Will Pohang Steelers’ forfeit result be established?
On the 29th, Jeonbuk Hyundai raised an objection through the official channel in accordance with Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the Federation Competition Regulations regarding the match against Pohang in the 35th round of K League 1 held on the 28th, and ▶ Pohang’s 0-3 forfeit in accordance with the same regulation. Handling of cards ▶We request posthumous disciplinary action against Kim In-seong and Shin Kwang-hoon. The key is whether or not the loss is forfeited. The Jeonbuk-Pohang match ended 1-1. Accordingly, the current rankings are Pohang (60 points) in 2nd place, Gwangju FC (57 points) in 3rd place, and Jeonbuk (53 points) in 4th place. In this season’s K-League 1, there is a high possibility that the 1st place, FA Cup winner, and 2nd place teams will be given the right to advance to the Asian Champions League elite. The third place player will play in a league one level lower than this. If a forfeit is recognized, Pohang will have 59 points and Jeonbuk will have 55 points. The situation is tight, with a 2-point gap between Gwangju and Gwangju. The rankings may change drastically depending on the results of the remaining three games.
For this reason, the federation is also deeply concerned. Initially, it seemed that whether or not the game would be forfeited would be decided through the Game Evaluation Committee held on the morning of the 30th, but it was decided not to make a decision right away. The federation showed a cautious attitude, saying, “As the K-League will not be held for the time being, we decided that rational judgment is more important than speed.” Since the positions of Jeonbuk and Pohang are sharp, it was decided to draw a conclusion by combining various cases.
First of all, there are two main issues in this ‘replacement incident’. The first question is whether there were truly ‘unqualified players’ in Pohang. If there is no ineligible player, the forfeit itself cannot be established, regardless of who is responsible. First of all, Jeonbuk said, “According to the provisions on substitution procedures in Article 3, Paragraph 3 of IFAB Game Rules 22/23 published by the Korea Football Association, Kim In-seong and Shin Kwang-hoon are judged to have participated in the game as players who were not ‘qualified to participate in the game.’ Based on the above, it was claimed that he is an ‘unqualified player’ according to Article 33, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Professional Football League’s game regulations.” He continued, “Also, according to Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the game regulations, if an ineligible player is found to have participated during the game, the game should be continued but the player in question should have been ‘expulsed’, but we also raise an objection to the fact that no such action was taken.” He said.
Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the K League regulations states, ‘If an ineligible player’s participation in an official game is discovered during or after the game and an objection is raised by the opposing club within 48 hours after the end of the game, the club in which the ineligible player played will be awarded 0 points. It is considered a loss by 3. However, if an ineligible player is discovered to be playing during the game, the player will be expelled and the game will continue.’
Let’s go back to the Jeonbuk-Pohang match. In the 26th minute of the first half, Pohang attempted to substitute ‘No. 17’ Shin Kwang-hoon in place of the injured ‘No. 3’ Kim Yong-hwan, but instead of ‘3rd out – 17th in’, they wrote ‘7th out – 17th in’. ‘Number 7’ was striker Kim In-seong. It was literally a clear mistake by Pohang, including the name. The great sim also made a replacement board like that. Shin Kwang-hoon was brought in, and Kim In-seong did not go out. Kim Yong-hwan was already on the bench. The problem occurred when Kim In-seong was on the pitch for 6 minutes. In reality, there was no problem as Kim Yong-hwan was off the field, but according to the record, 12 players were allowed to play. If so, it means that one person may be problematic.
First, let’s consider Kim In-seong. In the case of Kim In-seong, he played on the field even though he was a replacement target. At first glance, Kim In-sung appears to be an ineligible player, but Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the International Football Association Board’s (IFAB) Match Rules stipulates that ‘if the player to be replaced refuses to leave, he shall continue the match.’ Even if Kim In-seong knew that he was a replacement, there is no problem with his actions in continuing to play. Although the interpretation of the refusal to replace is ambiguous, let’s assume that there are no problems up to this point.
