Thursday, 16th May 2024


Just another WordPress site


Overseas cases show Pohang ‘forfeiture loss’ unlikely, Pohang ‘replacement mistake’ is different from Gwangju forfeiture loss case two years ago

Will the Pohang Steelers suffer a ‘forfeit’ due to a ‘substitution mistake’?

In conclusion, it is unlikely that Pohang will receive a forfeit. On the 30th, the Korean Football Association 안전카지노사이트 decided to review the case from various perspectives, including the opinions of both clubs, the referee who was present at the time, and the advice of the penalty committee and the chairman. Basically, the view is that the Pohang club was not at fault and that the referee’s mistake was the cause.

Above all, if you look at overseas cases, Pohang is not a ‘forfeit’. On April 2 last year, a similar ‘substitution mistake’ occurred in the Bayern Munich-Freiburg match in the German Bundesliga. 12 Munich players were on the field at the same time for the first time in history. In the 40th minute of the second half, Munich made two substitutions. Marcel Xavier and Niklas Zuerle came on for Kingsley Coman and Corentin Tolisso, respectively.

However, the substitution board held up by the referee should have shown Coman’s number 11, but instead showed his number 29. As a result, Coman was unaware that he had been sent off. The assistant referee and the main referee both substituted Xavier and Zulehle, but only allowed Toloso to be substituted, temporarily leaving Munich with 12 players on the field. The game was stopped after about 17-20 seconds, and the officials realized the error and sent Coman off.

After a discussion on the field between the referee, the assistant referee, and the managers of both teams, the game resumed in the 45th minute with eight minutes of extra time. After the game, Freiburg filed a complaint with the German Football Association claiming a forfeit, arguing that Munich’s use of 12 players, even temporarily, was a clear violation of the rules and that they had ineligible players.

However, the German Football Association (DFB) Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected Freiburg’s request for a forfeit. “Freiburg argued that the fact that Munich had 12 players on the pitch at the 41st minute of the second half meant that players who were not eligible to play at that time entered the match, but this does not mean that Munich substituted players who were not eligible to play through no fault of their own, and the offense that resulted in the temporary presence of 12 players on the pitch was essentially an offense caused by the negligence of the referees,” the DFB Sport Court said.

“The referee failed to fulfill his duties during the substitution process. The assistant referee allowed the new player to come on without paying the same attention to whether the player to be substituted had previously left the field as the head referee. The referees overlooked their basic duties and resumed play without fulfilling their obligation to check the number of substitutes and their identity.

“The club is responsible for deciding which players to substitute in and out of the game, while the technical handling of the substitution process is solely the responsibility of the referee, so in this case, the referee was not at fault and the club was at fault,” it said.

The overseas case of forfeited losses was similar to the Gwangju FC forfeit two years ago. On August 8, 2021, in the first round of the German Football Association Cup (DFB-Cup), Prosenmünster-Wolfsburg. During the match, in extra time, Wolfsburg made six substitutions in violation of the five substitutions allowed by the rules, and the referees allowed the substitutions without realizing it. After the match, Prosenmünster realized this and filed a complaint with the DFB, claiming ineligible players and a forfeit.

The DFB Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the forfeit. The unauthorized substitution of a sixth player constituted gross negligence on the part of the club, as Wolfsburg had prior knowledge of the Football Regulations regarding the substitution. Therefore, the court ruled that the club did not comply with the substitution regulations and that a forfeit was warranted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *