Bundesliga: This is how VfL Bochum’s objection plays out after the Union Berlin scandal

Yes yes.

The sports court can certainly recognize that the reasons given by the club justify the abandonment of the match. These reasons do not necessarily have to be evaluated in the same way by the arbitrator.

If the game is abandoned, it is still assessed who is objectively responsible for it.

It could be the referee who wrongly stopped the game,
this can be a player/spectator or a club.

Or no one – for example because of the weather.

If, after a riot, the suffering club refuses to continue the game, but the referee sees no reason for this, then the club which does not want to continue the game is initially responsible for abandoning the match .

It will then be clarified whether there was a legitimate reason for this.
An example is the use of a rescue helicopter on the field after a serious injury during a youth match. The players were so shaken that it was naturally impossible to continue playing.

The opposing club would have continued to play, as would the referee. Nonetheless, the decision was ultimately made to “replay” as the reason for canceling the match was legitimate.

Continuing to play is simply not the right decision because then you will deprive yourself of your options.
Abandoning the game makes it possible to assess who is objectively responsible.
Bochum because they did not want to continue playing, or Union because as a local club they could not ensure the safety of those involved and there was a blatant spectator offense under the club’s responsibility with still similar consequences.

If you continue the game, all you can do next is appeal the game rating, as you did.
However, this is only successful if the incident significantly influenced the game in terms of game rating.

Reference is therefore now made to the following addition:

Weakening of one’s own team due to a circumstance occurring during the match, unavoidable and unrelated to the match, and an injury suffered during it.

Personally, I am very curious to know the verdict as to whether the appeal will be upheld and successful.

To me, the passage is so vague that it is a matter of interpretation. And the interpretation in this region is unknown to me.

On the one hand, a disadvantageous situation may have arisen, in particular due to the fact that there is no possibility of change. Although an injury could have occurred without outside influence or by a player, it is the « normal » risk in a match for such an injury to occur after the substitution quota has been exhausted. There is also no harsher punishment for the player.

Here the injury was caused from the outside. And this is certainly related to the play itself – (if the goal player had not been involved in the play, he would not have been the target of the action) – but not in reference to the play, as I just explained it.

If I have a similar case on the table, I know how to decide. But I don’t know what the DFB’s interpretation is here.
Basically, there is a lot of money at stake here, which is why different standards apply and therefore referees receive different instructions.
(See the relegation match around Pauli – a match in which there are a hundred on the field (!) and the opposing goal does not dare to come closer than 30-40 meters from its own goal must be canceled, not by hook or crook to get through time).

It is neither a gift nor a punishment for others.
These are regulations.
If a player plays without the right to play or participate, then there will be an evaluation of the game without any ifs or buts. Even if the player had no real influence or you were hopelessly outnumbered.

The purpose of the rule is to punish mistakes.
This would essentially protect the attacker.
To describe it blatantly:

The small team from the regional league plays a cup match against Bayern. The game is tough and many players have to be replaced due to injuries. Bayern had already exhausted their quota by half-time.
Items are now thrown specifically at Neuer and Musiala in order to knock these two players out of the game as well.
Bayern must now continue to play with 9 players because they no longer have any substitutes.

Now, this is just an extreme example. But you see where I’m going with this.

Third party clubs have no relevance here. If there is a violation, it must be evaluated. Whatever the sporting starting point.

So, in an unimportant match on the last day and without impact, the rule should be applied differently than in the fight for relegation or the championship? This goes against the equal treatment of all.

Additionally, it is unclear whether this will result in the match being classified or whether a decision will be made to reschedule the match.

To modify:
I’m not very involved in the DFB RVO either.

In principle, in addition to the objection, which is initially assessed unilaterally, there can also be proceedings against Union on different facts.

It is therefore first checked whether the objection is admissible (does it comply with the requirements?) and whether it is successful.
The result will then likely be a reschedule, or even a loss of the game.

Regardless of this (i.e. whether this objection is successful or not), the spectator’s offense is assessed on the basis of §9. And here a corresponding sanction can then be imposed in accordance with Article 7.

As a note: