There were 3 questionable scenes in the Bundesliga and the second Bundesliga at the weekend break. The DFB prefer to not have actually seen 2 penalty shot from its umpires, a various choice was identified than appropriately.
SpVgg Greuther Fürth – FC Schalke 04
What occurred? Fürth’s Simon Asta pertained to the sphere in the Schalke fine location at 1-1 and dropped in a battle with Paul Seguin, that, according to the tv photos, had actually quickly tipped on his foot. Referee Tom Bauer picked a charge, video clip aide Robert Hartmann did not interfere. Was that the ideal choice?
As the DFB discusses: Alex Feuerherdt is the spokesperson for DFB Schiri GmbH that arranges the umpire system in German specialist football. “As a field decision, we would rather have been if the penalty had not existed” claims Feuerherdt in a meeting with the sporting activities reveal. “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 discusses that the video clip aide does not interfere “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 to do it: Fürth’s Dennis Srbeny stopped working in the fine to Schalke’s goalkeeper Loris Karius, however Jomaine Consbruch racked up 2-1 in the consequences. The video game finished 3: 3.
Referee professional Alex Feuerherdt
TSG Hoffenheim – FC Augsburg
What occurred? Hoffenheim’s Haris Tabakovic stormed right into the fine location at 0-1 and shot. His shot was dispersed by Chrislain Matsima, Jeffrey Gouweleeuw obtained it on his spreading out arm. Tobias Reichel picked a charge, video clip aide Markus Schmidt did not interfere – a failing?
As the DFB discusses: “The penalty should not have existed” claimsFeuerherdt He sees 5 factors 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 does not the video clip aide interfere?“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 noticeable blunder had actually mentioned that the video clip aide must have stepped in. In concept, 2 errors were made: “One gave the penalty and unfortunately another did not intervene.”
How it took place: The incorrect fine whistle was important for the end result of the video game: Andrej Kramari ć racked up from the indicate make up for Hoffenheim, the video game finished 1-1.
Borussia Dortmund – 1. FSV Mainz 05
What occurred? In the fine location, Maximilian Beier from Borussia Dortmund and Andreas Hanche-Olsen from Mainz 05 performed at 0: 0 straight, anticipating a Dortmund flank. However, it really did not come. Karim Adeyemi repeated to a colleague on the right. Hanche-Olsen, nevertheless, consulted with the single in the Achilles ligament. Worthwhile?
As the DFB discusses: “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” claimsFeuerherdt Therefore, the video clip aide Robert Schr öder did not see any type of factor for a treatment. “In this case, you can’t even assume that you can assume negligence” claims Feuerherdt.
Therefore, both the choice on the square and the absence of treatment were right. Would there have been a treatment if umpire Daniel Schlager had provided a charge? “Probably not” claimsFeuerherdt “It would be difficult to go in. But the decision made is far better for us.”
How it took place: Dortmund won the video game 3-1.
&w=100&resize=100,70&ssl=1 "Pakistan Army’s shelling on J&K boundary eliminates 3, consisting of 2 private citizens–")
