One Shot Only: Radical Proposal to Ban Penalty Rebounds Gains Ground

In a potential shake-up to one of football’s most defining moments, global rule-makers are reportedly exploring a major change to how penalties are handled: eliminating rebounds. Under this proposed "one-shot" rule, once the penalty kick is taken and saved or hits the post or bar, the play would be considered dead—no more follow-ups, no scramble for loose balls, and no second chances for poachers lurking in the box.

If adopted, this could significantly alter both open-play penalties and shootouts, bringing the sport closer to the high-stakes, one-opportunity format used in sports like hockey or rugby. While still under discussion, the proposal has already sparked spirited debate among fans, coaches, and players.

Why Is This Change Being Considered?

The motivation behind the proposed rule change centers around two main factors: fairness and consistency. Critics of the current system argue that rebounds often favor attacking players, who are already closer to the ball and positioned to react quickly—giving an undue advantage and making it harder for defenders and goalkeepers.

In particular, during high-pressure moments like penalty shootouts or late-match spot-kicks, a rebound can lead to a chaotic scramble, occasionally ending in controversial goals or VAR reviews. The proposed rule would cut through that confusion by simplifying the outcome: it's either a goal or it isn't.

How the New Rule Would Work

Under the new proposal being examined by football’s rule-setting body, IFAB (International Football Association Board), the sequence would unfold like this:

• The penalty kick is taken.

• If the ball enters the goal, it counts as a goal.

• If the ball is saved or hits the frame and bounces back into play, the referee would blow the whistle to stop the game immediately.

• Play would restart with a goal kick, free kick, or another method depending on the situation.

Essentially, it turns a penalty into a self-contained moment—isolated from the rest of the game. This rule is already used in penalty shootouts, where rebounds are not allowed, and it may now be extended to regular in-game penalties.

Who Supports the Change?

There is growing support from some quarters of the footballing world. Defenders and goalkeepers, often left scrambling to prevent follow-up attempts, are generally in favor. Several managers from top-tier leagues have expressed interest in the idea as a way to reduce unpredictable and often chaotic outcomes following a saved penalty.

Analysts argue that it could level the playing field slightly by rewarding good goalkeeping. In the current setup, a keeper can make a heroic save only for an attacker to score off the rebound moments later.

Referees may also support the change, as it would reduce the number of controversial incidents that stem from penalty rebounds—offside confusion, handballs, encroachment, and fouls in the box.

Who Opposes the Rule?

Not everyone is on board. Critics of the proposed one-shot rule argue that it takes away part of football's organic unpredictability. Rebounds can lead to some of the most dramatic moments in the sport—last-minute equalizers, scrappy goals, and heroic match-winners.

Strikers and attacking-minded players will be the biggest losers if the change goes through. A significant percentage of penalty goals come not from the initial shot but from the player following up after a save or deflection.

Opponents argue that rebounds are part of what makes football compelling and dynamic. Eliminating them, they say, might make penalties feel sterile and overly clinical.

Historical Impact: Would This Have Changed Iconic Moments?

Football history is filled with moments where rebounds have altered the course of matches and even entire tournaments. From Cristiano Ronaldo’s put-back after a save to countless club-level goals scored off missed penalties, rebounds have become part of the sport’s narrative fabric.

Imagine the 2005 Champions League Final in Istanbul—Liverpool's comeback relied partly on momentum gained from follow-ups and scrambles. Would games like that be less dramatic under this new rule?

The answer depends on whether fans and stakeholders value drama or clarity more.

What About VAR and Encroachment?

Another area this rule could impact is the use of VAR (Video Assistant Referee). Currently, rebounds often lead to long VAR checks for encroachment—did a defender enter the box too early? Did the goalkeeper move off the line?

Under a one-shot rule, the outcome is clear and finite. This could significantly cut down on delays and reduce the need for re-taken penalties, which have increasingly frustrated players and fans alike.

Similar Rules in Other Sports

Interestingly, football wouldn’t be the first sport to consider this structure. Ice hockey, rugby, and basketball free throws all feature one-shot or no-rebound rules in certain contexts. In hockey shootouts, for instance, once the puck stops moving or is saved, the attempt is over. There's no second shot.

These models suggest that sport can maintain tension and excitement even without a rebound element—provided the stakes are high enough.

Will It Actually Be Implemented?

While no final decision has been made, IFAB is reportedly trialing the rule in lower-tier competitions and youth tournaments. Based on those results, it could either be dropped or moved to broader testing phases.

Any formal adoption into the Laws of the Game would likely occur only after a full season or more of experimental implementation and feedback.

FIFA, UEFA, and other bodies would then need to adopt it for their respective competitions. If successful, the rule could be seen in top leagues or international tournaments within a couple of years.

Potential Impacts on Strategy

If implemented, this rule could impact team tactics in subtle but important ways. For example:

• Goalkeepers may be emboldened to dive more aggressively, knowing they won’t have to recover quickly for a second shot.

• Penalty takers may feel more pressure, as they no longer have a cushion of following up a miss.

• Defensive units may position differently on the edge of the box, knowing rebounds are no longer a threat.

It may also shift the psychology of the moment—penalties will be cleaner but perhaps more intense, as both sides know there is no redo.

Final Thoughts: Evolution or Overreach?

At the heart of the debate is a fundamental question: should football prioritize simplicity and fairness over spontaneity and drama?

The proposed ban on penalty rebounds attempts to streamline one of the most contentious moments in the game. By introducing a one-shot rule, governing bodies hope to reduce confusion, increase fairness, and reward good goalkeeping.

Whether fans and players embrace the change remains to be seen. But if recent trends in football rule reform are any indication, the sport is gradually moving toward a more controlled, tech-assisted, and rule-governed future.

And in that future, a penalty kick may no longer be the chaotic two-act play it is today—but a one-shot showdown between striker and keeper, winner take all.