“KRC Genk and Club Brugge stated in their complaint that there was a refereeing error in the application of the rules of the game and asked for the match to be replayed,” the Referee Department said. “Representatives of the four clubs involved were heard, as were the referees and VARs involved. After deliberation, the Referee Department has ruled in both cases that it concerns a refereeing error in the assessment of a game fact. And that no mistake has been made in the application of the rules of the game. Consequently, the cases are not transferred to the Disciplinary Council for Professional Football.”
“This means that the matches will not be replayed and that the procedure at the KBVB has finally been completed. There is no appeal possible to a disciplinary body of the KBVB, but possible recourse to the BAS (Belgian Court of Arbitration for Sport).”
“The KBVB Arbitration Office has declared KRC Genk’s complaint, following the match between RSC Anderlecht and KRC Genk, admissible but unfounded. We are currently considering internally possible next steps. Until then, we do not wish to discuss the details of this statement any further,” KRC Genk said. According to our information, there is a good chance that KRC Genk will still go to the BAS.
VAR in Anderlecht was “double checking regulations” instead of watching
Racing Genk filed a complaint after ref Nathan Verboomen and VAR Jan Butterberg wrongly did not allow a penalty kick for KRC Genk to be retaken, but did not take into account the RSCA players coming in.
The rules of the game prescribe that a penalty kick must be retaken if players from both teams catch up too early. The point of discussion was whether it was a human error – had the match management not seen the Anderlecht players? – or the incorrect application of the regulations. In the latter case it is an error and a match can then be replayed.
The Referee Department investigated the case and heard all parties involved, but did not refer the case to the Disciplinary Board. It is judged that it was a human error and Genk’s complaint is rejected. KRC Genk can now still go to the BAS – Belgian arbitration court for sport.
“Based on the testimonies, it appears that neither the referees on the field nor the VAR saw player Sor or other players enter the penalty area too early,” it said.
The assistant VAR then pointed out to the VAR that the camera behind the goal showed that Genk player Sor had entered too early. The VAR then advised the referee to allow the penalty to be retaken, but the assistant VAR pointed out that this would be an incorrect legal decision.
The VAR then corrected the advice and advised the referee to restart with an indirect kick in favor of Anderlecht.
However, the VAR claims not to have seen that any Anderlecht players had caught up too early. Verboomen had explicitly asked the VAR about this, but the VAR had not heard that question due to the commotion on the field and because he was busy double-checking the regulations, as stated in the reasoning for the decision. In other words, it was a human error.
(read more below the debate)
What is bad is that the VAR in Anderlecht was apparently busy double-checking the regulations, while he should actually know them and be able to focus on the images.
KV Mechelen-Club Brugge will also not be replayed
In addition to KRC Genk, Club Brugge had also submitted a complaint to the Referee Department, asking for its match against KV Mechelen to be replayed. The game ended 0-0, but in the 72nd minute a goal by Thiago was wrongly disallowed due to alleged offside, it was the second disallowed Bruges goal of the game. According to Club, it was not a human error, but a “professional-technical error”, as the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) did not intervene to correct the unjustified decision. After hearing all parties involved, the Referee Department ruled that it was indeed a human error.