussle' at the time of handball. Almost the exact same pose. These types of 'fouls' occur multiple times per match in the EPL and are hardly ever called. That is why this exact one was strange (and yes, in the end, correct) but nowhere near consistent with the rest of the matches.
Hardly any of the players crowding the goalkeeper on corner kicks are there for the purpose of ever touching the ball.
The complaints are usually for legitimate reasons. If a change to the LOTG fixes one problem but creates others, what's the purpose of doing it? The drop-ball rule had to be revised because it was not well thought out. The hand ball rule after scoring was changed twice because it was not well thought out (and still don't like it). Healthy discussion is good to discuss any possible ramifications and to determine if it's even worth pursuing.
Practically every time someone says something like this, that it's inconsistent, they come up with a completely different scenario, as you did. Different things are different!
"Referee's don't want to make the big calls in the moment because they always have the safety net."@Nicocantor1 takes a wider look at the impact VAR has had on football ⚽ pic.twitter.com/hladjf1zLc— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) May 11, 2026 I think this is really well said. I don't know how much truth there is to this, but it does feel like referees are punting more decisions to VAR.
Every play is different, but the general meaning stands. They pick and choose when to enforce the holding and when not to. As the ref, I completely understand. VAR is much more uniform (or it should be), but the results are still inconsistent.
For reference, this is the opening section of the daily Athletic FC newsletter today: So, yeah, to MassRef's point we're talking about VAR. Not a game! We're talking about VAR. (h/t to AI)
How on earth was Leeds' penalty A) not given in real-time and B) not a yellow card once given via VAR? My word.
The answer to A is awarding a penalty live would basically be a guess based on the reaction of the kicked player. I wasn't able to identify contact in the replays until a minute or two into the check. Penalty kick incoming. Mathys Tel commits the foul 😱⚪️ Tottenham: 1⚫️ Leeds: 0⏱️ 69’ pic.twitter.com/VzdjOE4Yym— USA Sports (@usasports) May 11, 2026
would need to see CR positioning on this on how it was missed, but yes very clearly it deserved to be a yellow. Announcers were actually placing the blame on the victim.
You're watching a broadcast angle. If you're the referee, you're field level and looking at the ball there. That's an expected call, not a guess. If that's a guess, then 95% of foul calls are "guesses." And even if the referee was unsure or obstructed, the AR is right there. What's his excuse? And finally, if I'm somehow wrong on all this and you're guessing either way... guess in favor of "yeah, the guy who went to ground probably got kicked in the head when the defender did a foolish bicycle kick without knowing where the attacker was and it was clear the attacker headed the ball." You have to get so many things wrong to miss that in real-time. And then to also not view it as misconduct while at the monitor? Baffling.
At this point I'm not even assuming they saw the touch instead of just defaulting to no PK and letting VAR decide.
True. But players in the GA are. And if the rule is you can’t be in the GA, they aren’t going to be on top of the GK. While I like the limits of involvement (akin to what we have on PA encroachment in), I can see them making a black and white rule, too. But I think it’s going to be tough to sell Reversing goals when a player was over the line away from play, I like the OS import as it captures different ways of being involved and no one has to learn a new set of “what ifs.”
I'm not 100% but I think Madison might have touched the ball after the toe poke. So imagine the ref making the VAR signal and pointing towards a goal kick while getting drowned out by the roaring Spurs supporters who think it's a penalty.