Monday, December 6th, 2021
“Collina’s heirs” are annoyed
How Felix Zwayer lost his good balance
By Alex Feuerherdt
BVB loses against Bayern – and criticizes referee Felix Zwayer clearly, especially because of his penalty decision for Munich. In fact, the referee would have been better off sticking to his generous line, which was actually good for the game.
After the 2: 3 home defeat against FC Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund’s anger at referee Felix Zwayer was extremely big. BVB felt disadvantaged in crucial game situations and accused the referee of a “lack of balance” in the game management, as sporting director Michael Zorc put it to the “kicker”. “He decided the game in the end because he didn’t have a line,” he said. “If I whistle some things or look at them, I have to do the same on the other side.”
The criticism sparked mainly on two decisions by the 40-year-old: When Marco Reus fell after 53 minutes in a duel with Lucas Hernández in the Munich penalty area, there was no penalty for the home side, and video assistant Tobias Welz did not recommend one On-field review to change that. Twenty minutes later, after a handball by Mats Hummels in the Dortmund penalty area, Zwayer initially allowed the game to continue, but this time, after consulting the VAR, he went to the monitor on the edge of the field and finally awarded Bayern a penalty. Robert Lewandowski turned it into the winning goal.
In order to judge these two decisions, it is not enough to look at them in isolation; they must also be placed in the context of the referee’s overall management. During the duel between Hernández and Reus, there were three contacts against the BVB captain in charge of the ball: he pushed his hand against his back as well as slightly touching the calf and foot. Zwayer had perceived, as he stated in an interview with the broadcaster “Sky”, the impulse against the upper body, which he did not, however, consider to be punishable. The VAR answered in the negative as to whether there was any further contact.
The fact that Reus didn’t get a penalty was justifiable …
Even if that could not be reconciled with the pictures, one can say that the referee had observed the essentials of this duel. “For me it is a situation that is not black or white, but is a tough duel,” he said. “I decided against a penalty because of my generous line in the game.” A justifiable, understandable decision that Zwayer put in the context of his management: He let the fast-paced game run and a certain degree of tough duel, which was conducive to the flow of the game. In borderline cases he usually decided to let the game continue.
So also in this situation. There would also have been reasons for a penalty whistle if the contacts caused by Hernández were seen as the cause of Reus going down. The fact that Zwayer didn’t do this, however, fit his line in the duel evaluation. In addition, there is something that hardly played a role in the media review of the game immediately after the game, but the next day it did: Shortly before the duel between Hernández and Reus, Erling Haaland was just offside, which the referee team on the Feld, however, remained hidden.
… and Haaland’s offside would have prevented the penalty anyway
That means: Even if Felix Zwayer had recognized a penalty, this decision would have “been corrected by the VAR due to the offside position of the Dortmund attacker”, as Jochen Drees, the DFB’s project manager for the video assistants, said on Sunday on the association’s website explained. Because the criminal offside of Haaland was before the duel scene. But because there was no penalty and no VAR intervention, video assistant Welz did not have to check the scene for a possible offside.
So it happened that there were no pictures with calibrated offside lines from Cologne. And because the situation turned out to be extremely tight, it was not clear to the naked eye whether Haaland had been sidelined or not. It was not until Sunday that several television stations showed the offside position with their own animations, before Jochen Drees officially confirmed this fact with his declaration. This ultimately turned a scene in the gray area into one in which there was no discretion. Had this been clarified earlier, it might have dampened some excitement a little.
Hummels’ handball: pro and contra penalty kick
That leaves Mats Hummels’ handball. If you look at it in isolation, there are undoubtedly good reasons to assess it as a criminal offense: The Dortmund defender went “with his arm in front of an active movement to the ball and played it with his elbow”, as Jochen Drees described the process. The arm position is “classified as not natural”. This is how Zwayer saw it himself, who declared that he had consulted the VAR because he had noticed the handball on the field, but not how far Hummels had “stretched” his arm from his body. So it finally came to the on-field review and the penalty decision.
However, there are also counter arguments. Drees, for example, argues that Hummels “did not look at the ball at the time of touching the ball” and was also “irritated by another teammate” – as well as by opponent Thomas Müller, should be added. Above all, however, it could be asserted that since this season the factor of intent has again been the focus when evaluating hand games – and that Mats Hummels was more likely to fail a header attempt than he actually intended to hit the ball with his arm to maneuver out of the penalty area.
On the first matchday of this season there was a very similar scene in the game between 1. FC Köln and Hertha BSC, in which Cologne’s Rafael Czichos missed the ball with his head after a cross from Berlin and steered it with his forearm into the goal. There was also an on-field review at that time, but referee Robert Hartmann, who like his colleague Zwayer had allowed to continue playing on the field, decided against a penalty because he did not want to determine any intention, just a failed header attempt. A decision that was accepted as justifiable by the sports management of the Bundesliga referees.
Not giving the penalty would have been better suited to Zwayer’s line
Felix Zwayer could also have made use of this discretion – and that would have made sense, not least because he had previously used this leeway several times in the interests of football. Especially in borderline or unclear scenes in the penalty area, he always let play continue; In addition to the duel between Hernández and Reus mentioned, Hummels’ arm against Leon Goretzka in the Dortmund penalty area and a handball by Alphonso Davies in the Bayern penalty area, both in the first half. This line was good for the game, the balance that came with it led to acceptance on both sides.
It would have been a more useful decision to stick to the decision originally made after Hummels’ handball – which would also have been possible after the review, which was admittedly in terms of protocol, but by no means mandatory – and if necessary to the lack of intent and the like Reference scene from the Cologne game. In this way, the balance would have been preserved and the line would have remained stringent when using the discretionary scope. After the game, Felix Zwayer would probably not have been scolded nearly as severely as it was now.
Jochen Drees also admits that he can understand the question of whether the assessment of the handball matches the overall generous line of the referee. Although he then judged that the handball was judged to be a criminal offense, if you “look at the situation in isolation”, one can certainly read from this statement that the sports management of the referee would have been right with a different decision. Certainly also because it would not only have found more acceptance among Dortmunders a long time ago. And acceptance is a particularly valuable asset for impartial parties.