That Alvarez penalty

[Wolfbot]

Did it though? The ball needs to move "clearly" for that to happen.

Of course it clearly moved, there's loads of videos showing the left foot lifting the ball slight off the turf just before the right foot connects.

The video evidence is enough, but I'm also pretty sure the plan wasn't to try and absolutely rip it into the top of the net in right in the middle of the goal, he got that height and trajectory through the slip and fractional lift of the ball with the left foot.

It's pretty simple in my eyes, rules have been applied correctly, even if we don't really like them.

 

[Nicoteiro]

To me the rule should be the following one

If the player hits the ball with both feet and it's a goal, it should be retaken.
If the keeper is out of the line and it's not a goal, it should be retaken.

 

[giorno]

Is the top video fake? Because either that one is fake or UEFA's is. What a clusterfeck anyway.

Different frame rate

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Indeed. Doing anything more to the offside law to benefit attackers (why? It doesn't make the game better, its a delusion that a bunch of 3-3s are a better spectacle, we would all get tired of it if it was frequent) will just push the game even further into "every forward and defender must be an olympic sprinter first and foremost" territory.

We won't even see such scorelines. The first thing that will happen is that defensive lines will drop significantly deeper, possibly inside the penalty box. Then, as you described, we will end up with a game of sprinters when a team has the ball. I never got the obsession with changing the offside rule in this environment. In its current reiteration, it's fair to the attackers (players being level/not interfering with play=not offside), while it also encourages defensive lines to be more "brave" and push higher. It's one of the best tradeoffs we can get. When they made the big change, back in 1990, there was a dire need for giving the attackers an advantage because the goals had dried up across all major competitions. This isn't the case now, not by any metric. But going by what i read on here, some would have a heart-attack, if they read the pre-1990 offside rule.

 

[Oranges038]

Of course it clearly moved, there's loads of videos showing the left foot lifting the ball slight off the turf just before the right foot connects.

The video evidence is enough, but I'm also pretty sure the plan wasn't to try and absolutely rip it into the top of the net in right in the middle of the goal, he got that height and trajectory through the slip and fractional lift of the ball with the left foot.

It's pretty simple in my eyes, rules have been applied correctly, even if we don't really like them.

Yeah, if you see the angle from right behind the goal. The amount top spin generated on the ball can really only have come from it hitting off both feet. Very similar to how the ball moves following a deflection.

 

[Fobal]

Absolutely no need to change the rule.

A player slipping and taking a shit pen has happened a million times before and nobody asked for rule changes.

And at times it wasn't even disallowed, in fact people tend to laugh/complain and thinking for christ sake that fool's luck if the ball went in.
People pre VAR weren't nitpicking about stuff and less needing 6 cameras to see a one mm touch, or offside. This last thing it's the downside of such tech, while many good stuff has come with VAR too, so at some point they have to balance this situation in order to keep the spirit of any rule of avoiding any sort of unfair advantage.

The main thing here in this particular play it's that the ball went in, basicly there was no deliberated attemp to take any sort of advantage, neither such advantage existed.
The rule was more than probably made to avoid players rise it and strike a volley, to avoid touch it and gain some distance, etc...they made it perhaps too taxative to avoid any interpretation, thought it's says: "clearly moves". All in all also and even more important, there is no need to actually disallowed if it ends in a goal (even if the ball blatantly changes its curse), even keeping the rule as exists and taking in account the bare minimum touch, just re take it. On the other hand if the ball doesn't go in, BAD luck pal. I don't think it's not that hard to apply sthg like that to avoid a situation like this in such an importance instance with such a triviality as barely noticed touch or even in noticeable ones, when the player clearly didn't want to have any sort of deliberated advantage.

Of course this particular play would be magnify because of two big clubs involved (more if it's Real there), the instance, and the always present extra typical"conspiracy" in this case with the celerity it was done and the lack of clear communication.
BTW It's pretty normal that when stuff happens in this huge instance, sometimes rules are changed, like how FIFA got more leniant to avoid over the top fouling after Diego in 82'. Yet I think that what UEFA said of reviewing the rule, it's more like a move to gain time and fust the issue than anything else, saldy because it coudl be cool to actually review it to keep it more adjust to teh spirit of any rule trying to avoid any sort of unfair advantage.

