The last-second penalty kick against VfB Stuttgart heated the minds of the Swabs and led to another explanation from the DFB. VfB Stuttgart is upset about the referees after their unsuccessful restart and fundamentally questions the video evidence. But what actually happened? Quite simply: although the game continued after a corner kick in added time, the game was suddenly interrupted for an on-field review, with one and a half minutes of communication between referee Sascha Stegemann and VAR Robert Kampka.
The DFB classified the decision as "technically correct". However, the sporting management of the elite referees also admitted that there was room for discretion for Stegemann. After all, the handball was clearly not recognizable. To summarize briefly: The intervention of the VAR was not appropriate, but the process afterwards proceeded within the framework of the rules. "The arm position of the Stuttgart defender above the shoulder - the hand is stretched forward halfway and lies on the arm of the Wiesbaden striker - is to be classified as unnatural and a penalty kick is technically in order, whereby when considering the entire sequence of movements of the player cannot classify the process as being very clear. The process is therefore a scene which, in its evaluation, represents a discretionary area for the referee on the field. On the question of the need for intervention by the video assistant, we consider the on-field review recommendation made by the video assistant, against the background of the discretionary scope and therefore not a clear and obvious error by the referee, as inappropriate. This would also apply if the referee had only seen the process to a limited extent. Since it was a very detailed process, a detailed analysis by the video assistant was necessary in order to be able to illustrate the handball. This proof could be provided by a high-resolution camera. In the on-field review, it was difficult for the referee to recognize the handball, so the referee asked the video assistant several times about this proof to be absolutely certain. After confirmation by the video assistant, the referee then requested various camera angles in order to evaluate the question of 'punishable or not punishable?' As in the present case, only the referee can make this evaluation. In the end, the referee judged this process to be punishable in his discretion and, according to the rules, he correctly awarded a penalty kick."
Source: Kicker
