BVB criticizes referee Makkelie after controversial penalty

Eliminated against Chelsea

For club advisor Matthias Sammer it was a “tangible scandal”, for Emre Can “the referee’s fault” and for coach Edin Terzic “a very tough decision”. The bitter knockout in the round of 16 of the Champions League with much-discussed penalty decisions destroyed the good mood at Borussia Dortmund – of all things before the explosive Revierderby on Saturday at Schalke, which has recently shown six games without defeat, five of them to zero, on the upswing .

For the 0: 2 (0: 1) at Chelsea after ten competitive wins in a row, the culprit from BVB’s point of view was quickly found. Can, in particular, got really excited after the final whistle. “We’re playing here at Stamford Bridge, maybe the referee is afraid of the fans, but then UEFA should send someone else,” complained the “six player”. No less annoyed, TV expert Sammer commented on the key scene of the game on “Amazon Prime Video”: “The penalty and the repetition. This is a real scandal. I don’t need a rule keeper either.” Referee Danny Makkelie is “a very, very arrogant person.”

BVB boss Hans-Joachim Watzke rumbled on Wednesday to “SID”: “You always had the bad feeling that he wanted to be the most important man on the pitch. Gestures, facial expressions – Mr. Makkelie really liked it. And instinct was a foreign word for him.” Basically, Chelsea deserved the win, said Watzke.

BVB professional Marius Wolf on penalty whistle: I’m not going to the ball

The reason for the anger: After a cross from Ben Chilwell, the ball jumped to the slightly spread arm of full-back Marius Wolf, which the Dutch referee only punished with a penalty after the intervention of the video assistant. Kai Havertz fired the first shot at the inside post, but was allowed to play again after another VAR intervention because some players had moved into the penalty area too early.

Unlucky Wolf was not aware of any guilt: “All in all, it’s very annoying. It’s not on purpose, I don’t go to the ball, I have my arm on my body and I turn away.” He was just as critical of the referee’s alleged lack of sensitivity as Sammer: “He didn’t let himself be talked to. I at least wanted him to explain it to me. Especially with a decision like that.”

Midfield star Jude Bellingham admitted to BT Sport (quoted via “table football‘) on record: ‘I’m not sure what else to do with his hands.’ Wolf was only a meter or two away from Chilwell. The decision to then repeat the penalty kick was “a joke. With every penalty, especially if it’s so slow, there are those who cross the edge of the penalty area by a meter or so. (…) He made his decision and we have to live with it.” After harsh criticism of Felix Zwayer following the 3-2 defeat against FC Bayern in December 2021, Bellingham had to pay a fine of 40,000 euros.

Rules compliant decision – VAR should not have intervened

The fact that Makkelie, according to referee expert Wolfgang Stark, acted “in accordance with the rules” in his decision to have the penalty repeated was lost in the general excitement. Also at Transfermarkt’s partner community “true table” the majority sees it like Stark: In a survey, 81 percent of those who voted that the decision to have it repeated was the right one. User “Nordsteam040” criticized the rule itself, although he wrote that the right action had been taken: “If the decision is made today, every penalty must be repeated because some players always run into the penalty area too early.”

The Referee Blog “Collinas Erben” meanwhile explained the second intervention by the video assistant, which led to the repetition: “The IFAB manual states when the VAR intervenes if players run too early for a penalty kick. (…) When a defender who runs too early prevents an attacker from playing the ball and thus prevents a possible goal. But Özcan didn’t do that. Only Havertz was close to him, but he was no longer allowed to play the ball that bounced off the post because otherwise there would have been a double touch (no other player had touched the ball after the post shot). In other words: Özcan took advantage of running into the circle too early, but didn’t prevent an attacker from getting the ball on goal. So according to the IFAB manual there was really no need to intervene.”

From a purely technical point of view, however, the repetition is correct: “If players from both teams run into the penalty area or the circle too early, a repetition is planned. Incidentally, it doesn’t matter which player was first in the penalty area too early.” Nevertheless, the VAR should not have intervened: “If Makkelie had ordered a replay from the game, it would not have been objectionable (even if something like that in practice only rarely occurs)”

#CFCBVB: Late to the party (because of a lecture, so could only see individual scenes so far), but because of many questions a few assessments of the situation around the penalty for Chelsea. (1/10)

— CollinasErben (@CollinasErben) March 7, 2023

However, the referee’s scolding was only of limited use as an explanation for the sobering performance, which brought the Bundesliga second additional income of over 10 million euros. After all, Borussia offered a despondent performance, especially on the offensive. Nevertheless, BVB wants to continue its impressive race to catch up and continue to put pressure on leaders FC Bayern, who are now tied on points. A victory at the arch-rival from Gelsenkirchen could help to quickly dispel the concerns that arose in London. Wolf set the direction: “Today the disappointment is great. But from tomorrow the focus will be on Schalke. We really want to win the game.” With a determined look, the defender added: “It’s a derby, it’s the derby.”

To home page