Referee Daniel Siebert has a lot to do in the heated northern duel in the 2nd Bundesliga between Hamburger SV and Werder Bremen. One situation in particular is complex in terms of rules, but he solves it correctly in conjunction with his VAR.
The game in German professional football, which attracted the most attention at the weekend, was the most explosive and was followed with particular interest, was exceptionally not a match in the upper house, but rather the northern duel in the 2nd division between the two promotion candidates Hamburger SV and Werder Bremen (2:3). For this reason, the sporting director of the referees entrusted one of the best referees in the country, namely Daniel Siebert, with the refereeing of this game. The 37-year-old from Berlin had a lot to do and after only seven minutes he had to assess the most technically demanding and complex situation of the day.
Bittencourt can celebrate, his goal counts.
(Foto: imago images/Nordphoto)
Bremen’s Ömer Toprak shot at the goal of the guests around 18 meters from the Hamburg goal. About three meters in front of him, in his own penalty area, was Hamburg’s Jonas Meffert, who deflected the ball flying towards him to the side. The ball came in a high arc to Bremen’s Leonardo Bittencourt, who headed it into the goal. However, he was clearly offside, which assistant referee Richard Hempel immediately signaled with the flag. A supposedly clear case – but in Cologne video assistant Pascal Müller noticed something that had remained hidden from the referees on the field, namely a handball by Meffert.
He had “spread his arm away from his body”, as referee Siebert told Norddeutscher Rundfunk after the game. “He’s blocking the cross, and according to the current interpretation, that’s a punishable handball,” the referee continued. VAR Müller therefore recommended him an on-field review, after which Siebert awarded SV Werder a penalty, which Marvin Ducksch converted to make it 0-1. But couldn’t the referee have awarded the goal that Bittencourt had scored instead of the penalty? Although he was offside when Toprak shot on goal, it is conceivable that Meffert’s handball, which deserves a penalty, changed the situation.
Did Bittencourt’s goal have to be disallowed for offside?
Finally, the rules state that if the offside player receives the ball after an opponent has deliberately played it, there is no penalty for being offside. The English term for this, “deliberate play”, has also become established in German football terminology, probably not least because of its brevity and conciseness. Intent refers only to whether the player meant to play the ball at all, and not to whether he intended to play it exactly as he did in the end. Even a hair-raising bad pass or an unsuccessful rescue operation can therefore be a “deliberate play” – and an intentional handball as well, which is expressly stated in the offside rule.
This means that if an offside player receives the ball from an opponent’s intentional handball, the offside is broken and the referee can allow play to continue if it is in the attacker’s advantage. The question is whether Meffert’s handball was intentional or not. In general, since this season it has again been the case that intention is the central criterion for classifying a handball as punishable. For example, someone who brings their hand or arm to the ball and touches it is acting intentionally. Also, if a player unnaturally spreads his arms in an attempt to reach the ball, subsequent hand or arm contact will be penalized.
It’s complicated with intention
“Collina’s heirs” – this is Germany’s first referee podcast, founded and run by Klaas Reese and Alex Feuerherdt. It deals with the football rules, the decisions of the referees and the background and shallows of refereeing. “Collinas Erben” write every Monday on ntv. de about the referee performance of the Bundesliga matchday Our author is Alex Feuerherdt referee since 1985 and officiated games up to the Oberliga. He is responsible for training and further education in Cologne, referee observer in the area of the DFB and works as a lecturer and freelance journalist.
From this one could conclude: If a handball is judged to be punishable, there is intention from a technical point of view – and thus a “deliberate play”, an intentional playing of the ball. However, an inquiry with the DFB referee instructor, Lutz Wagner, revealed that things are not that simple. Meffert’s handball was punishable because he held his arm, which was unnaturally spread out from his body, in the path of the ball, Wagner said. But he didn’t actively play the ball flying towards him from a short distance, he just blocked it. If he had done the same with another part of the body, such as the foot, there would have been no “deliberate play” either, as Wagner explained.
Blocking the ball from close range is generally not considered intentional play of the ball because the player has no control over his action and little time to react. Nevertheless, a handball committed in this way can be punishable if a player has spread his arms in an unnatural way in anticipation of the ball and has at least accepted a handball. In any case, Bittencourt’s offside position was not canceled out by a “deliberate play”, so the goal was not allowed to count.
The second hand penalty is also justified
The fact that video assistant Pascal Müller intervened because of the previous, unpunished handball was just as correct as Daniel Siebert’s decision to award Bremen a penalty. Even if Meffert saw it completely differently. He spoke of a “clearly wrong decision” and asserted with regard to Toprak’s shot on goal: “He stands a meter in front of me and shoots the ball at my hand, which I pull away.” Siebert did not accept this objection. Meffert “wanted to stop the cross or the shot on goal”, so it was “an expected situation, blocking the ball and a careless hand position,” he said.
Five minutes after the break, VAR intervened again, again after an initially unpunished handball in the Hamburg penalty area, this time by Bakery Jatta. This intervention was also justified, especially if you compare this situation with the one at the beginning of the game. That’s what Daniel Siebert was aiming for when he told NDR: “If you give the first penalty, I think we all agree that you have to give the second more clearly because the hand position is even higher and the hand is still is stretched out further.” Marvin Ducksch also converted Werder’s second penalty in the game.
Siebert is happy about the acceptance
In another penalty area situation, which occurred after 19 minutes, the referee did not need any information from the video assistant. Moritz Heyer scored the supposed 1-1 equalizer, but Daniel Siebert noticed a foul by Robert Glatzel on Toprak after the previous cross and therefore interrupted the game. Glatzel didn’t fight for the ball, according to Siebert, but pushed his opponent Toprak, who was in a better position on the ball, “with both hands into the goalkeeper” of Bremen, Jiří Pavlenka. This gave him an illegal advantage. That too was a valid justification for an understandable decision.
The referee also emphasized that both teams had treated him very fairly. “I found it really amazing and want to thank everyone involved that despite the many contentious decisions and the heated atmosphere on the field I felt my decisions were accepted,” he said. “It’s a great feeling these days.” It is also not a matter of course for him, “who has refereed many first division games and in the Champions League and was in the Euro, that there is such acceptance here”. Remarkable final words after a game that was extremely demanding for the referee.
