After Madrid penalty furore, football's lawmakers rule for retakes
Double-touched penalties, such as the disallowed kick by Julian Alvarez that helped knock Atletico Madrid out of the Champions League, should in future be retaken, international football's rule-making body said on Tuesday.
"The situation where the penalty taker accidentally kicks the ball with both feet simultaneously or when the ball touches the penalty taker's non-kicking foot or leg immediately after they have taken the kick... is rare," wrote Lukas Brud, the secretary of the International Football Association Board in a circular.
It did occur in the Champions League round-of-16 second matchup between Atletico and Real Madrid in March.
The tie finished 2-2 on aggregate and went to a shoot-out.
On his attempt, Alvarez slipped but still found the net. Video review detected that he touched the ball twice as he shot. The referee ruled the shot a miss under Law 14, which deals with the penalty kick, and Real went on to win 4-2.
After the match, European governing body UEFA said that "under the current rule, the VAR had to call the referee signalling that the goal should be disallowed".
UEFA said it would hold talks with FIFA and IFAB.
Brud said the situation had not been addressed by the existing rule.
"As it is not directly covered in Law 14, referees have understandably tended to penalise the kicker for having touched the ball again," wrote Brud.
However, he added, the law "is primarily intended for situations where the penalty taker deliberately touches the ball a second time before it has touched another player".
"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."
Brud pointed out that even an accidental second touch could be unfair to a goalkeeper because it changes the ball's trajectory.
Therefore, he wrote, IFAB had decided that "if the kick is successful, it is retaken".
If a kick during the game is unsuccessful, the result is an indirect free kick, as it would be for a deliberate second touch, unless the referee decides to play an advantage for the defending team. In a shootout it remains a miss.
pb/bsp
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
26 minutes ago
- United News of India
EU redirects 335 billion Euros of Covid relief money to defence projects
Brussels, June 5 (UNI) The European Union will redirect 335 billion euros from the Resilience and Recovery Facility (RRF), which was established for COVID relief, to defence projects, after receiving permission from the European Commission. According to Politico, the Commission, while declaring the amount to be eligible for defence expenditure, said that countries have until August 2026 to meet the certain agreed targets in order to receive the funds. On Wednesday, the body told countries that defence projects under common EU plans such as the satellite communication programmes were now eligible. The European Commission has called for lawmakers and governments to include in the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) regulations - a provision to make it possible for countries to use the recovery money - to make contributions to the defence fund. 'These alternatives could help the Recovery Facility to deliver additional important benefits from common European priorities, including in the areas of security and defense,' Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told reporters, listing a large number of ways in which countries can redesign their plans. This move signals a significant shift in Europe's priorities since the pandemic, as the Russia-Ukraine war has both greatly impacted the European economy, as well as led to most of the EU stand with Ukraine and become increasingly hostile towards Russia, necessitating its need for greater defence spending to ensure it security, as well as the advancement of its weapons and arms industry. The idea behind the initiative is, that if a country diverts RRF-backed money to make contributions to the EU's target plans, then it can easily secure the required funds. When asked how defense investments can contribute to the RRF's green and digital goals, Dombrovskis said the current rules provide no specific treatment for defence-related measures. However, there is no clear consensus on the issue, as several countries which include Spain and Italy - the top beneficiaries of the funds - have asked for the postponement of the 2026 deadline. Additionally, the EU executive has also rejected the idea, meaning that a deal has to be reached between countries and then ratified by 20 parliaments, a process that would not only add considerable time to the initiative, but could outright stall it for a very long and uncertain time. UNI ANV PRS
Economic Times
30 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth confident NATO will commit to Trump's defence spending target
Pete Hegseth confident NATO will commit to Trump's defence spending target Synopsis NATO countries are in talks about raising their defence budgets. US wants members to spend 5% of their GDP on defence. The goal is to strengthen the alliance. Mark Rutte suggests a 3.5% defence spend and 1.5% on security. New targets for troops and weapons are expected. Germany may need more soldiers. