What you may have missed from Real Madrid’s 1-0 loss to Real Betis

Real Madrid’s first defeat of the season produced considerably more than a frustrating result. Between Kylian Mbappé’s stoppage-time penalty, the debate surrounding Marc Bartra’s positioning, Real Madrid Television’s response, and an exchange between José Mourinho and Real Betis, the discussion continued long after the final whistle at La Cartuja.

Here is what you may have missed from Betis’s 1-0 victory.

Why Mbappé’s penalty was not retaken

The game’s biggest controversy arrived in stoppage time after Natan brought down Vinicius Junior inside the penalty area.

Mbappé took responsibility from the spot, but Álvaro Valles guessed correctly and pushed his effort away. Bartra then reached the loose ball before Mbappé could contest the rebound, prompting Madrid’s players to demand that the penalty be retaken for encroachment.

The replay showed Bartra moving into the area before Mbappé struck the ball. The decisive detail, however, was the position of the defender’s feet at the exact moment of contact.

Under the interpretation outlined by the Technical Committee of Referees and the IFAB guidance for the 2026-27 season, a player is considered to have encroached when one or both feet—or another part of the body touching the ground—are inside the penalty area or on its boundary line when the kick is taken.

An airborne leg extending over the line is not enough on its own. The position or vertical projection of body parts in the air is generally disregarded.

There is an exception when a player deliberately jumps with their entire body off the ground in an attempt to evade the rule. In that situation, the player’s projected landing position can be considered. Bartra, however, still had one foot planted outside the area when Mbappé struck the penalty.

Because his other foot was in the air rather than touching the ground inside the box, the refereeing team determined that he had not encroached. Iglesias Villanueva did not recommend a review from the VAR room, and Hernández Hernández allowed play to continue.

According to the CTA’s interpretation, that decision was correct.

Bartra revealed afterward that his movement was deliberate and based on a previous conversation about the rule.

“Several matches ago, Gayà did the little jump,” Bartra explained. “I asked a referee friend if that was allowed, and he told me the rule: if your foot is in the air, you don’t have to repeat it.

“It worked out well for me, but if he’d taken a little longer, I would have been caught out. It’s a minor detail. I’m very happy because these are very important points.”

In other words, Bartra understood the technical distinction and timed his run accordingly.

Real Madrid Television strongly disagreed

RMTV offered a very different interpretation of the incident.

Real Madrid’s official television channel argued that Bartra’s right foot was on the penalty-area line when Mbappé took the kick. It also pointed to Héctor Bellerín’s positioning and maintained that Bartra subsequently had a direct impact on the play by preventing Mbappé from reaching the rebound.

RMTV described the decision as a “technical error” and questioned why Iglesias Villanueva did not advise Hernández Hernández to review the incident.

“The penalty should have been retaken,” the channel concluded.

The broadcast went further, claiming that the decision resulted from “omission or incompetence” and alleging that the outcome might have been different had Barcelona been involved.

“If this happened to Barça, the penalty would be retaken, and if Espí’s goal was for Barça, it might not be disallowed,” RMTV said.

The disagreement therefore centers on the freeze-frame itself. The CTA’s position is that Bartra’s grounded foot remained outside the area, while RMTV believes it was touching the line. If the latter interpretation were correct, his subsequent intervention would have required the penalty to be retaken.