In Frankfurt, the Leipziger leadership gate falls according to an unjustified corner kick. But the VaR must not intervene, and that has good reasons. The Stuttgart has the referee because of a not given penalty, but that s not the matter.
When Yussuf Poulsen for RB Leipzig achieved the leadership goal in the match at Eintracht Frankfurt (1: 1) after 35 minutes, there were again discussions about the powers of the video wizard. Because the gate resulted from a corner kick for the guests who could not have existed: in the duel with Djibril Sow the Leipzig Defender Josko Gvardiol had an attempt to beat the ball from the outer train in the penalty area, and not the Frankfurter.
From his foot, the ball rolled into the goal, a slug would have been the correct decision. But in the perception of arbitrator Daniel Schlager, the ball had last touched, which seemed to close the direction of the ball.
Nevertheless, the VaR after the following hit of the guests does not interfere, has a simple reason: at the goal of the goal itself was nothing to complain, and to check the authorization of the previous corner kick, does not belong to its tasks.
Even a subsequent check was not possible, because the rules were countered: If the game continues with the approval of the referee - as it was the case with the execution of the corner kick -, the impartial may no longer change a previous decision, it is no longer changing with the game progress final.
That the var in Frankfurt is not allowed to intervene, has good reasons
That means: wanted to exclude that a unauthorized corner kick leads to a gate, the video wizard would have to check each corner kick before running. The same collection for free kicks, allegations and outsakers, because even from these play continues results can result - and these are not subject to review by the VaR. A change would cause the respective interruptions would often be pulled in length.
That would be unquestionably not in the sense of football, so the control bodies have set by the International Football Association Board (IFAB): The game progresses only the most serious, because goal-threatening checked, namely the penalty.
But could not you define exceptions in which the Var may intervene after playing, so concrete: if after a suspected unauthorized corner kick, free kick, struggle or throw a goal follows?
This would be a massive intervention in the rules, because the irrevocability of the referee s decision after play continuation is a very high, especially as it creates the essential legal certainty. And where did you want to pull the border? In the case of directly transformed unauthorized freezing, this may fall slightly, as well as other corner surfaces, according to which an attacker promotes the ball into the gate.
But what if the ball happens after such game continents only several stations before he goes to the goal?
Certainly: You could handle the handling as in the attack phase before a goal goal from the current game. Say: If the attack after the play continuation is no longer directed to the goal, the opponent comes in possession of possession or clarify the ball, no subsequent check is possible.
But such changes would not be proportionate in view of the severity of the procedure in football rules, considering that hits are rarely rarely occurring - and goals after unauthorized cornerstones, free kicks, steps, and impapses even rarely occur. It is better and more meaningful to leave the specifications as they are.
What happens when the team doctor gets the red card?
There was a curiosity in this encounter after 65 minutes, as a referee Schlager the team doctor of Eintracht, Christian Haser, showed the yellow card. Haser had evaporated in the course of the treatment of the injured Frankfurt player Rafael Borré in the field obviously against the impartial in the sound and was warned.
That threw the question of what actually happens when a doctor gets a red or yellow-red card. Does he also have to change from the bank to the grandstand, so he can not pursue its important activity in this game anymore?
Yellow, yellow-red and red cards against team official - and this also includes the medical staff - there has been since the season 2019/20. As with medical professionals, which is roughly unVaRsful, but has already set since the 2017/18 season.
In the rules, it says: A medical team official who commits a field-proof offense may remain if the team does not have any other medical person available and act when a player needs medical treatment. At the emergency, the regular bodies have thought and created an exception. All other team officials must leave the interior irrevocably in a field reference.
Stress for the referee in Augsburg already after 90 seconds
In the game of FC Augsburg against the VfB Stuttgart (4: 1) referee Patrick Ittrich meanwhile had a tricky task after 90 seconds to solve a tricky task. In the penalty area of the hosts, the Stuttgart Hamadi al Ghaddioui was played, laterally from behind Reece Oxford tried to get to the ball.
But he did not hit the ball with his right foot, but only the back of the inside of Al Ghaddiouis left foot. The attacker fell into the ground later fractions, but the referee immediately indicated that continues. Shortly thereafter, there was a foul outside the penalty area to the detriment of the guests, so ittrich decided on free kick for the VfB.
It remained even after checking the scene by video assistant Tobias Stieler. As so often, in this situation, the question of whether impetus and effect matched, that is, whether the contact at the foot was causally for that the player fell and the ball lost, or whether the impulse did not give the rash. Patrick Ittrich was very well positioned and had a clear view of the duel, he met his decision with conviction how to recognize his determined gesture.
That means: He had perceived and evaluated the scene. In such a case, VaR may only intervene if perception and evaluation are obviously wrong and the decision is in no case to be represented.
Oxford against Al Ghaddioui: Foul or not?
That Oxford did not hit the ball, but only the opponent, can lead to the field as an argument for criminal liability. On the other hand, the impulse against Al Ghaddioui s foot side seemed to be based on the television images, not being excessively intensively.
The Stuttgarter also fell with a small delay. Because it took a moment until he felt the pain that let him go to the ground? Or because he decided to use the impulse to a certain extent to fall and the referee to convince from the need for a penalty?
Both interpretations are possible, the situation was not entirely clear. And if an impartial is not completely convinced of it is that a contact is suspicious - especially in the penalty area, where the consequence is a penalty, which leads to a gate in eight out of ten cases - he lets continue. That s ITTRICH here.
And even if one believes that more is for a penalty than against him, the decision was at least not as undoubtedly wrong that she would have forced the VaR to a review recommendation. Even if the Stuttgarter looked very different.
Alex Fireherdt
Comments
Post a Comment