2026 World Cup thread

[Roscablo]

Enough can't be said about how insidious VAR is. You want to take away a Norway goal after the fact for a Haaland push? Then why isn't a PK called for the bear hug on Haaland the previous corner kick? There is fouling on EVERY SINGLE CORNER. I've seen 20 offensive guys in this tourney shoot while having their jerseys pulled. It is such a slippery slope. But they picked Haaland this time.

And going back to VAR for the possible Kane foul is some ****** bull****. Just like erasing that Egypt goal via VAR because of some non-called bull**** foul 100 yards away from the goal, 25 seconds ago.

Then, the VAR/ball chip microprocessor can detect a ball hitting a Croate player's HAIR, but can't detect the Norway goal kick hitting a guide wire? FIFA's official announcement was the that ball/chip microprocessor never detected the ball hitting a wire, yet we all saw the ball trajectory change (as did the complaining Norway players). As George Orwell said, "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
Throw all this VAR bull**** in the bin.

This could be a weird American soccer take and the rest of the world might be fine with it, but there has to be some changes to VAR by the next World Cup and maybe even by the next major tournament.

The looking at everything no matter what thing just kills the flow of the game, takes away goals that traditionally never would have even been complained about, gives cards, even red cards, that never would have been given, kills momentum and celebrations and fun, and so much more.

Challenges, specific things that can be looked at, I don't know. But looking at every damn thing, and even then having no standard for how rules are applied based on it, is just dumb.

I liken the Haaland foul to reviewing a touchdown in the NFL and calling it back because of a hold. The Egypt one is ridiculous on the surface because it did happen so far away from the goal, but they wouldn't have had the run without it, so I see it a little more, but maybe with something like that, have a challenge system in place if they can figure one out. The NHL offside challenges came up here a while back, and it totally could be something like that (maybe even for close offside calls too). In the NHL if they lose the challenge they get a penalty. Maybe they give a card or something if they lose.

I don't know, but it is just too much. It's gone from something to make sure something egregious doesn't get through, to really taking away from the game. It's been an enjoyable WC regardless, but at some point it is royally going to screw up an important game.

 

[Driftwood]

VAR should only be used to matter of fact situations - did the ball cross the line, was there a hand ball, etc. - not judgement calls - fouls, severity of fouls, etc.

 

[Spartan Squad]

I don’t want a challenge system. It’s an Americanization that isn’t necessary.

But I agree some of these interventions aren’t necessary. The spirit of the offsides rule is to prevent the attacking side from getting an unfair advantage. A guy’s toenail being slightly ahead of a defender isn’t an advantage.

Stop the one sided overturning corners. Either don’t review it at all or both takeaway and award corners based on the last guy to touch.

Reds should have a higher standard to be given based on VAR. The US red was harsh but borderline appropriate but maybe not enough for VAR to intervene without clear intent or overt recklessness.

The Egypt goal overturning has been a VAR thing for 10-plus years. A foul leading to a goal being reviewed isn’t new. It just looked bad because Egypt went the length of the pitch.

As with the US sports and replay, there’s growing pains. They need to tighten it up but challenges feels unnecessary.

 

[UPChip]

I saw that expanding to 64 teams is being considered, I'd go with the consolation round. Fans travel from around the world to witness the WC in person, three games doesn't seem to justify the effort. Giving the also-ran teams more of an experience (even if it means the only play their scrubs), and fill up some of these these "dead" days between the quarters and the final.
The College football season ends the same way. You lose a lot of momentum in that dead week between the semis and final. ESPN was smart moving some low-level bowls into that week to give them a chance to hype the final.

Kind of like the 17-game NFL schedule I don't think you lose *that* much competitively if you go from 48 to 64. For purposes of tabletopping it out, let's add to the mix all your intercontinental playoff losers (Jamaica, Bolivia, New Caledonia, Suriname), the four UEFA playoff losers (Italy, Poland, Kosovo, Denmark), the best teams that didn't make it out of African qualifying (Nigeria, Cameroon), Asian qualifying (the UAE), CONCACAF (Honduras), CONMEBOL (Venezuela) and, hell, the three best (behaving) nations in the FIFA rankings that we haven't already named: Ukraine, Wales, Hungary.

There's a few minnows in there: New Calendonia, Suriname, a Bolivia playing below 10,000 feet, but if anything it fixes some "mistakes" in the process. However, that makes the entire qualifying process practically academic for everyone besides the middle to lower tiers of the sport. The last couple matchdays before the end of qualification are like the one or two international breaks I don't completely hate.

The biggest pros (to me) are that it gets more people (and thus, their money) involved. Second, having a square number takes all the third place crap out of the equation and arguably makes the bid for round of 32 spots more challenging, at least for the teams on the bubble.

The cons are obvious: The United States being a four time-zone country with pre-built 70,000-person stadiums (many of which have cover) everywhere is as close to ideal as you can get. Others, particularly countries that are geographically isolated or don't even have the infrastructure of a major domestic league, are going to be unable to meet that.

Where the hell are they going to put 64 national soccer teams and their assorted entourages, not to mention fanbases and such?

