There were three controversial scenes in the Bundesliga and the 2nd Bundesliga at the weekend. The DFB would rather not have seen two penalty kicks from its referees, a different decision was classified than correctly.
SpVgg Greuther Fürth – FC Schalke 04
What happened? Fürth’s Simon Asta came to the ball in the Schalke penalty area at 1-1 and fell in a duel with Paul Seguin, who, according to the television pictures, had easily stepped on his foot. Referee Tom Bauer decided on a penalty, video assistant Robert Hartmann did not intervene. Was that the right decision?
As the DFB explains: Alex Feuerherdt is the spokesman for DFB Schiri GmbH who organizes the referee system in German professional football. “As a field decision, we would rather have been if the penalty had not existed”says Feuerherdt in an interview with the sports show. “There is not much, just a hit on the tip of the foot. You can ask the question of whether the intensity of the contact has been sufficient to cause ASTA’s fall.”
Feuerherdt explains that the video assistant does not intervene “Pictured” was. “It is not a clear and obvious mistake and therefore no longer for the video assistant. Our line remains: Back too ‘clear and obvious’, more reluctance to the video assistant.”
How it went on: Fürth’s Dennis Srbeny failed in the penalty to Schalke’s goalkeeper Loris Karius, but Jomaine Consbruch scored 2-1 in the aftermath. The game ended 3: 3.
Referee expert Alex Feuerherdt
TSG Hoffenheim – FC Augsburg
What happened? Hoffenheim’s Haris Tabakovic stormed into the penalty area at 0-1 and shot. His shot was deflected by Chrislain Matsima, Jeffrey Gouweleeuw got it on his spreading arm. Tobias Reichel decided on a penalty, video assistant Markus Schmidt did not intervene – a failure?
As the DFB explains: “The penalty should not have existed”says Feuerherdt. He sees five reasons for this: “The ball comes from the teammate, from a very short distance, there is a decisive change of direction due to the waste, so the ball is not expected and the arm posture in the movement sequence is not unnatural.”
Why doesn’t the video assistant intervene? “The video assistant was too focused on individual aspects of the process. He had assumed that it would be a shot, but the ball would have gone to the corner flag. It no longer had an eye on the entire process.”
A clear and obvious mistake had stated that the video assistant should have intervened. In principle, two mistakes were made: “One gave the penalty and unfortunately another did not intervene.”
How it went on: The false penalty whistle was crucial for the outcome of the game: Andrej Kramarić scored from the point to compensate for Hoffenheim, the game ended 1-1.
Borussia Dortmund – 1. FSV Mainz 05
What happened? In the penalty area, Maximilian Beier from Borussia Dortmund and Andreas Hanche-Olsen from Mainz 05 ran at 0: 0 in a row, expecting a Dortmund flank. However, it didn’t come. Karim Adeyemi played back to a teammate on the right. Hanche-Olsen, however, met with the sole in the Achilles tendon. Worthwhile?
As the DFB explains: “The ball is somewhere else, is not played in the penalty area either, it is not a position struggle, the players are in a normal running movement”says Feuerherdt. Therefore, the video assistant Robert Schröder did not see any reason for an intervention. “In this case, you can’t even assume that you can assume negligence”says Feuerherdt.
Therefore, both the decision on the square and the lack of intervention were correct. Would there have been an intervention if referee Daniel Schlager had given a penalty? “Probably not”says Feuerherdt. “It would be difficult to go in. But the decision made is far better for us.”
How it went on: Dortmund won the game 3-1.