I suggested hockey. At the pro level, there are two "referees" that can award goals, call penalties, etc. There are two linesman who can stop play for a certain subset of calls. They are certainly not considered "equal". Yes, at lower levels, you can see the equivalent to a high school soccer "dual", but I don't think that's where you were going. It's been a long time since I played rugby, but I seem to recall that the linesmen had specific duties and stopping play/calling fouls/penalties/etc were not among them.
I understand that there are different levels of “equal”, and that in different sports, different referees on the crew have “more power” than others. If you guys want to dig up obscure sports or sports with nowhere near the reach of soccer to show how it’s not the only sport and the technicalities of the word “equal”, that’s fine. Soccer is the only large sport I know of where the majority of the crew has as much power to stop a match as a club linesman
If the new, movable goalposts are "Are there any global sports bigger than soccer that..." you can stop the inquiry there. Per Google AI, "Soccer is the biggest sport in the world by fan base and participation, followed by cricket and field hockey". TWIAVBP.
Someone once said, "Arguing with a referee is like wrestling a pig in the mud. Everyone gets dirty, and then you realize the pig enjoys it."
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/dec/04/var-corners-fifa-referee-football-world-cup-corners "He added that Fifa wanted to explore AI-based innovations to help match officials and improve the game, although he gave no details on this." I am both terrified and intrigued.
Maybe we will eventually remove humans and have AI officiate all professional sports. I hope it does happen, keep having tech companies ruin humanity
News: Every 2026 World Cup match will feature two hydration breaks, no matter the weather.Each half will pause for exactly three minutes midway through.It's a player welfare measure. Also has other implications.More @TheAthleticFC: https://t.co/fcMYlnnU8M— Henry Bushnell (@HenryBushnell) December 8, 2025 Gross. It will be the highest watched and best attended World Cup ever, but this upcoming World Cup is just gonna be gross. A farcical format that renders the entire group stage as a glorified exhibition. Reviewing corner kicks, time-outs, to probably having Trump lifting the trophy himself. I thought Blatter was bad, but at least Blatter seemed to be a fan of the sport and understood that the sport itself is the spectacle. He didn't view FIFA, and the World Cup as a ticket to turn himself into a celebrity like Infantino.
A "player welfare matter." What nonsense. Doing it when weather dictates is one thing. Saying it is a player welfare matte to do it every game means there is a fundamental flaw in the LOTG that should be amended to have a break in all games. I'd love to know how much lobbying there is was from the media companies on this . . .
For those who watch matches in FIFA competitions carefully, it's quite obvious that this policy has been unofficially applied in their tournaments for quite a while. This happened in yesterday's Arab Cup match between Oman and Comoros (referee was Pierre Ghislain Atcho from Gabon): https://streamff.link/v/eb87f3f8 I don't have any great problem with this policy personally. BUT, as soon as you codify it in black and white (as is apparently the plan), it shouldn't take a genius to work out that you are opening so many cans of worms and are inevitably creating a huge mess. EDIT: This is exactly what happened with the 'no cautions for SPA after advantage' too! At a UEFA level, I can remember for quite a long period of time there was an unofficial guideline to try and avoid these bookings, but by it not being written formally anywhere, refs could use their discretion and take into account a number of factors before deciding whether to book or not. Now, that has been completely taken out of their hands. The mandate to try and get this 'VAR for corners' into the LotG comes as hubris by Infantino, because remember that none of these things are actually Collina's ideas: it isn't enough to see that his policy is being already applied in FIFA matches (as you can see above!), it needs to be seen to be being applied with him being the author of it.
Not to go all X-files, but: just think about which politician Infantino is so cosy with, the country where the Blatter trials were held and initiated (and so whom decided to get rid of him), the decision four-and-a-bit years before that which rather blatantly triggered the decision to bring down the Blatter 'cartel', and even small things in our hobby like how Elfath was able to survive his very poor performance in Portugal-Ghana to reach the semifinals (but for Morocco) - and then everything should be quite clear about what is going on.
That example makes me think of the obvious question which I haven't asked, but I guess isn't explicitly said anywhere. Will goal kicks be checked or just corner kicks? Meaning, if there is a slight deflection but a goal kick is given, are we holding up the goal kick to have it checked? Or is it just affirmative corner kick decisions that will be verified?
I've never seen, or at least remember seeing, the contrary scenario of a goalkick being turned into a corner, but codifying this into the laws ensures that it will now very probably happen! (which is totally against common sense)
Why is it against common sense? Why would we want a review process that can only take away goal scoring opportunities, not award them? Not only does that reduce goal scoring opportunities directly, it also creates subconscious pressure on refs—on a close callthey know it can’t be reversed if they award the GK. I think it should be either or both. As far as “unofficially” implementing it, that to me is insane. It’s one thing to tell refs to be reluctant to caution for SPA when advantage is applied. It’s another thing to tell VAR to get involved on something the Laws don’t permit. That really is aomoethi g that should be in the Laws or not.
Then don't. This isn't a political issue, it is purely a monetary issue as now every network knows exactly when this is coming and just how long it will take, for EVERY match. Guess who that benefits??? Correct, the media companies who now can easily sell 2 blocks of advertising, tailored directly at the fans of the 2 teams, and can guarantee time and length of said break. Since it's only 3 minutes, in the middle of each half, viewership is all but guaranteed (unlike halftime). What an effing joke.
Because there is zero political gain/loss in this decision. It's not based on benefitting one side, it's there for more money (as FIFA consistently show is all they really care about down deep).
Rather funny case in one of the Afcon matches today by one of the Vars who is on the FIFA circuit and a candidate for the next World Cup - turning one incorrect decision into a different one! https://streamin.me/v/654ddc47 I think this situation also serves to underline in practice quite well that the purpose of this exercise is specifically to ensure that 'no team can score a goal from a clearly wrongly awarded corner'.
HA! So because corner kick v goal kick is an objective decision and does not require an OFR, the VMOs can only overturn the boundary decision and can't invite the referee to look at why the decision might be incorrect if it was a result of foul play. In other words, using the VAR vernacular, there is no "APP to clear" for corner kick v goal kick decisions. They are simply factual and unless an alleged foul like this would be a penalty or red card, it is not subject to review. I kind of feel like this won't be a relatively uncommon occurrence either. Wrongly awarded corner kicks because the referee team felt a defender got a touch when they actually missed completely on a tackle might be near the top of this category of judgment errors. At least when the agrieved team gets a corner kick instead of the free kick, there's a sense of justice; but now VAR ensures that justice gets undone. Absolutely amazing. And the slippery slope will get slippier.
Is there any other more blatant situation where FIFA has instructed their referees to flat out circumvent the Laws of the Game? They literally are making up what is reviewable via VAR. Extraordinary. Anything similar over the years?
the NBA had exactly this problem with its video review. OOB decisions could be reviewed, but not fouls. At the end of a playoff game, the Lakers were awarded a throw in, and the other team challenged. The review clearly showed it was last touched by the Laker as a result of a foul by the other team. So the Lakers lost the ball, and I believe the game. That was a key step in the NBA’s slippery slope of what is now reviewable.
I imagine to the extent this was thought of at all by people at FIFA/IFAB, they would (somewhat correctly) argue that most of these decisions would be in the penalty area, so there could be a review to get a penalty correctly awarded if the corner kick was wrong (plus, of course, if it's a clear penalty it should be reviewed for that purpose anyway). But yeah, it ignores these situations where a free kick would be the result. Granted, 30 yards out from goal is going to be quite rare. But inside the channel between the PA and the touch line will be less rare. And then the current apparent provisions do not account for a wrongly awarded goal kick based on an attacking foul either (meaning an attacker could foul a defender, a goal kick could be wrongly awarded by the referee team, and then the final result would be a corner kick... that could, in turn, lead to a goal).