This may be old news, but it looks like the golden goal is back for the NCAA post season overtime play.
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/rules/2024-25PRXSO_MajorRulesChanges.pdf
I love Golden Goal makes it more exciting!
https://swimswam.com/ncaa-expected-to-eliminate-scholarship-limits-across-all-sports/
Wait for this one. That's going to mean a lot more possible scholarships. Thankfully the SEC does not have men's soccer, but this will apply across all D1.
A lot of fringe D1 players making elite D3 schools who would have had peanut partials or preferred status are now going to get offers.
Quote from: jknezek on July 25, 2024, 07:32:52 AMhttps://swimswam.com/ncaa-expected-to-eliminate-scholarship-limits-across-all-sports/
Wait for this one. That's going to mean a lot more possible scholarships. Thankfully the SEC does not have men's soccer, but this will apply across all D1.
A lot of fringe D1 players making elite D3 schools who would have had peanut partials or preferred status are now going to get offers.
What a nightmare the NCAA has become.
Quote from: jknezek on July 25, 2024, 07:32:52 AMhttps://swimswam.com/ncaa-expected-to-eliminate-scholarship-limits-across-all-sports/
Wait for this one. That's going to mean a lot more possible scholarships. Thankfully the SEC does not have men's soccer, but this will apply across all D1.
A lot of fringe D1 players making elite D3 schools who would have had peanut partials or preferred status are now going to get offers.
Where is the $$ going to come from to fund the scholarships? There may also be roster size limits (24-28) that could limit D1 opportunities
Quote from: eaglesoccerdad on July 25, 2024, 09:20:57 AMQuote from: jknezek on July 25, 2024, 07:32:52 AMhttps://swimswam.com/ncaa-expected-to-eliminate-scholarship-limits-across-all-sports/
Wait for this one. That's going to mean a lot more possible scholarships. Thankfully the SEC does not have men's soccer, but this will apply across all D1.
A lot of fringe D1 players making elite D3 schools who would have had peanut partials or preferred status are now going to get offers.
Where is the $$ going to come from to fund the scholarships? There may also be roster size limits (24-28) that could limit D1 opportunities
Under the settlement, colleges would be permitted to give anything between partial and full scholarships without the 9.9 limit, but schools could fund fewer than that and many or most will. The roster limit will also mean fewer spots, which effectively could mean the overall spend will be kept down by spreading the money over fewer players and reducing the training player roster spots.
The latest rumor (https://x.com/discover_cs/status/1816456240223941043?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg) is that soccer will have a limit of 27, which is fine for most programs, but could be a meaningful reduction for some programs.
Also remember that any increase to scholarships on the men's side must be matched by equal funding on the women's side, basically doubling the costs associated with any increases.
Football also increases to 105, but for the first time they don't all have to be full rides so I would imagine the less wealthy schools will start divvying up their offers (and possibly combining with traditional financial aid).
https://x.com/imcollegesoccer/status/1816536338058940828?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg
Breaking News: 🚨
NCAA D1 College Soccer
DM: Roster cap is officially 28.
Scholarship cap number is the same as the roster. (28 scholarships) Officially released tomorrow.
-D1 Power 4 Head Coach
#CSTruth Not every college or conference will be able to afford this. D1 Power 4 officially became for the ELITE athlete. With 28 full ride scholarships, the gap between the have and have not schools just got wider. 2025's and 2026's keep an eye on the roster sizes and if schools have to start making cuts this year.
The December transfer portal is going to be MASSIVE! Is it time for the D1 Power 4 schools to separate from the NCAA?
More news to come.
Quote from: Kuiper on July 25, 2024, 04:37:30 PMhttps://x.com/imcollegesoccer/status/1816536338058940828?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg
Breaking News: 🚨
NCAA D1 College Soccer
DM: Roster cap is officially 28.
Scholarship cap number is the same as the roster. (28 scholarships) Officially released tomorrow.
-D1 Power 4 Head Coach
#CSTruth Not every college or conference will be able to afford this. D1 Power 4 officially became for the ELITE athlete. With 28 full ride scholarships, the gap between the have and have not schools just got wider. 2025's and 2026's keep an eye on the roster sizes and if schools have to start making cuts this year.
The December transfer portal is going to be MASSIVE! Is it time for the D1 Power 4 schools to separate from the NCAA?
More news to come.
