Many controversial stories flying around the football space, but hear Ballgist give a proper explanation into why the penalty-incident was retaken.
The Champions League second-leg tie between the two European heavyweights sparked numerous controversies over some of the decisions the referee made during the match and it is unclear whether these decisions came off the UEFA books or were merely made up in the heat of the moment.
Chelsea took on a really impressive and motivated Dortmund team, having lost the first-leg at the Signal Iduna Park, thanks to a solo goal by Karim Adeyemi.
As a result, Graham Potter came under increased scrutiny from fans and football pundits alike for the club’s poor run of form and inability to make the most of chances.
Adeyemi’s solo goal saw Dortmund defeat Chelsea at the Signal Iduna Park
The return leg meant Potter’s Blues would be looking to overturn the 1-0 deficit and make it two wins in two following their 1 – 0 win over Leeds United on Saturday.
The Penalty Incident
The match saw a number of chances missed for both sides again – a repeat of the first-leg, but a Raheem Sterling thumping strike drew the sides level on aggregate just before halftime.
Then the main event ensued in the second half when Ben Chilwell’s low cross came-off the palms of Dortmund’s Marius Wolf who was in the penalty area. The calls for a penalty were initially waved “play on” by the on-field referee until a timely intervention by the VAR brought the game to a halt for a review to be made.
In true sense, many would claim that it was a harsh call due to his hand in close proximity to his side, but the call had been made and it was a rather favourable decision for the home team to save themselves from the increasing pressure.
Up stepped Kai Havertz to take the penalty, he saw his shot hit the post after a slow and stuttering run-up.
Havertz had to retake penalty as Borussia Dortmund players came into the box when taken and cleared the ball on the rebound
Here comes the controversy: VAR came into play again and checked for a possible encroachment which saw both teams players inside the box at the point of contact.
The Golden-encroachment rule in UEFA books stipulates that if both teams encroach during a penalty, a retake would be awarded. This is one of the important lines in the VAR handbook: “And regardless of who plays the ball, if players from both teams encroach on a miss, it’s a retake.”
The handbook continues: “A defender who encroached prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball in a situation where a goal might be scored.”
Why was Chelsea’s penalty retaken?
It is thought that as Dortmund cleared the ball after it bounced back off the post, they were preventing the attacking side from playing the ball.
The VAR footage is a little disputative because Enzo Fernandez does not appear to be in the path of the ball. Because of the positioning of both sets of players, it was highly unlikely that Chelsea would score when the ball came back off the post; this was the point where the confusion was raised.
Following the game, many comments and divergent opinions were seen online and in video podcasts; albeit, it’s safe to say the fallout from this will continue; however, Chelsea won’t care one whit as they prepare for a Champions League quarter-final.
