“Collina’s heirs” regret
Gladbach also has trouble with the rule
By Alex Feuerherdt
2/7/2022 6:12 am
The Gladbachers demand a hand penalty in Bielefeld, but the rules do not provide for one if the arm of a team-mate is involuntarily in the way during a clearance action. In Cologne, Freiburg get nothing because one of their players does not get out of the dust fast enough.
The second half of the game between Arminia Bielefeld and Borussia Mönchengladbach (1-1) almost started with the much-cited bang: Gladbach’s Jonas Hofmann was brilliantly staged just a few seconds after the restart and was free in front of goalkeeper Stefan Ortega, he but failed at the keeper of the hosts. After Hofmann’s shot, the ball bounced off his left knee against the left arm of his team-mate Nathan de Medina, who had hurried back, after which Ortega brought the ball under control with his hands.
The guests clearly complained to referee Benjamin Cortus, they argued that the handball should be considered punishable and that they should consequently be awarded a penalty. But the referee, who had allowed play to continue, would not be persuaded, and video assistant Günter Perl did not recommend an on-field review. But didn’t the fact that de Medina’s arm was spread out horizontally from the body mean that the handball should be punished because the Bielefeld player had widened himself in this way in order to stop the ball if necessary?
This question touches on the intention of a player who touches or plays the ball with his arm or hand: What was his intention in the specific situation? Since this season, the criterion of intention has once again become essential when evaluating handballs. It is not always possible to say with certainty what a player is up to. But if he spreads his arm away from his body when the opponent crosses or shoots at goal, this is an indication that he wants to stop or fend off the ball – and also accepts that the ball will fly against his arm.
Nobody wants to sabotage a teammate’s liberation
With a hand ball like that of de Medina, however, things are different. In a short instructional video, the DFB referee instructor, Lutz Wagner, addressed a scene from last season in which Leipzig captain Willi Orban tried to hit the ball out of his own penalty area in the game against Eintracht Frankfurt . However, this fails because his teammate Tyler Adams, who is stationed nearby, stops the ball with his left arm extended. Such handball is not punishable, so Wagner.
Because the intention of the player in such a situation is not to stop the ball by increasing the defensive area, as can be the case with a cross in front of or a shot at his own goal. Rather, it is a random and unintentional hand game. A conclusive assessment – because why should a player want to stop or deflect the ball with his hand or arm when a teammate wants to move it out of the danger zone? Normally that wouldn’t make any sense, after all the ball would stay close to your own goal. Not to mention the risk of the referee awarding a penalty.
Therefore, de Medina’s handball is not punishable
The sequence from the game in Leipzig analyzed by Wagner serves as a reference scene for referees and video assistants when evaluating similar situations. And the explanations given by the teacher go well with the one in Bielefeld. De Medina was very close to his goalkeeper, the ball surprisingly bounced off his knee and into the defender’s arm, who had little time to react. That he intended to stop his teammate’s save with his arm is as improbable as Tyler Adams was in the comparison scene.
It was therefore correct that referee Cortus let play continue and VAR made no objection. This is not altered by the fact that de Medina had spread his arm as he ran to dodge goalkeeper Ortega, who was rushing for the ball. Because this arm position only leads to a penalty in the case of a handball if it unnaturally widens the body to stop the ball. If this goal is not pursued for the obvious reasons mentioned, then nothing illegal will happen.
Schlottbeck invalidates Sallais’ goal
In the game between 1. FC Köln and SC Freiburg (1-0), the guests from Breisgau were only able to celebrate briefly after 50 minutes. Roland Sallai, who came on at half-time, scored into the home side’s goal when the score was 1-0 and referee Felix Brych gave the goal first. But then VAR Pascal Müller intervened. Because he had found during the check that Nico Schlotterbeck had been offside when Sallais shot on goal and that the Cologne goalkeeper Marvin Schwäbe had line of sight to the ball.
In addition, the Freiburger had to make an evasive movement to avoid being hit by the ball. Those were two arguments for the offside being punishable, even if Schlotterbeck had not touched the ball. Müller recommended referee Brych an on-field review, to which the referee took his assistant Stefan Lupp with him. Several referees had recently done this when it came to assessing in the review whether an offside player influenced an opponent. Since the assistants specialize in assessing offside situations, it also makes sense to consult them on the monitor.
Goalkeeper Schwäbe’s view is blocked
It didn’t take Felix Brych long to decide that Schlotterbeck’s offside was a punishable offense and the goal must therefore be annulled. Freiburg objected that Schwäbe had already gone into the wrong corner of the goal and would therefore certainly not have saved the ball after Sallais shot on target. In such cases, however, this is not the decisive criterion. Rather, what is decisive is whether the offside player, for example by becoming active or blocking an opponent’s view, impairs his ability to play or be able to play the ball at all.
That was the case with Schlotterbeck: at the moment of Sallai’s shot, he blocked Schwäbe’s view of the ball, giving the Cologne keeper less time to react. Added to this was the Freiburger’s evasive movement, which was technically a form of activity close to the ball and thus also impaired the goalkeeper’s ability to somehow reach the ball. The intervention of the video assistant was therefore justified and the decision to disallow the goal was correct. Even if the guests didn’t like it, of course.