Definitely. I think overall it will just intensify the have and have nots. On the mens side a lot of programs did not even have money for 9.9 scholarships. I think the richer programs will gradually increase, but not too much, as other than, huge football programs, they don't have much extra money. Any extra money or budget decisions are going to go to their football programs. So it may just be an increase without an actual increase. In 2025, there will probably be a lot of players transferring to D3 programs when there is not a slot for them at D1 program. Not so much in the womens as there are so many more D1 womens programs.
Also, D1 will just get more foreign players as the scholarship limit goes up and smaller rosters. That is trend that has just gone off over the years especially when Marshall won the nat'l championship in 2021. They had 39 field players and 6 goalkeepers with 26 foreign players (9 from Brazil alone). During that nat'l OT championship game against Indiana, Marshall played 12 players and only one was US and 5 or 6 Brazilian.
One of barriers in the past was not being able offer enough money to foreign players with limit so programs got US parents to foot the bill with their kids. Thus perhaps more US skilled players in D3 programs.
So maybe a sort of win for D3? However, we could just see less US players playing at any level especially if D3 coaches start to look even more for foreign players like some programs have.
I don't think the roster limit will greatly increase CURRENT players going in the portal when 40% of all first-year D1 soccer players went in the portal last year as it is. However, the previous poster makes a GREAT point about international players. If top soccer programs now have more funds to spend for scholarships, then they absolutely will bring in more international players. In the past, it was really expensive to scholarship international players without a school "stacking" academic aid from the institution. Now, the schools have to spend set amounts on student-athletes and to me it's clear that removing scholarship caps is a move to quantify that spend through scholarships. How else do you spend $20 million annually?
That will then mean that the INCOMING club/academy player ('25 some, but more'26) will be facing a much harder recruiting landscape. There will also be many more players that lose their spots with only 28 on a team, especially if they are heavily scholarshiped. 18-20 players are heavily used in a season, leaving 8 spots for developmental first-year players. However, if those 8 don't show potential to be in that top 20, they will get cut. It's always been a harsh business, but now there's more money involved, it will get harsher. Add in the opportunity to fund international players and the supply just got bigger as well. Recruiting will be a new game.
Parent of two current college scocer players and a 2026 high-level academy player.
DIII Presidents Council uses emergency legislative action to amend transfer rules (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/8/6/media-center-diii-presidents-council-uses-emergency-legislative-action-to-amend-transfer-rules.aspx)
QuoteThe Division III Presidents Council took emergency legislative action to immediately change the requirement that transferring student-athletes would have to serve an academic year of residence before being eligible to compete.
Division III has been closely reviewing its transfer rules since January by engaging with the division's governance committees, faculty athletics representatives, commissioners and membership. Many of these groups supported eliminating the year in residence.
The proposal clarifies that a student-athlete who transfers while academically ineligible would not be immediately eligible for competition but could regain eligibility after the first term at the new Division III school based on the school's academic standards for all student-athletes.
The council acknowledged the significance of this change and noted that this action would typically be considered by the membership through a vote at the annual NCAA Convention. However, the council ultimately decided that immediate action via emergency legislation is warranted due to the recent and potential future legal challenges faced by the NCAA. The council noted that emergency legislation may be considered when the Presidents Council deems it appropriate to limit or avoid NCAA liability as a result of litigation, alternate dispute resolution or governmental proceedings. Finally, the council noted that the membership will have an opportunity to discuss the change at the 2025 Convention when it will be asked to ratify the action.
Quote from: Kuiper on August 06, 2024, 02:29:34 PMDIII Presidents Council uses emergency legislative action to amend transfer rules (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/8/6/media-center-diii-presidents-council-uses-emergency-legislative-action-to-amend-transfer-rules.aspx)
QuoteThe Division III Presidents Council took emergency legislative action to immediately change the requirement that transferring student-athletes would have to serve an academic year of residence before being eligible to compete.
Division III has been closely reviewing its transfer rules since January by engaging with the division's governance committees, faculty athletics representatives, commissioners and membership. Many of these groups supported eliminating the year in residence.
The proposal clarifies that a student-athlete who transfers while academically ineligible would not be immediately eligible for competition but could regain eligibility after the first term at the new Division III school based on the school's academic standards for all student-athletes.
The council acknowledged the significance of this change and noted that this action would typically be considered by the membership through a vote at the annual NCAA Convention. However, the council ultimately decided that immediate action via emergency legislation is warranted due to the recent and potential future legal challenges faced by the NCAA. The council noted that emergency legislation may be considered when the Presidents Council deems it appropriate to limit or avoid NCAA liability as a result of litigation, alternate dispute resolution or governmental proceedings. Finally, the council noted that the membership will have an opportunity to discuss the change at the 2025 Convention when it will be asked to ratify the action.
