NCAA Rule Changes

[Ron Boerger]

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved the experimental video review challenge for conference games only this fall.

Under the rule, coaches will have one video review challenge. If the challenge is successful, the coach will retain the right to challenge one more time for the rest of the match.

If the challenge is unsuccessful, the coach loses the right to challenge for the rest of the match.

In overtime, if coaches have a challenge remaining, they can initiate a video review. Officials also can initiate video reviews in overtime to make sure a call is right, provided the affected team does not have a challenge remaining.

Coaches can 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 can initiate video reviews to determine whether the entire ball passed over the goal line for a goal, as well as to decide timing issues.

They also adopted two other rules put in place by the IFA Board:

One will 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 rules change amends encroachment by teammates of the kicker or goalkeeper during a penalty kick.

Referees should penalize the encroachment only 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.

[EnmoreCat]

If there was consistent, high quality filming taking place at every game, then this could be a good idea.  But right now, based on what I have seen, that's not the case.  On average it may improve a few decisions, but ultimately, if it's going to be the same human being that made the original one, I suspect the general happiness with officials is unlikely to get much more than a marginal bump.

[Kuiper]

This isn't a rule change, but on "2025 season eve," I thought it might make sense to remind parents, players, and fans that the NCAA has issued several NCAA's points of emphasis for referees for the 2025 season.  Here are my short summaries, annotated with my comments

1. Coaching and Team Area Decorum.

Behave.  Seriously.

Kuiper reactions:

a. Substitutes should remain in the team area behind the coaches except when warming up = Coaches planning to have their players distract or intimidate their opponents should send a ton of them over near the goal to warm up in a very loud and bizarre fashion like students behind the basket when the opponent is shooting free throws in basketball

b. Coaches and players should direct their remarks to their own team and not address opponents or officials = instead of calling the ref a moron, yell to your own player "I know the ref is a moron and that last call was nonsense, but you'll just have to find a way to overcome it."

c. Coaches who leave the team area to argue with officials or confront opponents risk ejection = Find another reason to leave your team area - such as your player suffering an apparent injury - and then, after checking on them, offer a word or two to the referee or the opposing coach on your way back to your team area

d. Know the difference between NCAA soccer rules and the IFAB Laws of the Game (e.g., coaches were incorrectly ejected for holding on to the ball to delay restarts and reaching out to touch balls that were still in play) = Wait, you mean, under NCAA rules, a coach CAN hold a ball to delay a restart and CAN reach out and touch a ball that is still in play? Who wrote these rules for the NCAA?  Coaches?

2. Handling the Ball.

It's "handling," not "hands."  It has to be deliberate, except if it goes in the goal off your hands. 

Kuiper reaction:  Parents will still yell "hand ball" anytime a ball hits a player's hands no matter how many times you explain this rule.

3.  Player Misidentification for Misconduct Issued and Need for All Officials to Confirm
the Box Score

Referees - if you're going to go to the trouble of carding a player, the least you can do is write down their number correctly

Kuiper reaction:

There have been 58 protests over the last three seasons for cards charged to the wrong individual?  Yikes!

4.  Proper Implementation of Misconduct Cards on Penalty Kicks.

If the last man back is "attempting to play the ball" and commits a foul in the box on the striker going for a goal it's a yellow, not a red. 

Kuiper reaction:

Wait until your opponent gets into the box and is about to shoot and THEN commit your foul

5.  Timekeeping

They are still worried about time wasting in the last few minutes of a game.

Kuiper reaction:

I'm not sure I've seen a player on a losing team commit a misconduct foul in the last 5 minutes to deliberately stop the clock (as opposed to stopping a breakaway or out of frustration).  I guess it would be more satisfying than pretending to be injured.

[SKUD]

So the points of emphasis are don't let Amherst be themselves?

[stlawus]

"They are still worried about time wasting in the last few minutes of a game."

stlawus reaction: re-institute overtime

[SierraFD3soccer]

"They are still worried about time wasting in the last few minutes of a game."

stlawus reaction: re-institute overtime

Great post Kuiper!

