1 month ago
13
THE Champions League saw a very cheeky VAR decision last night.
And the call left one team with the rump as it ultimately decided the match.
Getty
Serhou Guirassy was just onside in the build-up due to Emanuel Aiwu’s bottomThe bizarre incident came in the clash between Sturm Graz and Borussia Dortmund which the German side won 1-0.
Donyell Malen netted the 85th-minute winner at Signal Iduna Park.
But it was only given when a VAR check went in their favour.
Incredible replays showed that Dortmund star Serhou Guirassy was kept onside in the build up to the goal by the tightest of margins.
Upon further inspection, it turned out that Guirassy was onside thanks to Emanuel Aiwu’s BACKSIDE.
Fans could not help but feel bad for the defender who came unstuck due to his kiester.
One posted: “Punished for having a thick stack? Game has gone.”
A second wrote: “Booty too Big.”
AFPCASINO SPECIAL – BEST CASINO WELCOME OFFERS
A third commented: “I like big butts and I can not lie – Dortmund.”
A fourth said: “He’s assisting Dortmund there, cheeky decision by VAR.”
Another added: “Saved by the butt.”
The goal helped Dortmund seal the win to take their record in the competition to three wins from four games.
After the game, manager and former Liverpool star Nuri Sahin praised his side’s performance as he insisted their energy levels were not “normal”.
He told Dazn: “We completely controlled the game, apart from one phase between the 60th and 70th minutes.
“We need to score our first goal earlier, that opens the door. We didn’t manage to do that. Up to the box, we were good and the plan worked out.
“When you score the goal, the spaces get bigger. In the end, we got our reward.
‘I’m glad that we kept clear heads and got the job done. I told Donny that he needed to bring some intensity to the game.
“I have to take my hat off to them. The way the boys ran, it wasn’t normal.”
New Champions League format is a snorefest
By Dan King
UEFA sold the idea of expanding the Champions League from 32 to 36 teams, with each playing eight games instead of six in the opening phase, as a way of creating more competitiveness and excitement.
The biggest clubs would have two matches against their peers, rather than having to wait until the knockout stage to meet.
The smaller clubs would meet teams of a similar level twice and have a chance of tasting victory that was so hard to achieve if you were the bottom seed in a group of four.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that the real motivation was the simple equation of more games = more money, the theory itself already looks flawed.
None of the matches between European giants has delivered a compelling contest yet.
And why would they? At the start of the long season with more matches in it, why would any team with ambitions to win things in the spring, go out all guns blazing in the autumn?
Especially when they know they have six games NOT against big sides to make sure they accrue enough points to qualify at least for the play-off round (and even more games).
There is even less jeopardy than before.
Read the full column on the Champions League format fail and why everyone – including YOU – needs a rethink.
Bengali (BD) · 
English (US) ·