In a turbulent game, the VFL Bochum conquers the TSG 1899 Cofferdam — also because the referee in a tricky offside situation on the advice of the video wizard rightly corrected. In Fürth, the impartial rightly chooses a penalty for Eintracht Frankfurt, here is the cooperation with the Var.
When on Saturday afternoon in the Bochum Stadium at Cast roper Strafe was completed in the game between the host VFL and the TSG 1899 Cofferdam (2: 0) just more than an hour, followed after a long push of the leadership goals for the superior houses. SOMA Dorothy achieved him by head after a precise edge of Miloš Antonio, both had been switched together shortly before. But the joy did not last long, because referee Frank Wallenberg rejected the goal the recognition. His assistant had perceived a punishable deadline of Dorothy — not in the goal of goal, but in the game situation before.
Also, there was a flank in the Cofferdam penalty area, where Dorothy actually was offside. But before he could come to the ball, the Cofferdam Kevin Vogt reached the ball — and headed them out to Antonio, who finally served Dorothy. The impartial idea of the Bochum at the first edge, because from the point of view of the assistant who the referee was crucially influenced in his header by Dorothy. Video assistant Time Each, on the other hand, came after checking the scene to another conclusion: He confirmed the way, but not the influence. So it came to an intervention of the Var and an on-field review by referee Wallenberg.
When does a player influence the opponent in the away?
To get to the bottom of the matter, a look into the rules is expedient. There is that it is not punishable to be in the away — as long as you do not play the ball, no opponent influenced in the struggle for the ball and does not provide an advantage after a rebound or a torque preventive action. From the bottom of the scene in Bochum is the aspect of influence. It is given according to rule 11 when a player in the away
with an opponent a duel leads to the ball or clearly tries to play the ball and thus affects an opposing player or is clearly active — for example, by a movement to the ball — and thus clearly influences the possibility of an opponent to play the ball, or An opponent prevents you to play or play the ball by clearing him clearly.
Leadership of VFL Bochum rightly recognized
It is obvious to these criteria — unlike the deadline itself, which is a factual decision — there is a certain discretion and interpretation space, is obvious. It is not always clear whether the influence of an opponent is present or not, sometimes even bitter mistakes can argue. Did Dorothy influenced Cofferdam Vogt? No, the impartial decided after looking at the pictures on the monitor.
That was correct, because the Bochum was passively remained passive in this situation: he led Vogt from which he was almost two meters away, no dug around the ball. He did not take a movement to the ball and thus did not try to play him. Volts s point of view also noticed Dorothy, because he was behind him. He also formed no obstacle. And thus he did not meet any of the criteria listed in the rules for defining a criminal influence.
Ausgebregel always changed more in favor of the offensive
Certainly, one could argue that Vogt had not gone to the ball when Colony had not stopped nearby. But as long as this proximity is not immediate, the mere present is not sufficient to make a deadline punishable. The impairment must be an active, the player s pure presence in the away is not yet considered as an influence. That was not always the case, but the regular bodies have changed the way out of the way and their design over the past few years and decades are consciously successively changed in favor of the offensive. Because it should fall more goals.
FRANK WALLENBERG decided in the interests of this rule philosophy, when he eventually assessed the journal of SOMA Dorothy as punishable. For the distance of the Consumers to Vogt and his passive behavior were so clear arguments against a punctuality of the journal that was offered by the VAR. At Antonio s final flank, it was a new game situation, and Dorothy was out of the way again. That s why his hit for 1: 0 was regular.
A good referee always expects the unexpected
Fully correctly, Wallenberg s decision was also a challenge of the VFL Bochum in the 73rd minute, which belongs to at least the curious penal of the younger past: because he believed that Dorothy wrongly complained a penalty whistle, Florian Drillisch pushed the attacker in the Cofferdam penalty area just around. To such scenes, it always comes back in game breaks when defenders witness a swallow. But in the current game, this is rare for good reason — after all, it is simply a foul, and in the penalty area this leads to a penalty.
Of course, that was an incomprehensible because unambiguous situation, and yet the referee here is a compliment. Because the players are usually smart enough to cool their mothers in their own penalty area during the ongoing game in their own penalty area in an opponent, it only rarely comes to a case like that in Bochum. Therefore, it is usually not expecting it. Nevertheless, Frank Wallenberg does not listen to the scene at an early stage, but with the eyes near Drillisch and Dorothy, testifies to a good sense. The 42-year-old is thus followed by the well-known guideline for impartial, that a good referee is always expecting the unexpected.
Why Eintracht Frankfurt in Fürth did not get penalty
In the game between the SPV GG Reuther Fürth and Eintracht Frankfurt (1: 2) the favorite guests meanwhile had a long time hard with the goal shooting. Maybe after half an hour, after half an hour, it was so vehement, as a referee Daniel Sievert did not decide on penalty after Dacha Ramada had gone to the ground at a rescue attempt of the Further Torturers Marius Funk in the penalty area of the hosts. The referee had not been a foul game, but again searched the consultation with his video assistant Pascal Müller in Cologne. This completed his review quickly and reported Sievert that no On-Field Review is needed.
That was good and right, because Sievert s decision was always reasonable. Although radio reached shortly before the goal line with his hand not the ball, but only Ramada s left foot. But this contact was rather slightly and not decisive for the Frankfurter fell. It was not least of the fact that Ramada was already kinked early with his right leg prematurely — an indication that it was not the keeper of the households, who brought him to the ground, but that the fall cause a certain voluntaries. Because there was a contact at the foot and radio did not play the ball, even a penalty whistle had not been absurd wrong. No penalty, but was unquestionably the better decision.
Alex Forehead
Comments
Post a Comment