The Bayern penalty provides great outrage. But what could Referee Daniel Siebert and his team have done? The most important questions and answers in the overview.
When does the video umpire intervene?
Basically, the video assistant may only intervene in four different scenarios: goals, penalty fairs, referees and player confusion (player A sees yellow, while player B committed the foul). If one of these situations, is the requirement of the German Football Association (DFB) that the video assistant only intervenes in “clear and obvious” wrong decisions. If this is not the case, he must not act, so the default.
And where is the problem?
The phrase “clear and obvious” sounds, well, clear and obvious, but in reality it is always a matter of definition, what exactly is “clear and obvious”. And the interpretation in this case, people, namely the referees who sit in front of the screen in Cologne. All Bremen was on Wednesday of the opinion that the penalty kick by Daniel Siebert for the Bayern was such a “clear and obvious” wrong decision, video assistant Robert Kampka and the assistant video assistant (there is really) Tobias Reichel saw in her Office but the touch of Theodor Gebre Selassie and perhaps even came to the assessment “Rather no penalty” – according to the rules but that is not enough for an intervention.
Who can ask?
The referee may contact the video assistant via headset and ask: Was this correct? Conversely, the video assistant may also call the referee and tell him: You're wrong. However, the decision-making power always has the main referee on the court. He alone decides whether he trusts the video assistant, whether he looks at the scene again or whether he does not do anything. If, in the Bremen case, Siebert asks and receives the announcement: “No clear wrong decision”, he behaves correctly. If he does not receive an announcement, he must assume that it was not a clear mistake and behaves accordingly also correct.
And even if Siebert had looked at the scene again on a screen, it is unclear what would have happened. The Bremen players said Siebert had a contact on the foot perceived. Since the TV images refuted him. Whether he would have stayed at his own decision on the scene then because of the slight elbow shivers – who knows.
Why does the DFB interpret the rule so defensively?
The passage with the “clear and obvious” wrong decision was introduced to protect the authority of the referee on the court. It should be prevented that a man in front of a screen as a “true referee” is perceived. The Video Assistant is interpreted as additional help, not as an omniscient entity. When the DFB used the video assistant more aggressively in the early days, there were massive protests because many spongy scenes were often reviewed for minutes. That led to annoyance. In the current season, the VAR is used defensively – and at least in the Bundesliga, there are fewer debates.
Should not the video referee actually prevent such scenes?
The expectation that the video referee would not make any more wrong decisions has always been unrealistic. As long as there are scenes in football that you have to interpret, people always have to interpret the scenes. Incidentally, the only exception is the calibrated offside line, because there is no gray area in the case of offside. There is no “offside”, but a bit of a foul. The rampant term “video evidence” gives the impression that everything has to be unique.
Some scenes are not completely resolved on the screen. To meet this fundamental problem, the rule-keeper decided: Then the video-referee only intervenes in crystal clear stories. This is – if you consistently implement it – not a bad prescription to address this problem. The downside: You have to accept such 90-percent decisions as in Bremen as “collateral damage”.
. (tagsToTranslate) DFB Cup (t) FC Bayern Munich (t) SV Werder Bremen (t) Sport (t) Süddeutsche Zeitung (t) SZ