Again, after a duel between FC Bayern and the BVB, the referee was the focus. Daniel Siebert expressed himself the day after the game – and regretted two wrong decisions.

During the FC Bayern after the 3-1 victory in the top match of the Bundesliga celebrated the tenth championship in a row with the fans, the mood was not too dazzling at the guests from Dortmund. In particular, two scenes caused displeasure.

Siebert over Pavard’s grass against Brandt: “Biggest mistake in the game”

At first there was the duel between Julian Brandt and Benjamin Pavard in the 49th minute. The Frenchman met the Dortmund national player pretty clearly with his grassy on the ankle. The game continued. “That was the biggest mistake in this game and my evaluation of this scene I am very annoying,” Daniel Siebert said in conversation with the “kicker”.

“Brandt is spared at a high speed towards Munich Tor and Pavard sets from the side-back quite controlled to the grasse to play the ball,” explained the impartial and came to a clear conclusion: “But he only meets Brand’s ankle, so it was so it was A clear foul that would also have been mandatory with yellow. “

Schiedsrichter Siebert äußert sich zu Fehlentscheidungen im Topspiel zwischen Bayern vs Dortmund !
Siebert had deceived by the perspective and thought Pavard played the ball. “I’m glad that Brandt could continue playing and apparently did not seriously violate,” the 37-year-old continued.

Siebert: There must have been penalty for the BVB

The second scene was those who made the biggest displeasure among the BVB officers. Pavard first brought Jew Bellingham into a grace in his own penalty area and then touched the ball.

Siebert decided to continue playing. From his view also a mistake. “Crash would have been the right decision,” emphasized the referee. “This first attempt fails, Pavard does not play the ball, his leg represents an obstacle instead of Bellingham. Control technology is a chance and thus a foul. That Pavard touches the ball shortly afterwards is irrelevant,” the 37 led -Year-old.

Pavard hidden him in this situation, so he decided against a penalty whistle. He could decide as a referee “not to suspect” on penalty. The fact that there was no VaR intervention caused the BVB for irritation.

“One would have to look at the situation at least,” Kehl demanded the “kicker”. Siebert now also meant that the foul was visible. “Especially in the camera setting ‘Hintertor high’, however, in this case the criminal contact of Pavard is clearly recognizable to Bellingham,” he shared.