Sturns surrender, Besnik Hasi thinks the winter : “In my opinion, Skoras is not on the ball at all. He would never have had it. The ball rolls towards Coosemans. It’s 50-50. I think giving a yellow was the right decision.”
And the equalization canceled then? “If it’s a hand fault, then it’s a hand faultsaid De Mil. But we have to remain consistent at Var: if one of my players arrives too late and touches an opponent in the big rectangle, it’s a penalty. In this phase, Skoras touches the ball and Coosemans does not. He arrives late for my player. It’s a penalty. Ok, we can cancel this goal for a handball, but then there is a penalty first. I went to see Mr. Laforge after the match to get explanations because I didn’t understand. It was a respectful discussion. I didn’t yell and I didn’t blame him for anything. In any case, these are moments that can decide a match. As a coach, I want to retain the audacity of my players.”
Hasi believes there was simply a hand fault on Max Dean’s part, refuting De Mil’s penalty theory. The purple coach also explains that Anderlecht had more chances than La Gantoise. “Apart from long ones in the sixteen meters, La Gantoise did not have any. It was really 50-50.”
To which De Mil replied that a strike by Skoras on the post constitutes “still an opportunity” in his eyes. “I disagree with my colleague.”
Ambiance…