 

[Fobal]

Let's forget Alvarez.



This Palermo goal (who else for bizarre stuff, for the good and bad).

It's pretty clear that he touched two times. Its pretty clear that he had no intention to do such thing.

As a side note, the goal was allowed and it was sent to FIFA later, after refs from AFA protested (the rival team didn't say a thing when happened, in those days it was more usual to think "this fvcker luck") and FIFA allowed it because they saw no intention of taking an advantage.

In my view? it should have been disallowed, yet be retaken. He had no intention to take advantage, yet the double touch existed. It doesn't matter if it was gross, there was no intention.

It will be more in line with what happens when the keeper (in most cases) intentionally crosses the line to gain an advantage and saves it. Some people will say, within reason, that in this cases is retaken because there was NO goal, so we can't create a goal out of nothing, it would be too much. Yet at the same time, to retake the penalty, with all the nerves involved, because the keeper deliberated seek an unfair adavantge isn't fair either.

So in both cases, when the keeper saves it crossing the line or when the goal happens with an unintentional double touch, it should be retake.

In fact this is one of the few instances, rules, that is way easier to detect intention and sthg like that can be apply.

There is even more space to complains in unintentional hands that many times are not called (like happened in this last match between Real and Aleti with Giuliano's one), than in this penalty situations. So there is no harm to review the rule and not just fall in the "rules are rules", or black and white decisions that go against the spirit of the rule itself. It's as simple as that.

Back to Alvarez, of course in this case, given the instance, the rivalry, the exposure would explode and have tons of reactions, from conspiracies to 4545 cameras, opions and such, but won't be bad to actually do sthg better with the rule after this situation.

 

[Fobal]

Yeah, if you see the angle from right behind the goal. The amount top spin generated on the ball can really only have come from it hitting off both feet. Very similar to how the ball moves following a deflection.

It doesn't matter even if it was severly deflected (which wasn't the case), the thing here it's that rule should be focus on the intention. As the rule stands, indeed it's disallowed.

...Yet to try to justify a in my view an unfair rule, talking about the ammount of top spin when it's barely seen the touch, it's too much in this particular play. In fact if the double touch was more significant, it would have sent the ball to the side Tibu chose, the ball went to the side intended and Tibu flied all the way to the other post. So it's even more unfair to disallowed it and not at least be retaken, just for the sake of the double touch rule. Or like some complain just let it be, but I know, we know, such stuff does not exist in current VAR football, validated or not, it would create a fuzz. Yet we can make rules more human, more in the spirit of the game, at elast those feasible like this one

 

[JakeC]

Because of the technical rule.

You cannot touch with both feet but you can touch with different parts of the same foot as long as the kick is in one swift motion.

You can argue with the content of the rules (which is why rules keep changing/improving), but not the end-result of the existing rules.

This is a perfect analysis

 

[lex talionis]

This was a shocking decision by VAR. You cannot conclusively see that two feet touched the ball. You can reasonably suspect it, but the video is nowhere near conclusive.

There's even an open question here on this thread, which no one could be sure of, whether the left touches the ball first or whether the left foot touches the ball second. Whatever theory one chooses to believe, it's not conclusively visible, although it is reasonably suspected.

And my bias is toward Real as I despise everything about Diego Simeone, but Diego got ratpucked by this decision.

 

[Oranges038]

It doesn't matter even if it was severly deflected (which wasn't the case), the thing here it's that rule should be focus on the intention. As the rule stands, indeed it's disallowed.

...Yet to try to justify a in my view unfair rule, talking about the ammount of top spin when it's barely seen the touch, it's too much in this particular play. In fact if the double touch was more significant, it would have sent the ball to the side Tibu chose, the ball went to the side intended and Tibu flied all the way to the other post. So it's even more unfair to disallowed it and not at least be retaken, just for the sake of the double touch rule, or like some complain just let it be, but I know, we know such stuff does not exist in current VAR football. Yet we can make rules more human, more in the spirit of the game, at elast those feasible like this one

Or the players and fans can just accept he slipped, hit the ball twice and it was rightly disallowed.

This isn't kids football, where you get another go so your feelings don't get hurt.

Rule was applied correctly, it sucks, but I genuinely don't see why there should be a rule change. Then you'd have to change it for every other set piece.

