Monday 17 January 2022
“Collina’s heirs” sympathize
Pain, bad luck and happiness for Eintracht
By Alex Feuerherdt
In the game between Augsburg and Frankfurt, the referee has his hands full: yellow or red, penalty or offensive foul, punishable handball or not, headbutt or collision – many decisions are tricky. But in conjunction with the VAR, the referee masters the challenges well.
When referee Sven Jablonski kicked off the game between FC Augsburg and Eintracht Frankfurt (1-1) on Sunday, he had no idea that the end of the week would be a busy afternoon with a number of difficult decisions. The first of these happened after just 15 minutes, when Augsburg’s Michael Gregoritsch misjudged himself in a duel with Tuta, who had the ball on his foot, and hit Frankfurt’s calf with the studs. Jablonski warned Gregoritsch for this; it was a card whose color could be described as “dark yellow”. Because much was not missing for the field reference.
What made the penalty appropriate was the referee’s correct – or at least justifiable – evaluation of the so-called hit pattern: Gregoritsch had not missed Tuta a direct hit, but only hit him with the side part of the sole. The contact was short and not of high intensity. The offense was ruthless, but not brutal in a way that endangered health. That’s why video assistant Pascal Müller had no reason to recommend an on-field review to Jablonski after checking the scene.
The penalty for Augsburg is rightly collected
It was different in the 33rd minute. After a duel between Augsburg’s Andi Zeqiri, who had the ball, and Makoto Hasebe on the edge of the Frankfurt penalty area, both players went down. The referee whistled to award the hosts a penalty, while the ball found its way to Ricardo Pepi, who put it into the visitors’ goal. The hosts complained to Sven Jablonski that he hadn’t simply waited for the advantage. But as it turned out, things were very different from what FCA and the referee had initially estimated.
Because it was not Hasebe who fouled Zeqiri, it was actually the other way around: when the man from Augsburg took the shot, the man from Frankfurt ran between him and the ball; instead of the ball, Zeqiri finally hit Hasebe’s ankle. Due to this error in perception, VAR Müller intervened and advised Jablonski to go to the monitor. When the referee returned to the field, he rightly withdrew his penalty decision – the contact had happened outside the penalty area anyway, so even if Hasebe had committed an offense the penalty would not have stood – and awarded Eintracht a free kick. He also warned Zeqiri, whose kick on Hasebe’s ankle constituted recklessness.
For the referee, Lindstrom’s handball is not punishable
Shortly before the break, there was another intervention from the video center in Cologne. After a cross into the Frankfurt penalty area, Augsburg’s Robert Gumny went for a header, but missed the ball, which instead fell on Frankfurt’s Jesper Lindström’s outstretched arm, which was raised above head height. Referee Jablonski obviously did not notice this handball, which was difficult to recognize, so video assistant Pascal Müller made the next review recommendation. That was correct because, to use VAR protocol language, there was a potential major overlooked incident where an on-field review occurs not because of a misperception of the referee, but because of a lack of perception of the referee .
However, Sven Jablonski did not rate the handball as punishable, presumably because he classified it as unintentional and did not rate the clearly raised arm as part of an unnatural position with which Lindström at least accepted a handball. But as part of a normal movement and arm position in a duel with an opponent without the aim of stopping the ball. However, this judgment can at least be questioned, because it is not quite clear what fair purpose the raising of the arm above head height without jumping for the header is supposed to have served. A penalty kick would therefore have been the obvious choice, although it was not the case that there was no discretionary power for the referee.
Oxford vs Kamada: foul or clash?
A tricky situation also occurred after the change of sides, after 64 minutes. Timothy Chandler crossed into the hosts’ penalty area, where his team-mate Daichi Kamada and Augsburg’s Reece Oxford headed in. Kamada caught the ball and headed it on target, while Oxford, a hair’s breadth late, hit his opponent’s head. The ball meanwhile flew over the goal of FC Augsburg. Both players went down and needed treatment, after which the referee continued the game with a goal kick.
There is reason to wonder why there was no penalty for Eintracht in this situation. After all, a defender who is a moment too late when tackling with his foot in his own penalty area and hits an opponent instead of the ball incurs a penalty against his team. In contrast, however, in the case of head collisions, in practice it is often decided that there was no foul, just an unfortunate collision – sometimes even when one player was clearly first to the ball and the other is actually responsible for the collision. Perhaps this rating as an accident is due to the fact that no one would voluntarily accept such a headshot; the health risk is far too great for that.
Why fouls often go unpunished after a goal has been scored
Another unwritten law, which actually does not conform to the rules, often means that foul play after a goal has been scored is not punished if the ball goes past the goal anyway. Because the attacker in question is not affected by the foul when shooting on goal and is therefore not prevented from scoring. What still cannot be justified in terms of rules is nevertheless a widely accepted practice, also common internationally, from which the referees rarely deviate and against which there are hardly any objections. In Augsburg, the complaints from Frankfurt were also kept within narrow limits.
The fact that Sven Jablonski did not award a penalty and that his VAR did not intervene a third time was in line with customary practice when dealing with unfortunate hits to the head and, above all, with offenses after unsuccessful shots on goal. The fact that this is not actually covered by the rules is not a reproach for the referee and is not his responsibility. It was a demanding game for both the referee and the video assistant, in which cooperation was appropriate even if Lindstrom’s handball was not followed by a penalty. It was also remarkable with which communicative skills Jablonski mediated even difficult decisions. The 31-year-old, who has been a FIFA referee since January 1, has long recommended himself for demanding tasks.