That Alvarez penalty

[tentan]

That was ridiculous, i didn't see a second touch.

Surely at least allow him to retake it. Why can kinda bull**** rules is that?

 

[The Firestarter]

Imagine if it turns out it actually needed to be retaken per rules. Could there be a replay of just the penalties? Interesting case for sure.

 

[criticalanalysis]

This is the best angle and resolution I've seen (mute it first):



This is the closest I've seen to evidence for a double touch but even at that, I don't think you can definitively say it's his standing/slipping foot that hits it and not the turf between that foot and the ball.

From https://www.redcafe.net/threads/var-refs-and-linesmen-general-discussion.471935/page-562

Watch the circumference of the ball on the right side crumble inwards as it's hit, which would suggest it's being touched/cushioned by the left standing foot.

 

[Red in STL]

That was ridiculous, i didn't see a second touch.

Surely at least allow him to retake it. Why can kinda bull**** rules is that?

It's not a BS rule, it's actually quite simple, someone else has to touch the ball before you can touch it again, this is obviously an extreme example but it's not the first time it's happened

 

[Fobal]

The rule must change, more in cases like this one. The ball clearly was meant to be shot to where it went, didn't significantly deflect at all and Alvarez wasn't trying to have any sort of advantage.
Sthg. must be made in order to this plays not end being so "unfair" and the range can go from being allowed, to be retaken or to be nulify if it's sthg that looks totally intentional.
It would be hard, but this very VAR situations feel quite wrong.

 

[Dominos]

From https://www.redcafe.net/threads/var-refs-and-linesmen-general-discussion.471935/page-562

Watch the circumference of the ball on the right side crumble inwards as it's hit, which would suggest it's being touched/cushioned by the left standing foot.

People had already made their mind up that there was no evidence and since they've been presented with the evidence, they've changed the goalposts to "yeah it almost certainly touched his left foot but it's not as obvious as I'd like it to be therefore you can't disallow it".

 

[FriedClams]

People had already made their mind up that there was no evidence and since they've been presented with the evidence, they've changed the goalposts to "yeah it almost certainly touched his left foot but it's not as obvious as I'd like it to be therefore you can't disallow it".

It’s just a case of the rule being implemented and everyone realizing the rule kinda sucks.

It didn’t affect the outcome of the game, Real Madrid next taker was valverde and he was always gonna score.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

People had already made their mind up that there was no evidence and since they've been presented with the evidence, they've changed the goalposts to "yeah it almost certainly touched his left foot but it's not as obvious as I'd like it to be therefore you can't disallow it".

I think it's more than that. It's the club benefitting from it. I'm very confident that had it been a Real Madrid player that was penalised, far more 'neutrals' would just be happy about it and wouldn't be yelling about it being dreadfully harsh / unfair / biased - or calling for the rule to be changed.

It's exactly the same contrasting reactions when a decision goes for / against us. 'Neutrals' hate the biggest clubs in each country, especially those that are up there as the biggest clubs in the world. So there's an outraged reaction when a decision goes in their favour - even when it's right by the current rules, the call is then that the rule is wrong and needs changing.

I recognise much of it as bitter BS when it's aimed at us by 'neutrals', and so try not to adopt that same bitter BS when it's other big clubs involved. The call was correct. It doesn't happen very often that players slip and end up making contact with both feet, but when it does the rule is in place to give that very decision. They got it right. It just happened to be in a big match between city rivals, and benefitted the team most 'neutrals' wanted to lose. But VAR shouldn't be taking any of that into account. They just rightly reached the correct decision.

 

[brozonis]

The rule must change, more in cases like this one. The ball clearly was meant to be shot to where it went, didn't significantly deflect at all and Alvarez wasn't trying to have any sort of advantage.
Sthg. must be made in order to this plays not end being so "unfair" and the range can go from being allowed, to be retaken or to be nulify if it's sthg that looks totally intentional.
It would be hard, but this very VAR situations feel quite wrong.

Yep, it's a rule that was made in the pre-VAR era. No ref would disallow that, and no opposition team would dispute it in real time. The rule needs modifying now that VAR is micro-analysing everything, because disallowing that isn't really in the spirit of the game.

It's similar to if a player blazes the ball over the bar because his planting foot lifted the ball slightly, like McAllister against England. Will that now be a re-take because VAR decides that it was a moving ball?

 

[Fobal]

I think it's more than that. It's the club benefitting from it. I'm very confident that had it been a Real Madrid player that was penalised, far more 'neutrals' would just be happy about it and wouldn't be yelling about it being dreadfully harsh / unfair / biased - or calling for the rule to be changed.

It's exactly the same contrasting reactions when a decision goes for / against us. 'Neutrals' hate the biggest clubs in each country, especially those that are up there as the biggest clubs in the world. So there's an outraged reaction when a decision goes in their favour - even when it's right by the current rules, the call is then that the rule is wrong and needs changing.

