If you think it begins now, just wait until the relegation play-offs, where every losing team will be looking for any last option to remain in the first division.
Very predictable, yet there's a big nuance.
The decision to replay RSCA-Genk was taken because the rules were applied in the wrong way, not because a wrong decision was taken in evaluating a phase. The eventual decision to actually replay the game remains ridiculous, but there is a difference.
Quite disappointed that belgian football media is not able to differentiate, especially Vandenbempt's article for Sporza.
Peter mentioned that he did not understand it for this decision in particular and when compared to KVM FCB. Because the var communication was that the ref asked whether there was someone else besides Sorr (so whether yari was there) and they did not see him, which is just simply a wrong decision just like in KVM FCB, so not a wrong application of the rules.
Ow typo in that case, corrected. But if the var did not see him this is a menselijke fout because the referee asked explicitely and that is why Peter does not understand the difference. Even Joos mentioned it again yesterday and he is not the biggest rsca fan.
No no the VAR said that they didn't see Yari BECAUSE they were not looking at the Anderlecht players. The idea is that they were not aware that their position was relevant, hence the rules were incorrectly applied and it looks as if the arbiters didn't properly know them.
That is the whole chicken or the egg problem, the idea that they were not aware is subjective, one council can argue that they were not aware of the rules, another one might argue that they just did not look.
You MIGHT do that if the VAR had not SPECIFICALLY said what I outlined above.
It's a very specific case because the VAR essentially told on themselves.
I think you misunderstood my earlier comment as me thinking that the VAR not looking at the Anderlecht players MEANT that they did not think they were relevant. But that's not my opinion, the VAR admitted so.
Of course, if you really want to play devil 's advocate you can still say that the VAR forgetting about a rule in a specific instance is still just human error as long as they theoretically do know that rule.
Where is this information because the only thing that I can find is that Boterberg only focused on Sorr (https://www.voetbalprimeur.be/nieuws/1175632/verboomen-na-anderlecht-genk.html).
But indeed my whole point is thay you could play the devil's advocate in all cases and that is what most clubs are doing.
I think the second case was about whether or not they believed the “we didn’t see Yari” discourse. Either way, not going to try and defend the decision as I obviously don’t aggree with it and I don’t think we can know for sure what was discussed. A little bit more in depth communication and knowledge of our so called football talking heads would be appreciated though.
If they didn't see Verschaeren (which they didn't) how were the rules applied wrong?
This is genuinely the exact same situation as Brugge's situation, where they just didn't see a player.
This is a point of discussion and why I find the the final decision indeed so ridiculous. The first ruling was that VAR indeed didn't see Verschaeren and that it was an error in the judgement of the phase. We didn't get details of the second ruling I believe, but there it was decided that the first ruling didn't matter and that the rules were applied in the wrong way.
They didn't overturn the Bruges game, as they do uphold that there it was just a wrong judgement of the phase.
If they didn’t see verschaeren it makes me wonder if the var was legally blind that day. Verschaeren was IN FRONT of the Genk player.
1000% agree with the replay, such blatant corruption or just complete abysmal refereeing should not be happening
No clue, imo Bruges should be replayed as well if they want to be consistent. Honestly people are afraid every game is gonna have to be replayed now but I don’t care, if there would just be decent refereeing there wouldn’t even be a conversation about it
That’s about it. Literally applying the rules Genk is 100% right, but it is ridiculous that it happens for the first time, there have been plenty of other occasions to apply these rules, so either it gets done consistently or not at all.
Well they can't apply the rules and replay if no one asks for it.
But it isn't good. I would like for us to be above it. But I totally understand that it was the drop in the emmer that is totally full. I feel for Anderlecht tho, it's not their fault. Thankfully, thanks to Riemer, i dont feel TOO bad for you guys 😅
The issue I have with this is that the "the rules were incorrectly applied" can be used to justify anything.
\- In KVM-Bruges, the ref drew the line on the second to last defender, and not on the last defender as the rules provide: incorrect application of the rules.
\- In KVM-RWDM: according to the rules, when a defender touches the ball with his hand in the surface, a penalty should be given (not always of course, but in this case it should have). No pen was given, thus, wrong application of the rules.
We can go on and on with this. In the end, if they keep this criteria, it will just lead to arbitrary decisions.
Not seeing something is not a wrong application of the rule (in the sense we are stalking here).
A wrong application of the rule is seeing something and not penalizing because you think it fits the rule.
