Union Berlin appeals courtroom ruling over Bochum goalkeeper hit by lighter | American Football News | USAEMALL.com

Union Berlin appeal decision to award match to Bochum after their keeper was struck by a cigarette lighter in December.

Union Berlin is appealing a decision by the German football federation’s sports court to award Bochum a 2-0 victory after Bochum’s goalkeeper was struck with a cigarette lighter during their Bundesliga match in December.

“It’s bad enough that people repeatedly throw objects onto stages, into indoor areas or onto the pitch at concerts or sporting events. Unfortunately, there’s nothing that any event organiser can do to prevent it,” Union president Dirk Zingler said late on Thursday.

Earlier, the sports court had awarded Bochum a victory over Union instead of the 1-1 draw that the teams played out on December 14.

That game was nearly over when Bochum goalkeeper Patrick Drewes was struck by the object thrown from the crowd in added time. Referee Martin Petersen suspended the game and led both teams off the field after Drewes sat down and received medical treatment.

Bochum did not want to restart the game, but it resumed nearly half an hour later, with striker Philipp Hofmann replacing Drewes for the remaining three minutes. Both teams agreed not to try and score – which was also an issue for the court.

“Such agreements contradict the basic principles of sporting competition,” court chairman Stephan Oberholz said. Oberholz added that Union were responsible for “a weakening of the Bochum team” as the item had been thrown by a Union supporter.

Zingler feels otherwise. “The actual unsportsmanlike scandal took place on the pitch and in court today,” Zingler said, suggesting Bochum had made more of the incident than warranted.

“Whether there is an impairment or weakening for one side, whether the game is abandoned or continued, must always be the sole decision of the referee,” Zingler said.

“If the beneficiary party can declare themselves as weakened, we no longer need impartial referees and the door is open to fraud or even dirty tricks. The disadvantaged parties will never be able to prove the opposite.”