I recognise much of it as bitter BS when it's aimed at us by 'neutrals', and so try not to adopt that same bitter BS when it's other big clubs involved. The call was correct. It doesn't happen very often that players slip and end up making contact with both feet, but when it does the rule is in place to give that very decision. They got it right. It just happened to be in a big match between city rivals, and benefitted the team most 'neutrals' wanted to lose. But VAR shouldn't be taking any of that into account. They just rightly reached the correct decision.

It has a part of that, yet it's not just that.

Sometimes some rules can be revisited if by trying to be objective as they come, they end creating situations that many feel go against the let's say flow of the game, there is nothing wrong with that.
I've just read Relaños Column in AS and he feels the same thing, it would not be bad to try to change the rule in order to not be as cold for lack of better word as it ends being.

 

[Abizzz]

If that is a double touch why isn't touching it with two different parts of the same foot also against the rules? Surely in super slow motion with a high enough resolution many penalties are touched more than at one exact point once?

Curling freekicks should also be practically impossible unless you have the smoothest of feet.

 

[bgoodall]

Im more impressed Curtois noticed it in real time and pointed it out to the ref. Pros amaze me with how much eye hand coordination they have.

 

[TheLord]

I don't understand why there's still any confusion regarding the disallowed goal! During the live gameplay when we didn't have access to many video replay angles, I could understand the confusion - but even now?!?

Is there definitive evidence that the ball hit both his feet?
Yes, now we do.

When this has been established, there should be no confusion. Technical rules have to be clear - in absolute black and white. The fact that hitting the ball with both feet was accidental, or that the deflection was miniscule, or that he slipped, or that the ball would have gone in irrespective of the double hit, or that it wasn't obvious to the naked eye, etc.etc. are all mute.

Can you double hit penalty kicks? No.
Was there a double hit? Yes.
Should it have been ruled out? Yes.

Technical rules have to be in black and white with absolutely no space for subjectivity. VAR seemed intrusive, but made the perfect call.

 

[TheLord]

If that is a double touch why isn't touching it with two different parts of the same foot also against the rules? Surely in super slow motion with a high enough resolution many penalties are touched more than at one exact point once?

Curling freekicks should also be practically impossible unless you have the smoothest of feet.

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.

 

[Abizzz]

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.

Not like that leaves any room for debate...

 

[Oranges038]

If that is a double touch why isn't touching it with two different parts of the same foot also against the rules? Surely in super slow motion with a high enough resolution many penalties are touched more than at one exact point once?

Curling freekicks should also be practically impossible unless you have the smoothest of feet.

The double touch rule is quite simple, once you kick the ball from a set piece, you can't touch it again until someone else does. Same applies to freekicks, goal kicks, corners and throws.

Generally when you kick the ball it will only make contact once with your kicking foot. Unless you shin volley it and it rolls the whole way down your leg and off your toe.

This is obviously an extreme example, but the rule has been applied correctly. If it happens during regular game time, fairly sure it is a freekick to the opposition.

The bolded also makes no sense, curling the ball is based on how much power and spin you are able to apply to it, nothing to do with having smooth feet.

 

[Harry190]

They were saying they have sensors in the ball which allowed to detect it.

 

[Marcus]

Looked like an accidental double touch.

 

[red_de_pologne]

They were saying they have sensors in the ball which allowed to detect it.

This. The ball signalled double touch. Very unlucky. But they missed another penalty anyway.

 

[Malkovich]

This is like being against an offside because it was very tight.

 

[Mb194dc]

He probably does double kick it, the call should stay on the field, not var...

There's NO chip in the ball in UEFA competitions, it's a judgement call that's been made from the replays...

 

[led_scholes]

It’s just a case of the rule being implemented and everyone realizing the rule kinda sucks.

It didn’t affect the outcome of the game, Real Madrid next taker was valverde and he was always gonna score.

What? It literally eliminated Atletico. Real also missed a penalty.

What surprised was how fast the decision was made. People hours later still can't be certain that there was a touch.

 

[harms]

Im more impressed Curtois noticed it in real time and pointed it out to the ref. Pros amaze me with how much eye hand coordination they have.

It’s not that difficult to get suspicious — he slipped and the trajectory of the ball was clearly influenced. Whenever it was by the second touch or by the weird angle of the kicking foot is another matter but Courtois loses nothing by suggesting to check.

 

[Carl]

What? It literally eliminated Atletico. Real also missed a penalty.

What surprised was how fast the decision was made. People hours later still can't be certain that there was a touch.

I've no idea how you can see the replay and not think it's a double touch tbh. All this controversy is just because it's Real Madrid.

It's unlucky for Alvarez and Athletico, but it's a double touch and so was correctly disallowed.

My only debate here is whether this should be reviewable by VAR.

 

[harms]

I don't understand why there's still any confusion regarding the disallowed goal! During the live gameplay when we didn't have access to many video replay angles, I could understand the confusion - but even now?!?

Is there definitive evidence that the ball hit both his feet?
Yes, now we do.

When this has been established, there should be no confusion. Technical rules have to be clear - in absolute black and white. The fact that hitting the ball with both feet was accidental, or that the deflection was miniscule, or that he slipped, or that the ball would have gone in irrespective of the double hit, or that it wasn't obvious to the naked eye, etc.etc. are all mute.

