DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92770--------------------------------------------------
IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: ben
Date: June 3, 2025, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IFAB has released an update to the 'double touch' penalty kick.
Highlight is:
- The IFAB would like to clarify the procedures in the following
situations.
• 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
The full release can be read here:
HTML https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/circular-31
#Post#: 92771--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: June 4, 2025, 2:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sensible in my view.
#Post#: 92773--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Claretman
Date: June 4, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very sensible indeed, think it should extend to a missed kick
too if accidental.
#Post#: 92774--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: June 4, 2025, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Claretman link ---
>
> Very sensible indeed, think it should extend to a missed kick
too if accidental.
>
--- End Quote ---
Surely all missed kicks are accidental. ;)
Seems like a daft idea to me. Staying on your feet and being in
control of your body is part of the game. Why is the same not
the case for free kicks and corners? Why not a re-take if the
penalty-taker slips but their standing foot doesn't touch the
ball?
#Post#: 92776--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Ref25
Date: June 4, 2025, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No issue with the principle. Goals change games and I understand
the desire not to completely rule them out for a technicality /
something completely unintentional when there is an obvious
remedy (i.e. a retake). In a penalty shootout, it can be what
sends a team out of the competition and most people in football
would (I suggest) not want that. I’m sure IFAB got plenty of
representations about this following the incident with Atletico
Madrid in the UCL.
Unfortunately however, it adds another layer of complexity into
law application - things used to be so much simpler before the
rewrite of the LOTG a few years back. We now have so many
different ways of restarting the game and sanctions for offences
than ever used to be the case.
I note the comment about why not corners, free kicks etc. These
inevitably are not likely to be match changing situations
(appreciate you can score from them, but not as direct / obvious
as a penalty).
What I do take issue with is the wording in the circular:
“The IFAB wishes to clarify”
“The situation is rare, and as it is not directly covered in
Law 14, referees have understandably tended to penalise”
“these clarified procedures”
It is disingenuous of the IFAB to describe in this way. This is
a law change pure and simple, likely coming off the back of the
high profile incident with Atletico Madrid in the UCL. To imply
that referees have previously interpreted the law incorrectly
(by using the phrase “understandably tended”) when awarding an
indirect free kick is nonsense. The LOTG were applied correctly,
as written and understood by all. The wording makes it seem like
the referee in that UCL fixture did the wrong thing when he
didn’t.
#Post#: 92797--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Claretman
Date: June 5, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Watcher link ---
>
> [quote author=Claretman link=topic=7046.msg92773#msg92773
date=1749029994]
> Very sensible indeed, think it should extend to a missed kick
too if accidental.
>
--- End Quote ---
Surely all missed kicks are accidental. ;)
Seems like a daft idea to me. Staying on your feet and being in
control of your body is part of the game. Why is the same not
the case for free kicks and corners? Why not a re-take if the
penalty-taker slips but their standing foot doesn't touch the
ball?
[/quote]
Then surely the law was correct in its previous format.
#Post#: 92804--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: June 5, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref25 link ---
>
> No issue with the principle. Goals change games and I
understand the desire not to completely rule them out for a
technicality / something completely unintentional when there is
an obvious remedy (i.e. a retake). In a penalty shootout, it can
be what sends a team out of the competition and most people in
football would (I suggest) not want that. I’m sure IFAB got
plenty of representations about this following the incident with
Atletico Madrid in the UCL.
>
> Unfortunately however, it adds another layer of complexity
into law application - things used to be so much simpler before
the rewrite of the LOTG a few years back. We now have so many
different ways of restarting the game and sanctions for offences
than ever used to be the case.
>
> I note the comment about why not corners, free kicks etc.
These inevitably are not likely to be match changing situations
(appreciate you can score from them, but not as direct / obvious
as a penalty).
>
> What I do take issue with is the wording in the circular:
>
> “The IFAB wishes to clarify”
> “The situation is rare, and as it is not directly covered in
Law 14, referees have understandably tended to penalise”
> “these clarified procedures”
>
> It is disingenuous of the IFAB to describe in this way. This
is a law change pure and simple, likely coming off the back of
the high profile incident with Atletico Madrid in the UCL. To
imply that referees have previously interpreted the law
incorrectly (by using the phrase “understandably tended”) when
awarding an indirect free kick is nonsense. The LOTG were
applied correctly, as written and understood by all. The wording
makes it seem like the referee in that UCL fixture did the wrong
thing when he didn’t.
>
--- End Quote ---
Completely agree with this. It's not at all clear to me why
they've opted for this odd language. It must be designed to
pacify someone.
Every official at every level knows that a double touch on
*every* restart (excepting a dropped ball) is not allowable. It
may not be explicit in Law 14, but equally there has never (to
my knowledge) a desire, a belief, or any motivation to judge any
restart in any other way.
The problem - as has been a fairly common occurrence recently -
is VAR. Double touch penalties are decidedly rare, and when
they do occur they are either a) very hard, if not impossible to
spot in real time, or b) hugely obvious and usually to the
penalty taker's detriment.
This example was high profile outcome deciding as implemented by
VAR, basically impossible to spot without super-slow mo replays,
and did benefit the attacker. This has occurred previously, but
given the profile of the match, not worthy of IFAB's attention.
The motivation for this change is to remove the potential for
VAR to decide the outcome of a game on a minuscule point of
contention that never previously existed. It was either
impossible to tell, or the player blasted the ball elsewhere due
to the fairly unavoidable slipping motion that causes a ball to
be kicked by both feet.
I'd rather IFAB were upfront with the reason for the change,
rather than this fairly opaque and somewhat disingenuous
message. And it should be clear - it *is* a fundamental Law
change. Pretending it's an application change will invite more
problems that it solves by being somewhat covert about it.
#Post#: 92814--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Ref25
Date: June 5, 2025, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think IFAB’s own rationale for the law as written is
accurate either:
“However, this part of Law 14 is primarily intended for
situations where the penalty taker deliberately touches the ball
for a second time before it has touched another player (e.g.
when it touches the goalpost(s) or crossbar without having
touched the goalkeeper)”.
To stop someone deliberately (i.e. that’s what they set out from
the start to do) touching the ball more than once - yes. But I
seriously doubt when the law was drafted somebody thought “we
can’t have people kicking it a second time after it comes back
off of the crossbar”. No attacker aims for the post or crossbar
so it can rebound to them for a tap in!
It is in my view another consequence of the law being written in
a clear / straightforward way that prevents a player just taking
a restart and running or dribbling the ball forward - which at a
penalty would almost always result in a goal.
#Post#: 92817--------------------------------------------------
Re: IFAB Double touch penalty interpretation
DIR By: Leggy
Date: June 5, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It could cause problems for referees operating without VAR (i.e.
99.99% of them) when a penalty is scored and the defending team
demands a re-take because they believe it to be a double touch.
Unlikely to have happened in the past as most participants would
have been entirely ignorant of the Law, but now IFAB has shone a
spotlight on it there is another opportunity for disagreement,
dissent and the possible need for disciplinary action.
With every Law change, IFAB are making the game more complicated
to understand and providing more opportunities for
misunderstanding and thus making the game harder to referee
successfully and enjoyably. What are they trying to do, emulate
Rugby Union??
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1