Reconstructing "Collina's heirs": Why Felix Brych plays it safe in the derby

The referee looks at the key scene in the game between Hertha BSC and Union in the Berlin Olympic Stadium again on the monitor, although he made the right decision beforehand - of his own accord, because of the explosive nature of the game.

Reconstructing "Collina's heirs": Why Felix Brych plays it safe in the derby

The referee looks at the key scene in the game between Hertha BSC and Union in the Berlin Olympic Stadium again on the monitor, although he made the right decision beforehand - of his own accord, because of the explosive nature of the game. In Bremen, on the other hand, an on-field review would have been better left out.

In the Berlin city duel between Hertha BSC and 1. FC Union (0:2), the 67th minute was running when, with the score at 1:0 for the guests from Köpenick, the scene happened that ultimately decided the game. When the hosts attacked, Rani Khedira and Hertha's Marc Oliver Kempf fought in the Union penalty area. Kempf got the ball first, which Khedira played immediately afterwards, before hitting his opponent on the side of his foot with the front part of his foot. Kempf went down, referee Felix Brych allowed play to continue and Union made a quick counterattack, which Paul Seguin completed with the goal to make it 2-0.

But was Khedira's use actually regular? Or should there have been a penalty for Hertha instead of the goal for Union? In any case, Felix Brych ran to the monitor on the sidelines to watch the scene again. After that he stuck to his decision. However, the fact that this on-field review came about was not due to the fact that the referee, according to video assistant Pascal Müller in Cologne, had made a clear and obvious mistake. Rather, the referee went to the review area of ​​his own accord. In an interview with the broadcaster Sky, he later explained his reasons.

"My impression on the pitch was that it was a tough tackle but no foul because I saw Rani Khedira play the ball too," he said. After the goal, he nevertheless contacted VAR. "He described the scene to me and said that it was justifiable for him to let it continue. But because of the explosiveness of the game and also because of the explosiveness of the game situation, I decided to run out myself." Brych found his perception on the field confirmed on the monitor: "Tough duel, but Khedira also plays the ball. Both players ultimately go into the duel at the same time, and so it was perfectly fine for me to let it go and concede the goal ."

The on-field review was actually "not necessary, not required and not required", Felix Brych continued. "But it was a very important situation, potentially game-changing, and I wanted to take that into account." The regulations and instructions for using the VAR specify this procedure. As is well known, an on-field review should only take place if the referee has made a clear and obvious mistake in a game-relevant situation or overlooked a serious incident. However, the referee can also conduct such a review in exceptional cases if it helps him "sell a decision in order to increase its acceptance", according to the International Football Association Board handbook for video assistants.

Of course, this is subjective, and some will object that it is not necessary for the referee to take another look at a correct or at least justifiable decision. On the other hand, the referee protected himself in a game with special explosives when the key scene came up. After all, an annulment of Seguin's goal would also have meant that Hertha would have been due a penalty, with the possible consequence that it would have been 1-1 instead of 0-2. And without the on-field review, many would probably have asked why Felix Brych didn't watch that tricky scene again.

The decision itself was all right. Because Khedira first played the ball clearly, so he didn't just touch it slightly. The subsequent contact against Kempf's foot during the parking movement had no intensity that would have carried more weight than the previous play of the ball. While it wasn't a discretionary situation, all in all there was much more to Brych's view than to reverse the decision, i.e. disallow the goal and award Hertha a penalty.

Nine minutes after this scene, Union called for a penalty when Peter Pekarik stopped the ball with his left hand after a shot on goal by Niko Gießelmann in the Hertha goal area. But even in this case, Felix Brych decided against a penalty. He emphasized to Sky that he had perceived the scene on the field in the same way as later in the television pictures. "I told the video assistant and the players that it's the support arm, so it's not a punishable handball," said the referee. This meant that Pekarik hadn't used his arm to stop the ball, but to use it to support himself on the ground when it fell.

Because such a movement is natural and serves to balance the body or arrest a fall, there is no penalty for playing with the arm or hand in question. In fact, even in this situation, there was a lot to be said for evaluating the process as the referee did. The VAR also confirmed the decision in the game, according to Felix Brych, "and in this case there was no need to run out again", i.e. to the monitor on the sidelines.

There was also a handball in the penalty area in the match between SV Werder Bremen and VfL Wolfsburg (2:1). After 21 minutes, Bremen's Marvin Ducksch passed the ball high into the Wolfsburg penalty area to his team-mate Jens Stage, who put it back halfway with his foot. Wolfsburg's Yannick Gerhardt deflected the ball with his left hand, and the guests were able to clear it. Referee Daniel Siebert initially allowed play to continue, but then VAR Günter Perl intervened and there was an on-field review. The referee then awarded Bremen a penalty, which Niclas Füllkrug converted to make it 1-0.

Gerhardt was "stunned" by the decision, as he said after the game, after all, the distance to the stage and the ball was small. Siebert also accepted this objection in the conversation, but argued "that my hand moves up after the contact". But Gerhardt found it "difficult that that alone should be a criterion for the penalty". The referee had therefore determined an unnatural enlargement of the body, which is given according to the rules "if the hand/arm position is neither the result of a body movement by the player in the respective situation nor can this body movement be justified".

What is meant by this somewhat misleading formulation is that spreading your arms can definitely be a natural movement. Namely when it is not used and is not accepted to touch the ball with the arm or hand. This is the case, for example, when the player is in a normal, football-typical running movement or uses his arms to maintain balance or gain momentum. In Bremen, after Ducksch's header, Gerhardt moved to Stage and the ball to engage in a tackle. He slowed down when his opponent got the ball first and spread his arms slightly to keep his balance.

The Wolfsburg man seemed surprised by the fact that and how Stage played the ball backwards, and due to the very short distance he had hardly any reaction time, which can be seen above all in the real speed. An intentional handball will therefore not and cannot be imputed to him, but an enlargement of the body is - but not an unnatural one. Because his arm position was, to put it in terms of rules, the result of a normal compensatory movement when stopping and can also be justified with this natural body movement.

Therefore, there was much more to suggest that the original decision that Daniel Siebert made from a favorable angle and with a clear view was the right one - namely to let the game continue. But at least it was not clear and obviously wrong, which is why intervention by the VAR would not have been necessary here.