Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid

Norman_Conquest said:
Why didn’t VAR disallow AM’s third penalty, the same thing happens.
Click to expand...
I don't think so - and more importantly VAR checked it and found that there was no offence. The player slips, but from the replays it seems pretty clear the ball never goes anywhere near the player's standing foot.
 
I don't see how they can have been 100% certain it touched Alvarez other foot for the disallowed penalty, I couldn't see any deviation after he kicked it judging from the video of it from behind the goal
 
As others have said - i thought it was more obvious on first view than on replay.

And i thought the Correa penalty was going to be disallowed as well.

It's close but as he kicks it his left foot slides underneath.

The idea it would not be disallowed if it was Real is tin foil stuff.
 
It remains a ridiculous rule. No player would deliberately slip and do that to gain advantage. I believe that rule was simply to stop players knocking the ball forward by a foot or so then knocking it past a prone keeper? Leaving aside the penalty shoot out, it should be remembered that a penalty is awarded because the defending side has sought to gain, or has gained, advantage (for example) by fouling or handling the ball in the penalty area. Advantage should rightly be given to the taker not the defending side.
 
I thought he kicked it onto/off his other foot, but both feet are touching the ball possibly at the same time. I still imagine that's classed as 2 touches but it's no Zenden. It doesn't change the direction of the ball and is absolutely not clear & obvious.
 
Johngannonsunderpants said:
I thought he kicked it onto/off his other foot, but both feet are touching the ball possibly at the same time. I still imagine that's classed as 2 touches but it's no Zenden. It doesn't change the direction of the ball and is absolutely not clear & obvious.
Click to expand...
Clear and obvious is not a consideration in regard to factual decisions, such as offside position, ball in or out of play or whether a double touch has occurred.
 
Muttley said:
It remains a ridiculous rule. No player would deliberately slip and do that to gain advantage. I believe that rule was simply to stop players knocking the ball forward by a foot or so then knocking it past a prone keeper?
Click to expand...
No, that's not the reason. I think you're getting confused with the law on feinting at penalty kicks. The prohibition on the same player touching the ball twice has nothing to do with penalties as such. It is a basic tenet of the law that applies to all restarts: free kicks, goal kicks, throw-ins, whatever, and has done ever since free kicks for offences other than handling were first added to the laws in 1874.
 
Last edited:
Liamo said:
No, that's not the reason. I think you're getting confused with the law on feinting at penalty kicks. The prohibition on the same player touching the ball twice has nothing to do with penalties as such. It is a basic tenet of the law that applies to all restarts: free kicks, goal kicks, throw-ins, whatever, and has done ever since free kicks for offences other than handling were first added to the laws in 1874.
Click to expand...
Why does the law exist then?
If it exists only to 'catch out' players accidentally touching the ball twice then it should just be removed as it serves no purpose. The game should have as few rules/laws as possible.

I do have a massive issue with referees and those that make up the rules. I understand the game can't exist without refs but by God they seem to enjoy sucking the life and enjoyment out of the thing.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
Why does the law exist then?
If it exists only to 'catch out' players accidentally touching the ball twice then it should just be removed as it serves no purpose. The game should have as few rules/laws as possible.

I do have a massive issue with referees and those that make up the rules. I understand the game can't exist without refs but by God they seem to enjoy sucking the life and enjoyment out of the thing.
Click to expand...
The same player can't touch the ball again until another player has touched it. It exists to stop them dribbling with the ball on purpose but it obviously has to include accidental touches because there is no way factually to determine whether something is deliberate or accidental. It's a zero tolerance law. It either happened or it didn't.

Any rule seems harsh when applied to the most miniscule infraction but with binary decisions the line has to be somewhere. Offside is similar. You can be offside by 1mm and you are just as offside as someone who is 10m offside.
 
It’s amazing how many double kicks happen. I’m pretty certain that if I was taking that penalty, in from of that crowd having never played professional football, without making any guarantees about the quality of the penalty that I could manage to only kick it once.
 
Nano said:
The same player can't touch the ball again until another player has touched it. It exists to stop them dribbling with the ball on purpose but it obviously has to include accidental touches because there is no way factually to determine whether something is deliberate or accidental. It's a zero tolerance law. It either happened or it didn't.

Any rule seems harsh when applied to the most miniscule infraction but with binary decisions the line has to be somewhere. Offside is similar. You can be offside by 1mm and you are just as offside as someone who is 10m offside.
Click to expand...
It could be changed to exempt touching the ball twice within the same movement?

There has to be a way round it.
 
Nano said:
The same player can't touch the ball again until another player has touched it. It exists to stop them dribbling with the ball on purpose but it obviously has to include accidental touches because there is no way factually to determine whether something is deliberate or accidental. It's a zero tolerance law. It either happened or it didn't.

Any rule seems harsh when applied to the most miniscule infraction but with binary decisions the line has to be somewhere. Offside is similar. You can be offside by 1mm and you are just as offside as someone who is 10m offside.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to do that actually. For most of the period after 1874, until just before Zenden‘s incident, I think, there was a measure of degree. The ball wasn’t in play until it had travelled “the distance of its own circumference”. The “touched and moves” change happened towards the end of the last century. Probably because the old rule was daft, arbitrary and also produced some silly consequences.

As those who argue there should be a “not if it’s only a bit” standard to offside always failed to address, it’s not easy to define how big a bit is. Or how common common sense is.
 
What bothers me about it is that the penalty is automatically disallowed and counts as a miss. But if the keeper comes off their line and saves the ball - it gets retaken.

So really in this scenario it should get retaken if the ball goes into the net. Or if the goalkeeper saves a penalty but has moved off their line then it should count as an automatic goal. I don't see why the goalkeeper gets a second opportunity to correct their mistake but the penalty taker does not.
 
Nano said:
Then you would get something like this, which the rules had to be updated to ban:


Basically, if you add exemptions then it would be gamed and someone would create an advantage out of it.
Click to expand...
Aye I can remember all the goals like that flying in week in week out. Had no choice but to ban it really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top