And what might kill the whole thing is timeslots. Other than final group games, I don't believe FIFA has intentionally had two World Cup games overlap since one anomalous day in the 1994 group stage. Having a country with four time zones this time out allowed them to (I'd say deftly) work the timeline so you have some early Eastern time games and some late Pacific time games for the sickos. Spain, Morocco and Portugal are in two time zones (and you could argue geographically they should be in one). At this point, I'm not sure if I even want to consider the Saudi bid in 2034 to be a real thing as there are numerous straight-up logistical issues that make no sense (besides the sportswashing and rabid bribery).

Assuming that you don't copy the Big Dance and just start doing waterfall starts (which I don't think works for soccer because the most exciting part could be the first 10 minutes), it's pretty hard to fit in more than four games in a day, and that's also not to speak for the broadcasters who might want to air their own programming at some point. I heard thirdhanded that our local Fox affiliate was getting pre-empted at the rate of like four nights a week last month.

 

[dixiehack]

My beef is with the hydration breaks, which are almost assuredly here to stay. If the whole point is to get liquid into the players, then just do that and no more. Have them stay on the middle of the pitch and strictly forbid coaches from stepping across the touch line.

We won’t even get into how ****ty it is to grant five subs instead of three.

 

[ChrisLong]

I haven't posted much here because my lack of soccer knowledge would disrespect those of you who know the sport inside-out. But I think this: eliminate offsides. If a team wants to cherry pick, counterattack the hell out of them. Isn't that the reason for the rule? To eliminate cherry-picking?

 

[Roscablo]

I haven't posted much here because my lack of soccer knowledge would disrespect those of you who know the sport inside-out. But I think this: eliminate offsides. If a team wants to cherry pick, counterattack the hell out of them. Isn't that the reason for the rule? To eliminate cherry-picking?

I can't imagine offside will ever be eliminated. It is almost what makes soccer soccer to an extent. But they can tweak it, and I think some of the soccer purists would even get on board eventually.

I think there needs to be an advantage element created. They give advantages on fouls. Why not offside? No advantage, no offside. This toe is offside crap, no advantage, get rid of it. I would go to the body has to be fully clear, but I get there are times when it isn't and it gives an advantage to the offense.

I also saw someone suggest getting rid of the rule altogether on set pieces. I think that would be amazing. The fact that there can sometimes be offside on less than a yard of space is just crazy (and also, how is there an advantage there?).

I know this is blasphemy to many fans, but I don't think it would hurt to tweak it some.

 

[Spartan Squad]

I haven't posted much here because my lack of soccer knowledge would disrespect those of you who know the sport inside-out. But I think this: eliminate offsides. If a team wants to cherry pick, counterattack the hell out of them. Isn't that the reason for the rule? To eliminate cherry-picking?

Yes you eliminate cherry picking. It stops Messi from parking himself outside the box on a corner and just clearing the ball over everyone and he taps it past the keeper.

The offsides rule is a great equalizer for talent disparity. Outmatched teams still see the score get run up, but it stops the game turning into an embarrassment.

Imagine if football got rid of offsides. Any D End could just get a running start on a QB and you could never play fairly.

 

[Webster]

VAR, like all replay systems, is about how OK you are with the refs getting things wrong vs both the time and the emotion killing nature of the system. My issue is that it kills the celebrations and the momentum of a game, even when it is done perfectly well.

I really don’t mind the old system of no VAR but get back to me when my team gives up a goal to a player who is a foot off.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

The offside rule itself is fine the way it is. People have tried tweaking it to “fix” the game and it doesn’t work.

If you eliminate the offside rule teams sag the defense back. It’s a great way to create a lot more 0-0 games.

Eliminate VAR enforcement of offside and the issues are fixed.

 

[Driftwood]

Let's do away with offsides in hockey, dribbling in basketball, and false starts in football.
Changing one of the fundamental rules of the game to appease a few folks who tune in every four years in the US is having any success is silly.

I would be for making it you have to be wholly offsides to be offsides.

 

[micropolitan guy]

My beef is with the hydration breaks, which are almost assuredly here to stay. If the whole point is to get liquid unit he players, then just do that and no more. Have them stay on the middle of the pitch and strictly forbid coaches from stepping across the touch line.

We won’t even get into how ****ty it is to grant five subs instead of three.

They suck. But at least stop the clock, so there is not always 8+ minutes of added time.

It's a joke when the announcers try and interject some drama and say, "Only five minutes left!" in the 85th minute when you know there are going to be at least six or seven more once the clock hits 90.

 

[poindexter]

Why not offside? No advantage, no offside.

This is actually how the current rules are set up. I player can be in an "offside position", ie behind the second to last defender. But, if he is not part of the play, in the determination of the ref and AR, he is not "offside". Think of an offensive player in an offside position on the far left of the field, and the ball is going down the right side of the field.

On all these plays we have seen in the world cup, the ref has determined that the player is part of the play, and has the attention of the defense. Thus offsides.

It's been years since I have played and reffed. If rules have changed, someone let me know.