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday he was confident that members of the NATO alliance would sign up to Donald Trump's demand for a major boost in defence spending, adding that it had to happen by a summit later in June. ADVERTISEMENT The U.S. president has said NATO allies should boost investment in defence to 5% of gross domestic product, up from the current target of 2%. "To be an alliance, you got to be more than flags. You got to be formations. You got to be more than conferences," Hegseth said as he arrived at a gathering of NATO defence ministers in Brussels. "We're here to continue the work that President Trump started, which is a commitment to 5% defence spending across this alliance, which we think will happen," Hegseth said, adding: "It has to happen by the summit at The Hague later this month." Diplomats have said European allies understand that hiking defence expenditure is the price of ensuring a continued U.S. commitment to the continent's security and that keeping the U.S. on board means allowing Trump to be able to declare a win on his 5% demand during the summit, scheduled for June 24-25. "That will be a considerable extra investment," NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told reporters, predicting that in the Hague summit "we will decide on a much higher spending target for all the nations in NATO." ADVERTISEMENT In a bid to meet Trump's 5% goal, Rutte has proposed alliance members boost defence spending to 3.5% of GDP and commit a further 1.5% to broader security-related spending, Reuters has reported. Details of the new investment plan will likely continue to be negotiated until the eve of the NATO summit. ADVERTISEMENT CAPABILITY TARGETS In the meantime, Rutte said he expects allies to agree on Thursday on what he called "historic" new capability targets. ADVERTISEMENT The targets, which define how many troops and weapons and how much ammunition a country needs to provide to NATO, would aim to better balance defence contributions between Europe, Canada, and the United States and "make NATO a stronger, fairer and a more lethal alliance", he said in opening remarks to the meeting. Germany will need around 50,000 to 60,000 additional active troops under the new NATO targets, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said as he arrived at the NATO meeting. ADVERTISEMENT Countries remain divided over the timeline for new pledges. Rutte has proposed reaching the 5% defence target by 2032 - a date that some eastern European states consider too distant but which some others see as too early, given current spending and industrial production levels. Estonian Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur said that to meet the capability targets, "we need to agree on the 5% in five years. We don't have time for 10 years, we don't have time even for seven years." Sweden would also like to see NATO reaching 5% defence spending in 2030, Defence Minister Pal Jonson told reporters. There is an ongoing debate over how to define "defence-related" spending, which might include spending on cybersecurity and certain types of infrastructure. "The aim is to find a definition that is precise enough to cover only real security-related investments, and at the same time broad enough to allow for national specifics," said one NATO diplomat. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Operation Spider Web hands Ukraine ‘cards' to play with at negotiation table
With Operation Spider Web, Ukraine has played its cards and acquired a seat at the negotiating table with a position of relative strength. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has also punctured the myth of Russian invincibility and called out Vladimir Putin's bluff of imminent victory and nuclear rhetoric. read more Months after US President Donald Trump berated him at the White House for not having any cards, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy played his cards on Sunday. In an audacious attack with no precedent in the world, Ukraine struck five airbases and possibly a submarine base as well across the length and breadth of Russia — including in the far-off Siberia. With 117 drones, Ukraine destroyed nearly a third of Russia's long-range, nuclear-capable bombers and airborne early warning and command (AEWAC) fleets. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With Operation Spider Web, Ukraine reminded the world that the war is far from being decided and Ukraine is far from being defeated. In the David versus Goliath face-off, Ukraine has shown it has mastered asymmetric warfare and has the ability to impose costs despite its adversary having superiority in every domain. Even though Trump has for months parroted Russian talking points that Ukraine is on the brink of defeat, the situation on the ground is a stalemate at best and, at worst, costs far outweigh the benefits for Russia. Neither side currently holds a decisive upper hand in the battlefield and Russia's incremental gains and Ukraine's resilient defence signal not victory, but a prolonged stalemate, says Shreya Sinha, a European affairs scholar at Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF). Facts in face: Russia has gained just 1 per cent of Ukrainian territory since January 2024. Zelenskyy destroys Russian invincibility — and asserts Ukraine's resilience For months, visuals of Ukrainian neighbourhoods in Russian airstrikes and the sting of betrayal as the principal ally, the United States, appeared to switch allegiance to the adversary, had dominated the news cycle. But that was until Sunday. Since Sunday, have dominated the news cycle as well as deliberations of strategists across the world as Ukraine ushered the world into a new age of modern warfare with the attack. Suddenly, Russia is no longer as invincible as Vladimir Putin had been portraying and not as victorious as Trump had been saying. 'Ukraine's drone strikes have communicated the nation's resilience and innovation, challenging assumptions about asymmetry in capability. In a non-kinetic warfare paradigm, Ukraine has not only held ground but also reinvented itself as a formidable actor in drone-based hybrid warfare, shaping perceptions globally,' says Sinha, an Associate Fellow of European studies at the Delhi-based think tank VIF. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian airbases and the destruction of several nuclear-capable intercontinental bombers is among the most audacious covert ops in military history. Some of the images, shown here, reveals the damage. Ukraine claims 40 aircraft destroyed.