Fifa and Ifab have recently introduced several new laws designed to keep the ball in play longer and improve the flow of matches.
Among the most notable changes is the rule that allows goalkeepers only a limited amount of time to restart play, with teams risking punishment if they delay excessively.
Throw-ins are also under greater scrutiny, with possession handed to the opposition if a team takes too long to restart the game.
The intention behind these changes is clear: reduce time-wasting and ensure supporters spend more time watching football than stoppages.
That is why Mamelodi Sundowns coach Miguel Cardoso's post-match comments following his side's clash against Golden Arrows could spark an interesting debate.
Cardoso questioned the lengthy delay caused by an injury to Arrows goalkeeper Edward Maova, who received treatment on the field for approximately seven minutes before eventually being substituted for Thakasani Mbanjwa.
The Sundowns coach suggested the prolonged stoppage affected his team's momentum and hinted that the situation may have been managed differently, particularly given that it was not a head injury, which usually receives special medical consideration under the laws of the game.
His comments raise a broader question: How long should a goalkeeper be allowed to receive treatment on the field before either continuing or being replaced?
Unlike outfield players, goalkeepers often receive special treatment under football's laws. If an outfield player is injured and treated on the pitch, they are generally required to leave the field before being allowed to return. Players being substituted are also expected to leave the pitch promptly, with sanctions in place for those who deliberately delay the process.
However, goalkeepers occupy a unique position. Teams cannot simply continue the game without one, and replacing a goalkeeper often requires tactical and equipment adjustments that take additional time.
Yet in an era where football's lawmakers are introducing increasingly strict measures to combat time-wasting, some may argue that the rules surrounding goalkeeper injuries deserve closer examination.
Should there be a limit on how long a goalkeeper can be treated on the field before a mandatory decision is made? Should teams be required to make a quicker call on whether the player can continue? Or is the current approach necessary because the goalkeeper's role is fundamentally different from every other position on the pitch?
Cardoso's frustration has brought an issue that rarely receives attention into the spotlight.
The bigger debate is not whether Maova was genuinely injured, but whether football's push to speed up the game should also extend to situations involving goalkeepers. If players are being given stricter deadlines for throw-ins, goal kicks and substitutions, should there also be clearer guidelines on prolonged treatment delays that can significantly disrupt the flow of a match?
It is a conversation that football's lawmakers may eventually have to address, especially as coaches and supporters continue to demand greater consistency in the fight against time-wasting.
What do you think? Should there be a time limit on goalkeeper treatment before teams are forced to either continue with the player or make a substitution?