Diagonal Channel Reloaded

Published by Niclas on Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Once again I would like to put emphasis on a quite modern development in refereeing and
which should be taken to an end in my opinion. Specially since the opening match of World
Cup 2014 and Yuichi Nishimura's penalty mistake, we know that the so-called diagonal
channel movement can have severe impacts on the quality of perception and decisiontaking in penalty area incidents.

Welz facing protests after his decision source/owner: focus.de

In short: The diagonal channel means that, instead of running out the more or less linear diagonal
movement (which should be never really linear, but slightly S-shaped) on the field of play, referees
are reacting more flexibly to play if the latter is moving to the right part of the penalty area - the
one closer to Assistant Referee 2 and, if available, the Additional Assistant Referee.
The idea behind it: Being closer to the action, being able to take more accurate decisions in case of
fouls by a defender on the attacker moving in the right side of the box and thus showing presence
(deterrent effect).
The problem: Most duels inside the penalty area follow a vertical movement pattern, i.e. both
players are mostly moving towards the goalline (in sprints, e.g.) or towards the goal. In sprints or
general goal attempts, the movement angle towards the goal(line) is therefore mostly between 60
and 90.
You however take the best decisions if you savour a sidewise insight into a challenge, requiring a
sidewise visual angle. The diagonal channel implies that as the referee you are moving kind of
"behind" the duel instead of looking into a potential challenge, foul or simply a duel from the side.
And: You can easily miss incidents in the left part of the penalty area, as they might be too far
away or obstructed by many players in the penalty area.
Instead of relying on the standardized and well-working model of a more or less flexible, S-shaped
diagonal movement, standing slightly to the left in penalty area situations - which allows that both
your assistant referee and you as the referee have a good overview on everything in the penalty
area - FIFA decided to use the World Cup and its preparation tournaments to implement
corresponding guidelines asking their referees to use the diagonal channel movement pattern.
That's why some penalty decisions were wrongly taken in Brazil, as analyzed here and here.

In Germany's Bundesliga, there was an incident similar to those we saw in Brazil last weekend:

UEFA First Group Referee Tobias Welz was in charge of that match. As SC Freiburg had to win to
keep hopes high to avoid the relegation to 2nd Bundesliga, they defended well and were focused
on producing quick counterattacks. In the 57th minute, such a counterattack was played.

Video
Play moved from the left side of the midfield towards the right half of the penalty area. The reddressed attacker on the right side of the box took heart and went into a 1v1 duel with the
defender, to make a dangerous pass parallel to the goalline. A duel was possible, so apparently
Tobias Welz chose to use the diagonal channel. At the moment of the pass, he was positioned at
the right side with no duel having occurred and the ball being passed through the penalty area to
the left side of the field of play.
As a result, he unfortunately missed the clear contact at the feet (careless) and maybe the slight
but effective holding by the defender at the "bottom" of the box (Rafinha). Considering that the
attacker would have faced a relatively empty goal with no other opponent being able to interfere,
the referee should have given a penalty and should have sent off Rafinha with a red card for
denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. But he didn't, most likely as he did not perceive this
player
duo
at
all.
Interestingly, his visibly changed movement pattern after exactly 4 seconds in the video was
maybe the reason why he later had to use the diagonal channel - otherwise he could have had an
obstructed view. So a first step would have been to not get in this dilemma by continuing the
movement direction he had between the first 2-3 seconds in the video.
There was no need for the referee to follow the player who later passed the ball into the goal area
that intensely - his assistant referee was close, had a free view and would have been able to
deliver information if possible - it is belonging to his responsibility. Welz would have been
positioned much more efficiently and could have obtained better results if he had not followed the
diagonal channel guideline.
And: Even if there had been a tackle on the passer at the right side, even if his assistant referee
had missed it, the referee would have had a better visual angle on the fictive tackle if he had been
positioned more centrally.

How the referee was positioned

How he should have approximately positioned himself (somewhere in this area)

This missed penalty almost cost a team the staying up in the league. To be fair with the referee
concerned - even if he had been positioned adequately, such infringements can be difficult to spot
at times (the punishable contact happened at the bottom, while we mostly look to the upper part
as soon as there could be a light holding offence as referees). And: Mistakes can of course always
happen.
BUT: Systematically underlying roots and causes have to be avoided. And this should count for the
diagonal channel, too, over which the curtain will be hopefully drawn very soon. Refereeing
improvement should think step by step and, in this respect, excluding one possible source of
mistakes would already be a huge one.