2008/09 A-League Grand Final: Tards v Pissants
Thank you 2B, I was pretty certain that the laws of the game made a distinction between 'careless' and 'reckless' (see one of my earlier posts) but couldn't be arsed looking for it.
Since you are spouting laws, you conveniently forgot to copy and paste this bit from "Interpretation Of The Laws Of The Game And Guidlines For Referees" which is in the same book/pdf and relates to Law 12
Playing in a dangerous manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
misconduct (*meaning a yellow or red card) has also been committed. (*I wonder, did Cristiano do this?)
A bit later on under Serious Foul Play
"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" (*I wonder, did Cristiano do this?)
Hmm serious foul play... Isn't that a RED card offence?
Agent 472009-03-02 23:20:42
Playing in a dangerous manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that
misconduct (*meaning a yellow or red card) has also been committed. (*I wonder, did Cristiano do this?)
A bit later on under Serious Foul Play
"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" (*I wonder, did Cristiano do this?)
Hmm serious foul play... Isn't that a RED card offence?
Agent 472009-03-02 23:20:42
Ok here is law 12.
Careless, reckless, using excessive force
�Careless� means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
�Reckless� means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.
�Using excessive force� means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.
I think most people would say he was careless.
So if I slap you lightlish, you wouldn't send me off because I didn't wind up and give you both barrels??
Ok here is law 12
Careless, reckless, using excessive force�Careless� means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
�Reckless� means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.� A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned"
�Using excessive force� means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.� A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.
I think most people would say he was careless.
So if I slap you lightlish, you wouldn't send me off because I didn't wind up and give you both barrels??
Careless, reckless, using excessive force�Careless� means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
�Reckless� means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.� A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned"
�Using excessive force� means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.� A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.
I think most people would say he was careless.
That's not what the law says and you know it.
A question relating to your earlier post - is everything classified under the 'serious foul play' an automatic red card? The way that was worded, a LOT of the stuff that goes on in games could be classified as such.el grapadura2009-03-02 23:35:15
Playing in a dangerous manner
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed.
[/QUOTE]
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed.
[/QUOTE]
This law is void because there was contact made.
[QUOTE] A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
BTW I didn't see those sections earlier so wasn't trying to do a sneaky.
Playing in a dangerous mannerPlaying in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct� has also been committed.
This law is void because there was contact made
This law is void because there was contact made
No, it clarifies further that if physical contact ensues from 'dangerous play' the referee has to consider further action (i.e. cards).
To clarify...playing in a dangerous manner involves no contact. Sanctions are..
"If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a �normal� challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player."
Game is restarted with a indirect freekick.
"Restart of playindirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 � Position of Free Kick). If there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick."
If there is contact then it is a different offence...i.e. my earlier post around careless, reckless, using excessive force.
2ndBest2009-03-03 00:11:50
That's not what the law says and you know it.
A question relating to your earlier post - is everything classified under the 'serious foul play' an automatic red card? The way that was worded, a LOT of the stuff that goes on in games could be classified as such.
No I'm just throwing back some of the silly questions you guys have thrown at me. As for the red card/serious foul play stuff, buggered if I know, I'd have to read some more. Better still, ask a ref.
If
a player plays in a dangerous manner in a �normal� challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made
with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player.
So Danny Tiatto should have only been yellow carded in his last game against Melbourne when
Oleary marched him for clearing out Vargas with his forearm to the throat?? bollocks (the laws don't say intent, search it) No swinging arm, no loading up, just a forearm to the throat and yes, I am being argumentative on something so obvious.
I'm not getting at you guys at all and its quite a lively clean debate but the fact of the matter is, he played in a manner that endangered player safety. You can't pigeon hole every tackle/challenge the same way and its obvious we all have counter arguments and points of view. In this case, the lino obviously saw something which caused him to tell Breeze to go red, and I have to agree with him. I back that up by the laws that say 'he played in a manner which endangered the safety of an opponent' and I'm assuming the lino made the same call.
Agent 472009-03-03 00:18:27
I'm enjoying this too Agent. 
That law wouldn't apply because contact was made.
Get a room you three.
So because contact was made, its a red? Cristiano made contact.....
You've yet to really provide a relevant reason why you only yellow him other than 'there was no intent, no swinging arm, he was watching the ball, its a final and the referee is a twat (that point is not debatable) Cristiano jumped higher' Thats not criteria for deciding on a send off and none of them are valid considerations. Give a valid reason and I'll happily concede but you wont find one because he played in manner..... yeah. Its red card.
You could argue a case for orange, (harsher than yellow, not quite a red) but FIFA said last year at their Sydney summit that anything orange, go red because 9 times out of 10, the red card is correct.
As another point of debate, people are saying 'oh but its a final' So if it wasn't the final, its justifiable to send him off?? Cristiano knew what he was doing.
