Referee expert certain: one BVB goal against HSV "shouldn't have stood" | OneFootball

Despite a 2-0 lead at halftime, HSV had to settle for a 2-3 defeat at Borussia Dortmund last weekend.

After one of their strongest performances of the season in the first half, the promoted team increasingly fell apart after the break. They could hardly relieve the pressure, and there was a complete lack of defensive control. Time and again, the outstanding Daniel Heuer Fernandes denied Dortmund some of their best chances.

However, even he could not prevent the run of three goals conceded within just eleven minutes. Particularly bitter: two of these three goals came from penalties, in situations where BVB was only marginally in dangerous positions. The Red Shorts also gave away another penalty in the first half, when Warmed Omari could only stop Maximilian Beier with a clumsy challenge.

The painful realization from HSV’s perspective: there was no reason to complain about any of these calls by Matthias Jöllenbeck. “All three penalties were correct,” wrote former Bundesliga referee Manuel Gräfe on X.

Photo: IMAGO

BVB Goal “Irregular” Due to HSV Error

But ironically, it was with the only goal conceded from open play that HSV may have been disadvantaged. According to Gräfe, the 2-2 scored by Serhou Guirassy should not have counted. He is certain that this goal was “scored irregularly.”

The reason for this assessment, ironically, lies in a Hamburg error. In the 78th minute, William Mikelbrencis took a throw-in that did not comply with the rules, and the ball immediately ended up with BVB. They ruthlessly capitalized on the turnover and celebrated the equalizer just seconds later—wrongly so, according to Gräfe. “The throw-in was not correctly brought into play, and from a rules perspective, there can be no advantage, only a throw-in for BVB,” explains the referee expert.

Nur die Raute – All the news about HSV

So should the video assistant have disallowed the 2-2? According to Gräfe, that is not the case. “The VAR is not allowed to intervene after the goal according to the guidelines,” he writes. This is the case, among other reasons, because “only the attacking phase and possible offenses from the point of BVB possession are reviewed.”

His final assessment: “From a rules perspective, an advantage after this incorrect throw-in was not possible & it was solely up to the on-field referees’ judgment.” Of course, HSV gains little from this interpretation.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇩🇪 here.