Tammeka – Paide Linnameeskond 2-4
Many controversial cases in the flamboyant game directed Kristo Külljastinen (at 16th Premium Liiga game). Were all the decision taken correct? Let’s check the cases considering that all the yellow cards (5) shown were correct.
10’ Tiirik fouled in midfield
The Tammeka veteran has been a constant thorn in Paide’s backline. On 10’, Tammeka are able to start a promising counterattack with Laabus sending a ball towards the nr.7 positioned as a striker. Notwithstanding the age, he is much faster than Karl Palatu. The Paide nr.24 can only resort to jump on in using also the elbow. Quite surprisingly Külljastinen let the game continue without assigning a free-kick to Tammeka. Palatu was the last man, however the foul occurred on the midfield line without Tiirik being running towards the goal, a yellow card would have been more suitable.
19’ Tiirik offside
Almost 10 minutes later, when Paide was already ahead 1-0, Tiirik scores a goal disallowed for offside.
The second assistant (Veiko Mõtsnik) flags the offside just a second before Tiirik volleys the ball past Palm. Offside or not offside? As last week against Lokomotiv, the ERR live footage and replay do not help much. This time we cannot find any help in the players shadows due to the dusk low light and we have to assume that Mõtsnik call was good in the very moment when Śabanov sent a long ball for Tiirik. Once the ball reaches Tiirik in the camera vision field, he is already ahead of Palatu, therefore is hard to understand whether he started his run already ahead of the Paide central defender.
50’ Liivo Leetma’s foul
In second half, probably already tired after playing one hour, veteran midfielder Liivo Leetma, let himself go to a series of fouls. On 50’ Tammeka are going on a counterattack with Rääbis on the left flank close to the penalty box corner. The young player is much quicker than Leetma who tries to foul him twice: first by clinching his left foot with the right one and later he can only resort to trip him by rising the left leg (as shown in picture). Külljastinen assigns a free-kick to Tammeka but leaves Leetma unpunished for the double attempt. The impression is he might have missed the first tackle attempt as Rääbis was quick in escaping the trap.
64’ penalty assigned for handball
Past the hour, on 3-1 for Paide, Külljastinen assigns a penalty to Paide for a handball by Simo Tenno.
It was a quick long ball for Rõivassepp in the box. Controlled by Tekko, he tries to shoot on goal from off-centered position. In the attempt, he slips on the sandy surface and the ball bounces on Tekko’s legs. As a result, the ball bounces on the upcoming Tenno. Unfortunately, on his arm. It is quite involuntarily gesture. As usual, we shall check whether the ball goes to the arm or viceversa. In his case seems rather the former than the latter. Probably Külljastinen could have spared this one this time.
87’ another goal disallowed to Tammeka for offside position
3 minutes to time, 4-2 for Paide and Tammeka scores their third goal with Rääbis. However, he was in offside position when Tiirik fired towards Paide’s goal. The replay doesn’t help, however in the live footage is possible to see that Rääbis is clearly ahead. Good call by first assistant, Aron Härsing
Sillamäe – Nõmme Kalju 0-3
Satisfying direction by Eiko Saar in the most important game of the matchday.
All decisions were correctly taken and no controversial episode rose particular doubts.
Only on one chance, when the score was 0-0, Kalju claimed for a penalty. On a cross sent in the box by Kimbaloula, the ball was assumingly deflected with the arm by the Sillamäe defender. The defender was holding the arms against his body. However, while jumping, he turned his body in a way that the hands found themselves opposed to the ball.
Saar judged the handball as involuntary (the tv picture was not the clearest and a replay was not offered).
We would agree with the decision as in the case of Simo Tenno’s handball (Tammeka-Paide) the ball goes to the arm and not vice versa. However there was not the same standard of judgement about two similar episodes in two different games of Premium Liiga.