Am glad that IFAB adopted the 8 second rule on keepers holding the ball. If they hold over 8 sec or over, other team is awarded a corner. https://www.theifab.com/news/the-ifab-tackles-goalkeeper-time-wasting/

I don't think the NCAA has which is dumb in my opinion and still have the 6 sec rule with a violation being an indirect kick. Great rule. NCAA refs seem to award never or only on very, very rare occasions. I think NCAA refs need to early in the game be strict or warn during captain/coach meetings that they will enforce. After warning pregame, award once early and all will generally comply which will keep the game moving. Most of us who watch basketball see one ref counting the seconds with his arm as a team brings the ball up the court. Would be great in NCAA soccer so all can see him doing this.

Son as a keeper was a master strategist in youth soccer. One tournament (U13 maybe so 13 yrs or so ago) they were playing at Kirkwood, DE on a field that was in the far corner. One end of the field had thick scrub trees almost jungle like. Tournament rules called for 2 30 min halves which refs could not extend. 30 mins was 30 mins. Also, each field had only one ball they had to use for the entire game.

Up 2-1 in a tight game, ball goes barreling over the bar into the thicket near the end of the 2nd half, son says "I got it" goes to retrieve. All were waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, son finally comes out with the ball. Felt like 5 min., but probably really 2-3.  Asked son on the way back home to Maryland when he found the ball, he said right away and was just hanging out.

[Kuiper]

As many people know, the NCAA approved a "5 for 5" age-based eligibility proposal that gives players 5 years from the date they enter college or the academic year following the year they turn 19, whichever comes first, to complete 5 years of eligibility, which eliminates redshirts and injury waivers.  There are waivers for pregnancy, religious missions. and military service.  D1 and D2 adopted the proposal, but D3 has not officially taken a position on it

DIII Management Council Recommends President's Council Oppose Age-Based Eligibility Proposal

At its meeting this week, the Division III Management Council recommended the Presidents Council oppose a 2027 NCAA Convention proposal to adopt an age-based eligibility model, noting that more time is needed to observe the implications of the legislation adopted by Divisions I and II and assess the division's current eligibility model.

[stlawus]

As many people know, the NCAA approved a "5 for 5" age-based eligibility proposal that gives players 5 years from the date they enter college or the academic year following the year they turn 19, whichever comes first, to complete 5 years of eligibility, which eliminates redshirts and injury waivers.  There are waivers for pregnancy, religious missions. and military service.  D1 and D2 adopted the proposal, but D3 has not officially taken a position on it

DIII Management Council Recommends President's Council Oppose Age-Based Eligibility Proposal

At its meeting this week, the Division III Management Council recommended the Presidents Council oppose a 2027 NCAA Convention proposal to adopt an age-based eligibility model, noting that more time is needed to observe the implications of the legislation adopted by Divisions I and II and assess the division's current eligibility model.

I'm glad it looks like they are going to shoot down this nonsense.  At some point adults need to step and and save the kids from themselves by losing a year of earnings potential and tens of thousands of more debt just so they can play against bottom percentile ranked d3 teams.

[Newenglander]

As many people know, the NCAA approved a "5 for 5" age-based eligibility proposal that gives players 5 years from the date they enter college or the academic year following the year they turn 19, whichever comes first, to complete 5 years of eligibility, which eliminates redshirts and injury waivers.  There are waivers for pregnancy, religious missions. and military service.  D1 and D2 adopted the proposal, but D3 has not officially taken a position on it

DIII Management Council Recommends President's Council Oppose Age-Based Eligibility Proposal

At its meeting this week, the Division III Management Council recommended the Presidents Council oppose a 2027 NCAA Convention proposal to adopt an age-based eligibility model, noting that more time is needed to observe the implications of the legislation adopted by Divisions I and II and assess the division's current eligibility model.

I'm glad it looks like they are going to shoot down this nonsense.  At some point adults need to step and and save the kids from themselves by losing a year of earnings potential and tens of thousands of more debt just so they can play against bottom percentile ranked d3 teams.

one persons opinion - it's not for everybody - life is short and plenty of time to work......

[Ron Boerger]

As many people know, the NCAA approved a "5 for 5" age-based eligibility proposal that gives players 5 years from the date they enter college or the academic year following the year they turn 19, whichever comes first, to complete 5 years of eligibility, which eliminates redshirts and injury waivers.  There are waivers for pregnancy, religious missions. and military service.  D1 and D2 adopted the proposal, but D3 has not officially taken a position on it

DIII Management Council Recommends President's Council Oppose Age-Based Eligibility Proposal

At its meeting this week, the Division III Management Council recommended the Presidents Council oppose a 2027 NCAA Convention proposal to adopt an age-based eligibility model, noting that more time is needed to observe the implications of the legislation adopted by Divisions I and II and assess the division's current eligibility model.

