Monday, December 20, 2021
“Collina’s heirs” confirm
The offside rule does not stop Hertha either
By Alex Feuerherdt
In Berlin and Sinsheim, referees make the right decisions in tricky situations, partly thanks to the VAR. Gladbach’s Ginter, meanwhile, benefits from a Uefa instruction in a handball, while Fabian Klos should work on his timing in a duel.
When Hertha BSC scored their favorite guests’ goal for the first time after a quarter of an hour in the game against Borussia Dortmund (3: 2), Berliners cheered for the first time. Peter Pekarik had passed the ball in from the right side, the Herthan Myziade Maolida and Ishak Belfodil ran towards the game device on the edge of the goal area, followed by Axel Witsel, who tried to prevent the impending trouble. Maolida was a tad faster than his teammate and pushed the ball past goalkeeper Marwin Hitz into BVB’s housing. Referee Marco Fritz initially gave the goal, but it didn’t stop there.
Because when checking the goal, video assistant Pascal Müller noticed that Belfodil was a foot’s length offside when Pekarik played. While Maolida was the goalscorer, Belfodil could have influenced an opponent, Witsel. According to the rules and regulations, such an influence occurs, for example, when an offside player leads a duel for the ball with an opponent, when he is clearly trying to play the ball near him and thereby influencing the opponent or when he is clearly becomes active, affecting the opponent’s ability to play the ball.
Why there was an on-field review of Maolida’s hit
Unlike the offside position itself, which can be clearly identified with the available technical aids and is therefore factual, the question of the possible influence of an opponent from this offside position requires an assessment by the referee. Because it is necessarily subjective, there is a gray area with it. Because the referee team had not noticed Belfodil’s offside position on the field, Marco Fritz now had to retrospectively assess whether the offside was also a criminal offense. That is why the on-field review was carried out, which is mandatory in the case of non-factual decisions.
The referee, who took his assistant Marcel Pelgrim to the monitor and involved him in the decision-making process, didn’t need long to make the final decision: Belfodil had gone to the ball and prevented – also using his left arm – that the Witsel directly behind him gets to the ball; thus there was also a duel for the ball. An influence on Witsel’s ability to play the ball was clearly given. Therefore referee Fritz canceled the goal after this justified intervention by the VAR.
Hoffenheim equalizer: No offside, no foul
Things were different with TSG 1899 Hoffenheim’s late equalizer in the game against Borussia Mönchengladbach (1: 1). After a cross from Kevin Vogt, Ihlas Bebou headed the ball into the center of the box, where Kevin Akpoguma took it and shot it into the guests’ goal. When Bebou presented Georginio Rutter, he was two meters from the goal scorer in offside, but he remained passive, was not in the line of sight of goalkeeper Yann Sommer to the ball and did not otherwise influence the possibility of an opponent to get to the ball. It was therefore absolutely right that referee Sven Jablonski recognized the goal.
The duel between Gladbach’s Stefan Lainer and Hoffenheim’s Dennis Geiger didn’t change that a little off the ball just before the goal was scored. Lainer first tried to keep Geiger from getting near the play equipment with his arm, then Geiger pulled Lainer’s arm, whereupon Lainer fell to the ground. The guests complained vehemently to the referee, sports director Max Eberl saw the yellow card. But that Jablonski did not object to this duel, in which both players worked with marginal commitment, not to the detriment of Hoffenheim, was okay.
Ginters handball is not punishable by the Uefa
It was just as correct not to decide on a penalty kick when Gladbach’s Matthias Ginter blocked a shot by Pavel Kadeřábek in his own penalty area with his left upper arm in the 37th minute. Although Ginter even made a slight movement with this arm to the ball, he still acted regularly – because his arm was completely close to the body. Uefa has stipulated that such a style of play complies with the rules and made it clear via a so-called reference scene that was sent to the member associations for teaching purposes. It comes from the Champions League encounter between FK Krasnodar and FC Sevilla in the preliminary round of the 2020/21 season.
In it you can see how the Krasnodar defender Kaio has both arms crossed behind his back and defends the approaching ball with his left upper arm, without, however, spreading the arm from the body and thus increasing the target area. Such a style of play is in accordance with the rules of the Uefa in accordance with the rules. There was a similar case in the Bundesliga in March 2019, when Frankfurt’s Martin Hinteregger played the ball in a similar way in the penalty area in the game at Fortuna Düsseldorf. Referee Robert Hartmann gave a penalty at the time, but took this decision back after an intervention by the VAR and an on-field review.
In the game between RB Leipzig and Arminia Bielefeld (0: 2), video assistant Daniel Schlager intervened for a different reason. When Fabian Klos from Bielefeld came a moment too late in a duel with Willi Orban after 68 minutes and instead of the ball hit Leipzig painfully, referee Frank Willenborg showed him the yellow card. For such direct hits above the ankle with the studs and high intensity, however, a field reference is provided due to the increased risk of injury. Because there was a perception error, VAR Schlager stepped in, and referee Willenborg changed his decision: He showed Klos the red card. That was just as justified as the previous intervention by the video assistant.