FIFA

Why people argue about this

People often assume that GLT is used in every game for automatic goal determination, thinking it's a universal feature of all matches. However, the official verdict clarifies that GLT is only implemented in major FIFA competitions and approved leagues to definitively call goals or no-goals, not in every single match across the board.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that if a foul is committed in their favor, the referee will immediately punish it, thinking they're getting away with nothing. In reality, the "Advantage" rule gives referees leeway to let play continue when they believe the team committing the foul would benefit from doing so, as long as no significant negative consequence occurs within a short timeframe.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that as long as the surface is green, it meets all FIFA requirements for artificial turf, which leads to misunderstandings about its shock absorption, ball bounce, and roll performance needed to protect players safely. They overlook the specific criteria for these aspects outlined in the FIFA Quality Programme.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that if a ball rebounds off a player's body during play, it goes out of play. However, according to Law 9 in football (soccer), as long as the referee hasn't stopped play and the ball is still within the field boundaries, it remains in play regardless of where or how it bounces off a player.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the green color requirement for artificial turf is purely aesthetic, forgetting that it's crucial for maintaining consistent ball bounce and roll, which are essential for fair play under FIFA standards. They overlook how uniform surface conditions help ensure all players receive a level playing field, regardless of their position or team.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that goal-line technology (GLT) is a new invention for major competitions, when in reality it's been around since 2012 and was first used in the English Premier League. The confusion arises because they don't realize GLT has been part of many leagues' rules for years before becoming standard in FIFA competitions.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the concussion substitution protocol is only for severe head injuries like concussions, when in fact it's designed to cover any situation where a player might be at risk of sustaining a concussion — from feeling dizzy after a fall to having a brief loss of consciousness. They overlook the broader interpretation and flexibility built into this rule to ensure player safety.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the concussion substitution only applies in trials until it's made permanent, forgetting that once IFAB declares a rule permanent, it becomes a standard part of the game, allowing teams to make one additional concussion substitution per match.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that crowd safety is solely a responsibility of stadium management rather than the referee, misunderstanding that the referee does indeed have authority to suspend or abandon a match if it's deemed unsafe due to behavior from fans, players, or officials.

Why people argue about this

People often think that if a match ends with both teams scoring exactly the same number of goals, it should be decided by extra time or penalties instead of being declared a draw. But actually, according to FIFA rules, when scores are equal at full-time, the game is considered tied and no further attempts to break a tie are made.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the goal lines themselves are where goals are scored, rather than at their center. This misunderstanding stems from a literal interpretation of the term "center" in the official verdict, leading to confusion about exactly where the goal is located on the field.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that a direct free kick is only awarded for deliberate, obvious fouls like tripping or kicking an opponent. They forget about indirect offenses like sliding tackles that might seem careless but aren't always clearly defined as such by referees, leading to arguments over whether the offense was indeed reckless and forceful enough to warrant a direct free kick.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that if play continues without immediate benefit for the team that committed an offense, the referee will simply ignore it and no punishment is given. But actually, the referee can still penalize the initial offense even if they decide not to stop play right away, as long as there wasn't a clear anticipated advantage within seconds.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the 45-minute halves are strictly fixed periods without adjustments for time lost during matches, leading to misunderstandings about how much actual playing time will be covered if substitutions or injuries occur frequently. The confusion arises because the rule states the referee adds this time at the end of each half, not altering the initial 45-minute structure itself.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that goals are placed closer to the corner flag posts than they actually are, thinking it's a strategic advantage by placing them there. In reality, the official placement ensures symmetry and fairness across all fields, regardless of where the goalposts might be positioned relative to the corners.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that goalkeepers must wear traditional goalkeeper gear like gloves and a specialized jersey, forgetting they can also opt for regular tracksuit bottoms instead of the usual shorts. This leads to misunderstandings about what exactly constitutes acceptable goalkeeper attire under FIFA rules.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the goalkeeper can hold the ball for as long as they want, especially if it looks like their team is losing. But actually, the new rule clearly states that a maximum of 8 seconds is allowed before awarding a corner kick, which causes confusion and arguments when goalkeepers exceed this time limit.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that handball is only about scoring directly with a deliberate hand touch, forgetting that it also includes creating goal-scoring opportunities by touching the ball with their hand/arm in a way that deceives or distracts an opponent, even if unintentional. They overlook how subtle and varied this interpretation can be.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that these cooling breaks are a form of halftime, which they see as an unfair advantage since it's longer than usual. In reality, these breaks are meant to be short medical interventions during gameplay to prevent players from overheating and dehydrating, not as extended time off like halftime.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that an indirect free kick is only awarded for dangerous play or deliberate fouls, forgetting that it can also be given for impeding without contact. The confusion arises because they overlook the category of offenses where a player commits an infraction during play but doesn't necessarily make physical contact with another player.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the green color requirement for artificial turf is purely aesthetic, forgetting that it's crucial for maintaining consistent ball bounce and roll across all playing conditions, including lightning strikes or extreme weather. They overlook how a non-green surface could drastically affect gameplay unpredictably, leading to confusion about its necessity beyond appearance.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that just having medical personnel is enough under this rule, forgetting they need to be present at all official matches. The actual requirement is for a stretcher and dedicated medical staff to be available throughout every fixture, not merely on standby or during halftime.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that a team can only have 10 players out on the field at one time, forgetting about the goalkeeper who counts towards the total of 11. This leads to misunderstandings when they argue that their team should be allowed to start or continue playing if they think they just need 7 players available in reserve, not necessarily all on the pitch simultaneously.