Can you double hit penalty kicks? No.
Was there a double hit? Yes.
Should it have been ruled out? Yes.

Technical rules have to be in black and white with absolutely no space for subjectivity. VAR seemed intrusive, but made the perfect call.

It reminds me of these minuscule offsides that people argue against. “But it didn’t give him any advantage and that’s the point of the rule!”.

It’s like they want to introduce more subjective decisions when refereeing, its inconsistency and subjectivity is the biggest issue that we have with referees in general.

Is Alvarez extremely unlucky? Yes. Is this the correct decision? Yes, although they should’ve showed a better angle for the TV viewers.

 

[SuperiorXI]

I think rules like this one, similar to offsides being ruled at extreme accuracy, are to the detriment of the game.

Go back to why the rules were added: it's to stop an unfair advantage. Does Alvarez truly gain an unfair advantage there? Does he bollocks. Same with offisdes where the attackers toenail is offside, is there an advantage? My arse is there. In the realms of particle physics perhaps but not in reality.

I would like to see some common sense applied back to rules of the game, it will make for a more enjoyable experience.

 

[AndySmith1990]

Sometimes you just want common sense to prevail. This is the same as those daft offside decisions that go to VAR because the tip of someone's elbow is further forward than a defender. I mean who gives a feck, it's obviously not intentional or giving any advantage

 

[red_de_pologne]

Mbappe also immediately noticed the double touch.

 

[led_scholes]

I've no idea how you can see the replay and not think it's a double touch tbh. All this controversy is just because it's Real Madrid.

It's unlucky for Alvarez and Athletico, but it's a double touch and so was correctly disallowed.

My only debate here is whether this should be reviewable by VAR.

Because from the replays I saw it wasnt clear. Maybe there are some clear replays that prove this, but the one that the TV presented during the live coverage, is not very clear.

 

[fergiewherearethou]

I think rules like this one, similar to offsides being ruled at extreme accuracy, are to the detriment of the game.

Go back to why the rules were added: it's to stop an unfair advantage. Does Alvarez truly gain an unfair advantage there? Does he bollocks. Same with offisdes where the attackers toenail is offside, is there an advantage? My arse is there. In the realms of particle physics perhaps but not in reality.

I would like to see some common sense applied back to rules of the game, it will make for a more enjoyable experience.

It is impossible to apply a rule if you do not set any boundaries or limits. If it's a touch, it's a touch, doesn't matter how clear it is, if it's an offiside, it's offside, by 1cm, 5cm, or 50cm, it does not matter.
Common sense would mean no VAR, which would imply having mistakes or errors which we've always seen in the past.
VAR clearly affects the emotion and drama of football, I hate that, I hate it when I see the players and fans celebrating only to see a goal ruled out in 30 seconds, but if we want a level playing field there is this sacrifice.

 

[square pass]

Mbappe also immediately noticed the double touch.

Yeah, both sets of players immediately notice it's their team's throw in and raise their hands to claim

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

It was the correct decision. The rule is fine. The offsise rule is more than fine as it is.

 

[Beachryan]

You can disagree with the rule being appropriate, but you can't disagree with how it was applied here. Simple.

 

[Glorio]

Do the rules state that the chance is gone or do they state that the pen has to be retaken?

 

[RobinLFC]

Do the rules state that the chance is gone or do they state that the pen has to be retaken?

Double touch equals a missed penalty.

I still don't see it but apparently lots of people do, if it's clear then ruling it out is the obvious and correct decision.

 

[The Cat]

Do the rules state that the chance is gone or do they state that the pen has to be retaken?

Was wondering that too.

 

[SER19]

From https://www.redcafe.net/threads/var-refs-and-linesmen-general-discussion.471935/page-562

Watch the circumference of the ball on the right side crumble inwards as it's hit, which would suggest it's being touched/cushioned by the left standing foot.

He definitely touches it twice. It's against the rules. Just because it was an important penalty doesn't change that so tough shit atletico, try cheat your way to it next year

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Sometimes you just want common sense to prevail. This is the same as those daft offside decisions that go to VAR because the tip of someone's elbow is further forward than a defender. I mean who gives a feck, it's obviously not intentional or giving any advantage

Between stuff like this and awarding penalties for handballs that nobody even appeals for, VAR is really excellent at fixing things that nobody actually cared about.

 

[sullydnl]

People who want to change the rules because it's not in the spirit of the game or whatever are needlessly over-complicating things, in a way that could lead to even worse ouctomes depending on how they changed the rule.

The solution here is simple: Alvarez shouldn't kick the ball with two feet. He fecked up his penalty, that's entirely on him.

And as noted above, Courtois and Mbappe knew he had touched it twice immediately and told the referee. So it's not even one of those "would anyone even have complained if VAR didn't step in?" situations. The players were complaining.

 

[Adisa]

Seen the video. It’s obvious. Sensors also price it without a doubt.

Thought luck for Atletico.