I'm glad it looks like they are going to shoot down this nonsense.  At some point adults need to step and and save the kids from themselves by losing a year of earnings potential and tens of thousands of more debt just so they can play against bottom percentile ranked d3 teams.

The Management Council's (and President's Council) opinion bears weight but the membership can still vote for this proposal.   

[Hopkins92]

Apologies for posting a link behind a paywall, but if you have The Athletic, this is the most comprehensive article I've seen on the pro/con of the split season model.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7726710/2026/10/27/college-soccer-calendar-change-ncaa-opposition-vote/

And we were spot on about this being college soccer's grasping attempt to maintain relevance in the player development arena.

I totally buy the idea that it would be better if the calendar were to be "decompressed." I am absolutely calling bullfart on the development angle. Nonsense.

ETA - And as we discuss around tournament time every year when focused on hosting and the need for athletic departments to alternate if both men and women get a hosting gig... Athletic departments across the NCAA already stretched too thin. The money/resource angle here is not trivial.

[Earl2]

The approach has to be a net negative for most players who will not be going pro. It's also doubtful that it improves the financial model for most if not all universities. Having a full semester off
to allow their bodies to recover (soccer is a contact sport) and engage in other academic and social enrichment activities is important.

Football has a similar cadence where the student athletes are required to train and practice in the spring. The material difference is that they are on full scholarships. Rarely the case for soccer players.

There will no doubt be more mental and physical fatigue and thus injuries. They will need to expand the rosters a bit.

[Ron Boerger]

Here's a free for anyone without a sub link to the article mentioned by Hopkins92:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7726710/2026/10/27/college-soccer-calendar-change-ncaa-opposition-vote/?unlocked_article_code=1.L1E.ndh4.Yz_aP0IK28F_&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta

[ziggy]

As many people know, the NCAA approved a "5 for 5" age-based eligibility proposal that gives players 5 years from the date they enter college or the academic year following the year they turn 19, whichever comes first, to complete 5 years of eligibility, which eliminates redshirts and injury waivers.  There are waivers for pregnancy, religious missions. and military service.  D1 and D2 adopted the proposal, but D3 has not officially taken a position on it

DIII Management Council Recommends President's Council Oppose Age-Based Eligibility Proposal

At its meeting this week, the Division III Management Council recommended the Presidents Council oppose a 2027 NCAA Convention proposal to adopt an age-based eligibility model, noting that more time is needed to observe the implications of the legislation adopted by Divisions I and II and assess the division's current eligibility model.

I'm glad it looks like they are going to shoot down this nonsense.  At some point adults need to step and and save the kids from themselves by losing a year of earnings potential and tens of thousands of more debt just so they can play against bottom percentile ranked d3 teams.

The Management Council's (and President's Council) opinion bears weight but the membership can still vote for this proposal.   

Additionally, my reading of the Management Council's opposition is less about outright opposition to the matter and more so about preferring to wait until some of the waters clear a bit before truly tackling whether a change to the eligibility model is right for Division III.

[OldNed]

The approach has to be a net negative for most players who will not be going pro. It's also doubtful that it improves the financial model for most if not all universities. Having a full semester off
to allow their bodies to recover (soccer is a contact sport) and engage in other academic and social enrichment activities is important.

Football has a similar cadence where the student athletes are required to train and practice in the spring. The material difference is that they are on full scholarships. Rarely the case for soccer players.

There will no doubt be more mental and physical fatigue and thus injuries. They will need to expand the rosters a bit.

All good points here, but I'm going to expand on it from a coaches perspective. My son is an assistant D1 coach and I can tell you that the way things are currently set up, he absolutely has to have the summer off for non-team camps because that's where he makes the bulk of his money during the year because his coaching job pays diddly squat. Going to a split season model will compress that timeframe.

Not only that, but recruiting is already a year-round activity - I can't imagine that will be affected positively by going to a split season model. I don't think there's much more they can squeeze from the coaching staff without beginning to pay them more overall, and I'm skeptical that most schools will want to go in that direction.