Does this mean that there were transfers of students who were in academic trouble but still got to play at their new school? No wonder the presidents were upset.
Quote from: kansas hokie on July 26, 2024, 09:07:12 AMI don't think the roster limit will greatly increase CURRENT players going in the portal when 40% of all first-year D1 soccer players went in the portal last year as it is. However, the previous poster makes a GREAT point about international players. If top soccer programs now have more funds to spend for scholarships, then they absolutely will bring in more international players. In the past, it was really expensive to scholarship international players without a school "stacking" academic aid from the institution. Now, the schools have to spend set amounts on student-athletes and to me it's clear that removing scholarship caps is a move to quantify that spend through scholarships. How else do you spend $20 million annually?
That will then mean that the INCOMING club/academy player ('25 some, but more'26) will be facing a much harder recruiting landscape. There will also be many more players that lose their spots with only 28 on a team, especially if they are heavily scholarshiped. 18-20 players are heavily used in a season, leaving 8 spots for developmental first-year players. However, if those 8 don't show potential to be in that top 20, they will get cut. It's always been a harsh business, but now there's more money involved, it will get harsher. Add in the opportunity to fund international players and the supply just got bigger as well. Recruiting will be a new game.
Parent of two current college scocer players and a 2026 high-level academy player.
Going to send you email through this.
Quote from: CC United on July 21, 2024, 10:05:14 AMThis may be old news, but it looks like the golden goal is back for the NCAA post season overtime play.
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/rules/2024-25PRXSO_MajorRulesChanges.pdf
So am way behind, but yesterday D1 had at least 2 OT games. https://www.ncaa.com/scoreboard/soccer-men/d1/2024/08/22/all-conf
Quote from: SierraFD3soccer on August 23, 2024, 06:36:54 PMQuote from: CC United on July 21, 2024, 10:05:14 AMThis may be old news, but it looks like the golden goal is back for the NCAA post season overtime play.
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/soccer/rules/2024-25PRXSO_MajorRulesChanges.pdf
Looks like they only played 90 minutes in the UMBC v UMD match
So am way behind, but yesterday D1 had at least 2 OT games. https://www.ncaa.com/scoreboard/soccer-men/d1/2024/08/22/all-conf
Possible 5th year of eligibility?
Jon Rothstein, a college basketball reporter for CBS Sports, is reporting (https://x.com/JonRothstein/status/1875189417201316040)that the NCAA is considering allowing 5 years of eligibility in all sports.
This isn't breaking news though. Ross Dellinger of Yahoo Sports reported (https://sports.yahoo.com/docs-ncaa-considering-applying-football-redshirt-rule-to-athletes-in-all-sports-154903963.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2kuY29tL2NvbGxlZ2UvZ29uemFnYS9iYXNrZXRiYWxsL25jYWEtY29uc2lkZXJpbmctNXRoLXllYXItb2YtZWxpZ2liaWxpdHktZm9yLWFsbC1zcG9ydHMtMDFqNndrNHo5ZDQz&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALVZDmFS24Wyv9K9qKAVUSL1sfWfgV1nOQXrJOeckUtfXUl474QDi0Q9Jz-B8psX_f1K-K4VTFVnHiDBkCypeK9jt-a0jgkP_tDv6JuYDAF7VqZFlxVJlCz1FRqdgGR79hCFcq1egURBVFkJiP8TjMfmICCMh-xNn3STHKZnwwOP&guccounter=2)earlier this fall that this was under consideration.
Here is what was reported earlier this fall:
QuoteMember schools plan to seriously consider granting athletes in all sports, not just football, the ability to participate in up to a certain percentage of games in a fifth season and still use their redshirt.
The potential changes are part of what is expected to be a year-long comprehensive review of NCAA athlete-eligibility rules to reflect and operationalize the House settlement terms, according to documents obtained by Yahoo Sports. The documents will be reviewed this coming week during a video call of the NCAA Division I Council.
Recommendations and approval of the athlete-eligibility rules are expected to occur on a rolling basis and be presented to the DI Council for consideration at regular quarterly meetings through October 2025.