If the keeper slips on a goal kick and the ball goes to opposition and they score, does he get to take it again?

 

[Kingdingaling]

Genuinely astonished that this is even a conversation when it’s was so obviously the correct decision.

How hard is it for a professional to only use one foot to kick the ball?!

 

[Gio]

Because of the technical rule.

You cannot touch with both feet but you can touch with different parts of the same foot as long as the kick is in one swift motion.

You can argue with the content of the rules (which is why rules keep changing/improving), but not the end-result of the existing rules.

That isn't the rule. That's why it's not clear.

The rules are silent on this situation where the ball was effectively struck by both feet at the same time.

The rules for a free-kick specifically allow this. It states:

"A free kick can be taken by lifting the ball with a foot or both feet simultaneously."

 

[Fobal]

Or the players and fans can just accept he slipped, hit the ball twice and it was rightly disallowed.

This isn't kids football, where you get another go so your feelings don't get hurt.

Rule was applied correctly, it sucks, but I genuinely don't see why there should be a rule change. Then you'd have to change it for every other set piece.

If the keeper slips on a goal kick and the ball goes to opposition and they score, does he get to take it again?

Don't be silly for the sake of it, a penalty it's a sanction after the rival made something against the rules or a dead ball situation that defines a match and it's the closer one to be an "almost goal". It must try to eliminate any sort of instance that can become unfair, when there si no deliberate intention to take any sort of advantage. In fact if the player touches the ball twice and misses? so be it, bad luck. Yet if he converts, he should retake it. I've explained why in a post above this one.

 

[Fobal]

That isn't the rule. That's why it's not clear.

The rules are silent on this situation where the ball was effectively struck by both feet at the same time.

The rules for a free-kick specifically allow this. It states:

"A free kick can be taken by lifting the ball with a foot or both feet simultaneously."

I always thought that was the main idea behind, was to void players to lift the ball and strike a volley and to avoid any sort of dribbling, feint and taken a rebound maybe. And to try to avoid that they went to the extreme of avoiding two touches without any nuance involved, yet they should have add the element of intention to gain an advantage to make it more suitable with the idea of retaken it when the keeper croosses his line and saves it.

 

[Wolfbot]

This was a shocking decision by VAR. You cannot conclusively see that two feet touched the ball. You can reasonably suspect it, but the video is nowhere near conclusive.

There's even an open question here on this thread, which no one could be sure of, whether the left touches the ball first or whether the left foot touches the ball second. Whatever theory one chooses to believe, it's not conclusively visible, although it is reasonably suspected.

And my bias is toward Real as I despise everything about Diego Simeone, but Diego got ratpucked by this decision.

It wasn't a shocking decision at all. There's videos that clearly show the left foot lifting the ball slightly as the right comes through and connects.

There's a totally valid argument for a rule change (although in my opinion, that opens a can of worms as if a keeper or defender slips during a game, any resulting goal is not going to be chopped off).

As the rules stand it was clear double touch that resulted in the ball taking a particular trajectory that he likely didn't intend.

We can think the rules are unfair, but the VAR intervened correctly and the correct decision was made.

 

[Fobal]

It wasn't a shocking decision at all. There's videos that clearly show the left foot lifting the ball slightly as the right comes through and connects.

There's a totally valid argument for a rule change (although in my opinion, that opens a can of worms as if a keeper or defender slips during a game, any resulting goal is not going to be chopped off).

As the rules stand it was clear double touch that resulted in the ball taking a particular trajectory that he likely didn't intend.

We can think the rules are unfair, but the VAR intervened correctly and the correct decision was made.

Nah, come on, it has nothing to do with it.
As much it would have the same discussion nowadays we have when someone says that a certain foul in the middle of the park sometimes it's not call in the area and viceversa.
It's not that difficult in this instances to determinate if there is a deliberate intention to gain an advantage by the keeper or the shooter.

 

[cafecillos]

Nah, it doesn't matter how many times it's repeated, there absolutely is a valid debate as to whether the first touch made the ball move "clearly" (as per the very letter of the rule; it's not enough for there to be two touches). There are plenty of angles in which that's not clear whatsoever. Also, two days later the debate is still raging, which doesn't seem to indicate "clarity". In Spain there are plenty of retired referees claiming that it shouldn't have been disallowed as it doesn't meet the "clarity" requirement.

