New IFAB rule proves Mbappe’s penalty should have been retaken during Betis vs Real Madrid

The controversy surrounding Kylian Mbappe’s missed penalty against Real Betis has taken another turn, with the new IFAB rules for the 2026/27 season indicating that the spot-kick should have been retaken.

Real Madrid were trailing 1-0 at La Cartuja when Alvaro Valles saved Mbappe’s penalty in the closing stages. 

Advertisement

Marc Bartra then cleared the rebound, immediately prompting protests from the Madrid players because the Betis defender appeared to have entered the area before the kick was taken.

The initial argument against a retake centred on Bartra being airborne. He had not yet placed his feet on the ground inside the penalty area when Mbappe struck the ball.

That detail, though, does not settle the matter under the rules now in force.

The new rule changes the Bartra argument

IFAB’s 2026/27 Laws of the Game clarify how an airborne player’s position is determined.

Mbappe’s penalty was saved. (Photo by Fran Santiago/Getty Images)

Advertisement

If a player is in the air, their position is established by the projected position of their feet as though they were touching the ground.

That is crucial in this incident, as Bartra did not need to have his feet physically touching the turf inside the box for his position to count as an encroachment.

If his projected foot position was inside the penalty area when Mbappe struck the ball, he was considered to have entered the area before the kick.

There is another important element: impact.

Bartra’s involvement after the save matters

Under the updated Law 14, a defending player’s encroachment only leads to a retake when it has an impact. 

Advertisement

The law specifically provides for a penalty to be retaken when defending encroachment has an impact after a saved kick.

The new IFAB rule for penalty retakes. (Picture credit: IFAB official website)

Bartra’s role makes that particularly relevant. Valles saved the penalty, but Bartra then cleared the rebound before Mbappe could get to it.

Journalist Eduardo Iturralde made the same distinction when discussing the incident on El Larguero.

“I think the CTA [Technical Committee of Referees] is going to say that it didn’t have to be repeated, but as the rule is written, it has to be repeated.”

Advertisement

The controversy has a different answer now

The important point is that Bartra being airborne does not automatically mean he was legally outside the area. 

The 2026/27 clarification specifically addresses airborne positioning, and his subsequent intervention provides the potential impact required under Law 14. 

Therefore, provided the footage confirms that Bartra’s projected foot position was inside the penalty area when Mbappe took the kick, the new rules support a retake.