Monday, November 1st, 2021
“Collina’s heirs” sympathize with us
Referee stress in Frankfurt and Augsburg
By Alex Feuerherdt
In Frankfurt, the Leipzig lead goal falls after an unjustified corner kick. But the VAR must not intervene, and there are good reasons for that. The Stuttgart quarrel with the referee because of a penalty that was not given, but the matter is not that clear.
When Yussuf Poulsen scored the opening goal for RB Leipzig in the game at Eintracht Frankfurt (1: 1) after 35 minutes, there were again discussions about the intervention powers of the video assistant. Because the goal resulted from a corner kick for the guests that should not have been there: In a duel with Djibril Sow, Leipzig defender Josko Gvardiol shot himself and not the Frankfurt player while trying to hit the ball from the outside into the penalty area . The ball rolled off his foot into the goal, so a kick would have been the correct decision. But in the perception of referee Daniel Schlager, Sow had touched the ball last, which seemed to suggest the direction of the ball.
There is a simple reason why the VAR did not intervene after the guests hit the next goal: There was nothing wrong with scoring the goal itself, and it was not his job to check whether the previous corner kick was justified. A retrospective check was also not possible because the rules contradicted this: If the game is continued with the consent of the referee – as was the case here with the execution of the corner kick – the referee can no longer change a previous decision, it is with the continuation of the game final.
There are good reasons why the VAR is not allowed to intervene in Frankfurt
This means that if you wanted to rule out the possibility of an unauthorized corner kick leading to a goal, the video assistant would have to check every corner kick before it is taken. The same would apply to free kicks, throw-ins and goal kicks, because hits can result from these continuations of the game – and these are also not subject to review by the VAR. A change would mean that the respective interruptions would often be prolonged. That would undoubtedly not be in the interests of football, which is why the rulers of the International Football Association Board (Ifab) have determined: Of the continuations of the game, only the most serious, because the most dangerous goal, is checked, namely the penalty kick.
But couldn’t one define exceptions in which the VAR may intervene even after the game has restarted, i.e. specifically: if a goal follows an allegedly unauthorized corner kick, free kick, goal kick or throw-in? This would be a massive interference with the rules, because the irrevocability of the referee’s decision after the game has been resumed is a very valuable asset, especially since it creates the essential legal certainty. And where did you want to draw the line? In the case of directly converted, unauthorized free kicks, this may still be easy, as is the case with corner kicks that are mistakenly granted, after which an attacker throws the ball into the goal.
But what if the ball passed several stations after such a continuation of play before it went into the goal? Certainly: You could handle it like in the attack phase before scoring a goal from the current game. In other words, if the attack is no longer aimed at the goal after the game has resumed, the opponent takes possession of the ball in a controlled manner or clears the ball, a subsequent check is no longer possible. But such changes would not be proportionate in view of the severity of the interference with football rules, considering that hits after corner kicks, free kicks, goal kicks and throw-ins are rare – and goals after unjustified corner kicks, free kicks, goal kicks and throw-ins are even more rare. It is better and more sensible to leave the specifications as they are.
What happens if the team doctor gets the red card?
A curiosity arose in this encounter after 65 minutes, when referee Schlager showed Eintracht’s team doctor, Christian Haser, the yellow card. In the course of the treatment of the injured Frankfurt player Rafael Borré on the field, Haser had apparently misappropriated the referee in tone and was cautioned for this. This raised the question of what actually happens when a doctor receives a red card or a yellow-red card. Does he then have to move from the bench to the stands, so is he no longer allowed to pursue his important role in this game?
Yellow, yellow-red and red cards against team officials – and that includes the medical staff – have been around since the 2019/20 season. How to deal with doctors who behave in a grossly unsportsmanlike manner has been determined since the 2017/18 season. The rulebook states: “A medical team official who commits a referral offense may stay if the team has no other medical person available and act if a player needs medical treatment.” So the rulers thought of the emergency and created an exception. All other team officials must irrevocably leave the interior if they are sent off.
Stress for the referee in Augsburg after just 90 seconds
In the game between FC Augsburg and VfB Stuttgart (4: 1), referee Patrick Ittrich had a tricky task to solve after just 90 seconds. Hamadi Al Ghaddioui from Stuttgart was played in the hosts’ penalty area, while Reece Oxford tried to get the ball from behind. But he did not hit the bullet with his right foot, only the back part of the inside of Al Ghaddioui’s left foot. The attacker went down a fraction of a second later, but the referee immediately indicated that play was going on. Shortly afterwards there was a foul outside the penalty area to the disadvantage of the guests, so Ittrich decided on a free kick for VfB.
It stayed that way even after the scene was checked by video assistant Tobias Stieler. As is so often the case in this situation, the question arose as to whether the impulse and effect matched, that is, whether the contact on the foot was the reason why the player fell and lost the ball, or whether the impulse did not make the difference. Patrick Ittrich was very well positioned and had a clear view of the duel, he made his decision with conviction, as can be seen from his determined gestures. That means: He had noticed and evaluated the scene. In such a case, the VAR is only allowed to intervene if the perception and assessment are obviously wrong and the decision cannot be justified under any circumstances.
Oxford vs Al Ghaddioui: foul or not?
The fact that Oxford did not hit the ball, only the opponent, can be used as an argument in favor of criminal liability for contact. On the other hand, the impulse against Al Ghaddioui’s footer did not appear to be overly intense, based on the television images. The man from Stuttgart only fell with a slight delay. Because it took a moment before he felt the pain that made him go down? Or because he decided to use the impulse to fall and convince the referee of the need for a penalty kick?
Both interpretations are possible, the situation was not entirely clear. And if a referee is not completely convinced that a contact is punishable – especially in the penalty area, where the consequence is a penalty that leads to a goal in eight out of ten cases – he lets play on. Ittrich did that here. And even if you think there’s more to a penalty than there was against it, at least the decision wasn’t so undoubtedly wrong that it would have forced the VAR to recommend a review. Even if the Stuttgart understandably saw things differently.