UEFA's willingness to consider a rule change as per their official statement is pretty damning in itself.

 

[Wolfbot]

Nah, come one, it has nothing to do with it.
As much it would have the same discussion nowadays we have when someone says that a certain foul in the middle of the park sometimes it's not call in the area and viceversa.
It's not that difficult in this instances to determinate if there is a deliberate intention to gain an advantage by the keeper or the shooter.

What's the difference? Noone ever means to fall over (unless they are taking a dive). It's a harsh way to go out and clearly not intentional, but part of me thinks that in changing the rule, the player is essentially getting another shot at it just because he fell over when that doesn't really apply to any other part of the game.

Kvara had his goal ruled out against Liverpool for a very slight offside where his heel was off and he was facing away from goal. There was no intention to gain an advantage, nor did he get one, but it was still disallowed as per the rules.

Mings didn't get let off for picking up the ball in the box and rolling it back to the keeper, there was no intention to gain an advantage there either, but the rules were applied.

I recall an Arsenal game where the ref chose not to apply the rules for a stupid offence and a lot of people weren't particularly happy about it.

Different situations I know, but it was just to illustrate that there are plenty situations where unintentional mistakes in a game that don't produce any advantage are punished.

 

[Oranges038]

Don't be silly for the sake of it, a penalty it's a sanction after the rival made something against the rules or a dead ball situation that defines a match and it's the closer one to be an "almost goal". It must try to eliminate any sort of instance that can become unfair, when there si no deliberate intention to take any sort of advantage. In fact if the player touches the ball twice and misses? so be it, bad luck. Yet if he converts, he should retake it. I've explained why in a post above this one.

Calling for a rule change for a 1 in 1000 incident is a bit much.

Does this then apply to all parts of the game? What about slips in open play? They're unfair.

What if the gk slips on the line when trying to save it? That's unfair.

Does he get another go?

What's the point in making him retake it only if he scores? Why not if it goes wide? He slipped, it's not fair that he slipped and missed, so shouldn't he get another go?

 

[Fobal]

What's the difference? Noone ever means to fall over (unless they are taking a dive). It's a harsh way to go out and clearly not intentional, but part of me thinks that in changing the rule, the player is essentially getting another shot at it just because he fell over when that doesn't really apply to any other part of the game.

Kvara had his goal ruled out against Liverpool for a very slight offside where his heel was off and he was facing away from goal. There was no intention to gain an advantage, nor did he get one, but it was still disallowed as per the rules.

Mings didn't get let off for picking up the ball in the box and rolling it back to the keeper, there was no intention to gain an advantage there either, but the rules were applied.

I recall an Arsenal game where the ref chose not to apply the rules for a stupid offence and a lot of people weren't particularly happy about it.

Different situations I know, but it was just to illustrate that there are plenty situations where unintentional mistakes in a game that don't produce any advantage are punished.

The difference it's what the rules was meant to avoid. The idea was to not create a deliberate advantage for the shooter: by lifting it and blast it, by attempting a dribble, a rebound, or using a feint with both feet and already gain more adavantage that it has to shoot only agaisnt the keeper from a short distance.
Yet at the same time, a penalty it's a SANCTION that looks after giving another chance for scoring when for some situation a goal could have been avoided in an illegal way or when you have to define a match.
Both situations are extreme, are defining and the way the rule works now, it's giving even a little edge, help to the keeper, because if he intentionally can cross the line and save it, it has to be retaken.
This adds more presion for the shooter. On the other hand if the player that has to shoot with no intention to take an advantage scores (this is vital, if he misses? so be it) with a double touch (even a gross one) that doesn't even remotely ressembles any of the reasons the rule was meant to avoid, therefore it should at least have to be retaken. If not we are actually giving an advantage for the one sanctioned or is defending the goal in a defining instance.

PD: As a side note and not talking like before about the rule in general. In this particular play. Before VAR, before even becoming this forensic on every situation, few or even none would have even complain about Alvarez penalty, in fact many would have not even see it. Yet I get that in these times, there is another instance, the forensic analysis of the play, wether we like it or not. Given that VAR is here, that this rule exists in the way it does, there is no big issue in actually reviewing it, to go back to what it was meant to avoid and in such spirit see if it can be improve to be more fair, given VAR has give another layer that has taken the rule a bit too far from its initial intention.

