“Extend the Set-Piece Rule: Keith Hackett Calls for IFAB Change After Controversial Celtic Goal”
Former PGMOL chief and ex-FIFA referee Keith Hackett has sparked fresh debate over the laws of football following a controversial goal in Celtic’s 1-0 win over Falkirk that has left many calling for clearer guidance on physical contact at set pieces. (Football Insider)
The match’s deciding moment came when Benjamin Nygren headed Celtic into the lead from an Arne Engels corner, but it was the role of Daizen Maeda in the build-up that has drawn scrutiny. Maeda, standing directly behind Falkirk goalkeeper Scott Bain, appeared to make contact with him — a bump that may have impeded Bain’s ability to challenge for the ball. Despite the attention this contact received from fans and rival supporters, match officials allowed the goal to stand, and the VAR did not intervene. (Football Insider)
Hackett, who oversaw refereeing standards in English football for years, insists that on this occasion the officials applied the laws correctly, but hopes the incident will lead to a law change by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) — the body responsible for governing the Laws of the Game. (Football Insider)
“Football is a contact sport and goalkeepers will face this type of challenge in every game,” Hackett explained. However, he believes there should be greater clarity and consistency in how such situations are managed, especially on set plays like corner kicks where physical clashes are common. (Football Insider)
His suggested solution? Extend the existing set-piece separation rule. In free kicks that are taken quickly — especially indirect free kicks — attackers and defenders must be positioned at least one metre apart from each other and from the ball until it is played. Hackett argues this principle should be applied to corners too, ostensibly to prevent attackers from using their bodies to gain unfair physical leverage over defenders or goalkeepers in crowded penalty area situations. (Football Insider)
Under the current Laws of the Game, there’s no specific requirement for a set distance between players at a corner. Referees instead must judge whether any contact constitutes illegal obstruction, charging, or impeding the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball — a matter that often hinges on subjective interpretation during fast-moving play. (Football Insider)
Hackett’s proposal is not without precedent. Football has already adapted its rules over the years in response to new tactical or contact challenges — from offside interpretations to protection of goalkeepers and stricter enforcement of goalkeeper encroachment on penalties — all designed to protect players and maintain fairness. Extending a “one-metre zone” around set play targets would be another step in that evolutionary process. (IFA)
Reactions to Hackett’s idea are mixed. Some see it as a reasonable effort to reduce ambiguity and protect goalkeepers from undue physical pressure at corners, while others worry it may over-formalise what many see as an intrinsic part of the game’s physicality. Critics also highlight potential enforcement challenges, especially in fast breaks from kicked-in corners or where large numbers of players jostle in small spaces. (Football Insider)
For now, the goal stands — and Celtic take three points — but the conversation initiated by Hackett may well encourage IFAB and football’s broader community to reassess how contact and positioning are governed at critical set-piece moments. (Football Insider)
Would you like a deeper look at how IFAB law changes are tested and implemented in modern football? (I can break that down further.)
