Atletico Madrid have been sad on the time, and their fury could have discovered no recourse to be calmed following the most recent IFAB clarification on ‘double-touch’ penalties. The ‘missed’ Julian Alvarez penalty in a Champions League Spherical of 16 shoot-out towards rivals Actual Madrid turned one of the controversial incidents within the historical past of the Madrid derby.
Initially it was argued that there was no clear proof for VAR to intervene and rule out Alvarez’s penalty on account of a double-touch. Now IFAB, the Worldwide Soccer Affiliation Board who’re answerable for guidelines and laws within the sport, have determined to ‘make clear’ the legislation relating to double-touch penalties.
Their assertion explains that it’s ‘comprehensible’ that referees have awarded oblique free-kicks or dominated out penalties because of the guidelines in place, however now IFAB say that unintentional double-touch penalties should not coated within the guidelines, and was meant solely to penalise deliberate double-touch penalties. Thus they are saying that from the primary of July onwards, if an unintentional double-touch penalty is scored, will probably be retaken, and whether it is missed, then will probably be recorded as so in a shoot-out or an oblique free-kick will probably be awarded whether it is throughout the sport.
Full Assertion:
The IFAB needs to make clear Legislation 10 – Figuring out the Consequence of a Match and Legislation 14 – The
Penalty Kick relating to the scenario when the penalty taker by accident kicks the ball with each
toes concurrently or when the ball touches the penalty taker’s non-kicking foot or leg
instantly after they’ve taken the kick.
This example is uncommon, and as it’s not immediately coated in Legislation 14, referees have understandably
tended to penalise the kicker for having touched the ball once more earlier than it has touched one other
participant, thus awarding an oblique free kick to the opposition or, within the case of penalties (penalty
shoot-out), recording the kick as missed.
Nonetheless, this a part of Legislation 14 is primarily meant for conditions the place the penalty taker intentionally touches the ball a second time earlier than it has touched one other participant (e.g. when it
rebounds from the goalpost(s) or crossbar with out touching the goalkeeper). That is very completely different from the penalty taker by accident kicking the ball with each toes concurrently or touching the ball with their non-kicking foot or leg instantly after they’ve taken the kick, which normally happens as a result of they’ve slipped when taking it.
Not penalising an unintentional double contact would nonetheless be unfair, because the goalkeeper will be deprived by the altered trajectory of the ball.
Subsequently, The IFAB wish to make clear the procedures within the following conditions.
• The penalty taker by accident kicks the ball with each toes concurrently or the ball touches
their non-kicking foot or leg instantly after the kick:
§ If the kick is profitable, it’s retaken
§ If the kick is unsuccessful, an oblique free kick is awarded (until the referee performs
benefit when it clearly advantages the defending staff) or, within the case of penalties (penalty
shoot-out), the kick is recorded as missed
• The penalty taker intentionally kicks the ball with each toes concurrently or intentionally
touches it a second time earlier than it has touched one other participant:
§ An oblique free kick is awarded (until the referee performs benefit when it clearly advantages
the defending staff) or, within the case of penalties (penalty shoot-out), the kick is recorded as
missed.
Please word that these clarified procedures are efficient for competitions beginning on or after 1 July 2025 and could also be utilized by competitions beginning earlier than that date.