Edit: just watched again on youtube and still a red, just re-enforced. He's bend his arm in motion of the movement and hit him square on the ear.. swung his arms backwards towards him but not loaded up on the motion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIRg4NK_e8k 1 min 25
Agent 472009-03-03 00:55:46
You've yet to really provide a relevant reason why you only yellow him other than 'there was no intent, no swinging arm, he was watching the ball, its a final and the referee is a twat (that point is not debatable) Cristiano jumped higher' Thats not criteria for deciding on a send off and none of them are valid considerations. Give a valid reason and I'll happily concede but you wont find one because he played in manner..... yeah. Its red card.
You could argue a case for orange, (harsher than yellow, not quite a red) but FIFA said last year at their Sydney summit that anything orange, go red because 9 times out of 10, the red card is correct.
As another point of debate, people are saying 'oh but its a final' So if it wasn't the final, its justifiable to send him off?? Cristiano knew what he was doing.
Edit: just watched again on youtube and still a red, just re-enforced. He's bend his arm in motion of the movement and hit him square on the ear.. swung his arms backwards towards him but not loaded up on the motion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIRg4NK_e8k 1 min 25
Agent 472009-03-03 00:55:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fjO6C1q3VI&feature=related
1 min 36.
1 min 36.
As another point of debate, people are saying 'oh but its a final' So if it wasn't the final, its justifiable to send him off?? Cristiano knew what he was doing. [/QUOTE]
Agree with you there - if it's a red card, it's a red card. Doesn't matter if it happens in Sunday league or the 2nd minute of the World Cup final.
[QUOTE=Agent 47] Edit: just watched again on youtube and still a red, just re-enforced. He's bend his arm in motion of the movement and hit him square on the ear.. swung his arms backwards towards him but not loaded up on the motionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIRg4NK_e8k 1 min 25
Seeing the replay, I'm starting to think this wasn't such a terrible decision. Cristiano bent the elbow in the direction of Vargas, so that certainly goes beyond careless into the reckless and dangerous territory.
Now, on to the Allsopp red...
Yeah i think the aerial camera shot you can see a difference. The one from ground level doesn't paint the full picture.
Ok there are three laws that this could be classified under.
A) Law 12 � Playing in a dangerous manner.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent. Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also been committed. Disciplinary sanctions � If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a �normal� challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player � If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by playing in a dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player Restart of play � Indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 � Position of Free Kick) � If there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick. [/QUOTE] So playing in a dangerous manner means doing something in which you don�t make contact. If there is physical contact then this rule does not apply. So I think we can all agree there was contact so this rule doesn�t apply. The next possible law is... B) Law 12 � Serious Foul Play A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 � Position of Free Kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred inside the offender�s penalty area).
Endangering a player part doesn�t count because it wasn�t a tackle. However, the excessive force part may apply depending on your interpretation. If you say the elbow was excessive force then he should be sent. I would say that it is not excessive. The third possible law is... C) Law 12 � Careless, reckless, using excessive force [QUOTE] �Careless� means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. � No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless �Reckless� means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent � A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned. �Using excessive force� means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. � A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
So again it is down to your interpretation. Looking at that replay again I would say it was reckless. Therefore yellow.
But each to your own. I think this might be my last post on this.
Both Cristiano and Allsopp have had their red cards expunged....
The independent Match Review Panel (MRP), chaired by Barry Such and comprising Simon Micallef and Alan Davidson, met this evening to consider the incidents arising out of the Hyundai A-League 2009 Grand Final.
Adelaide United player, Cristiano, was issued with an R2 Red Card for "violent conduct". The MRP firstly considered a challenge to the Red Card by the player. The challenge was upheld and, accordingly, the Red Card is expunged from the record of the player and he is not required to serve a sanction.
Melbourne Victory player, Danny Allsopp, was issued with an R2 Red Card for "violent conduct". The Match Review Panel firstly considered a challenge to the Red Card made by the player. The challenge was upheld and, accordingly, the Red Card is expunged from the record of the player and he is not required to serve a sanction.
I can understand this because cards can be over turned if wrong in law. Games can be replayed if the ref makes a decision that is wrong in law.
1: Where is the footage on the Allsopp headbutt. There isn't any.
2: Cristiano's was serious foul play, not violent conduct. Similar to the guff with Menapi vs Van Steedan.
1: Where is the footage on the Allsopp headbutt. There isn't any.
2: Cristiano's was serious foul play, not violent conduct. Similar to the guff with Menapi vs Van Steedan.
I think we can respectfully shake hands and walk away there 2nd best
Agreed. I think we all spent far to long on this. BUt at least it meant we weren't talking about Melbourne's win
The referee is a caaarnt and got it wrong, a trend that seems to be happening far to many times in our league for my liking!!!