That description sounds like an adjustment to the redshirt rule, rather than a blanket 5th year, and since DIII doesn't have a redshirt rule (and has a pretty restrictive injury rule), it presumably wouldn't apply to DIII. Nevertheless, with judicial rulings and political changes altering the landscape significantly over the last few months, it's possible that they are considering a 5th year of eligibility that is both broader (not requiring a redshirt or a modified redshirt for a limited number of games played) and applies to all divisions, similar to the Covid rule.
DIII observers are taking this seriously, with DIII college basketball podcast host Bob Quillman arguing (https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1875227448188793117)that this would create a have and have-nots for DIII schools based on whether they offer grad programs.
QuoteThis would permanently create a non-level playing field in D3 between schools with and without grad programs. It's been one thing to have this in the 4 yrs after the pandemic...but wow.
I really hope @NCAADIII thinks long and hard about the implications here.
I'm not so sure that University Administrators of DIII schools would look at it the way Bob does. I think they are already looking at a shortfall in enrollment with the demographic cliff and they would seriously consider anything that keeps students around and paying tuition for 5 rather than 4 years as an opportunity. Unlike with the Covid year, which was clearly temporary, I think in a long-term rule change schools would pursue ways to capture that extra revenue, whether by starting some grad programs, partnering with other universities on grad programs where they could take classes at the home institution during the semester in which they play their sport and at the grad institution in the other semester (or even a model like the Claremont Graduate University, which is the graduate program for all of the schools in the Claremont consortium), or creating revenue-generating, non-degree earning, study abroad, public service, or externship options that they could do for a semester or more while formally being withdrawn from school and then coming back to finish up their last semester of coursework while playing the last season of their sport (some schools already do these things in the Fall with students who are offered Spring semester starts their freshman year). Many of those options could be structured either in a way that avoids the extra burden on campus housing and infrastructure from having more students on campus at any given time, while still providing schools some revenue (share of fees) while they are away doing other things or in a way that keeps the students on campus to fill up otherwise empty dorms and instead permits the grad work or non-degree earning work to be done remotely or nearby.
Perhaps as evidence of the financial/enrollment potential, see this post (https://x.com/d3bubble/status/1875261820765946108) from Wooster professor Drew Pasteur on the possibility of DIII going along with a 5th year
QuoteLast January, the D3 membership voted to retain language about D3 athletics being primarily a four-year undergraduate experience, even after the NCAA D3 Management Council had proposed dropping it.
However, the potential for 5th year tuition + room/board might sway the majority.
I think his last point, coming from inside the academy, underscores my point about how academic administrators might view a 5th year differently than fans
Incidentally, some of this already happened under Covid 5th year rules. I know players at schools without grad programs who took off a semester (either during Covid or at some later point) and worked, often in internships in their expected field, so they could come back and play a 5th season. They sometimes weren't identified as 5th years or grad students, so you wouldn't know if you didn't know the player/team or didn't look at their stats/bio on the website.
I think to @Kuiper's point, we can't downplay the appeal of additional revenue to a 5th year. If you can have 30% of your student population stay for a 5th year, well, math makes it look very appealing.
That said, what are we trying to accomplish? If it is indeed for the financial benefits, then ok. Just say so. If it is for some athletic purposes, then say it. Frankly, the only real reason I see this happening is if the financial impact is significant enough to make D3 schools buy into it.
Otherwise, not sure I understand why 4 year institutions suddenly decide to allow a 5th year of eligibility.
SC.
Quote from: SimpleCoach on January 04, 2025, 02:35:29 PMI think to @Kuiper's point, we can't downplay the appeal of additional revenue to a 5th year. If you can have 30% of your student population stay for a 5th year, well, math makes it look very appealing.
That said, what are we trying to accomplish? If it is indeed for the financial benefits, then ok. Just say so. If it is for some athletic purposes, then say it. Frankly, the only real reason I see this happening is if the financial impact is significant enough to make D3 schools buy into it.
Otherwise, not sure I understand why 4 year institutions suddenly decide to allow a 5th year of eligibility.
SC.
To some extent, the issue is that the notion of a 4 year institution is kind of a myth. Students take time off, work part-time, switch majors, drop classes and fall behind etc. That's why most official college graduation rates are measured at 6 years (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/12/04/latest-6-year-college-completion-rate-ticks-up-to-611-finds-report/), rather than 4 years. Even for those who start at private, 4 year, non-profit institutions, which accounts for most of D3 schools, and has the highest graduate rate, the 6 year percentage is only 75.5%. Public schools have lower rates and even among private schools the 4-year rate is much lower. This was true even before Covid. So, at least theoretically, a 5 year period may be more accurate for some schools that still call themselves 4 year institutions.
That, of course, doesn't explain why players need 5 years of eligibility, rather than 4 seasons over 5 years or something like that. It may be that the data shows students stay more on track when they are playing their sport, so allowing 5 years of eligibility may have a benefit in terms of academic progress.
Having said that, my sense is that this is a legal and political issue for the NCAA. The NCAA is vulnerable to lawsuits and/or political blowback over all sorts of things that affect the ability of freshman and others to play a full college career and allowing 5 years might help mitigate some of those concerns. That applies more to DI where there are scholarships (and NLI/"salaries") involved, but DIII is not immune to some of these issues with grad and juco transfers (who can now play a full four years after 2 years of juco, at least for now). It might not make sense for the vast majority of students given the extra year of tuition/housing costs, but that only reduces the significance for allowing it for the few people and schools that would take advantage of it, especially if there are some financial/enrollment benefits for the schools.
IMO, as to D3 sports, a 5th year is really a false 5th year if the school does not have a grad school. Many are starting to take spring of their senior year off to come back for "5th year" to graduate in December.
My son took the COVID fall off between his soph and jr yearsfrom classes since there were no sports in most schools. He started his spring semester so he had two years of soccer remaining and graduated in Dec. I know of several schools who have player take their senior spring off to come back and play in the fall. Technically, not a 5th year of soccer, but an opportunity to have one last go. Most schools are not making much if anything with this.
For us, we could definitely not afford our son to take a 5th year with other kids in college. It only worked out because of COVID. I would hate parents/kids to think that taking a 5th year just for a sport is smart especially if they are middle class. The additional amount of loans is just stupid expensive. You've just cost your kid or family more money that you probably could not afford. The extra loans could make the next 10-20-30 years much more difficult.
This columnist asks a good question about whether the NCAA grant of a full four years of eligibility to Juco transfers (who may have already played two years of their sport) will also apply to DIII (and DII) and whether NAIA transfers will get similar treatment.
https://www.startribune.com/ncaa-eligibility-diego-pavia-junior-college-patrick-reusse/601201806
QuoteHere are a couple of large uncertainties:
Will Divisions II and III follow and also grant the extra eligibility for JUCO athletes? And, since the waiver announcement stated "non-NCAA school," does this mean athletes competing at NAIA schools would be eligible for extra eligibility as transfers to four-year NCAA schools?
That would be another way that you would get older students on DIII teams.
I thought the JuCo ruling was simply a court stay that only applied to JuCo players this past season. It was only for one specific player but the stay in theory applies to the rest of the JuCo player pool but again only for those that competed in 24-25. I could be wrong.
Quote from: stlawus on January 08, 2025, 08:05:17 PMI thought the JuCo ruling was simply a court stay that only applied to JuCo players this past season. It was only for one specific player but the stay in theory applies to the rest of the JuCo player pool but again only for those that competed in 24-25. I could be wrong.
The NCAA DI Board of Directors granted a blanket waiver for all JuCo athletes who played in 2024 for 2025-2026 while they appeal the ruling (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43131557/ncaa-division-board-grants-waiver-former-juco-players-appealing-diego-pavia-injunction). The question this columnist is raising is whether DII and DIII will follow suit. If they simply matched what DI did, then it would give DIII athletes who started in JuCo (not uncommon in some schools), an extra year next year. The reason DI gave a blanket waiver was, according to the ESPN story, because other former JuCo athletes were lined up ready to file their own lawsuits. As with most rule issues these days, the NCAA may ultimately have no choice because the courts may force a permanent change in the rules.
The NCAA is voting on a bunch of DIII legislative changes today at the NCAA Convention. Here are a couple that might be of interest
NCAA DIII Proposal 2025-2
Title: MULTISPORT CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP SIZE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT
Effective Date: August 1, 2025.
Source: Coast-To-Coast Athletic Conference, North Coast Athletic Conference and
Upper Midwest Athletic Conference.
Intent: To align NCAA Division III legislative requirements for a multisport
conference to be consistent with the membership size requirements for a
single sport conference as well as to align legislative requirements for
membership size for a multisport conference with the NCAA Division III
legislation related to eligibility for Automatic Qualifiers and access to NCAA
Division III Championships.
Question No. 1: What is the current minimum size requirement for a multisport conference?
Answer: A multisport conference must have at least seven core institutions.
Question No. 2: If adopted, how would the proposal change the current minimum size
requirement?
Answer: A multisport conference would need to have at least six core institutions.
