Why Atletico Madrid Could Claim Injustice Over Julian Alvarez’s Disallowed Penalty in UEFA Champions League Semifinal

Atletico Madrid could have a strong case for claiming injustice after Julian Alvarez’s penalty was disallowed in their UEFA Champions League semifinal match against Real Madrid. SportsRations’ Nsikakabasi Akpan shares insight on this moment which has sparked confusion due to a possible gap of FIFA’s rules on penalties.

The Incident:

During the penalty shootout, Julian Alvarez stepped up to take Atletico Madrid’s second penalty. After striking the ball, he slipped, but the ball flew into the top of the net, bringing the score level. However, just as Fede Valverde was about to take Real Madrid’s third penalty, play was stopped by the referee, who consulted VAR about Alvarez’s kick.

Why Was Alvarez’s Penalty Disallowed?

The review concluded that Alvarez had touched the ball with both feet, which led to his penalty being deemed invalid. According to the rule, a player must not play the ball again until it has touched another player. This interpretation is what led to the penalty being disallowed, but questions remain about whether the rule was applied correctly.

The FIFA Rule in Question:

FIFA’s rule on penalties states: “The ball is in play when it is kicked and CLEARLY moves. The kicker must not play the ball again until it has touched another player.”

Here lies the confusion. The rule is two-fold. The first part says the ball must clearly move after the kick, while the second part focuses on not playing the ball again before it touches another player. In Alvarez’s case, VAR focused on the second part of the rule, which led to the disallowed penalty. However, the first part of the rule, which considers whether the ball clearly moved after being kicked, seems to have been overlooked.

Did the ball clearly move? This is the key question. NO. After the first touch, the ball did not move. The confusion comes from the fact that the focus was placed on the second part of the rule, which may have led to a faulty decision.

Could Atletico Madrid Claim Injustice?

Given the ambiguity in interpreting the rule, Atletico Madrid could reasonably argue that the decision was unfair. The rule’s dual conditions create room for confusion, especially when one part of the rule seems to be disregarded in favour of another. In this case, the penalty was disallowed due to the idea of ‘double contact’, but the first rule regarding the ball’s movement was not properly addressed. I do think the fair judgement if FIFA had made provision for it in the rule would have been THE KICK IS RETAKEN.

This incident has highlighted a potential gap in the FIFA rules and the way they are applied during crucial moments. It’s possible that after this controversial decision, FIFA will look at this rule and amend it to prevent such confusion in the future.