 

[DanOregon]

I wouldn't mind eliminating off-sides inside the penalty box - it bugs me when I see defenders move up to get the call rather than playing defense.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I haven't posted much here because my lack of soccer knowledge would disrespect those of you who know the sport inside-out. But I think this: eliminate offsides. If a team wants to cherry pick, counterattack the hell out of them. Isn't that the reason for the rule? To eliminate cherry-picking?

Do you want it eliminated in football as well? If the Bills want to have their receivers start 20 yards downfield, are we cool with that?

 

[Webster]

Kind of like the 17-game NFL schedule I don't think you lose *that* much competitively if you go from 48 to 64. For purposes of tabletopping it out, let's add to the mix all your intercontinental playoff losers (Jamaica, Bolivia, New Caledonia, Suriname), the four UEFA playoff losers (Italy, Poland, Kosovo, Denmark), the best teams that didn't make it out of African qualifying (Nigeria, Cameroon), Asian qualifying (the UAE), CONCACAF (Honduras), CONMEBOL (Venezuela) and, hell, the three best (behaving) nations in the FIFA rankings that we haven't already named: Ukraine, Wales, Hungary.

There's a few minnows in there: New Calendonia, Suriname, a Bolivia playing below 10,000 feet, but if anything it fixes some "mistakes" in the process. However, that makes the entire qualifying process practically academic for everyone besides the middle to lower tiers of the sport. The last couple matchdays before the end of qualification are like the one or two international breaks I don't completely hate.

The biggest pros (to me) are that it gets more people (and thus, their money) involved. Second, having a square number takes all the third place crap out of the equation and arguably makes the bid for round of 32 spots more challenging, at least for the teams on the bubble.

The cons are obvious: The United States being a four time-zone country with pre-built 70,000-person stadiums (many of which have cover) everywhere is as close to ideal as you can get. Others, particularly countries that are geographically isolated or don't even have the infrastructure of a major domestic league, are going to be unable to meet that.

Where the hell are they going to put 64 national soccer teams and their assorted entourages, not to mention fanbases and such?

And what might kill the whole thing is timeslots. Other than final group games, I don't believe FIFA has intentionally had two World Cup games overlap since one anomalous day in the 1994 group stage. Having a country with four time zones this time out allowed them to (I'd say deftly) work the timeline so you have some early Eastern time games and some late Pacific time games for the sickos. Spain, Morocco and Portugal are in two time zones (and you could argue geographically they should be in one). At this point, I'm not sure if I even want to consider the Saudi bid in 2034 to be a real thing as there are numerous straight-up logistical issues that make no sense (besides the sportswashing and rabid bribery).

Assuming that you don't copy the Big Dance and just start doing waterfall starts (which I don't think works for soccer because the most exciting part could be the first 10 minutes), it's pretty hard to fit in more than four games in a day, and that's also not to speak for the broadcasters who might want to air their own programming at some point. I heard thirdhanded that our local Fox affiliate was getting pre-empted at the rate of like four nights a week last month.

It’s going to be 64 — more of a matter of when than if. You would be adding 24 extra games in 18 time slots. I think you can probably expand the opening days to have 4 games and throw 3 more days on to the tourney. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the upper and lower halves of the bracket on different schedules through the finals so maybe one starts a couple of days earlier. Agreed on the time zone issues

 

[Driftwood]

I wouldn't mind eliminating off-sides inside the penalty box - it bugs me when I see defenders move up to get the call rather than playing defense.

Tony Adams would like a word.

 

[Bubbler]

I think basketball should eliminate over-and-back and three seconds.

I think football should eliminate pass interference. Or should allow all offensive players to be in motion.

I think baseball should allow you to run the bases in whatever order you want. And foul balls shouldn’t count as strikes. They made contact, why should they be punished for it?

Sounds ridiculous, right?

I don’t mean to disparage new soccer watchers. The more, the merrier, but respect the game for what it is.

As already mentioned, getting rid of offsides would have strategic counter-measures that would have the opposite effect. Teams would just park the bus. It would be a horrible game. Soccer is partly predicated on timing and movement. Get rid of offsides and that’s gone.

VAR interpretation of offsides is moronic. VAR itself is often moronic. In our misplaced sense of trying to get it right, we often get it all wrong.

Fix or eliminate VAR by all means. But do not mess with the basics of how the game works. It’s the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[ChrisLong]

Do you want it eliminated in football as well? If the Bills want to have their receivers start 20 yards downfield, are we cool with that?

If I wanted it eliminated in football, I would have posted in the NFL or CFB thread. This is the soccer thread. Check the heading at the top, that's a clue as to what we're talking about.

 

[Spartan Squad]

If I wanted it eliminated in football, I would have posted in the NFL or CFB thread. This is the soccer thread. Check the heading at the top, that's a clue as to what we're talking about.

Don’t get mad because people are giving you examples of just how dumb the suggestion was. If you weren’t serious about what you posted, then why post it? The reason you don’t get rid of soccer offsides is for the reason Inky said. Take your L and move on.