The Judiciary Professional Committee's decisions justify the conduct of Roy Reinschreiber Teddy and the other judges in the 23rd cycle

• Rewriter. In a wiper union

  Photo:

  Bernie Ardov

The decisions of the Judicial Union Professional Committee on the 23rd cycle were published this evening (Tuesday) and in most cases the committee backs and justifies the decisions of the judges in the courts. The committee complimented Roy Reinschreiber and the VAR judge on the whistles for pendals at the Betar Jerusalem game and Maccabi Haifa.

Hapoel Tel Aviv - Hapoel Kiryat Shmona
In the minutes of 65 and 71, the judge was right when he sent a penalty kick to Hapoel Tel Aviv for failing weed offenses respectively. The screen judge acted as expected, when, after examining the events in the replay, the judge approved the decisions.

Hapoel Raanana - Maccabi Netanya
1. In the 9th minute, the referee was right when he ruled a penalty kick for Raanana's credit for a failure.
2. In the 89th minute, the judge was right when he sent a penalty kick to Netanya for a hand offense. The screen judge acted as expected, when after reviewing the events in the replay, the judge's decisions were confirmed.

Hapoel Haifa - Maccabi Tel Aviv
1. In the 44th minute, the screen judge was right when he recommended that the judge examine a penalty kick for the TAI Maccabi, after recognizing that it was not an offense. The judge acted as expected when, after examining the incident on the screen, he canceled the sentence.
2. In the 51st minute, the screen judge was right when he reported to the referee about an illegal pass to Tel Aviv's Maccabi, for a different offense during the offensive.
3. In addition to the time of the game, the screen referee was right when he reported to the referee about a legal goal for Haifa's credit, after recognizing that there was no distinct offense.

Notably, in two separate events the screen judge made proper use of his technology. Also, the judge is not required to access the screen because it is a factual event (a distinct line) that is not subject to interpretation.

Hapoel Beit Shemesh - Ness Ziona
1. In the 36th minute, the umpire was right when reporting to the umpire that there was no distinct offense during the pre-game bout and also that the offense was committed outside the penalty area. Red for the Nes Ziona goalkeeper, for the sake of preventing a sure opportunity to score a goal.
However, the time for examining the event up to the final decision was longer than expected and the judges will be guided in accordance with faster and more efficient cooperation.
2. In the 86th minute, the screen judge was right when he recommended that the judge consider a penalty kick for Ness Ziona for a hand offense.
The judge acted as expected when, after examining the incident on the screen, a penalty kick was issued.

Beitar Jerusalem - Maccabi Haifa
In the 24 and 38 minutes, the screen judge was right when he upheld the judge's decisions for penalty kicks for Betar (for failure) and for Haifa (for hand offense respectively). These are not cases that require intervention.