“Collina’s heirs” breathe a sigh of relief
Dortmund’s “soft penalties” are justified
By Alex Feuerherdt
05/15/2023, 06:13 am
On the 32nd match day of the Bundesliga, the referees also have a bit of “luck”: Decisions that are worth discussing – but by no means wrong – do not have any significant influence on the outcome of their games. In Stuttgart, the referee is correct.
Over the past two weekends, the referees’ decisions relevant to the game were discussed very heatedly, especially in the games VfL Bochum – Borussia Dortmund (1:1) and 1. FSV Mainz 05 – FC Schalke 04 (2:3). This time, on the other hand, things were calmer for the referees – also because potentially controversial decisions ultimately had no significant impact on how the match ended. It’s in the nature of things that the greater the impact a decision has on the course and outcome of a clash, the greater the excitement. Sometimes the referees also need something like “luck in the game”. They had that game day.
… is a freelance journalist and editor and lives in Cologne. He runs the blog “Liza’s world” and is on the podcast “Collina’s heirs” involved, writes one referee column for n-tv.de and also for newspapers and magazines, mainly on the topics of anti-Semitism, the Middle East and football.
In the one-sided game between Borussia Dortmund and Borussia Mönchengladbach (5:2), referee Daniel Schlager, who had little trouble with the game overall, awarded a penalty kick to each side, which would be called a “soft penalty” in English-speaking countries, as ” soft penalty” that is based on a strict interpretation of the rules. Both when Florian Neuhaus played against Sébastien Haller in the Gladbach penalty area in the 17th minute and when Giovanni Reina played against Ramy Bensebaini in the BVB penalty area after 73 minutes, there were slight contacts in the leg area, after which the attackers with the ball went down .
It is debatable whether these not very clear impulses were decisive for the fact that the respective opponent fell. In any case, letting play continue would have been just as justifiable in both situations – and given Schlager’s overall not particularly petty line when evaluating duels, even the more appropriate option. The fact that video assistant Tobias Reichel did not intervene was nevertheless appropriate, because the decisions were not clear and obviously wrong. And since the two cases were similar, it was at least logical to evaluate them in the same way.
Badstübner in Leipzig spoiled for choice
If RB Leipzig hadn’t won the encounter against SV Werder Bremen 2-1 with a late goal, there would probably have been intensive debates about a decision by the referee. After 68 minutes, following an on-field review, referee Florian Badstübner annulled Christopher Nkunku’s supposed opening goal for the hosts because, after looking at the pictures on the monitor, he rated Mohamed Simakan’s action against Leonardo Bittencourt in the previous attack phase as a foul play had. The player from Leipzig gave his opponent a slight push in the back when he accepted the ball in the middle of the Leipzig half, and Bittencourt then fell to the ground. The ball got to the home side, who switched quickly and finally scored.
The impulse against the Bremen player’s back was on the one hand purely opponent-oriented, on the other hand only of lesser intensity, which is why it is questionable whether it was the reason why Bittencourt fell. Nevertheless, an immediate free-kick decision for Werder in midfield would have caused the least need for discussion. The well-placed referee Badstübner, however, allowed play to continue – which was also by no means unreasonable – and finally faced protests from both teams one after the other: first from Bremen after scoring the goal, then from Leipzig after the on-field review. Having Nkunku score gave Simakan’s arm bet an afterthought that far outweighed the bet itself.
If one assumes that the referee, who was watching the duel, perceived and evaluated the contact on the field, then the intervention of the VAR was not appropriate because it was not clearly wrong to let play continue, but a matter of discretion. In the review area, Florian Badstübner finally had the thankless task of reassessing the situation and having to commit himself to a gray area. He was faced with the choice of either being asked by Leipzig why he punished a slight contact 13 seconds before the goal, or by Bremen why he didn’t punish a clear push, which resulted in a goal being conceded.
In Stuttgart, both penalties are fully justified
The video assistant also intervened in the match between VfB Stuttgart and Bayer 04 Leverkusen (1-1), but this caused less controversy. After 67 minutes, the guests hit a high cross in the middle of the VfB penalty area, where Stuttgart defender Dan-Axel Zagadou cleared with a header. Goalkeeper Fabian Bredlow didn’t seem to expect that – he rushed out of his goal to punch the ball out of the penalty area. But instead of the ball that Zagadou reached, he hit the head of Leverkusen’s Edmond Tapsoba, who then lay down and had to be treated.
Referee Frank Willenborg obviously didn’t notice the event or judged it as a collision between Bredlow and Tapsoba, but he let play continue. However, VAR Günter Perl recommended an on-field review, after which the referee correctly awarded a penalty for the guests and also warned the keeper. In the 55th minute, Willenborg had given a penalty on the other side, also rightly so and in this case without consulting the VAR: when Exequiel Palacios came too late in the Leverkusen penalty area and tripped Wataru Endo by tripping, it was a Whistle inevitable, and it came immediately.
The referee was also correct not to decide on a free kick for VfB in a central position in added time after a duel between Tapsoba and Serhou Guirassy just before the visitors’ penalty area. A free-kick whistle would also have resulted in the red card for the Leverkusen player, because then an obvious goal chance would have been thwarted. However, neither the light touch on Guirassy’s shoulder nor the slight contact on the thigh were decisive for the Stuttgart attacker falling. Rather, he lost his balance of his own accord – which Frank Willenborg recognized well. The “Big Points” all went to the referee.