“Collina’s heirs” in search of clues
The VAR and the infuriating declaration of the inexplicable
By Alex Feuerherdt
10/31/2022, 8:16 am
The top game in the Bundesliga between Eintracht Frankfurt and Borussia Dortmund is dominated by anger. A mistake made by the referee is not corrected with the help of the VAR – because he is viewing the wrong camera angles. A lapse that could have been avoided.
“Short and not particularly relaxed” was the night for him, Sascha Stegemann openly confessed on Sunday morning in the Sport 1 program “Doppelpass”, which he joined via Skype. The referee had led the top game between Eintracht Frankfurt and Borussia Dortmund (1: 2) the night before and made a wrong decision a few minutes before the half-time break, which could potentially decide the game, but did not result in any intervention by VAR Robert Kampka: At the stand 1-1, Karim Adeyemi’s clean push against Jesper Lindström from Frankfurt in the Dortmund penalty area went unpunished, and the hosts were not awarded the penalty kick that was due. As Lindstrom had an obvious chance to score in a central position a few yards from goal and pushing is not an offense in the fight for the ball, Adeyemi was also due a red card.
After the final whistle, Stegemann had frankly admitted his mistake in the Sky interview. “When I now see the pictures with the corresponding camera perspectives, then you have to clearly state that Eintracht Frankfurt should have been awarded a penalty,” he said. There was “a clear impulse with both hands” that was sufficient to bring Lindstrom down. On the field, however, he “couldn’t see a clear foul,” “no clear impulse, just normal physical contact.” He also sent this to the VAR. He checked the decision and “classified it as not clear and obviously wrong”. Therefore, there was no recommendation from Kampka to look at the pictures in the on-field review again.
What prevented the VAR from intervening?
Hardly anyone who has seen the television pictures should be able to understand this decision – at least not the decision of the video assistant to refrain from an intervention. Misperceptions on the pitch can happen when the referee has an unfavorable perspective, but the VAR, who has access to several camera perspectives, is rightly expected to identify a decision that is clearly wrong for every television viewer and identify the referee as such sends it to the fieldside monitor so that it can then correct the error. But why didn’t Robert Kampka do that? What prevented him from intervening?
Stegemann sought clarification in the “double pass” and disclosed how the process in the Cologne Video Assist Center went. Not to justify himself or to seek an excuse – he expressly emphasized that the decision was wrong and that he was sorry – but to explain what many find inexplicable. Accordingly, Kampka looked at the four camera perspectives of the “standard setup” on his main monitor, which is displayed on a so-called split screen. In none of these four perspectives was Adeyemi’s physical use clearly discernible as an illegal push and thus as a foul play. Therefore, the VAR came to the conclusion that there was no clear wrong decision.
The verification process was completed too quickly
When the “double pass” group reacted with incomprehension and referred to the images that could be seen in the live broadcast, Stegemann specified: The four camera settings that the VAR had in the “standard setup” were different than those shown on television. You have to know that the transmitting stations have access to the same image pool as the VAR, which consists of more than 20 different camera perspectives. So-called operators – who sit next to the VAR and are not DFB referees, but specialized employees of the provider of the VAR technology – provide the video assistants with the images and, if necessary, switch them to further camera settings from the pool.
After viewing the first four perspectives, Kampka could have requested and viewed additional images from other perspectives. But he refrained from doing so, probably because he did not expect that they could lead him to a different result. A mistake, as Stegemann also found, when he said that the review process in Cologne was completed too quickly and was therefore at the expense of thoroughness and security. “If you see the program images” – i.e. the camera settings that Sky showed during the live broadcast – you have to “come to a different conclusion” than the VAR, said the referee, who directed his 122nd Bundesliga game in Dortmund.
The television showed more meaningful pictures
That means: Sky broadcast more meaningful perspectives from the common pool of images than they were presented to the video assistant in the “standard setup”. First of all, this is nothing unusual, after all picture directors in television often have many years of experience in their profession and are therefore at an advantage. However, the VAR could also have benefited from this, because the program image of the broadcasting station can be seen on one of the monitors in Cologne – without sound, because the video assistants should not be distracted or influenced by the commentator. 40 seconds after Adeyemi’s foul, Sky played the second slowed-down replay of that scene, which most clearly showed the offense. The game was still interrupted, which means: The testing process in Cologne was still going on.
If Kampka – or his assistant Markus Häcker – had taken a look at the corresponding monitor at that moment and perhaps also seen the third repeat, which was also clear, then the result of the check in the video-assist center would most likely have been different. The VAR could have had these camera settings switched back to his main monitor and viewed to be absolutely sure. But that was neglected, and that was fatal. This explains why the wrong decision was not recognized, but it does not make it any easier to understand.
How the DFB wants to improve the VAR
Jochen Drees, the project manager for the video assistants, recently said that he was annoyed by “such an accumulation of errors because we invest a lot of time and effort in training and further education”. According to the “Kicker”, the winter break, which lasts much longer than usual due to the World Cup in Qatar, should be used to train the video assistants more intensively. According to this, for example, game scenes should be evaluated with an online tool and workshops with ex-professionals should take place in order to improve the practical interpretation of duels. In addition, there are apparently considerations to work more with fixed teams of referees and VAR. The communication and the evaluation of game processes can undoubtedly be improved and harmonized in this way.
A good, correct and necessary approach in view of the fact that the criticism of the video assistants does not want to be silenced – which, by the way, is not a purely German problem: in other European (top) leagues there are similar, sometimes even more heated debates. Meanwhile, Sascha Stegemann deserves a lot of credit for naming and analyzing his mistake straight away after a game that was extremely difficult for him. Also in the “double pass”, where since this season an impartial or a referee official is switched on every Sunday to answer questions. Which is a real challenge in view of the group there, which is often thirsty for scandals.