“I do not agree with the decision taken”: for the refereeing department, Adriano Bertaccini’s goal at Sclessin should have been validated, Saint-Trond files a complaint with the Belgian Union
Still angry about the cancellation of the equalizing goal at the end of the game at Standard, the Limburg club has officially lodged a complaint which should lead to nothing except the feeling of having made a mark.
Published on 04/11/2024 at 20:18
Like every Monday, the refereeing department spoke about the contentious phases of the past Pro League day. This time, all the attention was focused on the match between Standard and Sint-Truiden. Should Adriano Bertaccini’s goal be canceled? Jonathan Lardot wants to be unequivocal. “I do not agree with the decision taken,” breathes the Technical Director. “I would have preferred the goal to be validated directly. For this, I refer to the first action of Matthieu Epolo. He comes out of his cages, sees the ball coming and tries to control it when he has the possibility, both visually and physically, to intervene correctly. Something he does not do, without this failure having any impact on the regulations. Indeed, the visual clarity gives a controlled character to his movement, especially since no player from Sint-Truiden comes to disturb the Standard goalkeeper. Adriano Bertaccini, in an illicit position, therefore does not disturb in any way. A second phase begins when Matthieu Epolo returns towards his goal, a moment chosen by the attacker to start pressing. So I was waiting for the goal to be accepted. »
<_readmore class="macro" displayname="_readmore" name="_readmore"/>
This will not be the case because Brent Staessens, present in the VAR, slips into the earpiece of Kevin Van Damme, the main referee, that there is offside. Interpretation is therefore required. “Which systematically implies that the person on the ground must validate or overturn the decision. The camera behind the goal explicitly shows that the goalkeeper’s movement is intended to be controlled. If the images had been viewed properly, the goal would have counted,” continues Jonathan Lardot.
And Sint-Truiden would not have left Sclessin with a feeling as bitter as that burning as much in the throats of the locker room as in the spirits of a club determined not to let it happen. “When our land is attacked, we defend ourselves,” says David Meekers, CEO of the Canaries in a press release. “We are not the type to complain but at the time, we decided to officially lodge a complaint with the Belgian Football Federation. We are counting on mutual respect for refereeing and that, from now on, the rules are correctly applied on the pitch. »
“When our land is attacked, we defend it”
The last sentence surely sums up the reasons which pushed the Limburgers to launch an action which should lead nowhere from a sporting point of view. As a reminder, and as specified in our editions this Monday, the Pro League introduced a rule last year stipulating that a match cannot be replayed after an error by the referee. This decision, formulated on the basis of the proposal from Lorin Parys, the General Director, was ratified following requests from Genk, then from Seraing, to replay matches after errors committed by the refereeing body. A law enacted with the aim of not seeing grievances fall as frequently as rain on Belgian soil. “Our team gave everything on Saturday,” continues the Trudonnaire strongman. “Our supporters sang like never before. They all deserved a sporting award, which is why we are filing a protest. »
A sort of last stand, for the beauty of a sport which will never stop being talked about. Emotional as possible, football has once again proven that its refereeing, although aided by video, will always constitute a point of neurosis, both in the stands and on the pitch.
