FC Bayern: These consequences threaten the dealers after the change

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".

Die Jahreshauptversammlung des FC Bayern München - ReLIVE ????

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 players 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 players 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 player 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.

Alex Fireherdt