Thursday April 22, 2021
“Collina’s heirs” grumble
A weight falls from the heart
By Alex Feuerherdt
In Bremen, the referee only recognizes the hosts’ equalizer and then dismisses it again when he looks at the pictures on the advice of the VAR. His original decision is actually correct. In Dortmund, on the other hand, an intervention by the video assistant would be advisable, but it does not exist.
There was great disappointment and anger Werder Bremen during and after the game against the 1. FSV Mainz 05 (0: 1). In stoppage time in the first half, Joshua Sargent had scored the alleged 1-1, and referee Marco Fritz had initially recognized the goal. But then the video assistant intervened because Kevin Möhwald is said to have used illegal goalkeeper Robin Zentner from Mainz shortly before the goal was scored. There was a review on the sidelines, after which the referee decided: The goal does not count.
Hundreds of weight had caught the ball after a header and then dropped it, while the hectic follow-up he had sometimes both hands on the ball, sometimes one hand and sometimes none. Möhwald continued and reached the ball with his foot, the question being: Did Hundreds of weight control the play equipment at that moment or not? According to the rules, such a control is given when the goalkeeper “touches the ball with part of the hand or arm”. He must then not be attacked, even playing the ball at that moment represents such an attack.
A right decision changes unnecessarily
Since referee Fritz finally canceled the goal and decided on an indirect free kick for Mainz, it is clear: He had perceived a ball control by hundredweight. However, the greatly slowed down television images, including an enlarged section, later showed that the keeper had no hand on the ball at the decisive moment, i.e. when Möhwald touched the ball. Zentner later claimed in an interview with the Sky broadcaster that he felt a kick in his right hand. But the relevant contact with Möhwald’s ankle, while the Bremer played the ball with his foot exactly at the same time, did not constitute the offense of the foul.
Happy too early.
(Photo: imago images / Nordphoto)
In the end, Marco Fritz originally made the right decision when he gave the goal. With the naked eye at real speed it was not even possible to see whether Robin Zentner was able to control the ball, although the maneuverability of the goalkeeper in this situation indicated the opposite. In any case, the referee had not made a clear and obvious mistake, nor had he overlooked a serious incident. So the review wasn’t actually necessary – and it resulted in a decision being changed when it wasn’t necessary.
There shouldn’t have been a penalty for BVB
In the game between Borussia Dortmund and the 1. FC Union Berlin (2-0) there were discussions about the penalty kick in the 25th minute, which led to the 1-0 for BVB. After a fine pass, Marco Reus got the ball in the Berlin penalty area and then fell in a duel with Andreas Luthe, who had rushed out of his goal. Referee Daniel Schlager recognized the penalty without hesitation. But the television pictures raised doubts as to the justification of this decision, because a punishable use of the keeper could not be made out.
Luthe had thrown himself to the ground when Reus passed him with the ball and missed the ball with his hands. In the course of this duel there was a slight contact between Luthe’s right thigh and Reus’ left foot, but by then the Dortmund man was about to go down. In any case, this contact was not decisive for Reus’ fall; rather, it looked as if the captain of BVB had been looking for a reason to fall here. Especially since he pulled the ball outwards parallel to the goal-area line and the angle was not ideal for a conclusion.
Was it a clear and obvious mistake by the referee to award a penalty here? Should the video assistant have intervened, or even had to? Perhaps it was the foot contact caused by Luthe’s thigh that prevented the VAR from intervening. But impulse and effect do not fit together at this point, and if you look at the entire sequence of the scene, Reus’ fall seems so deliberate and Luthe’s behavior so defensive that a review recommendation would have been appropriate.
Why there was no penalty for Leipzig
It got heated the day before in stoppage time of the encounter 1. FC Cologne – RB Leipzig (2: 1). After a long blow, Sebastiaan Bornauw from Cologne failed to attempt a defense; he involuntarily put the ball on with his head for Leipzig’s Justin Kluivert. This pulled immediately from seven meters and shot next to the gate. Immediately after the shot, however, Jannes Horn, who was late, brought him down with a tackle. Referee Frank Willenborg nevertheless decided to kick, and suddenly players from both teams clashed.
Should the Leipzig have been awarded a penalty here? From a purely technical point of view, yes, because there was a foul and the ball – this is the mandatory requirement – was still on the field and thus in play at that moment. But then why was there no penalty whistle? The answer is to be sought in the standard practice, which in this case follows a kind of unwritten law: If the goal has been closed and the ball misses the goal, the attacker will not be disadvantaged if he is still brought down after the goal. Unless the physical exertion is particularly tough, the referees usually do not whistle in such a situation.
This practice may not be consistent with theory, but it is widely accepted. Even the Leipzig coach Julian Nagelsmann, although his team had lost the game, did not think that there should have been a penalty after the final whistle. He explicitly referred to the fact that Kluivert had already come to the end of the goal and the ball had missed the housing of the Cologne team. However, the coach would have liked a yellow card for Horn because of his impetuous commitment. In terms of rules, that would only have been possible if there had also been a penalty.
.