Today BAS will deliver its ruling on Anderlecht-Genk. Already yesterday they decided not to restart KV Mechelen-Club Brugge and KV Mechelen-RWDM. By the way, KVM-Club Motivation has an interesting explanation for this decision.
The statement said, “The video assistant referee's decision is not the same as the main referee's decision. Errors committed by the video assistant referee can never lead to the match being declared invalid. The main referee on the field is ultimately responsible.”
If this streak continues, the Anderlecht-Genk match should not be replayed. After all, referee Nathan Verbomen's comments showed that he relied on VAR. “From my position I saw that no player entered the penalty area too early. So I agreed to the goal.”
The VAR system then checked the stage. “Then there was contact with VAR Jan Boterberg, who said that Genk's Yira Sor entered the penalty area too early. Then I gave an indirect free kick to Anderlecht, as required by the regulations. If VAR says so, then it is so. This is a realistic situation.”
So it was VAR that made the error, and if we applied KVM-Club's BAS logic to this, it could result in the same statement. “When evaluating the penalty kick, I only looked at the Genk Sur player. I focused only on him,” Butterberg said.
In fact, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) made a mistake on which referee Verbomen based his decision.
“Reader. Unapologetic web fanatic. Student. Beer buff. Social media scholar. Alcohol advocate.”
More Stories
Thanks to the series of success of the club and the federation: the Belgian UEFA coefficient has risen to a record level
Sterkhoder confirms Antwerp’s exit shortly after the cup final
Genk and Cercle Brugge rub hands after Union SG win the Cup – Football News