European Leagues.

[nrico2006]

Why should he be allowed retake it? "It was an accident" doesn't really cut the mustard.

Why do you definitively say there was nothing wrong with it? He's not allowed touch it twice. If he did, then it's a foul.

There was no clear and obvious foul, therefore VAR shouldn't be involved. Unless the ref spotted it.

[Milltown Row2]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

[armaghniac]

Why should he be allowed retake it? "It was an accident" doesn't really cut the mustard.

Why do you definitively say there was nothing wrong with it? He's not allowed touch it twice. If he did, then it's a foul.

The same way a goalkeeper is not allowed off his line, and deliberately does so, that infraction results in a retake.

That only applies if the penalty is missed. If it goes in, the attacker isn't asked to take it again.

An exact analogy of that is that a two touch kick could be retaken if it went in, but not if the goalkeeper saved it or it missed. In both cases there is no benefit from the foul. 

[Look-Up!]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

Opening too much of a pandora's box. What constitutes a double touch? Should they review panenka style kicks too with massive back spin to make sure there was no double contact? What's an acceptable period of time on the foot for ball contact? Does caressing a ball with the foot giving it massive bend constitute double contact? Is following through on the ball like "push ball" in snooker acceptable? I mean we have the technology to tell. How exactly is the equipment calibrated and how can they prove beyond doubt that the "double contact" they detected actually came from the standing foot and not the striking foot?

I cannot see anything in the footage to justify VAR getting involved.

[Milltown Row2]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

Opening too much of a pandora's box. What constitutes a double touch? Should they review panenka style kicks too with massive back spin to make sure there was no double contact? What's an acceptable period of time on the foot for ball contact? Does caressing a ball with the foot giving it massive bend constitute double contact? Is following through on the ball like "push ball" in snooker acceptable? I mean we have the technology to tell. How exactly is the equipment calibrated and how can they prove beyond doubt that the "double contact" they detected actually came from the standing foot and not the striking foot?

I cannot see anything in the footage to justify VAR getting involved.

Was there a chip inside the ball that monitors contact? For as many people that said there was contact there is the same that said there was contact..

This of course is not the reason why the double tap/contact was brought in for and there is no conspiracy to enable Real to win the game either, I've only watched it a couple of times today, but there has been multiple views by others that say yea or nay.

Keith Hackett (ex ref) was on 5 live this morning and he has the same belief as you, again this I don't think lost the penalty shootout but we will never know now. Although Hackett did say a game was replayed because of a blatant mistake so you never know.

[Look-Up!]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

Opening too much of a pandora's box. What constitutes a double touch? Should they review panenka style kicks too with massive back spin to make sure there was no double contact? What's an acceptable period of time on the foot for ball contact? Does caressing a ball with the foot giving it massive bend constitute double contact? Is following through on the ball like "push ball" in snooker acceptable? I mean we have the technology to tell. How exactly is the equipment calibrated and how can they prove beyond doubt that the "double contact" they detected actually came from the standing foot and not the striking foot?

I cannot see anything in the footage to justify VAR getting involved.

Was there a chip inside the ball that monitors contact? For as many people that said there was contact there is the same that said there was contact..

This of course is not the reason why the double tap/contact was brought in for and there is no conspiracy to enable Real to win the game either, I've only watched it a couple of times today, but there has been multiple views by others that say yea or nay.

Keith Hackett (ex ref) was on 5 live this morning and he has the same belief as you, again this I don't think lost the penalty shootout but we will never know now. Although Hackett did say a game was replayed because of a blatant mistake so you never know.

I don't believe there was a chip in the ball like at the WC. Apparently there is some other technology but like any technology would need to be calibrated a certain way. I'd imagine every kick has a contact signature: initial contact and contact while ball leaving foot. So what is the acceptable time limit between these two? I think if we start going down this route of VAR intervention we've genuinely lost the plot.

I don't believe there was video confirmation. It was visually imperceptible if there was contact from the standing leg. So they relied on the technology but that cannot confirm double contact came from two different feet. All very vague and ad hoc and completely unnecessary. I mean are we to review every kick in future? Free kicks too? If someone miskicks or scuffs the turf first should this be reviewed?

Atletico never got to take their last penalty so we'll never know if Real would have won it out anyway.

[Milltown Row2]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

Opening too much of a pandora's box. What constitutes a double touch? Should they review panenka style kicks too with massive back spin to make sure there was no double contact? What's an acceptable period of time on the foot for ball contact? Does caressing a ball with the foot giving it massive bend constitute double contact? Is following through on the ball like "push ball" in snooker acceptable? I mean we have the technology to tell. How exactly is the equipment calibrated and how can they prove beyond doubt that the "double contact" they detected actually came from the standing foot and not the striking foot?

I cannot see anything in the footage to justify VAR getting involved.

Was there a chip inside the ball that monitors contact? For as many people that said there was contact there is the same that said there was contact..

This of course is not the reason why the double tap/contact was brought in for and there is no conspiracy to enable Real to win the game either, I've only watched it a couple of times today, but there has been multiple views by others that say yea or nay.

Keith Hackett (ex ref) was on 5 live this morning and he has the same belief as you, again this I don't think lost the penalty shootout but we will never know now. Although Hackett did say a game was replayed because of a blatant mistake so you never know.

I don't believe there was a chip in the ball like at the WC. Apparently there is some other technology but like any technology would need to be calibrated a certain way. I'd imagine every kick has a contact signature: initial contact and contact while ball leaving foot. So what is the acceptable time limit between these two? I think if we start going down this route of VAR intervention we've genuinely lost the plot.

