“Collina’s heirs” are sad
The judge knows that BVB has the right to appeal
By Alex Feuerherdt
After the top match between Bayern and Dortmund, the referee publicly apologized for two errors to the detriment of BVB. The punishment that was not given is particularly important. In Leipzig, the judge made the wrong decision despite clear images.
Where people are at work, mistakes are made – it is no different with the referees in football, even though for five years they have been able to fall back on video assistants in particularly important cases. It is good if you occasionally make it clear to the public how an error has occurred, because transparency can significantly improve acceptance and understanding. The day after the top match on the 31st match day in the Bundesliga between FC Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund (3: 1), referee Daniel Siebert spoke with the “kicker” – and he explained the occurrence of two omissions of him in this meeting. .
On the one hand, he admitted that BVB in the 59th minute, when the score was 2-1 to the hosts after a duel in Munich’s penalty area between Bayern defender Benjamin Pavard and Dortmund’s Jew Bellingham, should have been punished. Pavard tried to tackle to “hit the ball off his opponent’s foot with his right leg”, but it failed: “He does not play the ball, his leg is instead an obstacle on Bellingham’s path.” Technically, there is a chance to bring, that is, a mistake. That Pavard shortly after touched the ball does not matter.
The people in charge at BVB, above all Marco Rose, were rightly annoyed. “It’s an absolute top game that’s a lot at stake, it’s about Bayern’s reputation against Dortmund, so I just expect things to be settled properly. If that were not the case again today, then I have to say: the hat off . ” , said the BVB coach at Sky on Saturday after the match, where the Munich team secured their 32nd championship title.
BVB should (still) have received a penalty
Siebert explains that he came to a different assessment in the game: “On the pitch, Pavard covered my view of the crucial contact in the foot area with his sliding tackle.” However, the TV pictures showed that it was a crime: “Pavard’s criminal contact with Bellingham is clearly recognizable, especially in the camera settings ‘back goal up’.” Even if the Fifa referee does not say so, this last sentence makes it clear: VAR Marco Fritz should have intervened and recommended a review on the pitch to Siebert because the referee had not acknowledged a foul in the penalty area that deserved a penalty. But after looking at the pictures, Fritz was obviously of the opinion that it was not a crystal clear mistake to have taken a penalty kick.
The second wrong decision Siebert makes he had made ten minutes earlier. “That was the game’s biggest mistake, and I’m very annoyed with my assessment of that scene,” he says. What is meant is a clear error by Pavard on Julian Brandt, in which the referee had gestured: ball game. Siebert describes the situation as follows: “Brandt rushes at high speed towards the Munich goal and Pavard attacks from the side and back in a controlled way to play the ball. But he only hits Brandt’s ankle, so it was a clear mistake that would have been punishable by a yellow card. “
Why Pavard escaped without a yellow card
On the pitch, the referee had ruled things out differently because: “Because the ball kept rolling in exactly the same direction as if Pavard had actually played the ball, I unfortunately had a misconception of the game.” He was “happy that Brandt was able to continue playing and apparently was not seriously injured”. Some observers wondered if there should not have been a firing. However, for violations with the cleats on the ankle or below, the interpretation of the rules provides the judges in most cases only a warning, because such an offense is only considered ruthless in relation to the rules. Direct blows with the “open sole” over the ankle, on the other hand, should be classified as brutal at high intensity due to the greater risk of injury and result in red card.
It is an honor for Daniel Siebert that he openly and honestly admits that he made a mistake and makes it clear how he came to his judgments on the court. The 37-year-old, who impressed at the European Championships last year and most recently also refereed a quarter-final match in the Champions League, is the new number one among German referees at FIFA and UEFA level after the end of Felix Brych’s international match. career. In the top match in Munich, however, he sometimes appeared unhappy, not only because of the two mistakes he commented on. In other difficult situations – such as Raphael Guerreiro’s and Emre Can’s non-penalty handballs and the use of BVB goalkeeper Marwin Hitz against Lucas Hernández, all in Dortmund’s penalty area – he acted correctly or at least always justified when he did not take a punishment decided.
Mukiele against Gießelmann almost in kung fu style
Siebert’s colleague Daniel Schlager aroused some astonishment after about an hour in the match between RB Leipzig and 1. FC Union Berlin (1: 2). When the Berliners attacked – Leipzig led 1-0 – Nordi Mukiele blocked the ball in his own goal area from a shot on goal by Niko Gießelmann with his right leg before his left leg shot forward and he almost kung fu-style with his foot hit in the knee. Schlager let the game continue; It was also difficult to classify the contact at the right speed on the pitch, especially when Mukiele had hit the ball first, or rather: was hit by it.
The television images, however, captured Gießelmann’s knee clearly recognizable from several perspectives. They played a clear mistake that deserved a penalty and it does not change if you give Mukiele the credit for acting unintentionally. Video Assistant Johann Pfeifer therefore rightly recommended a review on the court to the referee. Schlager watched the scene for 80 seconds on screen, and the hit could be seen again and again. In the end, however, he decided a penalty kick – and not only the Berliners were very surprised.
Schlager’s decision is confusing
According to the current interpretation of the rules, there are certain situations where a blow to the opponent after playing the ball should not be judged as a mistake, but as an accident. However, there are clear criteria for this: A kick on the foot, for example, which happens by accident when the foot is placed vertically on the ground and can hardly be avoided because the opposite foot was not there when the ball was played, is not punishable. . But if you first play the ball and then – especially as an extra action – hit the opponent horizontally with the leg almost stretched and with a certain intensity over the ankle, you are not acting in accordance with the rules.
There should therefore have been penalties for Union and at least one yellow card against Mukiele, for Leipziger’s action can not be assessed as an accident that can not be punished. It’s a bit puzzling why Daniel Schlager decided differently despite the clear images that the video assistant presented him with. And that was, it must be said so clearly, simply wrong. But in the end, the decision was no longer a big issue because Union still turned the game around and won. Maybe this was why the referee blew his whistle.