 

[Fobal]

Calling for a rule change for a 1 in 1000 incident is a bit much.

Does this then apply to all parts of the game? What about slips in open play? They're unfair.

What if the gk slips on the line when trying to save it? That's unfair.

Does he get another go?

What's the point in making him retake it only if he scores? Why not if it goes wide? He slipped, it's not fair that he slipped and missed, so shouldn't he get another go?

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? You are making a mess just for the sake of it.

Its not about a SLIP in the field, it's about detecting the intention of gain an advantage in order to respect the reason behind the rule to exist.
Also leaving aside penalties to define matches. In the majority of cases it's a sanction, it's suppose from the start to give a FAIR advantage for the shooter, It shouldn't become a rule that can become unfair for the one shooting.
If without any intention, the shooter slips, double touches and does not score, so be it! bad luck. It's the same reason why it's not retaken if the keeper crosses the line yet the shooter still scores, that would be giving an advantage for the keeper. Yet if it's save, it's retaken, note that it's not consider a goal, because IT never existed, you can't create a goal out of nothing, you can't give a goal if the shooter misses, or if the kepper saves it, as much if sthg. in the play was unfair, it has to be retaken and this should go both ways, not just for the keeper that worse in most ocassions crossing the line, it's intentional.

Seriously, I have no problem with people thinking it's better for the rule to be extremely taxative because they preffer that full stop, I just don't agree, yet to argue in the style you are doing it? come on.

 

[lex talionis]

It wasn't a shocking decision at all. There's videos that clearly show the left foot lifting the ball slightly as the right comes through and connects.

There's a totally valid argument for a rule change (although in my opinion, that opens a can of worms as if a keeper or defender slips during a game, any resulting goal is not going to be chopped off).

As the rules stand it was clear double touch that resulted in the ball taking a particular trajectory that he likely didn't intend.

We can think the rules are unfair, but the VAR intervened correctly and the correct decision was made.

Clearly? I neither clearly see the left foot touching first nor the left foot touching second. It has to be one or the other, yet there is no consensus as to which it was, let alone that it was either.

You have to look at the video over and over to even see that the left foot might -- not did, might -- have touched the ball. When there's as much doubt as is the case here, it is utterly ridiculous to come to a determination that the ball was touched twice. If you have spectacular eyesight that can see what most everyone cannot see, I congratulate you, but is it not clear at all that the ball was touched twice and most the commentary backs that up.

 

[Oranges038]

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? You are making a mess just for the sake of it.

Its not about a SLIP in the field, it's about detecting intention of gain an advantage in order to respect the reason behind the rule to exist.
Also leaving aside penalties to define matches. In the majority of cases it's a sanction, it's suppose from the start to give a FAIR advantage for the shooter, It shouldn't become a rule that can become unfair for the one shooting.
If without any intention, the shooter slips, double touches and does not score, so be it! bad luck. It's the same reason why it's not retaken if the keeper crosses the line yet the shooter still scores, that would be giving an advantage for the keeper. Yet if it's save, it's retaken, note that it's not consider a goal, because IT never existed, you can't create a goal out of nothing, you can't give a goal if the shooter misses, or if the kepper saves it, as much if sthg. in the play was unfair, it has to be retaken and this should go both ways, not just for the keeper that worse in most ocassions crossing the line, it's intentional.

Seriously, I have no problem with people thinking it's better for the rule to be extremely taxative because they preffer that full stop, I just don't agree, yet to argue in the style you are doing it? come on.

Nope, just pointing out that calls for rules to be changed when someone slips taking a penalty because it's not fair, is stupid.

Because there are plenty of other scenarios where a slip might be unfair and if you're going to around changing one rule, then you may as well change everything because they are sometimes unfair.

 

[FriedClams]

Let’s rid the game of this stupid role forever, by returning to the GOAT of game deciders

 

[Red the Bear]

Let’s rid the game of this stupid role forever, by returning to the GOAT of game deciders

It's not that bad of an idea to be honest despite all the ridicule it gets.

