Why Füllkrug’s penalty wasn’t retaken despite obvious encroachment

Niclas Füllkrug missed a penalty for AC Milan in their 2-1 win against Pisa last night, but many have been asking why it wasn’t retaken due to obvious encroachment.

It was in the 54th minute that the referee pointed to the spot, awarding a penalty to Milan. Strahinja Pabvlovic was brought down after one of his trademark runs into the box and there were basically no complaints from Pisa, knowing that it was a stonewall penalty.

Füllkrug stepped up and after fainting a shot, he hit the outside of the post. It made the evening a lot more difficult for Milan, as Pisa went on to equalise, but a lot of fans have been asking why the penalty wasn’t retaken. As the images show, one of the Pisa defenders was inside the box.

As explained by Errori Arbitrali, however, encroachment from a defender is only grounds for a retake if the defender in question interferes with the rebound (or the penalty taker) in any way, which wasn’t the case here. The second issue, though, is that the keeper also looked to be off his line.

#PisaMilan | doppia polemica sul calcio di rigore sbagliato da #Füllkrug:
– invasione evidente di un difensore al centro dell’area: il VAR interviene e il rigore si fa ribattere solo se chi invade va sulla eventuale ribattuta del portiere o ha un impatto sul giocatore che sta… pic.twitter.com/4l7TsvmdNV

— Denis Errori Arbitrali (@erroriarbitrali) February 13, 2026

Per the rules, if the goalkeeper doesn’t actually save the ball, he cannot be punished for being off his line. Only if there is a clear impact on a missed shot (i.e. one not on target) will the referee order a retake, such as the goalkeeperclearly being off his line (also not the case here).

It seems a bit strange as you can definitely affect the striker by taking a slight step out, but the rules are what they are currently.