Key Takeaways On How VAR Regulations Might Change Before The 2026 World Cup.

The beautiful game, a tapestry woven with skill, passion, and unpredictable drama, has always been resistant to radical change. In today's time, the fast development of technology has brought about the biggest change in how football matches are officiated: the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).  Since its full introduction, VAR has been a constant source of debate, lauded for correcting "clear and obvious errors" but simultaneously lambasted for disrupting the game's flow and generating its own brand of controversy. As the 2026 FIFA World Cup looms on the horizon, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the custodians of the Laws of the Game, The upcoming changes are set to bring more major changes to VAR rules, trying to find a better balance between being accurate and keeping the real feel of football. 

These proposed changes are not mere tweaks; they are a direct response to years of scrutiny, fan frustration, and the desire to evolve the sport without irrevocably altering its core. The discussions are intense, the stakes are high, and the potential impact on the biggest sporting spectacle on the planet is immense. Let's delve into the key takeaways on how VAR regulations might change before the 2026 World Cup, and what these evolutions could mean for players, referees, and the global fanbase.

The Expanding Arm of VAR: Second Yellow Cards and Corner Kicks

One of the most significant and widely discussed proposals involves the expansion of VAR's remit to cover situations currently outside its jurisdiction. Currently, VAR can only intervene for direct red cards, penalties, goals, and cases of mistaken identity. However, the IFAB is actively considering extending this to include second yellow cards and potentially even erroneously awarded corner kicks that directly lead to goals.

The rationale behind the second yellow card intervention is compelling. A second yellow card usually means the player gets a red card and has to leave the game, which makes a big difference in the match.  Yet, under current rules, even if replays clearly show an incorrect second booking, VAR cannot advise the referee to overturn it. This has led to numerous instances of unjust dismissals, fundamentally altering the trajectory of matches. The infamous case of Manchester City's Rico Lewis, controversially sent off after a second yellow despite replays showing no foul, serves as a powerful testament to the need for this change. IFAB believes that allowing VAR to review these "fact-based" errors could prevent such game-altering mistakes, enhancing fairness.

However, concerns remain about the potential for further delays. Critics argue that reviewing subjective yellow card incidents, even a second one, could lead to prolonged stoppages. To mitigate this, IFAB's discussions suggest that only decisions that can be reviewed and overturned in a matter of seconds would be considered, focusing on truly "clear and obvious" errors in the awarding of the second yellow. The challenge will be defining that fine line of clarity and avoiding a slippery slope where every yellow card becomes reviewable.

Similarly, the idea of VAR intervening in incorrectly awarded corner kicks that directly result in a goal is gaining traction. While seemingly a minor detail, a wrongly given corner can lead to a decisive goal, yet currently, VAR has no power to correct such an error. Expanding VAR to cover these instances, particularly when the ball clearly did not go out of play for a corner, is seen as a way to further reduce egregious factual errors that can influence game outcomes. This would likely be limited to situations where the error is truly beyond doubt, similar to current goal-line technology's binary nature.

The Radical Penalty Shake-Up: Banning Rebounds

Maybe the most extreme and debated suggestion being discussed is the idea of stopping players from gaining possession of the ball after a missed or saved penalty kick.  Under this proposed rule, if a goalkeeper saves a penalty, or if the ball rebounds off the post or crossbar, play would immediately be deemed "dead." The attacking team would not be allowed to follow up and score from the rebound. Play would instead resume with a goal kick or, if the penalty was scored, a kick-off.

This concept aims to redefine the very nature of a penalty. Advocates argue that penalties already offer a high probability of scoring, especially when awarded for minor infractions within the box. They contend that allowing a rebound creates an additional scoring opportunity that often far exceeds what might have occurred in live play, thereby disproportionately benefiting the attacking team. Eliminating rebounds would, in their view, establish a better equilibrium, putting the entire onus on the penalty taker to convert their single, direct shot.

Furthermore, this change is designed to mitigate the contentious issue of player encroachment during penalties. Under current rules, players often enter the penalty area too early, leading to frequent retakes and prolonged delays, adding to the frustration surrounding VAR. By removing the follow-up shot, the incentive for players to encroach is significantly reduced, potentially streamlining the penalty process and reducing the need for repeated VAR reviews for encroachment.

However, this proposal has ignited a firestorm of protest from football traditionalists and fans alike. Many view the rebound as an integral part of the penalty's drama and a just reward for good follow-up play. The thought of a thrilling save followed by a dead ball is seen by some as "killing the soul of the game" and removing an exciting, unpredictable element. The emotional impact on players and fans of a well-executed rebound goal being disallowed would be immense. The IFAB is likely to face considerable resistance to this particular change, and it may undergo extensive trials before being fully implemented, or even be shelved if the backlash is too strong.

