“Collina’s heirs” are saddened
The referee knows that BVB is right to complain
By Alex Feuerherdt
04/25/2022, 06:28 am
After the top game between Bayern and Dortmund, the referee publicly regretted two mistakes to the detriment of BVB. The penalty that was not given is particularly important. In Leipzig, the referee made the wrong decision despite clear images.
Where people are at work, mistakes happen – it’s no different with the referees in football, even if they have been able to fall back on video assistants in particularly important cases for five years. It is good if you occasionally make it transparent to the public how an error occurred, because transparency can significantly improve acceptance and understanding. The day after the top game of the 31st match day of the Bundesliga between FC Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund (3: 1), referee Daniel Siebert spoke to the “kicker” – and he explained the occurrence of two omissions by him in this encounter .
On the one hand, he conceded that in the 59th minute when the score was 2-1 for the hosts after a duel in the Munich penalty area between Bayern defender Benjamin Pavard and Dortmund’s Jew Bellingham, BVB should have been penalized. Pavard tried to tackle in order to “strike the ball off his opponent’s foot with his right leg”, but that failed: “He doesn’t play the ball, his leg is an obstacle in Bellingham’s path instead.” From a technical point of view, there is a chance bringing, i.e. a foul. The fact that Pavard touched the ball shortly afterwards is irrelevant.
Those responsible at BVB, above all Marco Rose, were rightly annoyed. “It’s an absolutely top game, there’s a lot at stake, it’s about Bayern’s reputation against Dortmund, so I just expect things to be settled properly. If that wasn’t the case again today, then I have to say: hats off.” , said the BVB coach on Sky on Saturday after the game in which the Munich team secured their 32nd championship title.
BVB should (still) have received a penalty
Siebert explains that he came to a different assessment in the game: “On the field, Pavard covered my view of the decisive contact in the foot area with his sliding tackle.” However, the television pictures showed that there was an offence: “Pavard’s criminal contact with Bellingham is clearly recognizable, especially in the ‘back goal up’ camera setting.” Even if the Fifa referee does not say it, this last sentence makes it clear: VAR Marco Fritz should have intervened and recommended an on-field review to Siebert because the referee had not recognized an offense in the penalty area that deserved a penalty. But after looking at the pictures, Fritz was obviously of the opinion that not having decided on a penalty was not a crystal clear mistake.
The other wrong decision that Siebert addresses he had made ten minutes earlier. “That was the biggest mistake of the game and I’m very annoyed with my rating of that scene,” he says. What is meant is a clear foul by Pavard on Julian Brandt, in which the referee had gestured: ball played. Siebert describes the situation as follows: “Brandt rushes at high speed in the direction of the Munich goal, and Pavard attacks from the side and behind in a controlled manner to play the ball. But he only hits Brandt’s ankle, so it was a clear foul that would have been punished with a yellow card.”
Why Pavard got away without a yellow card
On the field, the referee had judged things differently because: “Because the ball continued to roll in exactly the same direction as if Pavard had actually played the ball, unfortunately I had a wrong perception of the game.” He was “glad that Brandt was able to continue playing and apparently did not injure himself seriously”. Some observers wondered whether there shouldn’t have been a dismissal. But for fouls with the cleats on the ankle or below, the rule interpretation for the referees in most cases only provides a warning, because such an offense is only rated as reckless in terms of rules. Direct hits with the “open sole” above the ankle, on the other hand, should be classified as brutal at high intensity due to the greater risk of injury and result in a red card.
It honors Daniel Siebert that he openly and without hesitation admits that he was wrong and explains how he came to his judgments on the field. The 37-year-old, who impressed at the European Championships last year and most recently also refereed a quarter-final game in the Champions League, is the new number one among German referees at FIFA and UEFA level following the end of Felix Brych’s international career. In the top game in Munich, however, he sometimes acted unhappily, not only because of the two mistakes he commented on. In other tricky situations – such as the non-punishable handballs of Raphael Guerreiro and Emre Can and the use of BVB goalkeeper Marwin Hitz against Lucas Hernández, all in the Dortmund penalty area – he acted correctly or at least always justifiably when he did not take a penalty decided.
Mukiele against Gießelmann almost in kung fu style
Siebert’s colleague Daniel Schlager caused some astonishment after about an hour in the game between RB Leipzig and 1. FC Union Berlin (1: 2). When the Berliners attacked – Leipzig led 1-0 – Nordi Mukiele blocked the ball in his own goal area from a shot on goal by Niko Gießelmann with his right leg, before his left leg shot forward and he almost kung fu- style with the foot hit at the knee. Schlager allowed play to continue; It was also difficult to classify the contact at the real speed on the field, especially since Mukiele had hit the ball first, or rather: was hit by it.
However, the television pictures caught Gießelmann’s knee clearly recognizable from several perspectives. They played a clear foul that deserved a penalty and that doesn’t change if you give Mukiele credit for acting unintentionally. Video assistant Johann Pfeifer therefore rightly recommended an on-field review to the referee. Schlager watched the scene for 80 seconds on the monitor, and the hit could be seen over and over again. In the end, however, he decided against a penalty – and not only the Berliners were very surprised.
Schlager’s decision is puzzling
According to the current interpretation of the rules, there are certainly situations in which a hit against the opponent after playing the ball is not to be assessed as a foul, but as an accident. However, there are clear criteria for this: A kick on the foot, for example, which happens accidentally when the foot is placed vertically on the ground and can hardly be avoided because the opposing foot was not there when the ball was played, is not punishable . But if you play the ball first and then – especially as an additional action – hits the opponent horizontally with your leg almost stretched and with some intensity above the ankle, you are not acting in accordance with the rules.
There should therefore have been a penalty for Union and at least one yellow card against Mukiele, because the Leipziger’s action cannot be assessed as an accident that cannot be punished. It’s a bit puzzling why Daniel Schlager decided differently despite the clear images presented to him by the video assistant. And it was, it has to be said so clearly, simply wrong. However, in the end the decision was no longer a big issue because Union still turned the game and won. Maybe that’s why the referee even breathed a sigh of relief.