 

[FriedClams]

It's not that bad of an idea to be honest despite all the ridicule it gets.

It involves a lot more skill too.

 

[Red the Bear]

It involves a lot more skill too.

It would obviously favor dribblers but overall it would be more true to what happens in a regular game of football.

 

[Fobal]

Nope, just pointing out that calls for rules to be changed when someone slips taking a penalty because it's not fair, is stupid.

Because there are plenty of other scenarios where a slip might be unfair and if you're going to around changing one rule, then you may as well change everything because they are sometimes unfair.

damn you Orange, it's not about slipping man!

I'll cite myself:
The difference it's what the rules was meant to avoid. The idea was to not create a deliberate advantage for the shooter: by lifting it and blast it, by attempting a dribble, a rebound, or using a feint with both feet and already gain more adavantage that it has to shoot only agaisnt the keeper from a short distance.
Yet at the same time, a penalty it's a SANCTION that looks after giving another chance for scoring when for some situation a goal could have been avoided in an illegal way or when you have to define a match.
Both situations are extreme, are defining and the way the rule works now, it's giving even a little edge, help to the keeper, because if he intentionally can cross the line and save it, it has to be retaken.
This adds more presion for the shooter. On the other hand if the player that has to shoot with no intention to take an advantage scores (this is vital, if he misses? so be it) with a double touch (even a gross one) that doesn't even remotely ressembles any of the reasons the rule was meant to avoid, therefore it should at least have to be retaken. If not we are actually giving an advantage for the one sanctioned or is defending the goal in a defining instance.


PD: BTW me personally? I won't even have a problem if a player scores with a double touch unintetionally and is not even retaken, nor disalowed. So be it, lucky mofo, the same if he misses, I'll laugh at him.
Yet since there are rules that will go against that and new tech gave them an extra edge that for me goes beyond the original intention, let's review it, let's do that in order to recover the original spirit/situations the rule was meant to avoid/fight/analyse.
Just that and yes I know that you don't agree, so let's leave it there.

 

[Red in STL]

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread IMO over this

The rule is quite simple and applies to all deadball situations, you can only touch the ball once and you can only touch it again after someone else has touched it, whether it's deliberate or accidental is irrelevant, there's no grey areas just simple acts

 

[Fobal]

It would obviously favor dribblers but overall it would be more true to what happens in a regular game of football.

Well the rule that exists today, when goes for the no double touch, it's aim to avoid dribbling, yet in a very taxative style that with current tech can get a bit over the top like the case of thios thread. Yet the idea it's to avoid precisly dribbling, among other stuff like lifting and blast the ball and such.

Do you know what was the scoring ratio in such penalties? I almost forgot those existed

 

[cafecillos]

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread IMO over this

The rule is quite simple and applies to all deadball situations, you can only touch the ball once and you can only touch it again after someone else has touched it, whether it's deliberate or accidental is irrelevant, there's no grey areas just simple acts

For such a simple rule, you've forgotten an essential part of it, which is that the ball has to move clearly after the first touch.

 

[Red in STL]

For such a simple rule, you've forgotten an essential part of it, which is that the ball has to move clearly after the first touch.

And there are videos that show it clearly moves, it might only be a small amount but it moves

 

[cafecillos]

And there are videos that show it clearly moves, it might only be a small amount but it moves

I haven't said there aren't. But you said that it's a simple rule but didn't mention an essential part of it. Also, there are videos that show very, very little movement if any.

 

[Fobal]

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread IMO over this

The rule is quite simple and applies to all deadball situations, you can only touch the ball once and you can only touch it again after someone else has touched it, whether it's deliberate or accidental is irrelevant, there's no grey areas just simple acts

... yet not every dead ball it's the same, there are nuances, position of the keeper, placement of the ball if it's a corner, a free kick, a penalties changes, what happens if there is a rebound in those diff dead ball situations and so on, it's not that black or white.

