Ben Sigmund - MRP persecution

I can see how it looks like a punch, but I can also see how it could have been taken the wrong way, as in just his fist happened to catch his chin. Will be interesting to see if we appeal this one.

I honestly dont think it was all that intentional. And he was challenging for the ball which makes the charge they bought up a bit odd (whether you deem it intentional or not)

Three games.  Far out that's ridiculous.

They say minimum plus one, I'd like to know what grounds they're adding the extra. As Tegal says, he was challenginf for the ball and the charge says violent conduct when not challenging for the ball.

Fist connected with chin.  If the wrong Muscat had done that to Ifill or Bertos or whoever, everyone here would have been up in arms.

I hate when people say that . Clearly that would get us going emotionally. Im trying to put that aside and talk facts in my argument here. Theoreticals of what people may or may not think had that happened to one of our players is irrelevent.

He wasn't challenging for the ball.  It was miles away at the time.

Violent conduct while challenging for the ball (for which, by the way, a player can receive the same length of suspension) is adjudged when a player uses excessive force in an attempt to win the ball, at possible risk of injuring his opponent.  (Dangerous tackling is the most common example.)

I like Siggy, he is one of my favourite plays but he got what he deserved, just like Muscat did.

I dont know what provoked it, but does it matter?

It was a punch, intention was there, just lacked a bit of power

Wasnt it a corner for which they were both competing for the incoming ball..? I define that as competing for the ball anyway.

If Miller only got 2 weeks for king hitting Kruse then now way siggy should get 3 weeks

Wow - our backline looks really thin now.
Just trying to remember, how long did Joel Griffiths get for striking an official?

Was very soft.  Should really take that into account.  Personally I'd give him one game, mainly for being stupid.

Our discipline is normally very good - the last 2 weeks it has been poor - Muscat, Sigmund and the group crowding and "verbal assaulting" of referees when arguing decisions. The touching of the referee by some of our players, when crowding him, is just asking for trouble - an innocent touch to a player could easily be a push to some referees. Whitby boy2009-12-07 21:24:32

Honestly, 100% looks accidental. No doubt it looks bad though.

The Laws of the Game don't recognise "competing for the ball".  What is at stake is whether Sigmund was challenging for the ball.  Take a look at the replay here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j76mJUKOt7U

He had to cover another 2-3 meters before leaping to challenge for the ball.  The foul was - at best - a push intended to help him get through an opposition player.  (At worst, he clocked an opponent to take him out of the play.)

Yeah your right but i think that is more Miller getting of lightly than Siggy getting too harsh a penalty.
Miller should have got 3 weeks.

Our whole discipline has been poor last few weeks.  I think it has a lot to do with the standard of ref's however, they let players get a way with too much before dishing cards.

You think Miller and Siggy should have got the same punishment?  No way they are similar.

Your right about the refs waiting too long before carding someone.
In Sigmund's case he deserved at least 2 games because there was no need to strike anyone. Tells me how many football brains he has, and has let his team and team-mates down.

Siggys punch didnt look good, there is no other way I can see it other than intentional.

It definately wasn't the smartest thing to be doing when you are in your own penalty box...

Except that the more i look at it,the less it looks like violent conduct and more of an accident. But obviously the disciplinary commitee disagrees.

Think Siggy is one of our smarter players, just had a brain snap.

First time I'm aware he has been in trouble, as long as he learns from it, I don't have a big issue with it.

Violent conduct means that there was excessive force and a risk of injury to the fouled player.

Which part of that are you questioning?

According to the A-League website Lia is on 5 yellow cards and Durante 4. I didn't think Lia had 5 ??? http://www.a-league.com.au/default.aspx?s=hal_playerstats&seasonid=155&showdetailstatisticstype=9&clubid=227

I guess if you think of it as...you would get the same for an unintentional elbow in jumping for the ball? Then you have a point. What you're saying is whether he intended to do it or not is irrelevent to the charge? But i that case,what i dont understand is the extra match suspension on top of the minimum. But fair call,id have given him 2 matches in that case. But they must be of the belief that he did it intentionally,which is something i disagree with.

Any footage on youtube of the Miller on Kruse incident?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV1j9ya3o8w

He did have 5 and sat out a game. They continue on and if he gets 10 he'll get another holiday

Generally, referees shouldn't base their decisions on telepathy.  So this decision won't be grounded on some belief that Sigmund just wanted to hit someone.  Instead, he's being suspended for playing in a way that can injure other players.  Because the foul took place off the ball, it's Violent Conduct.

Elbowing another player while jumping for the ball isn't going to be a Violent Conduct offence (because it takes place on the ball).  Depending on the official and the incident, it could be considered Serious Foul Play and punished with a red card.

I hope we lodge an appeal on the basis of the extra week. I'd love to hear someone at the FFA tell us all how Siggy's challenge was worse the Miller belting Kruse.

I can only hope it's really a sign of what you can do to Kruse and get away with.

8 or 10? first one was at 5....

He got 5 weeks and they took off three for the Kruse factor
Royal2009-12-07 22:14:20

Awesome

ah McKain your back again!!!

But speaking of harshness...Griffiths, Miller & Sigmund, which was the more violent and which eceived the harshest "sentence"?

Manny, now Siggie. What is happening Nix?

Harden the f@ck up! pretty soon we'll be calling on YF to fill the squad and then who will be left to take their shirts off at 80 mins?

you reckon? siggie seems to have a solid temper and had a good wee scrap down here during the mainland game

OK, I'll be accused of having Siggy tinted glasses, but here goes.

Having watched the replay umpteen times, what appears to happen is that as the cross is delivered and Sigmund moves in to meet the cross. Leijer then intentionally or unintentionally appears to obstruct Sigmund, Sigmund frustrated (and being prone to over-enthusiasm) aggressively grabs Leijer to move him out of the way. (Not clever as it was potentially a penalty, although this stuff happens in the box often with out being pinged). Whether the connection was an intentional punch (as an aggro add-on) or just a side-effect of an aggressive action is not clear. Knowing Siggy's style, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

A key thing though is that the close-up replay starts at an unfortunate time from Siggy's perspective as the context of being obstructed is not there (which still would not excuse a punch). However, the action of grabbing first with the left arm and then with the right is more consistent with an aggressive (and poorly executed) grab than a punch. It's hard to tell how clenched the fist is, but it comes away open.

That said it does not look good, and I would understand why a match committee would string him up.

Probably the only grounds for an appeal is that even if an intentional punch was thrown, it could be argued that the level of pre-meditation was nowhere near that of Charlie Miller, who received a two match ban.

To me,it was clearly not a purposeful punch. He was just getting his arm around the guy and if it had been 10cm lower, then he wouldn't have made any harsh contact.

I agree he should be banned. But I think two games max when it was  unintentional and wasn't really dangerous. It wasn't a very hard hit.