I still don’t get it. The game was completed regularly and yet the Bochumers wanted to reward the Bochum with three points … that doesn’t make sense.
It is not about rewarding Bochum, the regulations of the league give that a not self -caused weakening can be punished.
The fact that from a league view here the club is practically adhering for its followers, that would be in the Union case.
The two of them are now jumping on the train because they see themselves disadvantaged.
Basically, you can react with the present regulations, but not otherwise.
I still find it important, after the constant perpetrator/victim reversal and the sometimes completely populist statements from the Union side, the VfL even had to use the specifications of the league in this case, otherwise the association would make itself vulnerable to the sponsors etc.
Because with a not unlikely descent, money and jobs are lost.
In a similar situation, the two competitors are also around the relegation ranks, so they also use this option.
Unfortunately, the problem is that many fans don’t think so far. They then hit Drewes and then verbally on the evil VfL. Criticism is completely justified, should have a certain quality.
Lubrication theater is a very wrong term that is right. Very false approach from Zingler (doesn’t even want to say Union). But I find the situation just strange. The game was completed, Bochum’s weakening was noted and a non -aggression pact closed. You probably don’t need to say more. I, even equipped with parent, would also have regulated it that way.
If this verdict goes through, I am to say very macabre I get münster fan clothes, on the last matchday to throw the Ulm goalkeeper with a lighter (a bit difficult because of the tartan track) and hope that my Ulm will stay inside. I pick up the punishment, but Ulm stays inside. You can tell from the example that you can lead it to absurdity.
What should have happened in the three remaining minutes, would Bochum have finished the game with 10 men?