One of the main nuances regarding penalties, it's that the keeper must mantein his position, so does the shooter, in the case of the shooter it's to avoid him dribbling his way, and the prohibition of a double touch it's in order to prevent that dribbling, to prevent to lift it and blast it, to avoid a feint that involves moving the ball from its placement, etc...that it's why they went for the plain and strict no double touch.
They wanted to avoid the shooter to gain any sort of advantage in an already advantage situation, the problems comes with new tech that would detect the most little of double touches, the problem comes when that double touch does not mean an advantage in the form of what they wanted to prevent.
Also a keeper it's punished with a re take if he moves from his line and the shooter get's penalized with the goal being disallowed, it's not balanced, there are points in the rule that can be modified to make it better in those particular penalty situations.
Even recently they are close to avoid any sort of talk between the players, that existed since ever and never was an issue, yet since cameras now filmed such interactions, they felt that it's sthg that must be avoid, we like or not.

So to review a rule to make it better, it's not nonsense, in fact it happens on every law on every area, new costumes, new elements, many times end modifying laws/rules and even in some cases, some laws are not even executed even still existing, they fell alone, without even being analyzed, just not been used.
Not the case here of course.

As the rule stands, there is only one minimum concern, the part that talks of clearly moving. In this case, the VAR determinated that it was clear, so be it, it's done. Under current rules, if they see that, it should be disallowed.

Another thing it's that given current tech and its forensic approach, sometimes it can go a bit against the original idea behind the rule in question, so to open a debate about how to improve it, its' really far from nonsense or silly.

 

[Wolfbot]

The difference it's what the rules was meant to avoid. The idea was to not create a deliberate advantage for the shooter: by lifting it and blast it, by attemting a dribble, a rebound, or using a feint with both feet and already gain more adavantage that it has to shoot only agaisnt the keeper from a short distance.
Yet at the same time, a penalty it's a SANCTION that looks after giving another chance for scoring when for some situation a goal could have been avoided in an illegal way or when you have to define a match.
Both situations are extreme, are defining and the way the rule works now, it's giving even a little edge, help to the keeper, because if he intentionally can cross the line and save it, it has to be retaken.
This adds more presion for the shooter. On the other hand if the player that has to shoot with no intention to take an advantage scores (this is vital, if he misses? so be it) with a double touch (even a gross one) that doesn't even remotely ressembles any of the reasons the rule was meant to avoid, therefore it should at least have to be retaken. If not we are actually giving an advantage for the one sanctioned or is defending the goal in a defining instance.

PD: As a side note and not talking like before about the rule in general. In this particular play. Before VAR, before even becoming this forensic on every situation, few or even none would have even complain about Alvarez penalty, in fact many would have not even see it. Yet I get that in these times, there is another instance, the forensic analysis of the play, wether we like it or not. Given that VAR is here, that this rule exists in the way it does, there is no big issue in actually reviewing it, to go back to what it was meant to avoid and in such spirit see if it can be improve to be more fair, given VAR has give another layer that has taken the rule a bit too far from its initial intention.

I do understand your point. I can also see it the other way though, which might not matter so much where the penalty is a sanction for a foul and therefore I see no issue with the advantage going to the attacker.

In a penalty shootout though, I feel the keeper should have as good a chance of saving as he can get as he's already at a disadvantage due to the very nature of penalties.

What happened with Alvarez was an unintentional double touch, and contrary to some people's opinion is, I feel he did get an advantage (not deliberate) due to the slip and the trajectory caused by that and the double touch, it made it even harder for the keeper to try and read

Clearly? I neither clearly see the left foot touching first nor the left foot touching second. It has to be one or the other, yet there is no consensus as to which it was, let alone that it was either.

You have to look at the video over and over to even see that the left foot might -- not did, might -- have touched the ball. When there's as much doubt as is the case here, it is utterly ridiculous to come to a determination that the ball was touched twice. If you have spectacular eyesight that can see what most everyone cannot see, I congratulate you, but is it not clear at all that the ball was touched twice and most the commentary backs that up.

I have to assume you've not looked around for other videos then mate

There is at least one clip with an angle that shows it pretty clearly which is why so many people are certain the rules were applied correctly, even if we don't necessarily agree with them. It also took VAR about 20 seconds to decide which wouldn't have happened based on the video most of us saw initially.

