Double-touch penalties must be retaken in law change
Penalties scored when a player accidentally touches the ball twice must be retaken, world soccer's lawmaking body IFAB has ruled.
The change in the law follows Atletico Madrid's Julian Alvarez having his spot kick disallowed in a European Champions League last-16 match.
During a tense shootout with Real Madrid in March, the Argentine forward Alvarez slipped and VAR spotted that his left foot touched the ball slightly before he kicked it with his right.
Although Alvarez converted the penalty, the goal was chalked off and Atletico went on to lose the shootout and were eliminated from the Champions League.
European soccer's governing body UEFA said the correct decision was made under the current laws but IFAB (International Football Association Board) has said that in such cases the penalty must be retaken.
"(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," IFAB said in a circular.
"If the kick is unsuccessful, an indirect free kick is awarded (unless the referee plays advantage when it clearly benefits the defending team). In the case of penalties (penalty shootout), the kick is recorded as missed."
The decision to disallow Alvarez's penalty left Atletico boss Diego Simeone livid and the club's fans outraged.
IFAB added that if the penalty taker deliberately kicks the ball with both feet or deliberately touches it a second time, an indirect free kick is awarded or, in the case of shootouts, it is recorded as missed.
The new procedures are effective for competitions starting on or after July 1
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
2 hours ago
- West Australian
NATO will commit to Trump's spending target: Hegseth
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says he's confident members of the NATO alliance will 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. The US president has said NATO allies should boost investment in defence to five per cent of gross domestic product, up from the current target of two per cent. "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 five per cent defence spending across this alliance, which we think will happen," he 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 US commitment to the continent's security and keeping the US on board means allowing Trump to be able to declare a win on his five per cent 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." In a bid to meet Trump's goal, Rutte has proposed alliance members boost defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP and commit a further 1.5 per cent 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. In the meantime, Rutte said he expects allies to agree on Thursday on what he called "historic" new capability targets. 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.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
NATO will commit to Trump's spending target: Hegseth
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says he's confident members of the NATO alliance will 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. The US president has said NATO allies should boost investment in defence to five per cent of gross domestic product, up from the current target of two per cent. "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 five per cent defence spending across this alliance, which we think will happen," he 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 US commitment to the continent's security and keeping the US on board means allowing Trump to be able to declare a win on his five per cent 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." In a bid to meet Trump's goal, Rutte has proposed alliance members boost defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP and commit a further 1.5 per cent 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. In the meantime, Rutte said he expects allies to agree on Thursday on what he called "historic" new capability targets. 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.
West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
Enhanced Games' Aussie boss flags aquatics legal action
World Aquatics' ban on anyone involved in Enhanced Games is "downright disgusting behaviour" and likely illegal, the Australian founder of the drug-friendly games says. Melbourne-born entrepreneur Aron D'Souza is flagging legal action against swimming's global governing body and its new by-law. "We are assessing our legal options and look forward to pursuing all remedies that are available to us," D'Souza told AAP. "It is clearly restraint of trade." World Aquatics enacted a fresh by-law on Wednesday giving it powers to ban anyone involved in Enhanced Games, a multi-sports event with no drug testing. The by-law covers "any individual who supports, endorses or participates in sporting events that embrace the use of scientific advancements or other practices that may include prohibited substances and/or prohibited methods". "(They) will not be eligible to hold positions with World Aquatics or to participate in any World Aquatics competitions, events or other activities," World Aquatics said. The move didn't surprise D'Souza, a lawyer who is president of Enhanced Games. "I always expected that the governing bodies or the International Olympic Committee would take such a step," he said. "The legal case law is not supportive of their position. "This is exactly what they did against the International Swimming League and this is what the PGA Tour did against LIV Golf. "And European courts, American courts, have routinely ruled that this is an abuse of monopoly power. "World Aquatics' move is designed to impoverish the greatest athletes in the world and that is such inappropriate and downright disgusting behaviour." The aquatics governing body stated in its fresh by-law that any appeal against a ban could only be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). "Let's be clear, the Court of Arbitration for Sport is not a court," D'Souza said. "And the use of the term court, I have always felt, is an abuse of that term and certainly possibly unconstitutional in the United States. "That tribunal is an internal organisation of the International Olympic Committee, it hasn't been constituted by statute in any country nor has it been constituted by a treaty. "And so it's legal standing to be the ultimate arbitration body for sport is only on a contractual level between parties. "If they think that matters related to the Enhanced Games can somehow be decided in CAS, it's a farce because we're not a participant in that system nor do they have any legal authority."
