Updated November 30, 2020, 9:40 a.m.
- In Stuttgart Bayern goalkeeper Manuel Neuer has to accept a bizarre goal – after a nasty mistake, it seems.
- However, after the video assistant intervened, the referee found that the mistake resulted from a foul.
- The VfB coach does not really agree.
Sovereignty and ease are currently gone with the triple winner FC Bayern Munich, the has been a bit weak for some time. He sometimes generously invites the opponents to scoring chances, the number of goals conceded is high by Bayern standards, the defense sometimes wobbles worryingly.
The record champion usually wins anywaywhich is not least due to the outstanding individual class of its players. In the front of the storm, of course, but especially in the back where Manuel Neuer is in the form of his life, as many believe. Again and again he holds balls that would be out of reach for most goalkeepers.
So that was astonishing strange goal conceded, which the 34-year-old had to accept after 39 minutes in the Munich game at VfB Stuttgart. This happened: after a back pass from Jerome Boateng, Neuer let the rushing one up Tanguy Coulibaly get out of the car before suddenly stumbling. Without need, it seemed.
He fell to his knees, paused briefly and watched, apparently expecting a whistle Referee Harm Osmerswhich, however, did not respond. When another Stuttgart man came and put the goalkeeper under pressure, the ball somehow got to him Philipp Forsterwho pulled from the edge of the penalty area and scored.
What Coulibaly aimed at and horrified Neuer
So the 2: 1 for the newcomer? Has Manuel Neuer, who is otherwise almost superhuman, made a mistake? The goalkeeper himself looked horrified at the referee, apparently surprised by the recognition of the goal. This gave him to understand with a brief gesture: Wait a minute Video wizard checks the scene.
When the repetition of the scene was shown on television and Harm Osmers finally on the recommendation of the VAR ran to the monitor on the sidelines, you saw that Manuel Neuer at least not without outside influence got out of step.
Coulibaly had the goalkeeper after he had put the ball past him and was in motion, briefly held on the arm. Not in the fight for the bullet that he could not reach, but exclusively, to affect new ones, maybe hoping the referee will let it go.
Matarazzo: “You can whistle, but you don’t have to”
This hope finally vanished, with which the Stuttgart coach Pellegrino Matarazzo did not really agree. He told the broadcaster “Sky”: “You can whistle, but you don’t have to.”
Neuer was already falling, the coach argued, “and you can’t tell from the pictures how much strength Tanguy is using [Coulibaly] has pulled “. In any case,” you can’t see that Neuer ripped off the shoulder becomes”.
Therefore, Matarazzo also doubted that the intervention of the video assistant was necessary: ”If you don’t whistle the scene in the game, you can’t take it back,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hundred percent wrong decision. “
That touched on the question of the reason for the intervention of the VAR: Did Osmers see the holding of Coulibaly, but judged it not to be punishable? Or did he not even notice it because it was happening behind Neuer’s back and was therefore not visible to him?
Was the intervention of the VAR justified?
In the former case it would be Intervention threshold higher for the VAR because it would have to be convinced that the referee’s conscious decision not to whistle clearly and obviously wrong war.
In the latter case, a possible control would be possible overlooked major incident before, in which the video assistant would have to assume before an intervention that the referee would have whistled with clear perception. This threshold would be lower.
That Harm Osmers only spent a few seconds in the review area on the sidelines before returning to the pitch and that Tor annullierte, rather indicates that he had seen the hold on screen for the first time. The intervention of the VAR would be entitled been.
The question remains whether Coulibaly’s action causal for it was that Neuer first lost his balance and finally the ball, so that one had to assume a foul. There is a lot to be said for a goalkeeper of such class and in this form. Nevertheless, Pellegrino Matarazzo’s argumentation is not absurd.
Why Süle’s handball was not a criminal offense
And then there was that Handball by Niklas Süle in the Bayern penalty area after 72 minutes, causing the ball after a shot by Orel Mangala flew past the housing of the Munich.
Referee Osmers recognized corner – and that was correct. Because Süle’s arm was hanging normally from the body and was not splayed, the defender also turned a bit out of the trajectory. It was not a criminal handball.
The Stuttgart sports director Sven Mislintat saw it differently, however. There is “no clearer hand penalty”, he found according to “Kicker”, because Süle’s hand was “slightly away from the body”. The referee had the process “simply wrongly rated “.
Once in motion, Mislintat became fundamental. The scene is an example of “that the Principlesthat we have, that we follow not grab“. Much, for example the enlargement of the body area, is”not precisely defined or specifically presented with examples “.
Mislintat’s suggestions to the rulers
The Set of rules must therefore be formulated more precisely, possibly even be changed: “One should proceed more according to the principle that would have resulted from such a situation if no hand had been in the game – namely a goal,” suggested the 48-year-old.
It won’t get that far for now, but the rulers of the International Football Association Board (Ifab) are considering at least some for the coming season Improvements to the handball rule, as the “Sportschau” reports.
It is planned that hand play with an arm spread apart or even held above shoulder height is no longer automatically a criminal offense; the referees should assess in future whether the position of the arms “Part of a natural movement of the player “is.
So are for example Arm movements when jumping and for maintaining balance meant. What is to be regarded as “unnatural”, on the other hand, should be written down and serve as a guide for the referees. The Ifab will finally decide on this in March 2021.
There are rule violations in football that are too obvious to be overlooked. Our examples leave the referees – actually – no room for interpretation and show how thoughtlessly some players endanger the health of their colleagues.