The IFAB changes the rule on Julián Álvarez's penalty: it will be retaken if there is an unintentional double touch.

It's been almost three months since Julián Álvarez scored his spot kick in a penalty shootout between Real Madrid and Atlético Madrid to decide which team would advance to the Champions League quarterfinals. Nearly 90 days of controversy, challenges, and expert evidence about whether the Argentine scored, as referee Szymon Marciniak said, after hitting the ball twice.

The rules applicable to that case forced the referee to disallow the kick, but the IFAB (International Football Association Board), the body that determines the laws of football, has decided to change them starting July 1 of this year in all international competitions. However, it leaves open the possibility of applying them to competitions that begin "before that date," clearly referring to the Club World Cup, which begins on June 14.

Thus, Circular 31 of the international organization modifies Articles 10 and 14 of the Laws of Football, which apply to a controversial move in that European derby. In this text, the IFAB explains that, whenever the double touch occurs unintentionally, it will be retaken if the ball enters the goal. If the ball is missed, an indirect free kick will be awarded to the opponent if it is in play, and if it is in a shootout, it will be considered missed.

In the event that this double strike occurs voluntarily, the rule does not change and an indirect free kick will be awarded to the opponent when the penalty is awarded in play, and it will be recorded as a missed free kick when the penalty occurs in a penalty shootout.

The report refers to an "unusual situation" and that the umpires were applying Rule 14 "understandably by penalizing the pitcher for having played the ball a second time before it was touched by another player," the organization wrote in its memo.

Atlético de Madrid maintains the version it gave at the time regarding this change and continues to consider the disallowance of Julián's penalty to be a "refereeing error" because the VAR referee failed to interpret the rule.