Sack the lot of them and let the players get on with playing football farken!
Sack the lot of them and let the players get on with playing football farken!
The referee is a caaarnt and got it wrong, a trend that seems to be happening far to many times in our league for my liking!!!
Sack the lot of them and let the players get on with playing football farken!
Sack the lot of them and let the players get on with playing football farken!
What a segue!
Stefan2009-03-03 23:18:48
Let Cristano, Tiatto, Muscat and all get on with it you say?
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
Let Cristano, Tiatto, Muscat and all get on with it you say?
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
football survived for over 100 years with tackling being allowed and each foul not earning a booking, and I am sure it would continue if we went back to that style.
Let Cristano, Tiatto, Muscat and all get on with it you say?
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
We have proof the referees are incapable of getting it right!!! If Breeze was correct Cristiano and Allsopp would still have suspensions...
Let Cristano, Tiatto, Muscat and all get on with it you say?
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
football survived for over 100 years with tackling being allowed and each foul not earning a booking, and I am sure it would continue if we went back to that style.
Agreed sir with your point of view. Football in the last 100 years has changed though and the people playing it and the money involved, the style of ball, the athlete, the training techniques has all changed from those days. If you go back even in recent history, things like diving, the use of elbows when jumping up, players getting the ball kicked at their legs and fall over screaming holding their face (I'm thinking that Turkey player at the world cup) was far less prominent. Players have gotten sneakier.
If you wanna return to law of the jungle style, it would become open season on alot of players. Can you imagine how may players would target the likes or Muscat and Tiatto alone? You wouldn't have football sir but licensed thuggery with just a whistle and freekick only for good measure. I can recall why the tackle from behind was bought in by FIFA because that style of tackle killed the career of Marco van Basten and I'm sure you would have seen him play and would agree that he finished well too soon due to injury and players just cutting him down. Imagine if that was our Daniel getting hacked down every time he touched the ball to stop him playing by some cheating Aussie swine and the only thing happening is whistle and freekick. Where is the dis-incentive to stop doing that? If I think about Felipe, teams kicked him off the ball and referees did not protect him (because there was f**k all yellow cards when it happened). Where is Felipe now I ask you and the effect he has on the game and how he played for us once teams figured out to rough him up. It was severely dumbed down. With due respect to your point, Law of the jungle would not work.
I think the problem really extends from
a: Coaches telling their players to do this yet whine like swines when another player goes down like a shot sniper with no bullet
b: FIFA not being hard enough on players that use tactics specifically to sully the reputation of 'football' If they seriously wanted to clean up the game and get the referee influence out of it, hand out 5 match bans for these divers and cheats and sh*tty tactics like this. Forget if the referee has ruled on it or not, just nail them retrospectively because that 'big brother will get you' inference will clean up the game quickly and drastically.
While my last point/concept is flawed in some respects, it wont happen anyway so its all a bit fairy tale.
Agent 472009-03-04 10:11:04
Just had a thought about the NRL and their process
While it may not be perfect, referees can put players on reports and incidents can be reviewed by comissioner and or panel and other teams can refer matters to a judiciary (am I correct on this????)
They made a massive effort on stamping out these grapple tackles, chicken wings, spears to the point where if you do this, the NRL say we are gonna nail you bastards for doing so.
Agent 472009-03-04 10:11:33
Let Cristano, Tiatto, Muscat and all get on with it you say?
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
Sure. There will be no players left by that end of it though, that I can assure you of.
football survived for over 100 years with tackling being allowed and each foul not earning a booking, and I am sure it would continue if we went back to that style.
Agreed sir with your point of view. Football in the last 100 years has changed though and the people playing it and the money involved, the style of ball, the athlete, the training techniques has all changed from those days. If you go back even in recent history, things like diving, the use of elbows when jumping up, players getting the ball kicked at their legs and fall over screaming holding their face (I'm thinking that Turkey player at the world cup) was far less prominent. Players have gotten sneakier.
If you wanna return to law of the jungle style, it would become open season on alot of players. Can you imagine how may players would target the likes or Muscat and Tiatto alone? You wouldn't have football sir but licensed thuggery with just a whistle and freekick only for good measure. I can recall why the tackle from behind was bought in by FIFA because that style of tackle killed the career of Marco van Basten and I'm sure you would have seen him play and would agree that he finished well too soon due to injury and players just cutting him down. Imagine if that was our Daniel getting hacked down every time he touched the ball to stop him playing by some cheating Aussie swine and the only thing happening is whistle and freekick. Where is the dis-incentive to stop doing that? If I think about Felipe, teams kicked him off the ball and referees did not protect him (because there was f**k all yellow cards when it happened). Where is Felipe now I ask you and the effect he has on the game and how he played for us once teams figured out to rough him up. It was severely dumbed down. With due respect to your point, Law of the jungle would not work.