Streamlining the Review Process: Towards Efficiency and Clarity

Beyond expanding VAR's scope, a crucial aspect of the proposed changes revolves around improving the efficiency and clarity of the review process. One of the main complaints about the current VAR system is that it causes long delays and doesn't explain things clearly when reviewing decisions.  Fans in the stadium and viewers at home are often left in the dark, watching a referee staring at a monitor with little to no information about what is being reviewed or why.

Potential improvements include:

• Public Announcements: The option for referees to make public announcements after a VAR review or lengthy check is being discussed. This would bring much-needed transparency, allowing fans to understand the decision-making process in real-time, similar to how it's done in rugby. This could significantly reduce frustration and confusion.
• Reduced On-Field Reviews (OFRs) for Factual Decisions: For purely factual decisions (e.g., offside lines, ball out of play, point of contact for handball/foul), there's a push for more VAR-only reviews rather than requiring the referee to go to the pitch-side monitor (OFR). This would save time, as the VAR room can make quicker, more precise factual assessments. OFRs would be reserved for subjective decisions where the referee's interpretation is crucial, or for highly significant match-deciding moments where "selling the decision" to players and fans is important.
• Semi-Automated Offside Technology (SAOT) Refinement: While already in use at major tournaments, there's a continuous push to refine and enhance SAOT. This technology uses advanced camera setups and AI algorithms to quickly and accurately determine offside positions. Further improvements could reduce the marginal offside debates and speed up reviews even further, making offside calls virtually instantaneous and eliminating the need for extensive line-drawing by VAR operators.
• Standardization of Interpretation: One of VAR's persistent issues is the inconsistency in how subjective incidents (like handball or intensity of a foul) are interpreted across different leagues and by different officials. While not a direct "regulation change," IFAB and FIFA are likely to emphasize more robust training and clearer guidelines for VAR officials to promote greater consistency in decision-making, which in turn reduces controversy.

The Broader Impact: Game Flow, Player Behavior, and Fan Engagement

These potential VAR regulation changes, if implemented, will have far-reaching consequences across various facets of the game:

• The main issue with VAR has always been how it affects the game's flow.  While the proposed changes to streamline reviews for factual decisions and public announcements aim to mitigate this, expanding VAR's scope to second yellows and corners could, conversely, introduce more stoppages if not handled with extreme efficiency. The balance between accuracy and maintaining the game's natural rhythm remains a tightrope walk.
• Player Behavior: Players have already adapted their behavior since VAR's introduction, being more cautious in challenges and celebrations. The inclusion of second yellow cards under VAR's scrutiny could lead to even greater caution, potentially reducing reckless tackles and unsporting conduct if players know there's a safety net for genuine errors. Banning penalty rebounds would definitely change how players take penalties and how things work around the penalty area during free kicks. 
• Refereeing Standards: The increased reliance on VAR, and its expanded scope, places an even greater emphasis on the competence and judgment of both the on-field referee and the VAR team. While VAR is designed to assist, the final decision always rests with the referee. The changes necessitate continuous training and a clear understanding of the evolving protocols to ensure consistent and fair application of the laws.
• Fan Engagement: This is perhaps the most delicate area. While fans crave accuracy and justice, they also cherish the raw emotion and uninterrupted drama of football. The proposed changes aim to address fan frustration by improving transparency and reducing clear errors. However, the radical nature of the penalty rebound ban has already sparked strong negative reactions, highlighting the fine line between innovation and alienating the core fanbase. The success of these changes will ultimately hinge on whether they enhance the overall viewing experience without sacrificing the game's essence.

Conclusion: A Continuously Evolving Landscape

The 2026 World Cup is set to be a landmark event, not just for its expanded format and multi-nation hosting, but also for the potential evolution of VAR. The IFAB's deliberations reflect a genuine effort to learn from the initial years of VAR implementation, address its shortcomings, and refine its application for the betterment of the sport.

While the prospect of banning penalty rebounds may seem revolutionary and controversial to many, and the expansion of VAR to second yellow cards and corners poses new challenges, these discussions underscore football's commitment to achieving greater fairness and accuracy. The coming months, leading up to IFAB's annual general meeting where these proposals will be voted upon, will be crucial. If approved, these new rules will come into effect on June 1, 2026, just weeks before the World Cup kicks off.

The future of VAR is always changing and improving.  The goal remains to use technology as a tool to support human decision-making, ensuring that the critical moments of the game are judged correctly, while trying to keep things as normal as possible and keeping the real excitement and natural feel that make football the world's favorite sport.  The 2026 World Cup will not just showcase the pinnacle of footballing talent, but also a potentially redefined era of how justice is dispensed on the pitch. The world will be watching, with bated breath, to see how these tectonic shifts ultimately shape the beautiful game.

~~~ By Dribble Diaries