… — Vishnu Som (@VishnuNDTV) June 4, 2025 To be sure, Russia was never close to an overwhelming victory despite what the propagandists said as every gain came at a very high cost. Consider these facts: Russia has lost its Black Sea fleet to the extent that it is essentially inoperable and has also lost a third of its long-range bomber aircraft and nearly half of its AWAC fleet. It has suffered around 1 million troop casualties . Ukraine has also assassinated some top generals. Despite outnumbering and outgunning Ukraine, Russia has suffered disproportionately higher losses and it needs to be asked whether such losses are worth the gains, says Swasti Rao, a scholar of geopolitics at Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Rao pointed out that even though Russia controls a fifth of Ukrainian territory, a large chunk of it was captured with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent insurgency in eastern Ukraine before 2022. As per the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russia currently controls around 19 per cent of Ukrainian territory — around 4-5 per cent was captured with the annexation of Crimea in 2014, around 2-3 per cent was captured by pro-Russia insurgents in eastern Ukraine during 2014-22, and Russia has captured just 12 per cent in the full-scale war since 2022. Rao says that the way Ukraine dealt a blow worth $7-8 billion to Russia with drones worth just a few million dollars at most tells the entire cost versus benefit story of the war. More than weapons, Ukraine lacks soldiers, but, with innovation in drone warfare, Ukraine has compensated its low numbers to a great extent, says Rao, an associate professor at JISA and a non-resident fellow at Eastern Circles think tank. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The situation now is that the war is costing Russia much more than it's costing Ukraine in all domains — equipment, money, and reputation. As a result of the war, Russia has become dependent on China for the sustenance of its war and economy. For a superpower to become a junior partner of a rising power is a major loss of reputation,' says Rao Ukraine seeks strength at negotiation table With the drone attack, Zelenskyy has aimed for many birds with one stone. Besides securing a tactical edge with the attacks and reminding the world that the war is nowhere near its conclusion and that Ukraine does hold cards, Zelenskyy's biggest accomplishment is, in the words of Rao, the confirmation of a seat at the negotiating table. 'Ukraine sought, and successfully acquired, a relative position of strength in ongoing negotiations with these strikes. The final outcome of the war is unlikely to change in the sense that Ukraine is unlikely to get Russia-occupied territories back, but such military successes strengthens its hands in talks and securing better terms, such as increased say in talks and perhaps negotiating security guarantees,' says Rao. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Such a situation is a far cry from the situation just a few months back when Trump had said that Ukraine having a seat at the table in decisions about the end of the war was not a must. While Russia has acquired a position of relative strength, Russia has lost some leverage and Ukraine has called out Putin's bluff to a great extent. Rao tells Firstpost, 'Despite such a large military and famed intelligence apparatus, Ukraine has called out Russia's bluff again and again. Ukraine has assassinated Russian generals at the time and place of its choosing. Ukraine has sunk prized Russian ships. Now, Ukraine has destroyed some of the most valued Russian Air Force planes. As Russia has lost a face in all domains, ranging from border security and foreign intelligence to domestic security and base security, its leverage in talks has also been affected.' While Putin has vowed to retaliate and maintained his stand in his latest telephonic conversation with US President Donald Trump, if Ukraine manages to hold onto advantages gained through the recent drone attacks, it can secure a deal that addresses its concerns better, suggests Rao. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For Ukraine, full-scale concessions are simply not on the table anymore and Ukraine is set to push for its terms more forcefully, says Sinha of VIF. 'It's now certain that Ukraine will not sign a deal that legitimises recent Russian gains, such as in Novopil in Donetsk, Vodolahy in Sumy, or Bilohorivka in Luhansk. These are not just pieces of land, but they are proof that this war is still very much ongoing, to which Ukraine has given its all. Any future peace deal would likely hinge on international security guarantees and a long-term roadmap to reconstruction and political stability,' says Sinha. As for the immediate future, even though Putin's supporters have called for a nuclear attack on Ukraine and some have suggested that Putin could launch a new offensive with unprecedented fury, neither is likely — even as Putin has vowed retaliation. For many weeks, Russia has been launching hundreds of drones and missiles on a near-daily basis, so the increase of scale would not mean much for Ukraine. As for the nuclear attack, there is consensus that it is a red line that the international community, including China, would allow Putin to cross. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At multiple points in the war, China, the principal ally of Russia, and India, which has functioned as a backchannel on occasions, made it clear to Putin that nuclear weapons were off the table come what may. As for a ground offensive, Russia may not be in a position to launch it anytime soon without a fresh mobilisation of its troops as it faces resource crunch for such a massive offensive in Ukraine, says Kseniya Kirillova, a Russia analyst at Washington DC-based think tank Jamestown Foundation. More than Ukraine's attacks, the question of a new offensive would be decided by internal stability in Russia, says Kirillova. 'It appears that Putin is reluctant to declare such a mobilisation and is instead interested in a temporary pause. New aggression could emerge if the war in Ukraine stalls and Putin concludes that propaganda alone is no longer sufficient to maintain regime stability. However, if Europe demonstrates a credible readiness to defend itself, this would serve as an effective deterrent. It is important to remember that it is weakness, not strength, that provokes Putin,' says Kirillova
