Wednesday, October 20

The president of the Supreme Court on the sentence of Molde: – Correct solution


Some believe Molde’s penalty against Vålerenga on Sunday was clear, others believe the contact between the players was too “soft”. Chief Justice Terje Hauge acquits the Intility team.

Aftenposten collaborates with VG-sporten. Therefore, as a reader of Aftenposten, you also get articles and services created by VG.

– The right solution. There are elements to contact, as the defender crosses behind the attacker. It is a sufficient offense, affirms the chief referee of the Norwegian Football Association after having studied the situation that generated debate on Sunday night.

In search of the ball, Vålerenga stopper Ivan Näsberg ran with Molde player Martin Ellingsen as he came out of Vålerenga’s 16 meters in the 41st minute. Ellingsen fell to the ground on the outside of the 16-meter line, but the infraction itself occurred on the inside.

After conceding a free kick to Molde for the first time, it was converted into a penalty kick. That put Ellingsen himself in goal at 1-1.

Judge Usman Aslam de Lier rejected After the game, the change happened because the team looked at the big screen, which showed the replay of the situation.

also read

VIF fell after penalties and 1-1

– A difficult situation. There is a corner, the ball goes to the opposite side, the assistant referee salutes on a free kick. When the assistant referee thinks about it, he understands that he was inside. As the judge acknowledges: It could have been resolved differently, but as it’s over, it’ll be fine, Hauge says.

– Those who think that there is very little contact, are they wrong?

– No. That’s not bad. Because this is an interesting situation to discuss. A misdemeanor can certainly be defended, but I understand that some will think it will be a little too soft.

– Is it about the defense having to take responsibility for where he runs in this situation?

– Yes. Cross the attacking player (Ellingsen) from behind, then the attacking player’s legs become unbalanced, so there are many reasons to consider a free kick. And when we are where we are, within 16 meters, it must be considered as a punishment. So here the defender must assume the consequence of his actions and movements, says Hauge and concludes:

– You can’t say it’s wrong. It’s a bit about where you put the free throw list. We took that discussion with us to our group of judges, he continues.

also read

Check out the full Bodø / Glimt match schedule

– Was it not relevant to deprive the refereeing team of re-judging the next round?

– No way. 2nd half does it to the letter. It’s very strong to deliver like this after having this situation just before the break, says Hauge about the referee leading Sandefjord-Stabæk next weekend.

Vålerenga’s players reacted strongly to referee Aslan and his team’s decision when they awarded Molde a penalty on Sunday.

When it comes to the use of giant screens in the arena during matches, the Norwegian Football Association opens rules so that events like this can be shown once on the big screen immediately afterwards.

– We can’t take Vålerenga into anything here. But overall, we’re skeptical of safety-defying replays that can contribute to an amp atmosphere that generates reactions in the stadium, says Hauge.

Legal adviser Emil Waters of the Norwegian Football Association informs VG that they are asking the impeachment committee to assess the use of the big screen at Intility on Sunday night.

– You have to handle the great forms in a way that is not demanding for the players on the field. Sometimes it may be appropriate to stop things right away, but once I can show everything, Waters tells VG.


www.aftenposten.no

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *