Chaise Chaos at Bayern: For a few seconds, the record champion played in the away game at the SC Freiburg on Saturday with twelve men. Who is to blame for change? What are the consequences of FC Bayern now? “Collinas heirs” give answers to the most important questions.
- That’s how the change chaos ran at FC Bayern
- Is the mistake of the impartial or FC Bayern?
- Would Kingsley Coman have to be warned?
- FC Bayern has used a bill of exchange too much by the mistake?
- Was it right to continue the game with a referee ball?
- Is the change error with that of the VFL Wolfsburg in the DFB Cup?
- Would an objection of the SC Freiburg still have prospect of success?
Actually, replicas in football are not a complex affair. The procedure is usually set 3 (players) and follows a clear, manageable process: The game must be interrupted, the referee will be informed about the changeover point and gives its approval sign.
Then the player leaves the field, then the player will enters the center line. This completes the change, and the game continues. If the game takes place with referee wizards, then one wraps off the changes; There is also a fourth official, he takes over this job.
That’s how the change chaos ran at FC Bayern
As a rule, there are no complications, but sometimes the devil is in detail, and then it can come to irritation and excitement. Just as on Saturday in the game of Sc Freiburg against FC Bayern Munich (1: 4) after 84 minutes.
The record champion wanted to replace Corenentin Tolisso and Kingsley Coman by Marcel Sabitzer and Niklas Süle, these two also entered the lawn with the approval of referees Christian Dingert – respectively with the permission of the Fourth Official Arno Blos. However, only Tolisso had left the place before, Coman had remained in the field.
The reason for this was in a mistake of the team manager of FC Bayern, Kathleen Krüger. She had set the back number 29 on the change panel – Coman’s old number; Since this season, however, he carries the 11. As a result, the attacker did not feel addressed and made no institutions to go from the field. Nevertheless, the impartial played the game initially – he was, as well as the fourth official, escaped that for Sabitzer and Süle only Tolisso had gone from the square. Fifteen seconds, the Bayern were at twelfth in the field, then interrupted Dingert, which both the Freiburg Nico Schlotterbeck and the fourth official had pointed to this fact, the game with a whistle.
Now Coman went from the square. But before the encounter was continued with a referee ball in midfield, five minutes and 40 seconds passed. For so long, it took up until the impartial team clarified the problem and its conclusion, also with the help of the video wizard Felix Zwayer in Cologne. However, the discussions had no end, because not a few wondered: has this change chaos possibly consistences beyond the game? Could there be a repetition game? Or do the Munich be lose their three points, because the game is evaluated by the Coman Court for the SC Freiburg? Here are the answers to these and other questions.
Is the mistake of the impartial or FC Bayern?
Even if the FC Bayern has contributed to the confusion by the wrong number of numbers: Underlying Christian Dingert and Arno Blos, the referee always carries overall responsibility. The Fourth Official Had Slee and Sabitzer would allow admission to the game only under the condition that two other Bayern players leave the place before.
Any ambiguities who should be replaced would have to be cleared out by him. Also, the game should not have been continued as long as the Bavarians were twelfth.
The referee has had to make sure the game continues with the correct number of players on both sides.
Would Kingsley Coman have to be warned?
No, says DFB referee teacher Lutz Wagner in the interview of the online portal “Spox”. Because Coman did not act unComanedly: “It was not on him that the change was not completed correctly because the chalkboard of Bayern’s team manager was incorrectly displayed and the referee did not properly controlled it.”
Even Slee and Sabitzer is not a reproach because they had the approval of the impartial to play. They did not participate unauthorized in the game.
FC Bayern has used a bill of exchange too much by the mistake?
Also no. Sabitzer and Süle entered the place in the third and last bill of exchange of Munich with the approval of the referee, so they became players. Because in the rule 3 it says: “The replacement is completed if the substitute enters the field.” And that’s the case even if the player does not leave the place to be replaced.
Decisive here is the consent of the impartial with the game entry, even if it was given too early. Süles or Sabitzers was therefore not finished when Coman left the field in the next interruption. An improper fourth bill of exchange was thus not used.
Was it right to continue the game with a referee ball?
If the referee interrupts the game because a surplus player is in the field, there is a direct free kick, according to Rule 3, if this player intervened into the game, for example through a ball touch. If this procedure has taken place in the penalty area, there is even a penalty.
If he did not intervene in the game, the game must be continued in case of interruption with an indirect free kick. Since Coman played the ball shortly after the whistle, there was no procedure, so it would have to give an indirect free kick.
Is the change error with that of the VFL Wolfsburg in the DFB Cup?
Again, the answer is no. Wolfsburg changed a sixth time in the round-round cup game at Prussia Münster in the extension, although only five changes were permissible. The additionally substitute player was not entitled to use. According to Paragraph 17 of the legal and procedural order of the DFB, therefore, the game was mandatory for Münster, even if the referee – it was also Christian Dingert – had allowed this change.
In Freiburg things were different, as Lutz Wagner emphasizes: “The change as such was completely correct and was allowed to be done because the substitute player was eligible to play.” Due to a misunderstanding, the players to be replaced to be replaced in the field. However, this is “not comparable to Wolfsburg or other cases where an inadmissible change was performed”.
Would an objection of the SC Freiburg still have prospect of success?
On the mentioned paragraph, which provides a game rating for the opponent when using a non-game or commitiable player, the club would not be able to call itself in any case. That the Comans court would determine a rule violation of the impartial, is also little likely. For Christian Dingert did not miscalculate the rules wrongly, but admit the play of play, because it – erroneously – assumed that the replacement had been carried out instructed. So it was a wrong fact in fact.
A rule violation only represents the wrong game progress – arbitrator ball instead of indirect free kick – after the next interruption. However, that’s irrelevant, especially Freiburg also came in possession. And even if a rule violation would be detected in the replacement, the Comans court would have to consider it the regulations, whether this violation has influenced the outcome of the game so much that the lot has to be repeated. Because that would be the consequence.
At a score of 1: 3 shortly before the end and an overdrawal of only 15 seconds, in which nothing happened to meaning and Coman had not even had a ball contact, it is obvious that the mistake does not promote the outcome of the game Freiburg influenced.
According to human discretion, in the case of a Freiburg objection, without which the Coman court of the DFB would not be active in this case, there should be neither a game classification against FC Bayern nor a repetition game.
Because neither the Munich has used a non-game or useful player, nor did they have used a bill of exchange too much. The referee in turn has noticed his mistake and corrected before this Lapsus could take an influence on the play exit. It would therefore be a surprise if the 4-1 victory of Bayern should not be retained.