Question No. 3: What is the definition of a core institution?
Answer: A core institution is an active Division III member institution that is a
member of an NCAA Division III multisport conference and participates in
that conference in more than one conference-sponsored sport. An institution
can be a core institution in only one conference. [Note: Provisional or
reclassifying member institutions in their third year of the membership
process may be considered core for purposes of comprising a conference
provided there are at least four active member institutions in the
conference.]
Proposal No. 2 Multisport Conference
Membership Size Minimum Requirement
PASSES 406-54-2
NCAA Division III Proposal No. 2025-5 Division Membership – Change of Division Membership
Three-Year Provision – Establish a Waiver
Title: DIVISION MEMBERSHIP -- CHANGE OF DIVISION MEMBERSHIP --
THREE-YEAR PROVISION -- ESTABLISH A WAIVER
Effective Date: August 1, 2025.
Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Membership Committee).
Intent: To establish a waiver of the reclassification three-year provision to shorten
the process from three years to two years.
Proposal No. 5 Division Membership
Change of Division Membership
Establish a Waiver to Three-Year Provision
PASSES 410-44-6
Do we know what the results are? Thanks
Quote from: SierraFD3soccer on January 21, 2025, 09:45:44 AMDo we know what the results are? Thanks
They all passed. I put the votes in bold under each proposal.
Proposed rule changes:
1. Video review for certain infractions during conference games
2. Adopt IFAB rule changes
a. Eliminate red card for nondeliberate handling of a ball that denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
b. Encroachment on a PK is penalized only in certain circumstances
Men's and Women's Soccer Committees Propose Experimental Video Review Challenges and Other Rule Changes (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2025/3/20/media-center-mens-and-womens-soccer-rules-committee-proposes-experimental-video-review-challenges.aspx)
QuoteThe NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee proposed an optional experimental video review coaches challenge rule in conference games only for the 2025-26 academic year.
All rule recommendations must be approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which is scheduled to discuss soccer rules proposals April 16.
Under the proposed rule, coaches would have one video review challenge. If the challenge is successful, the coach would retain the right to challenge one more time for the rest of the match.
If the challenge is unsuccessful, the coach would lose the right to challenge for the rest of the match.
In overtime, if a coach has a challenge remaining, the coach could initiate a video review. Officials also could initiate video reviews in overtime to make sure a call is right, provided the affected team does not have a challenge remaining.
Coaches could initiate video review challenges in the following scenarios:
Fighting/violent behavior.
Violations on penalty kicks.
Straight red cards (not second yellows).
Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity/stopping a promising attack.
Offside.
Potential mistaken identity.
Determining the location of a foul that was called on the field against the defending team near or in its penalty area.
Referees could initiate video reviews to determine whether the entire ball passed over the goal line for a goal, as well as to decide timing issues.
Other rules proposals
The committee recommended adopting two rules that were put in place by the International Football Association Board in July.
One would eliminate a red card being issued for nondeliberate handling of the ball in the penalty area that denies a goal or goal-scoring opportunity. Inside the penalty area, red cards should be reserved for deliberate, cynical handling that denies a goal or goal-scoring opportunity.
The other proposal would amend encroachment by teammates of the kicker or goalkeeper during a penalty kick.
Referees should only penalize the encroachment if the player at fault prevents an opponent from playing the ball, challenges an opponent for the ball and then scores or prevents a goal, attempts to score or prevent a goal, or creates or stops a goal-scoring opportunity.
I wonder how many schools have video of sufficient quality for reviews.
When you consider the quality of the video they had available for last year's final four matches, I'm not sure that issue is top of mind.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 25, 2025, 08:32:22 AMI wonder how many schools have video of sufficient quality for reviews.
Ron: In theory it can be done off an iPad. The idea is not to re-referee the game, it is to fix significant errors. There were multiple examples in this year's training videos for officials where a single camera at midfield could have eliminated major mistakes.
Look, replay review is always a good idea in theory, but I'd be very concerned about what it would look like for D3. They always start with the "we're only correcting obvious errors". I'm sure just about every D3 coach can think of 3-4 obvious missed calls that really cost their team this past season, but I'd bet that if we put ten of us in a room to watch those replays we'd rarely come up with 10-0 or even 9-1 splits. The quality of the replay video is going to leave some opening for doubt. Yes, we absolutely should be wanting to get things right as much as we can. But that needs to be accomplished in a reasonable manner.
Implementing this at the D3 level would be an absolute trainwreck.