Two weeks into the World Cup, the tournament's nine new rules have sparked fierce debate – with hydration breaks widely condemned and a red card for covering the mouth creating accusations of inconsistency.
The heavily debated hydration breaks, introduced before the tournament, have drawn criticism from fans and pundits alike. Meanwhile, the clampdown on time-wasting has been largely successful, and the threat of punishment appears to have significantly reduced wrestling at corners.
“Hydration breaks condemned and red card inconsistency sparks debate as fans judge nine new World Cup rules.”
But controversy erupted after Paraguay midfielder Miguel Almiron was sent off for covering his mouth while speaking to an opponent during his side's win over Turkiye. Days later, England's Jude Bellingham performed the same action but was not penalised – prompting questions about consistency.
Referees are generally letting more contact go and are less fooled by players 'buying' cheap free-kicks, leading to fewer debates over officiating overall. However, controversial VAR calls have not vanished entirely: Scotland's penalty appeal against Morocco was unsuccessful, and Germany's goal against Ecuador on Thursday night also sparked discussion – though the volume of such debates has lessened.
Other changes have met with quiet approval. The new laws designed to curb time-wasting have worked well, and the reduction in wrestling at corners has been welcomed.
As the tournament approaches the knockout phases, the question remains: have these new rules actually made life better? For now, fans and pundits remain divided.