Michael Olise risks Uefa punishment after cheeky antics while coming on as sub against PSG
MICHAEL OLISE could be sanctioned by Uefa over his antics against Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League.
The Bayern Munich star was brought on as a second-half substitute in the 1-0 win.
đOlise fick tillsägelse av fjärdedomaren att han inte hade pĂĽ sig benskydd. Fransmannen tar pĂĽ sig skydden, men när domaren inte tittar tar han av dem igen. Farligt spel.
— Keven Bader (@Keven_Bader) November 27, 2024
[đ˝ď¸TNTSport]
pic.twitter.com/pnJyJsY1QY
Michael Olise was told to put a shinguard in by the fourth official[/caption]
He put one down his sock but then changed his mind[/caption]
Olise cheekily threw the shinguard behind him when the officials werenât looking[/caption]
He then appeared to take to the pitch without wearing a shinguard[/caption]
But he had an issue with the fourth official who spotted that Olise was trying to enter the pitch without wearing shinguards.
The winger then fetched his shinguards and put one down his right sock.
He then pretended to do the same with his left but quickly threw it behind him towards the dugout when the officials were not looking.
Olise, 22, could now be investigated by Uefa as Ifab rules stipulate shinguards must be worn.
Ifab Law 4.2 states: âShinguards â these must be made of a suitable material and be of an appropriate size to provide reasonable protection and be covered by the socks.
âPlayers are responsible for the size and suitability of their shinguards.â
There have been concerns in recent years over the shrinking of shinguards but Ifab, who are footballâs lawmakers, have no plans to regulate shinguard dimensions.
They ruled players â or the parents or guardians of youth players â must take responsibility for their own safety on the pitch.
BEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERS
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 â including YOU â needs a rethink.
A spokesman said: âPlayersâ legs are all different sizes and there are so many different materials
âIfabâs view is that this is the responsibility of the individual player and not the referee. Where young players are concerned, that responsibility [should be taken by the coach, parents or guardians].â
Bayernâs win puts them back in contention to finish in one of the coveted top eight Champions League places which qualifies them for the next round.
Meanwhile PSG have slipped out of the play-off places after picking up just one win in five games.
