Liverpool’s penalty shout vs Real Madrid: Why Tchouameni’s handball should have been given

The flashpoint hinged on whether Aurélien Tchouameni’s arm made his body unnaturally bigger when a Liverpool cross struck him at the edge of the area. Many voices leaned toward no penalty, citing close distance and a tucked arm. I disagree. From the angles available, the contact is on the outer arm, not the chest, with the forearm marginally away from the torso, creating a barrier. Under Law 12, that is enough. If any part of the challenge occurs on the penalty-area line, it is inside. The correct call should have been a penalty to Liverpool.

During a high-profile meeting between Liverpool and Real Madrid, a Liverpool delivery was blocked by Aurélien Tchouameni near the top of the box. The on-field decision stood after a brief check, prompting heated debate about handball, proximity, and the exact location of contact relative to the penalty-area line. The incident has since become a reference point for the interpretation of the latest IFAB handball guidance, particularly on the concepts of making the body unnaturally bigger and the legal status of the penalty-area boundary.

🚨‼️𝗗𝗘𝗕𝗔𝗧𝗘 Penalty to Liverpool YES OR NO?!

@ThaEuropeanLad

Impact Analysis

Let us strip the noise and apply Law 12 precisely. Modern handball assessment prioritizes consequence over intent: did the arm create an unnaturally bigger barrier? From the replays circulated, the ball does not simply brush a chest-tucked limb; it catches the outer portion of the arm, with the forearm subtly flared off the ribcage. That marginal separation is decisive. IFAB guidance is explicit: when the arm makes the body unnaturally bigger or forms a barrier that blocks a shot or cross, handball should be penalized, even at short distance, unless the contact is purely unavoidable with a truly tight silhouette.

Critics center on two defenses: proximity and arm tucked. Both are often misapplied. Proximity is mitigating, not exculpatory; it lessens culpability only if the silhouette remains natural. Here, the arm increases the blocking surface beyond the torso. As for the tucked-arm argument, refereeing circulars caution that an arm can still be penalized if it materially enlarges the body shape, irrespective of perceived intent. The Eric Garcia comparison illustrates inconsistency but does not negate the principle; consistency should elevate to the stricter, clearer standard, not the looser one.

Location matters: the penalty-area line belongs to the area. If any part of the handling offense is on or inside the line, the restart is a penalty. The compactness of the scene and the attacker’s angle make it plausible the initial contact and defender’s positioning overlapped with the line. In sum, by consequence, silhouette, and boundary law, the correct outcome should have been a penalty to Liverpool.

Reaction

Fan sentiment skews against a penalty, but for a mosaic of reasons. Many supporters emphasize that the distance was too short and Tchouameni’s arm was tucked, arguing there is nowhere else for a defender to put the hand. Others say contact occurred outside the area, framing the maximum sanction as a direct free kick. Comparisons to prior incidents surface immediately: some Barcelona-leaning voices reference the Eric Garcia handball to demand parity, while Liverpool fans detect a familiar pattern of European leniency toward Real Madrid.

There is also league-blending frustration. Several commenters bring up harsher Premier League interpretations, claiming that what is punished weekly in England gets waved away on the continent. That feeds a broader grievance about VAR’s inconsistency and the perceived latitude given to elite defenses when blocking cut-backs or half-spaces crosses. Neutral observers mostly lean no-penalty from instinctive fairness—a defender flinching in close quarters feels harsh to punish—yet even among them there is acknowledgment that current wording of Law 12 enables a stricter reading than their intuition.

In short, the community divides along three lines: technicalists invoking silhouette and barrier creation, traditionalists prioritizing proximity and natural reaction, and partisans filtering the clip through club-based narratives. The absence of a definitive broadcast freeze-frame at the exact moment of impact keeps arguments alive on both sides.

Social reactions

no man wee seen worse in EPL but thats due to corruption

Koma (@koma_AFC)

This is a clear penalty

MrBenedict (@MrBenedict_84)

I actually feel bad for Barcelona and atletico Madrid BTW. This is the level of corruption they have to deal with

Stllfc (@StlLfc)

Prediction

Expect officiating bodies to double down on clarity via two avenues. First, expect a renewed emphasis in pre-match briefings: defenders must keep arms flush to the torso when blocking crosses in and around the box; any measurable daylight between forearm and ribs risks sanction regardless of distance. Second, we may see broadcast partners provide more granular tools—telestration on body-surface area and contact-point overlays—to reduce ambiguity for audiences and dampen post-match controversy.

Clubs will react tactically. Liverpool’s wingers and full-backs are likely to target low, hard deliveries at the near-shoulder of retreating defenders, exploiting handball risk as an expected value play. Real Madrid’s staff will drill hands-behind-back defending earlier in the recovery run, sacrificing some balance to protect against penalties. VAR rooms will be nudged to treat marginally flared arms as deliberate in consequence, if not in intent.

In the media sphere, a few high-profile pundits will push the proximity narrative, but referee departments will cite IFAB’s current priority on outcome and silhouette. The net effect: a short-term uptick in handball penalties on crosses before defenders adapt, then a reversion to fewer calls as technique improves. This incident becomes a training slide—what not to risk—across elite academies and first teams.

Latest today

• Achraf Hakimi suspected ankle syndesmosis blow: PSG brace for a long absence
• Hakimi’s grim-looking blow leaves PSG reeling after heavy Diaz challenge
• Hakimi reportedly injured after collision with Luis Díaz as fans fear the worst
• Trent Alexander-Arnold booed during warm-up at Anfield before Liverpool vs Real Madrid

Conclusion

The debate has been framed around sympathy and instinct: too close, arm tucked, harsh to give. That framing is outdated. The law’s center of gravity has moved from intent toward consequence and the creation of an enlarged barrier. On the available evidence, Tchouameni’s arm increased his blocking surface, and the boundary rule means on-the-line equals inside. Those two pillars alone justify a penalty to Liverpool.

Consistency should not chase the most lenient precedent; it should meet the clearest guidance. If a defender’s arm contributes materially to stopping a cross or shot that would otherwise traverse a scoring lane, punishment follows. VAR’s mandate is to correct clear errors, and in this case the non-award sits outside the direction top-level referee coaches are pushing. The game will adjust. Defenders will modify technique, attackers will aim smarter, and viewers will see fewer gray-area debates as application hardens. Until then, this call stands as a missed opportunity for alignment with the Laws as written, not as imagined.