The FC Augsburg experienced a turbulent game against Mainz on Friday evening. Keven Schlotterbeck, defender of FC Augsburg, had been in the spotlight several times that evening. In the first half, the 27-year-old had proven his goal threat in standard situations. After a free kick by Marius Wolf, Jeffrey Gouweleeuw laid the ball on, and Schlotterbeck powered the ball into the net for the 1-2 equalizer. However, the defender of FC Augsburg had also played a role in a controversial scene when he collided with Mainz's Silvan Widmer. Referee Sören Storks initially awarded a penalty, but was then corrected by Video Assistant Referee Pascal Müller. Schlotterbeck commented on the decision after the game, saying: 'The penalty is a possible penalty, not a must-penalty.' FC Augsburg lost the game 2-3. The defeat was all the more bitter as FC Augsburg had improved in the second half and even taken the lead. FC Augsburg will now have to focus on the next game to reduce the gap to the top. Sports director Marinko Jurendic was furious after the game and sharply criticized the refereeing team. Schlotterbeck was directly involved and affected, but he knew how to express his criticism in a reflective manner. The anger was pronounced, even the normally analytical and rational sports director Marinko Jurendic was furious and sharply criticized the refereeing team, especially Video Assistant Referee Pascal Müller. Schlotterbeck was directly involved and affected. He also appeared highly dissatisfied with various decisions, but knew how to express his criticism in a reflective manner. The defender of FC Augsburg had been in the spotlight several times that evening. In the first half, the 27-year-old had proven his goal threat in standard situations. After a free kick by Marius Wolf, Jeffrey Gouweleeuw laid the ball on, and Schlotterbeck powered the ball into the net for the 1-2 equalizer. Schlotterbeck's first goal received little attention in retrospect, as other scenes required much more attention. In the sixth minute of the ultimately over 12-minute injury time, the game had one final excitement in store. With Schlotterbeck in a central role. The defender described the duel with Mainz's Silvan Widmer as follows: 'I'm pulling out all the stops to get the ball into the corner. I miss the ball and then get hit on the left foot. A hit is a foul.' Initially, referee Sören Storks also interpreted the action and awarded a penalty after a brief hesitation. Then, however, VAR Müller intervened and ordered Storks to review the scene on the sidelines. The difficulty of Storks' assessment was evident in a decision-making process that lasted over a minute. Ultimately, the referee withdrew the penalty. 'The penalty is a possible penalty, not a must-penalty,' admitted Schlotterbeck. The Augsburg anger was based on the fact that, in their view, it was not a clear wrong decision that Storks had to correct. Schlotterbeck: 'If he looks at it for three minutes, you don't have to take it back.' For the repeated time this Bundesliga season, a referee had made a controversial penalty decision to the disadvantage of FCA. The fact that the Augsburg players felt disadvantaged was based on another scene. In the 70th minute, Augsburg's Samuel Essende had lost his composure and committed a foul. In the Mainz penalty area, he had intentionally kicked his opponent Dominik Kohr in the feet, away from the ball. Storks had not noticed Essende's action; Müller, however, instructed his colleague to review the scene on the screen. That the kick by the FCA striker justified a red card was undisputed afterwards. 'It has to be red,' emphasized Schlotterbeck in unison. Then the 27-year-old added: 'But if Kohr's punch to the head five seconds earlier was so targeted, you can play on with ten against nine.' After 35 minutes, Mainz's Nadiem Amiri had already been sent off with a yellow-red card. If Kohr had been sent off, FC Augsburg would have been awarded a penalty. Storks had only punished Essende's foul, which had preceded the incident.