Julián Álvarez did not "play" the ball twice

The controversy surrounding what happened yesterday at the Metropolitano, with the annulment of Julián Álvarez’s decisive penalty, continues to grow, and even UEFA itself has intervened, planning to discuss a possible rule review with IFAB. 

Footage from TNT Sports shows that the Atlético player did not touch the ball twice in the sense of striking it twice successively, which is what IFAB Rule 14.1 requires. 

Este es el vídeo con mejor calidad que hay y a cámara lenta.
Julián se resbala, pero no toca el balón dos veces.
Otra vez más nos han robado descaradamente, el Atleti debe hacer algo SI O SI
pic.twitter.com/HN8Y7pzJW5

â AtletionTop (@AtletiOnTop) March 13, 2025

What does seem certain is that the ball brushed his left leg during the execution, but that is not what the rule stipulates. IFAB Rule 14.1 states that “The penalty taker may not play the ball a second time until it has been touched by another player.” That is not what happened. The rule does not refer to “touching” but to “playing” the ball twice. Julián did not play the ball a second time—it merely brushed him, and even that is uncertain—on his left foot. The original English version of the rule confirms this completely: it specifically uses the phrase “play the ball.” 

The footage shows a possible simultaneous double contact when the ball is struck, which is not the same as playing the ball twice. Or at the very least, it is far more accurate to say that than to claim there were two successive contacts. 

By analogy, we should apply the standard for properly taking free kicks under Rule 13, which allows a free kick to be taken using one or both feet simultaneously. Additionally, if a free kick is taken incorrectly (wrong placement, ball in motion, etc.), the only consequence is a retake. Not only that—even if there was a second contact, occurring just fractions of a second or a few centimeters apart, Rule 14 states that the ball is in play “once it has been kicked and clearly moves.” If it is not kicked, or if it is kicked but does not clearly move, it is not in play. 

This means that if there was a second contact (and if it was not simultaneous), the ball had not yet clearly moved, meaning it was not yet in play. If it was not in play, the rule against playing the ball twice before another player touches it could not have been violated, because the second contact must necessarily occur after the ball is in play (again, following Rule 13 by analogy). But there are more points to analyze in this case. Let’s take a closer look. 

Case Analysis: 

1. Courtois allegedly requested the review—but players cannot demand VAR interventions. 

2. VAR should only intervene for clear, obvious errors. With multiple replays failing to provide certainty, VAR should not have overturned the goal. 

3. The referee did not check the monitor, instead relying on VAR’s judgment, shifting responsibility away from himself. 

4. Julián Álvarez was not cautioned, despite the rule stating a penalty infraction requires a retake and a booking. Additionally, we must highlight the double standard in the rule, which unfairly penalizes attacking players. 

This issue does not directly apply to this case, but it demonstrates the inconsistency in the regulations:

- If the attacking player commits an infraction and scores, the penalty is not retaken—it is simply considered a miss, and the player is booked. 

- If the goalkeeper commits an infraction and saves the penalty, they are merely warned (not booked), and the penalty is retaken (instead of awarding the goal). 

- If both players infringe the rules, the penalty is not retaken—it is simply considered a miss. This inconsistency further exposes the flaws in the rule’s application.