It was an intense afternoon at the Belgian Football Association in Tubize. The press was allowed to attend the sessions of the Disciplinary Council on the VAR blunders in Anderlecht-Genk and KV Mechelen-Club Brugge. “We will make a decision soon.”
The hearing about the VAR blunder in Anderlecht-Genk (December 23, 2-1) lasted almost an hour and a half. And all about the penalty phase where Genk striker Yira Sor scored the rebound after running into the penalty area too early, so the goal was disallowed. However, Anderlecht players had also caught up too early and the penalty should have been retaken, but that did not happen.
On the left Yira Sor from Genk, in the middle and on the right Mario Stroeykens and Yari Verscharen from Anderlecht.
At the meeting of the Professional Refereeing Department on January 8, VAR Jan Boterberg already said that he had not seen the Anderlecht players. The PRD then ruled that this was a human error. “When assessing the penalty, I only looked at Genk player Sor,” Boterberg admitted again on Wednesday afternoon when asked by the Genk lawyer. “I just focused on him.”
According to Genk, this is an incorrect application of the regulations. “Both VAR Boterberg and AVAR Denil said during the PRD hearing that they ‘unfortunately forgot to look’ at the position of the Anderlecht players. This means that they do not take into account the ‘encroachment by defensive player’ in the table of law 14. That is the obvious and indisputable error in the application of the rules of the game. Since the mistake has had a manifest and structural impact on the course of the game and the outcome, the match must be replayed.”
Genk had printed this document in large format for all those present.
The response from Anderlecht lawyer Walter Damen: “Referee Verboomen did not at any time receive information from the VAR that Anderlecht players had also entered too early. He therefore applies the regulations correctly with the information he has available. The VAR made a human error of judgement. My question to Genk: give me the passage in the regulations that states that ‘forgetting to look’ is an incorrect application of the regulations.” To which Genk responded: “Is the position of the Anderlecht players not relevant for the application of the regulations?”
More serene KVM Club session
The hearing about the wrongly disallowed goal of Club Brugge striker Igor Thiago on the field of KV Mechelen (December 10, 0-0) was more peaceful. Malinwa will accept the outcome.
Igor Thiago (bottom of the screen) scored, but his goal was disallowed for offside. However, Sandy Walsh (top of the screen) lifted that.
VAR Kevin Van Damme admitted at the hearing that he did not follow the guideline to draw a line in close offside phases, “but purely because I had not seen Sandy Walsh. Otherwise I would have always drawn that line.” According to the Referee Department ‘a human error’, but Club Brugge disputes that term. “Just because someone makes a human error does not mean that it is not an incorrect application of the regulations?”, says Thomas Delameillieure, Legal Officer at Blue-Black. “Any incorrect application of a rule is of course a human error. If a referee blows the whistle in minute 80 instead of minute 90, isn’t that both a human error and an incorrect application of the rules? Club Brugge demands that the match be replayed.”
Both sessions were concluded by the chairman of the Disciplinary Council with the promise that “a decision will be made soon”. But both Genk and Club have also appealed the PRD ruling to the BAS (Belgian Court of Arbitration for Sport), so a definitive outcome of this soap opera is not yet imminent.