“Collina’s heirs” satisfied
Transparent referees experience more understanding
By Alex Feuerherdt
09/05/2022 07:28 am
The referees in the Bundesliga have recently been explaining their decisions more frequently. This openness is good because it ensures more understanding – even if you don’t agree with the explanations. Just like a handball in Dortmund.
It is positive how much effort the Bundesliga referees have made since the beginning of the season to explain some decisions that need explanation or are controversial to the public. Noticeably more often than before, they are willing to express themselves in interviews after a game, mostly on television. This transparency is good, because in many cases it ensures that the game master’s considerations, decision-making and rule interpretations become more comprehensible for the audience. And even if, as an observer, you don’t fully agree with every explanation – especially as an ardent and therefore necessarily self-conscious supporter of the club, who perhaps feels disadvantaged – the statements of the referees still contribute to more understanding for the referees.
For example, on Friday evening after the final whistle of the game Borussia Dortmund – TSG 1899 Hoffenheim (1-0), referee Daniel Siebert answered questions about a scene that after a little more than half an hour heated up the minds of the ultimately victorious Westphalians. Their player Marius Wolf wanted to hit the ball in front of the goal almost from the baseline in the guests’ penalty area, but Hoffenheim’s Ozan Kabak, who was a few meters away, deflected the ball out of the goal with his left forearm. Siebert decided on a corner kick for BVB, and it stayed that way even after the scene was checked by the video assistant Christian Dingert in Cologne.
The referee later said he had a relatively good view of the scene, which he described as follows: “We see the player Kabak, who has crossed his arms behind his back, so he actually does everything to prevent the handball . And then the hand goes out a bit, he wants to sort of solve that hand position.” For him, the referee, that was not punishable, after all, the hand was “closer to the body than it was stretched out”. The only question that remains to be answered is: “Is the hand actively going into the trajectory or not?” Siebert denied: “I saw it more as if the player wanted to loosen his arm position in order to move on.” That means: The referee rated the movement as natural and not as an attempt to stop or deflect the ball.
Why more speaks for than against the punishability of Kabak’s handball
At the same time, he admitted that he could live with the argument that Kabak’s handball was punishable. There were indeed good reasons for such an assessment: the ball did not come as a surprise to Hoffenheim, who was facing him, and his arms crossed behind his back were another indication that he was expecting a cross. When Wolf finally played the ball, Kabak leaned slightly to the right – and released his left arm from his back just as the ball threatened to fly past him on the left. He didn’t extend it very far, but far enough to put it in the direction of the ball’s flight and thereby deflect the ball out of the goal.
At that moment, it no longer looked like the plan to avoid handball at all costs and just move on, rather it looked more like an attempt to widen and thus increase the hitting area for the ball. There is still room for discretion when evaluating handballs, but there was much more to be said for criminal liability, which is why a penalty kick would have been the much better decision for Borussia Dortmund. Even if you consider that the slowed down repetition often makes an action appear much more conscious than it was in real speed.
No “line of sight” at the third Frankfurt goal
Siebert’s colleague Felix Brych also commented after the game on Saturday evening between Eintracht Frankfurt and RB Leipzig (4-0). It was all about the goal to make it 3-0 for the Europa League winner in the 67th minute. After a corner kick for the home side, Mario Götze shot the Leipzig goal from a central position. Goalkeeper Peter Gulasci was able to parry the shot, but the ball went to Tuta, who put it in from close range. The scorer himself was not offside, but Daichi Kamada, who was between Götze and Gulasci, was. And not for the first time this season, the question arose: was the player in the keeper’s line of sight and was he blocking his view of the ball?
This could hardly be resolved with the television pictures, some perspectives seemed to speak for it, while the behind-the-goal camera suggested that Gulasci had a clear view. Felix Brych finally explained in an interview with the broadcaster Sky why he recognized the goal and the VAR did not intervene: According to the rules, there is only a punishable offside in such a situation if a player is clearly and unambiguously in the opponent’s line of sight, he said. “We didn’t rate it that way because Peter Gulacsi saw the ball the whole time.” The goalkeeper also “reacted pretty well”. That’s why the referee team assumed “that he saw the ball” and “that was a goal for us”. A reasonable assessment.
Uremović holds Demirović – and is lucky
Referee Harm Osmers also had to make a tricky decision in the match between FC Augsburg and Hertha BSC (0:2) after 23 minutes. Augsburg’s Ermedin Demirović with the ball at his feet escaped his opponent Filip Uremović after a through ball, who brought him down a few meters from the guests’ penalty area in a central position with a save. Referee Harm Osmers had to judge whether Uremović prevented an obvious scoring chance by fouling, i.e. pulled the “emergency brake”. However, he decided against being sent off and only showed the Hertha player a yellow card. Even after the decision was reviewed by VAR Pascal Müller, nothing changed.
It was an extremely difficult scene to assess, because it cannot be determined with certainty whether Berlin captain Marvin Plattenhardt, who also ran along, could have prevented the game without his teammate’s foul play. On the one hand, Plattenhardt was moving at some speed and the ball rolled a little in his direction. It is possible that he could have disturbed Demirović decisively. On the other hand, Uremović’s hold lasted a few meters and slowed the Augsburger down before he fell. At that point, Plattenhardt was a little further away than when Demirović fell.
Overall, the television pictures are more indicative of a red card than a warning, but they do not clearly refute the referee’s decision on the field. Assessing the foul as merely preventing a promising attack and not as thwarting an obvious scoring opportunity was therefore at least not a clear and obvious mistake, but a decision at Harm Osmers’ discretion. It was therefore correct that the video assistant did not intervene – especially since an on-field review would not have eliminated the doubts. In the event of a red card, however, the VAR would most likely not have intervened either. Sometimes just one decision is not possible and justifiable.