I think the problem really extends from
a: Coaches telling their players to do this yet whine like swines when another player goes down like a shot sniper with no bullet
b: FIFA not being hard enough on players that use tactics specifically to sully the reputation of 'football' If they seriously wanted to clean up the game and get the referee influence out of it, hand out 5 match bans for these divers and cheats and sh*tty tactics like this. Forget if the referee has ruled on it or not, just nail them retrospectively because that 'big brother will get you' inference will clean up the game quickly and drastically.
While my last point/concept is flawed in some respects, it wont happen anyway so its all a bit fairy tale.
So if it's not the Referees fault who's is it? The Players, The Coaches or FIFA's?
Are you the Referee's version of Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Minister?
What are you referencing? Are we not talking about letting the players go at it?
Whats refereeing got to do with it?
Too much angst.
Sometimes I can't stand him, but sometimes, just sometimes Archie is a genius.
Sometimes I can't stand him, but sometimes, just sometimes Archie is a genius.
Allsopp was triply scarred, for he also carried the stigma of his send
off and Socceroos' coach Pim Verbeek's infamous assessment of his and
Victory brother-in-arms Archie Thompson's performance for Australia
against Indonesia last month as "absolutely hopeless".
It has become a sub-text. Asked yesterday about his program this week, Thompson replied: "I start my hopeless training on Tuesday, move on to more hopeless on Wednesday and hopefully get as hopeless as possible by Thursday," he said. Asked if he had spoken to Verbeek, he replied: "I haven't been able to get through, maybe because I'm just hopeless."
Though outwardly light-hearted, and rejoicing in Victory's championship, Thompson's affront was unmistakeable.
Hard News2009-03-04 13:52:12
It has become a sub-text. Asked yesterday about his program this week, Thompson replied: "I start my hopeless training on Tuesday, move on to more hopeless on Wednesday and hopefully get as hopeless as possible by Thursday," he said. Asked if he had spoken to Verbeek, he replied: "I haven't been able to get through, maybe because I'm just hopeless."
Though outwardly light-hearted, and rejoicing in Victory's championship, Thompson's affront was unmistakeable.
What are you referencing? Are we not talking about letting the players go at it?
Whats refereeing got to do with it?
Yes we were but the thre highlighted sentences above would suggest that even under these extreme circumstances that somebody would be officiating the chaos.
If players were left to their own devices why on earth would they be getting sneakier? How can coaches moan about bad decisions when no decisions would be made? Why would FIFA have to review rules?
Both red cards thrown out.
lol @ Breeze.
Yes we were but the thre highlighted sentences above would suggest that even under these extreme circumstances that somebody would be officiating the chaos.
If players were left to their own devices why on earth would they be getting sneakier? How can coaches moan about bad decisions when no decisions would be made? Why would FIFA have to review rules?
I don't quite understand your angle. Re-read Frankies post. Decisions still get made, just no yellow and red card as Frankie Mac said. Why does anyone do anything thats a bit marginal, because they feel they are getting an advantage for themselves, sometimes over someone else. Why would they get sneakier? There are laws in place already about diving yet players try to perfect the art and make the dodgy look natural. You tell me.
I'll explain my point differently so maybe it explains me a bit better.
I walk up to you in the street and punch you. You punch me back. Things get messy, we fight and very soon the police turn up and thrown both of us in jail because thats what the laws say happen to criminals (hang with me here).
Who is at fault?
The laws of the land? No. They were their first and because we choose to live here, thats the way we live.
The policeman that threw us in jail? Unlikely, because he is only doing his job based on the laws of the land.
The answer to the question is you and me.
Now had the policeman not been there to stop us, most likely we would have kept fighting until a serious injury occured.
Relate that back to football and you will follow my angle as to why you can't really do away with referees as you suggested.
Agent 472009-03-05 00:25:39
I understood the first time!
My questions were how these examples relate to the discussion about having football matches without referees. These three examples would be totally irrelevant as "Law of the Land" would apply.
My questions were how these examples relate to the discussion about having football matches without referees. These three examples would be totally irrelevant as "Law of the Land" would apply.
So you believe that if there were no referees on a Melbourne v Queensland game for example, that the game would not decend into a 'who can put the biggest hit in' competition with hacks, flying tackles and players getting decimated? Agent 472009-03-05 10:08:53
Doesn't that happen anyway in just about every fixture anyway? And will in not continue to happen for the rest of eternity?
Yup so what difference does getting rid of referees make when on occasions (if I take your stance) they can solve it.
If referees can solve these problems then why do they still occur every single week?
Another point, if referees are so accurate with their decisions every time then why on earth are we not allowed to see instant replays on big screens after fouls are committed at an A-League match?