Other Games - 2024/25

[tomd2103]

Ive watched it about 10 times from different angles.  I cant see anything to suggest that he touched it twice, and it certainly didnt effect how the ball moved.

I've just seen the replays on MOTD and couldn't see a second touch. 

[Somniloquism]

As they mentioned though, his standing foot was in front of the ball so when he hit it, it took the nick and up straight away, hence not seeing a double touch but I can see why it was disallowed. 

[lovejoy]

Did Sterling really get a yellow and therefore a ban in the 93rd minute with his team 9-3 up? What a ****.

[Dave]

As they mentioned though, his standing foot was in front of the ball so when he hit it, it took the nick and up straight away, hence not seeing a double touch but I can see why it was disallowed. 

There's no law against a "double touch"



Even if it "took a nick", the ball hasn't "clearly moved", so his shot after any "nick" is still the first playing of the ball.

[Olneythelonely]

“The kicker must not play the ball again, until touched by another player”.

That covers a double touch. I was watching the pens in the Holte pub last night and said it was a double touch as it happened. It’s definitely harsh. I feel a retake is the better solution.

[Dave]

Only if you count the first as "playing the ball", which the laws give a definition for.

I'm yet to see anything from even the slowest of slow-motion replays that show the ball being "kicked and clearly moving" before the shot happens.

[Olneythelonely]

Yeah, you’re probably right. There was something about how he hit it that make me think it was a double kick though (in real time), presumably VAR thought the same and was why they started looking under a microscope.

[Somniloquism]

As Olney stated, it is covered in the second line quite conclusively. You might be trying to state that both feet touched the ball at the "same time" but it didn't as the first foot didn't touch it.

Just to show it isn't a "new" rule just to put Real through. More obvious here but look at the keeper straight away.

https://www.skysports.com/football/video/11095/12787448/goal-a-mitrovic-pen-newcastle-0-0-fulham

[Somniloquism]

Only if you count the first as "playing the ball", which the laws give a definition for.

I'm yet to see anything from even the slowest of slow-motion replays that show the ball being "kicked and clearly moving" before the shot happens.

It wasn't touched by his standing leg "before" the shot, the shot happened and then nicked off his standing foot, but as it was so close it didn't show the deviation on the ball as much as the one before it.

[cdbearsfan]

He clearly touched it twice. Attackers have more than enough advantages during a penalty shoot-out, they were quite right to disallow it.

[Dave]

He might have touched the ball twice. He didn't play the ball twice, which is what the laws say is important.

[cdbearsfan]

Come on now.

[Clampy]

Wouldn't it have been fairer just to make him retake it?

[Dave]

Come on now.

Hey, I don't make the rules. I just tell people when they're reading them wrong.

[cdbearsfan]

Wouldn't it have been fairer just to make him retake it?

Why? He double hit it, that's against the rules. If we are doing "fair", ban shitey run ups. Don't give strikers even more advantage by letting them retake it when they fuck it up.