Julian Alvarez ‘double touch’ penalty would now be retaken after law change

Sports

add

The law that saw Atletico Madrid forward Julian Alvarez’s penalty controversially disallowed in March’s Champions League shootout against Real Madrid has been officially amended — so that if such a ‘double touch’ happens in future the kick would be retaken rather than ruled out.

Amid furore after the ruling out of Alvarez’s spot-kick contributed to Atletico exiting the competition, the La Liga club complained to UEFA, who said they would discuss the law with FIFA, the world governing body, and the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which determines the laws of the game.

IFAB has now decided that if a penalty taker accidentally makes contact with the ball with both feet, and the kick is successful, it must now be retaken — a change from the previous rule which said that it should be counted as a miss.

Alvarez initially thought he had scored from the spot during the penalty shootout in his side’s Champions League last-16 second-leg. The vast majority of the Metropolitano crowd cheered and the stadium scoreboard marked the shoot-out score up to 2-2.

But Madrid players immediately protested that a double touch had taken place, and after a VAR review the goal was disallowed by referee Szymon Marciniak. Madrid went on to advance to the quarter-finals after subsequent misses by Atletico’s Angel Correa and Marcos Llorente.

Alvarez’s penalty was ruled a miss (Angel Martinez/Getty Images)

Marciniak’s decision was in accordance with Article 14.1 of the laws of the game which reads: “The kicker must not play the ball again until it has touched another player. The penalty kick is completed when the ball stops moving, goes out of play or the referee stops play for any offence.”

That law was designed to stop players from deliberately using more than one touch to score, not for accidental cases where players slip over while shooting, and the situation has now been “clarified” IFAB says in a new circular.

“(When) the penalty taker accidentally kicks the ball with both feet simultaneously or the ball touches their non-kicking foot or leg immediately after the kick: If the kick is successful, it is retaken,” the circular says. “If the kick is unsuccessful, an indirect free kick is awarded (unless the referee plays advantage when it clearly benefits the defending team) or, in the case of penalties (penalty shoot-out), the kick is recorded as missed.”

IFAB have not criticised the officials who had decided not to allow Alvarez’s penalty, saying it was “understandable” that referees had up until now decided to disallow spot-kicks scored in such situations.

“This situation is rare, and as it is not directly covered in Law 14, referees have understandably tended to penalise the kicker for having touched the ball again before it has touched another player, thus awarding an indirect free kick to the opposition or, in the case of penalties (penalty shoot-out), recording the kick as missed,” the circular says.

“However, this part of Law 14 is primarily intended for situations where the penalty taker deliberately touches the ball a second time before it has touched another player (e.g. when it rebounds from the goalpost(s) or crossbar without touching the goalkeeper).

“This is very different from the penalty taker accidentally kicking the ball with both feet simultaneously or touching the ball with their non-kicking foot or leg immediately after they have taken the kick, which usually occurs because they have slipped when taking it.

“Not penalising an accidental double touch would nevertheless be unfair, as the goalkeeper can be disadvantaged by the altered trajectory of the ball.”

At his post-match press conference after the game in March at the Wanda Metropolitano, Atletico coach Diego Simeone said the penalty should have been allowed to stand, given the ball had not moved when Alvarez’s standing foot brushed it.

Slow-motion footage of the penalty, posted on UEFA website the following day, appeared to show the ball did move slightly after being touched by Alvarez’s standing left foot before he strikes it with his right.

An Atletico statement two days after the game detailed the “tremendous frustration” the club felt over the decision and threw their support behind a changing of the law.

A club spokesperson said: “For us there is an error in the use of the VAR that has caused tremendous frustration and damage to our fans and the efforts of our players. We consider that there is no clear movement as indicated in rule 14 and that in 45 seconds you cannot resolve an action that more than a day later is still unclear.

“But we are aware that even if this error is demonstrated in the use of the VAR it will never change the final result of the tie. We believe that the football family must work together to prevent such an error from happening again.”

Asked about the new IFAB clarification, an Atletico spokesperson said the club still maintained that the referee made a mistake in disallowing Alvarez’s penalty, given that Law 14 specifies that there must be intention to voluntarily play the ball.

(Top photo of Julian Alvarez’s controversial penalty kick: Florencia Tan Jun/Getty Images)

This news was originally published on this post .

Share on

email

Previous

trending_flat

2026 NFL Draft: Why Taurean York is one of my early favorite prospects

College & Draft

Next

trending_flat

Scorecard: England vs West Indies, third ODI

News Story