With an apparently quiet Matchday 11, Matchday 12 brought us many cases to discuss from four of the five games held at the start of the week.
Narva Trans – Flora 0-1
After receiving a fine for his harsh words about Tarajev (the 34-years-old referee has directed only one game in Premium Liiga since then – Matchday 9) this time Valeri Bondarenko sealed his lips in the aftermath of the game against Flora.
Who spoke, instead, was Flora’s coach, Norbert Hurt: ‘for one moment I got scared (the penalty would have been granted)’ said the young coach to Õhtuleht, adding he was not able to judge whether the penalty was or wasn’t.
As usual, our moviola tries to give an answer.
On 16’ minutes Miśins sends a long ball for Plotnikov. The nr.14 does not seem likely to get the ball which is falling where Mets is positioned. The nr.6 tries a complicated stop with the upper part of his boot. Instead of bringing the ball down, he accidentally delivers the ball to Plotnikov himself. The nr.14 stops it down and runs towards the box. Prins comes out to try to either catch the ball or push it away from Plotnikov’s feet.
Whether Prins collided with Plotnikov’s feet or not, the picture is not clarifying it. However, as we can see from the outtake on the right (click to enlarge) he does not touch the ball as the sphere does not change direction.
In the replay, we can take better outtakes of the moment of the impact.
As you can see in the following pictures, it seems that Prins hands are indeed touching Plotnikov left foot. Plotnikov’s fall seems quite natural.
The nr.14, once past Prins, would have had the open goal in front of him from afavourable position. Why shall he dive? This would seem a legitimate penalty not granted by Hannes Kaasik.
Now go tell Bondarenko.
Kalev – Nõmme Kalju 0-3
Notwithstanding the final result would suggest there is no need to analyse episodes from this game, such conclusion it is not as obvious as it seems.
In fact, on 19’ minutes a penalty was claimed by Kalju when the result was still 0-0.
A long ball is sent into the box from Vunk in the zone where Neemelo is. The nr.99 stops the ball with his chest but cannot control properly and the ball goes towards Heintare. First he stops with his body and then the ball hits his left arm. Penalty or not?
As in past weeks, we shall consider whether the ball goes to the arm or viceversa if we consider this as an involuntary handball as it seems. Additionally, is the arm outstretched or not (picture above, click to enlarge)
There is no doubt that the ball is going towards the arm, however, as in the case of Santos-Emmaste (check here) the arm is outstretched from the body making it a clear penalty situation.
FC Infonet – Levadia 0-4
In first half, two penalties claimed from both sides at very close distance from each other.
First is Subbotin (21’) for Levadia to claim a penalty. When he receives a through-ball into the box, Elhi is on his track. Assumingly, the Infonet nr.22 would pull him down in the box from behind. However, the impression is that Subbotin lets himself go when Elhi touches him with his arm in a normal contact. As shown in the picture (click to enlarg), the legs have already lost touch with the ground and are preparing to fall. Good decision by Miko Pupart not to award a penalty however the diving attempt should have been punished with a yellow.
Five minutes, Valov for Infonet has a similar claim in the opposite box (26’).
The Russian left flanker receives the ball from corner kick and starts a quick incursion from the left side. He rapidly enter the box after a sudden turn. On his way he finds Ivanov. Pupart is in the best position to judge the situation and opts not to grant the penalty. Penalty or not?
Looking at the episode (picture on the right - click to enlarge), it seems like Ivanov is either not playing the ball or, at least, too late to reach it as Valov is too fast.
Probably, in another zone of the field, Pupart would have granted a free-kick, however he did not feel to grant a penalty for this clear foul.
In second half, Pupart granted a penalty to Levadia for an handball by Kalimullin when Levadia led already 2-0
- whether the handball is intentional or not
- if it’s not, whether the ball goes to the arm or viceversa
- whether the arm is outstretched or not
However, in this situation we might not need all the criteria.
In fact, looking at the episode, it seems like Kalimullin touches the ball with his shoulder.
Why Pupart assigns a penalty to Levadia then?
The reason might be in Kalimullin’s instinctive movement of his arm that deceives the referee’s eye making him think about the arm touching the ball (check the footage here).
Even if the ball had touched Kalimullin upper arm, we can clearly see that both the ball goes to the arm and the arm is not outstretched.
Not enough ground in our opinion to grant a penalty.
Lokomotiv – Tammeka Tartu 2-2
Finally yet importantly, we close with the much controversial penalty assigned in Jõhvi by Eiko Saar at 90’+3 when Lokomotiv was leading 2-1 and close to grab their first three points ever in the Premium Liiga.
Most of the controversy was spurred by the words referee Eiko Saar has addressed at Kristian Tiirik who later on transformed the penalty.
According to the video footage (check below) Eiko Saar whistled a penalty on the very moment Tammeka scored the goal. It was not possible to consider the goal as valid. Regarding the fould itself, there is no doubt that Smelkov hits Tauts, so the penalty is legitimate.
Whether advantage or not could have been applied, probably yes as the ball was still floating in front of the goal.