‘12 people in a moment’ at Jeonbuk-Bucheon Gyeonggi in July 2000… The federation decided not to impose disciplinary action.
Munich also had problems with last year’s game against Freiburg… The German Football Association exempts clubs from liability
Attention is focused on the Korea Professional Football League’s final decision regarding the ‘substitution mistake’ incident that occurred in the K League 1 game between Jeonbuk Hyundai and Pohang Steelers on the 28th.
The federation, which held a match evaluation committee meeting on the 30th, plans to review overseas cases and determine whether Pohang should forfeit the loss. 바카라사이트
Paradoxically, a precedent worthy of reference is Jeonbuk from 23 years ago.
In a game against Bucheon SK (now Jeju United) on July 1, 2000, Jeonbuk had 12 players on the field for about 10 seconds due to a communication problem between the referees during a substitution in the 39th minute of the second half.
At that time, Jeonbuk, who had conceded a corner kick, tried to bring in Joran.
However, unlike the referee who did not allow it, it is known that the second referee accepted Park Seong-bae’s substitution even though he had not left after the assistant referee said, ‘There is no problem.’
Bucheon, who lost 1-2, immediately filed a complaint, and the professional league held a committee meeting to review whether to forfeit the loss.
The conclusion was, ‘Jeonbuk cannot be disciplined.’
At the time, the federation mentioned the regulations and told the media, “There is no problem in sending the player out and continuing after finding out late that the replacement was not done properly.”
However, he acknowledged that the referees were at fault during the replacement process.
Of course, this incident is different from 23 years ago in that it was Pohang who entered the list incorrectly, causing confusion among the referees.
However, the general framework that is claimed as the basis for the forfeit is that there were an additional 12 ‘unqualified players’ in addition to the 11.
According to the player substitution procedures in the International Football Association Board (IFAB) rules, if an ineligible player participates in the match, the player’s club will be forfeited 0-3.
Looking at the Jeonbuk case 23 years ago, the important point is ‘who is most responsible’ for the emergence of the 12th player.
Pohang incorrectly listed the player who replaced Shin Gwang-hoon as Kim In-seong, not the injured Kim Yong-hwan.
After a misunderstanding, they ended up choosing the ‘inefficiency’ of removing healthy players instead of injured players.
However, when Kim In-seong continued to run, the second referee left him alone.
It appears that Kim Yong-hwan, who was receiving treatment for his injury off the pitch, mistakenly thought he had legitimately stepped down as a substitute.
If replacements were properly processed according to the submitted list, the ’12th player’ could not have appeared due to Kim In-seong’s departure.
Last season, Bayern Munich (Germany) was caught up in a similar problem as Pohang, and the German Football Association ultimately determined that the reason for the 12th player’s appearance was due to poor refereeing.
In the German Bundesliga regular league match against Freiburg on April 2 last year, Munich attempted to remove Kingsley Coman and Corentin Tolisso at the same time in the 40th minute of the second half.
However, an error occurred during the substitution process and Coman remained on the ground, resulting in 12 players running, and the game was stopped after 17 seconds.
Afterwards, officials from both teams consulted with the referee on the field, and the game was continued, with Munich winning 4-1.
However, Freiburg filed a complaint with the German Football Association, claiming that the situation in which an unqualified player played was a violation of the rules, and insisted that Munich forfeit the game.
The German Football Association put forward the logic that the referees were more responsible for failing to proceed smoothly with the substitution than Munich.
The main point is that the referees failed to fulfill their duty to inspect the entire replacement process.
In a release at the time, Stefan Oberholz, head of the German Football Association’s Sports Tribunal, said, “Compared to the referee’s erroneous actions, the club’s role was minor.”
At this time, the German Football Association brought out as a comparison example the match between Wolfsburg and Munster in the first round of the German Football Association Cup on August 8, 2021.
In this match, Wolfsburg replaced six players, more than the allowed number of five, and won 3-1.
However, after a complaint from Munster, the German Football Association finally declared Wolfsburg to forfeit.
This is because it is believed that the club is largely responsible for not checking the competition rules that were announced in advance, such as substitutes.
Director Oberholz, who was acting at the time, said, “It is the club’s basic duty to check and comply with the regulations,” and added, “Wolfsburg did not carry out this duty.
It was a preventable mistake, but it happened due to carelessness.”
At the time, Wolfsburg claimed responsibility for the referee, saying the referee guided the substitution during the game, but the German Football Association ultimately held the club responsible for the initial misjudgment.
Director Oberholz once again clarified the logic of the Munich club’s exemption through this Wolfsburg-Munster match.
He said, “(Unlike the case of Wolfsburg), the Freiburg-Munich match is a matter of the area where the referee is originally responsible.
It is up to the club to decide on the player to be replaced and the player to be replaced, but the referee is technically responsible for the substitution process.” “He explained.
There were also cases in Korea where the responsibility of the club rather than the referee emerged during the replacement process. 카지노사이트 백링크
In a game against Jeju in K League 1 on September 18, 2021, Gwangju FC replaced players four times more than the allowed three times and lost 0-3.
At the time, the federation also held the club responsible for failing to understand the rules in advance, saying, “The responsibility to comply with the rules basically lies with the teams participating in the game.”