That Alvarez penalty

[Kingdingaling]

Stupid rule change.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

Stupid rule change.

It's certainly a reactionary one. But that's not unusual after there's been a (social) media clamour to a high profile incident.

It's not particularly stupid though. I think both are valid - the previous rule and the new tweak. So long as it's applied correctly I'm fine with it. Though it was applied correctly, as the rule stood, in the Atletico case and yet all the media outrage about it has brought about the tweaked rule.

 

[Oranges038]

Stupid rule change.

Just give everyone a second chance if they miss kick the ball now all over the pitch.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Nah it's a great rule change. A complete accident and the ball ends up in the back of the net should result in a retake - why should the opposition team benefit from a total accident?

If the player misses then that's no retake - which is right.

 

[Bertie Wooster]

Nah it's a great rule change. A complete accident and the ball ends up in the back of the net should result in a retake - why should the opposition team benefit from a total accident?

If the player misses then that's no retake - which is right.

The opposition team benefit from a number of accidental breakings of the law that end up in goals in open play - such as if the ball accidentally hits an attacking players hand or arm, or accidentally hits an offside player and deflects in the goal or to a teammate, or if an offside player is accidentally n the eyeline of the keeper, etc, then the goal is disallowed accident or not.

So I didn't see a huge issue with the original ruling. It may well have been an accident, but it was still a breaking of a rule and so the goal was disallowed. A penalty gives the opportunity for a retake that can't happen in open play, of course, so I'm fine with the new tweak as well. But I didn't have a problem with the old one either as it only carried on the penalising of accidental flouting of the rules to deny a goal that we still see in open play.

 

[Fobal]

The opposition team benefit from a number of accidental breakings of the law that end up in goals in open play - such as if the ball accidentally hits an attacking players hand or arm, or accidentally hits an offside player and deflects in the goal or to a teammate, or if an offside player is accidentally n the eyeline of the keeper, etc, then the goal is disallowed accident or not.

So I didn't see a huge issue with the original ruling. It may well have been an accident, but it was still a breaking of a rule and so the goal was disallowed. A penalty gives the opportunity for a retake that can't happen in open play, of course, so I'm fine with the new tweak as well. But I didn't have a problem with the old one either as it only carried on the penalising of accidental flouting of the rules to deny a goal that we still see in open play.

The thing it's not open play and worse it's a penalty, the ultimate dead ball situation to punish a team or to decide a game. Completely different scenario.

The change of the rule was done because the original idea was to avoid someone intentionally doing two touches to take more advantage from an already advantage situation. So this new approach it's done to mantein the original idea and spirit of the rule and not be unfair just because of being extremely taxative or blunt.
Also it isn't as blunt as unfair of: unintentional double touch, equal to instant retaken; the ball must end in a goal and that it's correct. This is avoiding going over the top and more aligned to when the keeper can (even intentionally) cross the line, save the penalty and this should be retaken.
That BTW it's a way worse offense, when most of times it's intentional and even if it wasn't intentional, since the biggest weight and responsability and pression allways it's on the shooter, to shoot again it's quite frustrating and can be use by any kepeer to fvcked up the concentration/focus of the shooter.

 

[Dominos]

It's certainly a reactionary one. But that's not unusual after there's been a (social) media clamour to a high profile incident.

It's not particularly stupid though. I think both are valid - the previous rule and the new tweak. So long as it's applied correctly I'm fine with it. Though it was applied correctly, as the rule stood, in the Atletico case and yet all the media outrage about it has brought about the tweaked rule.

Stupid rule change.

Just give everyone a second chance if they miss kick the ball now all over the pitch.

The opposition team benefit from a number of accidental breakings of the law that end up in goals in open play - such as if the ball accidentally hits an attacking players hand or arm, or accidentally hits an offside player and deflects in the goal or to a teammate, or if an offside player is accidentally n the eyeline of the keeper, etc, then the goal is disallowed accident or not.

So I didn't see a huge issue with the original ruling. It may well have been an accident, but it was still a breaking of a rule and so the goal was disallowed. A penalty gives the opportunity for a retake that can't happen in open play, of course, so I'm fine with the new tweak as well. But I didn't have a problem with the old one either as it only carried on the penalising of accidental flouting of the rules to deny a goal that we still see in open play.

The strongest argument I've seen for allowing them to retake the pen is. When a keeper leaves his line too early and saves a pen, it gets re-taken, rather than just awarding the taker the goal. The keeper gets a 2nd chance at making a save when he's broke the rules. So why not give takers the same grace and give them a 2nd chance if accidentally broke the rules.

It's debatable but I can see the logic.

 

[bgoodall]

Like the player a lot but this is ridiculous. Double tap = retake? Uhhhh, no. What’s next, oh sorry John Terry gets to retake that one he slipped.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

The thing with the keeper is that, when facing a penalty, he's in a very tough spot since about 80% of them go in. You can be more lenient and make a case for retaking the penalty. The player who takes the penalty is given the chance with the most probabilities (with the keeper in goal) to put the goal in the net. All he has to to, besides hitting the target, is to not touch the ball twice. Is that too much to ask of him?

 

[Gio]

The opposition team benefit from a number of accidental breakings of the law that end up in goals in open play - such as if the ball accidentally hits an attacking players hand or arm, or accidentally hits an offside player and deflects in the goal or to a teammate, or if an offside player is accidentally n the eyeline of the keeper, etc, then the goal is disallowed accident or not.

So I didn't see a huge issue with the original ruling. It may well have been an accident, but it was still a breaking of a rule and so the goal was disallowed. A penalty gives the opportunity for a retake that can't happen in open play, of course, so I'm fine with the new tweak as well. But I didn't have a problem with the old one either as it only carried on the penalising of accidental flouting of the rules to deny a goal that we still see in open play.

The problem with the existing wording was that it did not specify what should be the outcome if the ball was hit by both feet at the same time. The rules do set this out for free-kicks, but not for penalties.

 

[Golden Nugget]

If the retake is due then not being sure, then fine, but if it’s due to it being unintentional, it’s a silly rule change. Shaw didn’t intend to deflect the ball in for an own goal. Hojlund doesn’t intend to miscontrol every ball. Vieira didn’t intend to give Giggsy the ball. Baggio didn’t intend to sky a penalty.

I’d rather they change the rules for the penalty takers that keep stuttering and making it impossible for keeper to stay on their line - like Lewandowski