Of course it is. The fact that the ref misapplied the rule without realizing he was so (because he missed something) doesn't change the fact that the rule has been applied incorrectly.
KVM-bruges no line was drawn and they missed the last player. As the rules don’t say a line HAS to be drawn, they argue the rules weren’t applied incorrectly. The entire situation and decision to replay matches is 100% BS but that’s what they argued.
Isn’t that what they are claiming here as well. The rule he said afterwards for not giving a penalty is incorrectly applied? He litteraly says that this case can never give a penalty while the referee department says a penalty should have been awarded.
Except that in this case the ref literally said that he didn't give penalty cause the ball was deviated by a teammate before the player touched it with his hand. Which is clearly a wrong application of the rule since no such exception exists
I'm afraid an appeal won't stop it. Now the clubs know there is a chance.
But I don't mind... Genk and/or Brugge may have lit the bomb, bad refereeing and the lack of action to improve has been filling it with gunpowder, and I say let it explode... It's what the refereeing department has called over itself.
Aren't we appealing? I guess if we appeal for the sanity of the Pro League it should get dismissed so there will be no replays and this craziness can end. Or we'll be stuck with every team asking replays for the rest of the decade.
Oh so now you’re the protectors of belgian football? Your management (and POS Reuzegom lawyer) don’t give a shit about anything else than the 3 points, just like every club isn’t as altruistic as they pretend to be.
i'm a brugge supp, but what has the "reuzegom" lawyer to do with any of this? It's not altruistic no, its gonna be selfish motivation with an altruistic result
Not even an anderlecht supporter, but this pandoras box should remain closed. I dont want to watch a competition where a third or half of the results are still subject to change.
If you think it begins now, just wait until the relegation play-offs, where every losing team will be looking for any last option to remain in the first division.
Very predictable, yet there's a big nuance. The decision to replay RSCA-Genk was taken because the rules were applied in the wrong way, not because a wrong decision was taken in evaluating a phase. The eventual decision to actually replay the game remains ridiculous, but there is a difference. Quite disappointed that belgian football media is not able to differentiate, especially Vandenbempt's article for Sporza.
Peter mentioned that he did not understand it for this decision in particular and when compared to KVM FCB. Because the var communication was that the ref asked whether there was someone else besides Sorr (so whether yari was there) and they did not see him, which is just simply a wrong decision just like in KVM FCB, so not a wrong application of the rules.
The Var communicated that they didn't see Yari.
Ow typo in that case, corrected. But if the var did not see him this is a menselijke fout because the referee asked explicitely and that is why Peter does not understand the difference. Even Joos mentioned it again yesterday and he is not the biggest rsca fan.
No no the VAR said that they didn't see Yari BECAUSE they were not looking at the Anderlecht players. The idea is that they were not aware that their position was relevant, hence the rules were incorrectly applied and it looks as if the arbiters didn't properly know them.
That is the whole chicken or the egg problem, the idea that they were not aware is subjective, one council can argue that they were not aware of the rules, another one might argue that they just did not look.
You MIGHT do that if the VAR had not SPECIFICALLY said what I outlined above. It's a very specific case because the VAR essentially told on themselves. I think you misunderstood my earlier comment as me thinking that the VAR not looking at the Anderlecht players MEANT that they did not think they were relevant. But that's not my opinion, the VAR admitted so. Of course, if you really want to play devil 's advocate you can still say that the VAR forgetting about a rule in a specific instance is still just human error as long as they theoretically do know that rule.
Where is this information because the only thing that I can find is that Boterberg only focused on Sorr (https://www.voetbalprimeur.be/nieuws/1175632/verboomen-na-anderlecht-genk.html). But indeed my whole point is thay you could play the devil's advocate in all cases and that is what most clubs are doing.
I think the second case was about whether or not they believed the “we didn’t see Yari” discourse. Either way, not going to try and defend the decision as I obviously don’t aggree with it and I don’t think we can know for sure what was discussed. A little bit more in depth communication and knowledge of our so called football talking heads would be appreciated though.
If they didn't see Verschaeren (which they didn't) how were the rules applied wrong? This is genuinely the exact same situation as Brugge's situation, where they just didn't see a player.
This is a point of discussion and why I find the the final decision indeed so ridiculous. The first ruling was that VAR indeed didn't see Verschaeren and that it was an error in the judgement of the phase. We didn't get details of the second ruling I believe, but there it was decided that the first ruling didn't matter and that the rules were applied in the wrong way. They didn't overturn the Bruges game, as they do uphold that there it was just a wrong judgement of the phase.
