The Ref Stop

Penalty Kick 'Double-Touches' Clarification

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Archer

Archer

🟨 C1 (BE)
IFAB Circular #31: 02 June 2025

Screenshot 2025-06-03 at 15.29.06.png

The IFAB wishes to clarify Law 10 – Determining the Outcome of a Match and Law 14 – The Penalty Kick regarding the situation when the penalty taker accidentally kicks the ball with both feet simultaneously or when the ball touches the penalty taker’s non-kicking foot or leg immediately after they have taken the kick.

This situation is rare, and as it is not directly covered in Law 14, referees have understandably tended to penalise the kicker for having touched the ball again before it has touched another player, thus awarding an indirect free kick to the opposition or, in the case of penalties (penalty shoot-out), recording the kick as missed.

However, this part of Law 14 is primarily intended for situations where the penalty taker deliberately touches the ball a second time before it has touched another player (e.g. when it rebounds from the goalpost(s) or crossbar without touching the goalkeeper). This is very different from the penalty taker accidentally kicking the ball with both feet simultaneously or touching the ball with their non-kicking foot or leg immediately after they have taken the kick, which usually occurs because they have slipped when taking it.

Not penalising an accidental double touch would nevertheless be unfair, as the goalkeeper can be disadvantaged by the altered trajectory of the ball.

Therefore, The IFAB would like to clarify the procedures in the following situations.
  • The penalty taker accidentally kicks the ball with both feet simultaneously or the ball touches their non-kicking foot or leg immediately after the kick:
    • If the kick is successful, it is retaken
    • If the kick is unsuccessful, an indirect free kick is awarded (unless the referee plays advantage when it clearly benefits the defending team) or, in the case of penalties (penalty shoot-out), the kick is recorded as missed
  • The penalty taker deliberately kicks the ball with both feet simultaneously or deliberately touches it a second time before it has touched another player:
    • An indirect free kick is awarded (unless the referee plays advantage when it clearly benefits the defending team) or, in the case of penalties (penalty shoot-out), the kick is recorded as missed

Please note that these clarified procedures are effective for competitions starting on or after 1 July 2025 and may be used by competitions starting before that date.
Click to expand...
 
The Ref Stop
Common sense prevails for a change. Much needed change after the Atletico farce this season (match officials did the only thing they could, but the Laws needed changing after that!)
 
Makes sense, I was concerned they were going to put the onus on referees as to whether it was an intentional double touch or not. At least it is still a factual decision and all that changes is the outcome.
 
One bit I don't get here is the differing outcomes based on success of the penalty... An accident is an accident, isnt it?
 
JamesL said:
One bit I don't get here is the differing outcomes based on success of the penalty... An accident is an accident, isnt it?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Retaking when scored = fair enough. IDFK when missed? That's punishing the accident! Why not just let play continue (or restart with whatever outcome occurred eg goal kick)? Unless of course the attacking team retain possession, in which case maybe the IDFK is acceptable.
 
JamesL said:
One bit I don't get here is the differing outcomes based on success of the penalty... An accident is an accident, isnt it?
Click to expand...
I think I understand it, even if it is accidental it gives the taker an unfair advantage as might catch the keeper out. A second touch usually loops the ball up in the air so will make it much harder for keepers. Whereas if they miss it is just their bad luck.
 
RustyRef said:
I think I understand it, even if it is accidental it gives the taker an unfair advantage as might catch the keeper out. A second touch usually loops the ball up in the air so will make it much harder for keepers. Whereas if they miss it is just their bad luck.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Really what the tweak does is change an accidentally second touching on a PK not a Law 14 violation and treat it accordingly.
 
bester said:
Why do IFAB insist fundamental law changes are "clarifications"?
It implies that referees have been incorrectly interpreting the law.
Click to expand...
I suspect it will turn up in the Laws for 2026-27 but for now it is too late to change the text so a 'clarification' is the only way to do it.
 
JamesL said:
One bit I don't get here is the differing outcomes based on success of the penalty... An accident is an accident, isnt it?
Click to expand...
I think it makes sense in line with the laws regarding success of penalty affecting outcome with other offences, such as encroachment.
 
JamesL said:
One bit I don't get here is the differing outcomes based on success of the penalty... An accident is an accident, isnt it?
Click to expand...
Even if an accident a goal should not be allowed as it is still an improper way of taking a penalty kick which very likely gives the kicker an unfair advantage.

If a goal is not scored, the only feasible outcome I see is IFK. Allowing play to continue could mean in some scenarios a goal is immediately scored still, but not from the original kick, which would have to be awarded. The other option is to retake the miss which is too far in favour of the kicker who has taken an improper kick, even if by accident.

I think a change (not clarification) was needed and IFAB, for a change, came up with the best solution possible and put some forward thinking into it.
 
one said:
Even if an accident a goal should not be allowed as it is still an improper way of taking a penalty kick which very likely gives the kicker an unfair advantage.

If a goal is not scored, the only feasible outcome I see is IFK. Allowing play to continue could mean in some scenarios a goal is immediately scored still, but not from the original kick, which would have to be awarded. The other option is to retake the miss which is too far in favour of the kicker who has taken an improper kick, even if by accident.

I think a change (not clarification) was needed and IFAB, for a change, came up with the best solution possible and put some forward thinking into it.
Click to expand...
I took an advantage which clearly benefits... as being the 'keeper saved, has ball in his hands and is looking to launch a counter.
Or cough goal kick if taker misses cos they can score direct from a goal kick cough easy life cough
 
Archer said:
I took an advantage which clearly benefits... as being the 'keeper saved, has ball in his hands and is looking to launch a counter.
Or cough goal kick if taker misses cos they can score direct from a goal kick cough easy life cough
Click to expand...
I think it's basically any advantage to 'the defending' team just like when any other offence has been comitted.

I really think the most common advanate would be if the ball goes over the goal line to award a goal kick. You lose 6 yards but it's direct and most importantly you can't be offside from it.
 
one said:
I think it's basically any advantage to 'the defending' team just like when any other offence has been comitted.

I really think the most common advanate would be if the ball goes over the goal line to award a goal kick. You lose 6 yards but it's direct and most importantly you can't be offside from it.
Click to expand...
Yup, that direct FK from 110 yards from the goal is a great advantage!
 
1749203896184.png

Yeh, like, what's the chances of a 'taker' deliberately kicking the ball with both feet?
How many rain forests could've ben saved by omitting the first 10 words from the IFAB toilette paper?
 
Its accounting for that one random LOTG exam that will explicitly say a player is deliberately kicking with both. I just have visions of a player slide tackling the ball with both feet when reading that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top