 

[Fobal]

What happened with Alvarez was an unintentional double touch, and contrary to some people's opinion is, I feel he did get an advantage (not deliberate) due to the slip and the trajectory caused by that and the double touch, it made it even harder for the keeper to try and read

I don't agree in this particular case, because the deflection (if even exists, we really cannot determinated) looks minimal at best and if on contrair the touch was more important, it would have send the ball to the side Tibu actually went, it would have helped him.
If anything in the way Alvarez shot, the ball if actually was deflected should have go even nearer to the contrair post Tibu chose. I don't think it actually deflects significantly at all for either side, as much it must have go a tiny higher, given than more than the deflection with the other foot, what could complicated more his shot, it's that Julian stroke it a bit lower because of the slip, the orientation of his foot was always going to send the ball to the side he have chosen. Tibu looked like actually bet for a side and went for it, the wrong side in this case.
Yet I don't think neither can be actually be 100% certain of our views.

The thing for me it's that going back to changing the original rule, even if it was a blatant unintentional double touch (like the vid from Palermo I've posted, like Solari's with River one), if the player scores, to mantein the rule and protect the keeper, it must be retake it, yet not disallowed. This would be going in my view against the spirit and original idea of the what the rule wanted to avoid.

I do understand your point. I can also see it the other way though, which might not matter so much where the penalty is a sanction for a foul and therefore I see no issue with the advantage going to the attacker.

In a penalty shootout though, I feel the keeper should have as good a chance of saving as he can get as he's already at a disadvantage due to the very nature of penalties.

For me the main issue it's that since a keeper can cross the line, save it and the sanction it's to retake it, while mostly those instances are a deliberate tactic from them (not always), there should be a similar take if the shooter unintentionally double touches and scores. In fact like Orange said, there won't be hundred of cases, mostly this blunders end not scoring, yet when it happens and in such huge instances like this particular match, it gets quite annoying to the very least, feels like unfair in my view to not be retaken.

 

[Physiocrat]

To me the rule should be the following one

If the player hits the ball with both feet and it's a goal, it should be retaken.
If the keeper is out of the line and it's not a goal, it should be retaken.

Bingo. Sensible idea.

 

[lex talionis]

I do understand your point. I can also see it the other way though, which might not matter so much where the penalty is a sanction for a foul and therefore I see no issue with the advantage going to the attacker.

In a penalty shootout though, I feel the keeper should have as good a chance of saving as he can get as he's already at a disadvantage due to the very nature of penalties.

What happened with Alvarez was an unintentional double touch, and contrary to some people's opinion is, I feel he did get an advantage (not deliberate) due to the slip and the trajectory caused by that and the double touch, it made it even harder for the keeper to try and read

I have to assume you've not looked around for other videos then mate

There is at least one clip with an angle that shows it pretty clearly which is why so many people are certain the rules were applied correctly, even if we don't necessarily agree with them. It also took VAR about 20 seconds to decide which wouldn't have happened based on the video most of us saw initially.

I’ve watched several videos, some in super slow motion and there isn’t one video that “clearly” shows the left foot ever touching the ball.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible for the left foot to have touched the ball, but there is no video evidence that leaves it clearly beyond any doubt. That said, if you believe the left foot at some point touched the ball, whether before or after the right foot kicked, I cannt prove to you that it did not.

The decision was a fukk job on Atletico, though that outcome does not upset me as I despise Simeone.

 

[Red the Bear]

Well the rule that exists today, when goes for the no double touch, it's aim to avoid dribbling, yet in a very taxative style that with current tech can get a bit over the top like the case of thios thread. Yet the idea it's to avoid precisly dribbling, among other stuff like lifting and blast the ball and such.

Do you know what was the scoring ratio in such penalties? I almost forgot those existed

I don't have the exact statistics but the success rate was certainly lower.

I doubt it'll ever make a return but from a purely footballing stand point it makes much more sense to use them instead of normal penalties.

A player trying to dribble and outwit a keeper 1 on 1 is a regular occurrence in a game football, trying to score from a dead ball with the keeper bolted on his line is not.

Penalty as it's name shows is intended as punishment which is why it affords the shooter an undue advantage, The same logic shouldn't apply in shoot outs.

The current format incentivizes some teams to specifically work on a skillset which is useless outside of ko competitions and useless in a real game of football in hopes of getting to the point in which they could use those skills, the MLS format however would not require such preparations as the skills required are the ones every keeper and every offensive player works on day after day.


All in all I'm sure the said format will have its own shortcomings and loopholes waiting to be abused but I certainly like to see it tried one more time.