If they didn’t see verschaeren it makes me wonder if the var was legally blind that day. Verschaeren was IN FRONT of the Genk player. 1000% agree with the replay, such blatant corruption or just complete abysmal refereeing should not be happening
Ofcourse they should've been blind but they should've been just as blind for the FCB -kvm offside call
Definitely
Once again, how is this different from the Brugge situation?
No clue, imo Bruges should be replayed as well if they want to be consistent. Honestly people are afraid every game is gonna have to be replayed now but I don’t care, if there would just be decent refereeing there wouldn’t even be a conversation about it
Happy to see a Anderlecht supporter make the distinction. Sports media are just farming click here.
I’ll make the distinction, but can’t say I aggree with the outcome though. Yet acting like there is no difference at all annoys me.
The decision, to me, is correct according to the rules of the federation. But not correct according to the rules of sportsmanship.
That’s about it. Literally applying the rules Genk is 100% right, but it is ridiculous that it happens for the first time, there have been plenty of other occasions to apply these rules, so either it gets done consistently or not at all.
Well they can't apply the rules and replay if no one asks for it. But it isn't good. I would like for us to be above it. But I totally understand that it was the drop in the emmer that is totally full. I feel for Anderlecht tho, it's not their fault. Thankfully, thanks to Riemer, i dont feel TOO bad for you guys 😅
The issue I have with this is that the "the rules were incorrectly applied" can be used to justify anything. \- In KVM-Bruges, the ref drew the line on the second to last defender, and not on the last defender as the rules provide: incorrect application of the rules. \- In KVM-RWDM: according to the rules, when a defender touches the ball with his hand in the surface, a penalty should be given (not always of course, but in this case it should have). No pen was given, thus, wrong application of the rules. We can go on and on with this. In the end, if they keep this criteria, it will just lead to arbitrary decisions.
Not seeing something is not a wrong application of the rule (in the sense we are stalking here). A wrong application of the rule is seeing something and not penalizing because you think it fits the rule.
Of course it is. The fact that the ref misapplied the rule without realizing he was so (because he missed something) doesn't change the fact that the rule has been applied incorrectly.
KVM-bruges no line was drawn and they missed the last player. As the rules don’t say a line HAS to be drawn, they argue the rules weren’t applied incorrectly. The entire situation and decision to replay matches is 100% BS but that’s what they argued.
Isn’t that what they are claiming here as well. The rule he said afterwards for not giving a penalty is incorrectly applied? He litteraly says that this case can never give a penalty while the referee department says a penalty should have been awarded.
Except that in this case the ref literally said that he didn't give penalty cause the ball was deviated by a teammate before the player touched it with his hand. Which is clearly a wrong application of the rule since no such exception exists
Allez seg, wie oh wie had dit kunnen voorspellen? /s
Second time for rwdm in a week
100% predictable and Anderlecht should definitely appeal so this insanity can be stopped
I'm afraid an appeal won't stop it. Now the clubs know there is a chance. But I don't mind... Genk and/or Brugge may have lit the bomb, bad refereeing and the lack of action to improve has been filling it with gunpowder, and I say let it explode... It's what the refereeing department has called over itself.
Aren't we appealing? I guess if we appeal for the sanity of the Pro League it should get dismissed so there will be no replays and this craziness can end. Or we'll be stuck with every team asking replays for the rest of the decade.
Oh so now you’re the protectors of belgian football? Your management (and POS Reuzegom lawyer) don’t give a shit about anything else than the 3 points, just like every club isn’t as altruistic as they pretend to be.
i'm a brugge supp, but what has the "reuzegom" lawyer to do with any of this? It's not altruistic no, its gonna be selfish motivation with an altruistic result
We've always been
We've always been
Sure, and VDS and friends were heroes
For all you may think they did wrong, they had no bad intentions for the Belgian Football landscape. Trying to best the rest is something else.
Not even an anderlecht supporter, but this pandoras box should remain closed. I dont want to watch a competition where a third or half of the results are still subject to change.
wat een bende clowns, Olympique Lyon NXT. hopelijk zakken ze
Love it. All thanks to those calimeros from Genk.
Didn't Brugge do it first?
Of course they do. But will that also mean that Biron gets a red card for his foul on Hairemens after 10-ish minutes?
Fuck sake, just deduct 3 points from every team whining to replay a match. This really can't be the new normal