©Isosport
Even after the Professional Referees Department (PRD) meeting on Friday afternoon in Tubize about the match between Anderlecht and KRC Genk and the related fuss over penalties, both clubs maintain their position. Genk wants the match to be replayed, Anderlecht wants to leave it like that.
First, a flashback to December 23rd. During Anderlecht-KRC Genk, Heynen kicked a penalty within reach of home goalkeeper Schmeichel when the score was 0–0. Guest Sor scores on the rebound. After a question from VAR Jan Boterberg, referee Nathan Verboomen decides that the penalty must be retaken. But VAR intervenes again and recommends an indirect free kick for Anderlecht, because Sor would have entered the penalty area too early.
Wrong decision, because in addition to the Genk player, some home players had also recovered too early and in this case the penalty must be repeated. KRC Genk has therefore filed a complaint and demands that the match be replayed, the Limburgers will continue to support this even after the PRD hearing. “We believe that this is a misapplication of the rules,” replies Jochem Martens, Genk’s legal advisor. “It was a friendly dialogue with the referees. They confirmed that they had first misinterpreted the legislation based on Sor’s position. They also confirmed that they forgot to look at the situation of the Anderlecht players. Unfortunately we forgot, they said it literally. In our opinion this is an incorrect application of the legislation.”
© BELGIUM
At Anderlecht they see it differently. “I am quite convinced that this is an error of judgment and not a misinterpretation or ignorance of the rules,” said Anderlecht lawyer Walter Damen. “The referees themselves admit that they did not take the Anderlecht players into account. They focused on the incoming player Sor. It was never said that Anderlecht’s arrivals didn’t play a role, they just didn’t pay attention to it. This doesn’t mean they don’t know the regulations. If we think it’s a mistake, we can stop the competition because then we will have to replay almost 50 games this season.”
According to our information, referee Nathan Verboomen asked whether, in addition to the Genk Sor player, Anderlecht players also entered the area too early – this was the case of Yari Verschaeren and Mario Stroeykens – but he received no response from the VAR. The names of Verschaeren and Stroeykens were never mentioned in the VAR communications. Moreover, at that moment VAR was still wondering whether the goal had been scored or not and at that moment he leafed through the regulations to be completely sure of the correct rules.
© BELGIUM
The PRD’s final decision is expected as soon as possible, but not before today. If the PRD deems it to be a human error, clubs can still appeal to the BAS. Something Genk will probably not fail to do. If the PRD decides that there is an incorrect application of the rules, the matter must be brought to the disciplinary council and there is the possibility of replaying the match. The disciplinary commission will then have to judge “whether the error had a profound effect on the progress of the game”.
Club Brugge also lodged a complaint with the PRD after Igor Thiago’s goal was disallowed against KV Mechelen for unjustified offside in mid-December. The reason for this complaint: the Club does not share the PRD’s opinion that a “human error” was committed, but believes that there was “a technical-professional error”. In the second case it is possible to replay the game. That complaint was also dealt with by the PRD on Friday and further news on the matter is expected soon.
READ ALSO. After reviewing the VAR report, Genk are convinced that the match against Anderlecht should be replayed
2024-01-05 13:01:01
#find #mistake #replay #games #Anderlecht #Racing #Genk #remain #diametrically #opposed #Refereeing #Department #hearing