Why people argue about this

People often think that if a player is in an offside position, they can never be involved in play by being caught interfering with play, preventing an opponent, or winning the ball. However, this isn't true; a player in an offside position can still be penalized for these actions, even though their positioning makes them ineligible to receive the ball directly from a pass.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that they can use as many substitutes as they want, thinking FIFA's limit is merely a suggestion rather than a hard-and-fast rule, thus leading to arguments about when or if substitutions are allowed beyond five.

Why people argue about this

People commonly argue that the referee should only stop play if a player is seriously injured, when in fact, they often misunderstand the term "seriously." The confusion arises because while "serious injury" implies immediate medical attention, some players and coaches believe it means play must be stopped for even minor injuries to ensure safety.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that only visible jewelry like necklaces or rings is prohibited, forgetting about less obvious items like leather bands or rubber bands which can still pose a risk if they get caught on something during play. The confusion arises because these smaller details are easily overlooked in the rush to ensure safety for all players.

Why people argue about this

People think they can tape over jewelry to make it safe, but the official verdict clearly states taping is not permitted, leading to misunderstandings about what constitutes acceptable safety measures.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that a goal is scored as soon as the ball crosses the line, without considering if it was done unfairly. The actual confusion arises because they overlook the crucial part about no offense having been committed by the scoring team, which can lead to disputes over whether an apparent goal should count or not.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that jewelry is only a problem if it can be seen by opponents, forgetting that even taped-over pieces are still considered dangerous under the rule. They overlook the fact that taping over jewelry isn't allowed, leading to misunderstandings about what constitutes compliance with the equipment rules.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the field must be a perfect rectangle with all sides exactly 90 meters long, which leads to misunderstandings when fields vary slightly in size or have dimensions like 60x45 meters. The confusion arises because the rule specifies rectangular shape and green color without detailing exact measurements or uniformity requirements.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that a team can just replace players as they see fit during a match without regard for the minimum number of players required by law, but actually, substitutions are strictly regulated within specific limits to ensure fair play and game continuity, with only seven players allowed off the field at once due to this rule.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that if a half is 45 minutes long and there's no time added for injuries or substitutions, then they'll have exactly 90 minutes of game play. But the confusion arises because the referee does indeed add time at the end of each half to account for all those interruptions, making the total match duration longer than just two halves.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that if a match ends with an equal number of goals scored by both teams, it must go straight into extra time or penalty shootout for a winner, but in soccer (football), when scores are tied at full-time, the game is officially declared a draw regardless of how many goals were scored.

Why people argue about this

People often argue that they didn't mean to use 'excessive force,' so they shouldn't get a penalty kick when it's really about whether their action was careless or reckless enough to warrant such severe punishment. The confusion arises because 'excessive force' is subjective and judges can interpret it differently, leading to disputes over whether an incident falls under this category.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that if a player is injured during a match, they can simply be helped back on the field by medical staff, even if it means continuing play. However, the true intent of this rule is for the referee to immediately stop play and ensure serious injuries are addressed properly off the field, prioritizing safety over game continuity.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that a goalkeeper can hold onto the ball for as long as they want during set pieces, which leads to misunderstandings when they're instructed to release it within 8 seconds or face a corner kick penalty. The rule is clear and enforced, but its application sometimes sparks debate about timing and intent.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that if a ball goes out of play at either touchline or goal line, it's automatically in play again once it bounces back into play on the other side, which is incorrect. Actually, the ball remains out until the referee restarts play by throwing it in, kicking it from the field, dropping it, or using any other method specified in Law 8.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that substitutes can enter the field at any time during play when signaled by the referee, which leads to misunderstandings about when substitutions are actually allowed under FIFA rules. The confusion arises because they overlook the specific timing and location constraints for entering the pitch, as dictated by the rule requiring players to leave before new ones arrive.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that only visible jewelry like necklaces can be a problem, so they argue about rings being allowed when they see players wearing them. In reality, the rule extends to all types of jewelry and even suggests taping over it is not permissible, leading to misunderstandings about what exactly constitutes "dangerous" equipment.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the field must be exactly rectangular with no variation in shape allowed, which leads to arguments about slight irregularities or odd-shaped pitches. However, the official rule only specifies a rectangular shape; it doesn't mandate an exact rectangle where all sides are perfectly equal and all angles are precisely 90 degrees.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that the goalposts are placed at the corner flags instead of the center of the goal line, which leads to misunderstandings about where exactly a goal is scored. The confusion arises because they confuse the visual positioning with the official rule's technical definition of goal placement.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that once a referee makes a decision, it's set in stone and can't be challenged, which is why they argue - but actually, while decisions are final, disputes over their application or interpretation continue to occur among players, coaches, and sometimes even spectators due to the complexity of football laws.

Why people argue about this

People often assume that VAR is used for every goal-line decision, which leads them to misunderstand its role as merely confirming what GLT already determined automatically within a second. The confusion arises because they mix up the real-time confirmation of GLT with the delayed review process of VAR for other contentious decisions.