look. 'Referees know the rules': Genk penalty complaint hearing over, chances of a replay looking slim | sports

The much-discussed phase took place in the 22nd minute of the Anderlecht-Genk match on 23 December. With the score at 0-0, Genk midfielder Brian Heynen saw his effort blocked by Anderlecht goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel, but Jira Sor still scored on the rebound. However, referee Nathan Verbomen disallowed the Nigerian's goal, because Sur entered the penalty area too early.

Since Jari Verschauren, among others, also arrived too early in the penalty area, Verbomen initially wanted to retake the penalty. After a few confusing minutes, the VAR made a different decision: Anderlecht were awarded a free kick, much to the incomprehension of the visitors. Shortly after the match, which ended in a 2-1 victory for Anderlecht, the Professional Refereeing Department (PRD) admitted that Genk should have been awarded a new penalty.

According to Limburger Club, an error occurred regarding the rules of the game and the match must be replayed. They filed a complaint and it was dealt with today by the referees' administration. Genk requested a VAR call and was also able to view images on Wednesday. Both Anderlecht and Genk sent a lawyer to the hearing. In addition to the two clubs, referee Nathan Verbomen, VAR Jan Boterberg, VAR assistant Arthur Denil, and assistant referee Ruben Wyns were called in to provide clarifications.

Genk's lawyer, Joachim Martens, responded after the hearing: “The referees maintained that they initially misinterpreted the regulations.” “They also emphasized during the session that they forgot to look at the position of the defending team. In our opinion this is an error in applying the rules of the game. If you forget to follow a regulatory requirement – watching a stage – then you are making an error in applying the rules of the game.

Walter Damen, who defended Anderlecht, had a different point of view. “It was a fair hearing. The referees explained their position in an objective way. This shows that they knew the regulations, but they made an error in judgement. This is also the maximum that Genk can get out of this. The question now is how much Genk wants to continue with this.” “If the whole procedure is used, the start of Play-off 1 could be in jeopardy. Because then all the clubs will challenge all the errors of the evaluation.” After the hearing, it certainly seems that the match will not be replayed, but rather replayed.

The matter is now in the hands of the referees' management. If, as Genk claims, he considers that an error has indeed occurred in the application of the rules of the game, the Football Association's Disciplinary Board must look into the matter. If the Referees' Management decides that no error has occurred in the application of the regulations and that there is therefore an error in the evaluation, the case will not be referred to the Disciplinary Board. Then the Belgian Court of Arbitration for Sport (BAS) is the last straw for Genk.