Since Kim In-seong played for 6 minutes even after the replacement sign was issued, he can be ‘deemed’ to have refused to be replaced. The problem is that Kim In-seong did not leave, but Shin Kwang-hoon came in. Looking at the regulations on the substitution procedure, in order for a substituted player to enter, the condition ‘when the substituted player leaves’ must be met. However, Shin Kwang-hoon came in even though Kim In-seong had not left, completely violating the replacement procedure regulations. From the time Shin Kwang-hoon came in and played, Kim In-seong is considered an ‘ineligible player’ who is not eligible to participate in the game as long as Kim In-seong remains on the ground regardless of whether the referee signs him to enter the ground. The federation’s interpretation is required as to which of the two players is an ‘unqualified player’, but it is clear that an ‘unqualified player’ has occurred.
The second issue is, ‘Who will be held responsible?’ In fact, this may be a bigger issue and one that is difficult to judge. First of all, it is clear that both Pohang and the referee made mistakes. Pohang made a mistake, and the referee did not manage the situation properly. Pohang’s side claims that the referee did not control it properly. Coach Kim Ki-dong also said after the game, “Players cannot enter the stadium as we intended. They cannot enter before other players come out. Why would that be? It is the referee’s authority,” and added, “I think the referee or the second referee should have checked unconditionally.” did.
Even in overseas cases, there is an atmosphere of holding referees more accountable. A representative example is the Bayern Munich-Freiburg match played in the German Bundesliga on April 2 last year, which has been mentioned in many articles. In today’s game, due to a substitution mistake, 12 Bayern players were playing on the ground at the same time. Freiburg argued that Bayern’s use of 12 players, even temporarily, was a clear violation of the rules, and insisted that the German Football Association forfeit the game, insisting that unqualified players were playing.
However, the German Football Association (DFB) Sports Court rejected Freiburg’s request for forfeiture after review. The DFB Sports Court said, ‘Freiburg argued that the fact that Bayern had 12 players on the pitch when making a substitution in the 41st minute of the second half meant that a player who was not eligible to play at the time was playing, but this did not mean that Munich was entitled to play in the game. It cannot be said that they replaced an ineligible player through their own negligence, and it was judged that it was essentially an illegal act due to the referees’ negligence that caused 12 players to temporarily play on the stadium.’ He continued, ‘The referee did not properly perform his duties during the player replacement process. The second referee did not pay the same attention as the referee to whether the player to be replaced had previously left the field and allowed a new player to be substituted. ‘The referees overlooked their basic duties and made the mistake of restarting the game without performing their duty to check the number of substitutes and the players in question,’ he added.
Of course, it is difficult to refer to this case 100%. At the time, Bayern tried to replace ’11’ Kingsley Coman, but the second referee marked ’29’ on the substitution board. Number 29 was a uniform number that was not on the Bayern lineup at the time. Of course, Coman did not realize that he had been substituted out and remained on the ground. It is different from the Jeonbuk-Pohang game, where the ‘7th’ out on the ground was clearly specified.
In fact, there are more noteworthy cases than this. This is the game between Gwangju FC and Jeju United held in September 2021. The game, which ended 1-1 at the time, later changed to a 0-3 forfeit loss to Gwangju. Even though Gwangju used all three player substitutions allowed during the game, controversy arose later when they substituted Kim Bong-jin instead of Uhm Um-seong in the 47th minute of the second half. Article 33, Paragraph 4 of the 2021 K-League 1 Competition Guidelines stipulates that ‘player substitutions can be made up to three times during the game, and one additional player substitution is allowed after halftime and before kickoff of the second half.’온라인카지노
At that time, Gwangju tried to substitute Kim Jong-woo and Kim Bong-jin at the same time in the 39th minute of the second half, but the second referee stopped them, saying, “We will replace one more person later.” Gwangju complained of unfairness, saying ‘progress was poor’. However, the federation eventually declared a forfeit. The federation said, “Even if an error by the second referee was involved in the process of an unqualified player participating, it is inevitable that the result of the game should be regarded as Gwangju’s 0-3 loss according to the competition guidelines, regardless of the actions taken by the second referee. “The number of player substitutions corresponds to the basic soccer principle of ‘equal conditions with the opposing team’ among the game rules, and a game in which this basic principle is not observed cannot be called a complete game. As a result, the integrity of the game is damaged. “Responsibility has no choice but to be placed on the team that caused it,” he explained. Regardless of the referee’s mistakes, the judgment standard was established that ‘the responsibility for complying with game regulations basically lies with the team participating in the game.’ If the Jeonbuk-Pohang match also follows these standards, the answer is already available.