I don't believe there was video confirmation. It was visually imperceptible if there was contact from the standing leg. So they relied on the technology but that cannot confirm double contact came from two different feet. All very vague and ad hoc and completely unnecessary. I mean are we to review every kick in future? Free kicks too? If someone miskicks or scuffs the turf first should this be reviewed?

Atletico never got to take their last penalty so we'll never know if Real would have won it out anyway.

Oh I just seen 4-2 so (never watched the game) thought they had missed more outside of the controversial one..

I suppose double contacts in hurling when striking a free is actually a foul but how many times is it actually brought up, though at the top end its very rarely done, no double touch in the handpass though

Either way Athletico being out not a bad thing their manager comes across as a horrible cnut   

[Turf]

Christ I despise Real Madrid.

Same as.
Was hoping Atlético would win, always liked them.
I like Simeone.

[clarshack]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

Opening too much of a pandora's box. What constitutes a double touch? Should they review panenka style kicks too with massive back spin to make sure there was no double contact? What's an acceptable period of time on the foot for ball contact? Does caressing a ball with the foot giving it massive bend constitute double contact? Is following through on the ball like "push ball" in snooker acceptable? I mean we have the technology to tell. How exactly is the equipment calibrated and how can they prove beyond doubt that the "double contact" they detected actually came from the standing foot and not the striking foot?

I cannot see anything in the footage to justify VAR getting involved.

By slipping I thought the Atletico player had put himself at a disadvantage as usually the ball then flies over the bar in those situtaions. Very unfair to go back and rule it as a miss imo. Yet a Goalkeeper can get 2 firm hands on the ball from a penalty but if it trickles over the line it still counts.

[Mourne Red]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

Opening too much of a pandora's box. What constitutes a double touch? Should they review panenka style kicks too with massive back spin to make sure there was no double contact? What's an acceptable period of time on the foot for ball contact? Does caressing a ball with the foot giving it massive bend constitute double contact? Is following through on the ball like "push ball" in snooker acceptable? I mean we have the technology to tell. How exactly is the equipment calibrated and how can they prove beyond doubt that the "double contact" they detected actually came from the standing foot and not the striking foot?

I cannot see anything in the footage to justify VAR getting involved.

Was there a chip inside the ball that monitors contact? For as many people that said there was contact there is the same that said there was contact..

This of course is not the reason why the double tap/contact was brought in for and there is no conspiracy to enable Real to win the game either, I've only watched it a couple of times today, but there has been multiple views by others that say yea or nay.

Keith Hackett (ex ref) was on 5 live this morning and he has the same belief as you, again this I don't think lost the penalty shootout but we will never know now. Although Hackett did say a game was replayed because of a blatant mistake so you never know.

CBS (the show with Henry, Mica etc) said there's a sensor on the ball that's used for the semi-automated offside checks that picked it up the double touch.

[Look-Up!]

VAR is a bit of a joke at this stage, making it up as they go along. I cannot see how that could be ruled as a double touch. Clear and obvious me hole. If it takes more than 10 seconds to decide, it's not clear and obvious.

IF, if it was the right call in the end, then surely that's ok? Did they miss another penalty also?

Opening too much of a pandora's box. What constitutes a double touch? Should they review panenka style kicks too with massive back spin to make sure there was no double contact? What's an acceptable period of time on the foot for ball contact? Does caressing a ball with the foot giving it massive bend constitute double contact? Is following through on the ball like "push ball" in snooker acceptable? I mean we have the technology to tell. How exactly is the equipment calibrated and how can they prove beyond doubt that the "double contact" they detected actually came from the standing foot and not the striking foot?

I cannot see anything in the footage to justify VAR getting involved.

Was there a chip inside the ball that monitors contact? For as many people that said there was contact there is the same that said there was contact..

This of course is not the reason why the double tap/contact was brought in for and there is no conspiracy to enable Real to win the game either, I've only watched it a couple of times today, but there has been multiple views by others that say yea or nay.

Keith Hackett (ex ref) was on 5 live this morning and he has the same belief as you, again this I don't think lost the penalty shootout but we will never know now. Although Hackett did say a game was replayed because of a blatant mistake so you never know.

CBS (the show with Henry, Mica etc) said there's a sensor on the ball that's used for the semi-automated offside checks that picked it up the double touch.

Did she not say there's no chip? That was my understanding. It's automated offside technology using multiple cameras to detect exact moment of ball movement. But that wouldn't clarify if it was the kicking foot, the standing foot or even the turf bulging up under the ball that caused the initial imperceptible movement. To me someone made a coin toss call without knowing what happened. Maybe it was an easier decision to go with Real to not upset the big boys but it's cowboy stuff and I would love if Atletico went the courts route and got a replay. VAR is a law onto itself.

[Milltown Row2]

Someone doesn't like Real too much

Ye protest to much

As Queen Elsa would say... Let it go

[gallsman]

Why should he be allowed retake it? "It was an accident" doesn't really cut the mustard.

Why do you definitively say there was nothing wrong with it? He's not allowed touch it twice. If he did, then it's a foul.

The same way a goalkeeper is not allowed off his line, and deliberately does so, that infraction results in a retake.

That only applies if the penalty is missed. If it goes in, the attacker isn't asked to take it again.

An exact analogy of that is that a two touch kick could be retaken if it went in, but not if the goalkeeper saved it or it missed. In both cases there is no benefit from the foul.

Those aren't analogous at all.

If a keeper is off his line and the penalty taker doesn't score, he gets to take it again. The keeper is the one who has committed an infringement and therefore has to face a do over. The advantage of the retake is to the player who did not infringe.

In your example, where a player scores after a double touch, it's him committing the infringement who would get the benefit of a do over rather than it simply being ruled out.

[LarryStiles]

Big win for Rangers
Onana will find a way for Socidead to win this.

[Armagh18]

Jose might do us all a favour here