Did they call Sepp in to do this one personally?
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Herbert said the decision showed the incompetence of the referee.
“The referee in the Chelsea-Manchester United game this morning dealt with Fernando Torres, who went down in the same manner as Neumann, by showing him a red card,” he said.
“Unfortunately the referee in our game with Adelaide did not deal with the situation competently and we are paying the penalty rather than the player who was guilty of simulation.
“This referee has been in the same situation in a Grand Final and did not deal with it competently there either.
“It is very disappointing for both Ben and the club that he will miss the game against Melbourne Victory, and also wrong that the game is being ruined by players who dive and do not get punished for it.”I think our players should have an expert diving instructor hired to teach them the fine art.
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
I think our players should have an expert diving instructor hired to teach them the fine art.
You mean actors?
We will never fully decide who has won the football.
I think our players should have an expert diving instructor hired to teach them the fine art.
You mean actors?
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
FISHMO...
A small town in Europe........looking to bounce straight back up....well that aint going to happen
I think the best way the Phoenix can improve this season is by learning furbizia.
We will never fully decide who has won the football.
So, an attacker is in on goal, with an obvious goalscoring opportunity, and a defender pulls his arm back, which is an offence under the laws of the game. Not a red card? Offence committed before cheating, diving histrionics? Red card justified? Personally, I'm pleased Sigmund has a ban because he's rubbish. Would much rather see Boxall partnering Dura. How many goals did Sigmund cost us last season with his hopeless positioning and inability to defend one-on-one?
This would have to be one of the most bizarre decisions of all time. Even a half blind halfwit would have to agree that it was a dive. It really does make you wonder what other forces may have underpinned the decision. Contrary to popular opinion here I suspect that there will be some embarrassment in Oz over the decision - in football, media and refereeing circles. Wouldn't rule out the possibility that this could escalate into something big.
So, an attacker is in on goal, with an obvious goalscoring opportunity, and a defender pulls his arm back, which is an offence under the laws of the game. Not a red card? Offence committed before cheating, diving histrionics? Red card justified? Personally, I'm pleased Sigmund has a ban because he's rubbish. Would much rather see Boxall partnering Dura. How many goals did Sigmund cost us last season with his hopeless positioning and inability to defend one-on-one?
Whoops too many Stien Ekens again!
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
So, an attacker is in on goal, with an obvious goalscoring opportunity, and a defender pulls his arm back, which is an offence under the laws of the game. Not a red card? Offence committed before cheating, diving histrionics? Red card justified? Personally, I'm pleased Sigmund has a ban because he's rubbish. Would much rather see Boxall partnering Dura. How many goals did Sigmund cost us last season with his hopeless positioning and inability to defend one-on-one?
I doubt Boxhall would score half of what Siggy has or make those surging upfield runs...
A small town in Europe........looking to bounce straight back up....well that aint going to happen
This would have to be one of the most bizarre decisions of all time. Even a half blind halfwit would have to agree that it was a dive. It really does make you wonder what other forces may have underpinned the decision. Contrary to popular opinion here I suspect that there will be some embarrassment in Oz over the decision - in football, media and refereeing circles. Wouldn't rule out the possibility that this could escalate into something big.
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
So, an attacker is in on goal, with an obvious goalscoring opportunity, and a defender pulls his arm back, which is an offence under the laws of the game. Not a red card? Offence committed before cheating, diving histrionics? Red card justified? Personally, I'm pleased Sigmund has a ban because he's rubbish. Would much rather see Boxall partnering Dura. How many goals did Sigmund cost us last season with his hopeless positioning and inability to defend one-on-one?
I almost fell for it. Close but no cigar, troll...
Yes the attacker was on goal, but did not have a goal scoring opportunity hence the dive.....Siggie gets my vote over Boxall who doesn't have the commitment to deserve a start every week. Siggie was second only to Dura last year. Maybe you were watching another team that plays in yellow?
Former A-League referee Simon Micallef could be heard humming this song as he left the MRP meeting this evening...
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
Surely the case for "not an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" is as much about the fact that the ball was running through to Paston anyway.
The Nix press release seems to imply that the MRP accepts only a yellow should have been issued but can't downgrade a red to a yellow.
If that's correct I can accept that Sigmund deserved to get a yellow and is therefore just a victim of rules.
But the whole clusterfuck still leaves the dive unpunished with the illogical rationale that "because we can't downgrade Sigmund's red to a yellow on a technicality, we will just ignore a blatant attempt at cheating".
Have I got any part of this wrong or has the world actually gone mad?
For its own credibility I do think that FFA need to explain this decision. The video evidence points so strongly in favour of at worst a yellow for Sigmund and an unequivocally clear red for Geronimo. To argue otherwise would be like saying its a nice sunny day at 3am in the morning in the middle of winter.
Former A-League referee Simon Micallef could be heard humming this song as he left the MRP meeting this evening...
Ricki was probably humming this
"Phoenix till they lose"
Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.
Genuine opinion: FTFFA
Surely the case for "not an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" is as much about the fact that the ball was running through to Paston anyway.
The Nix press release seems to imply that the MRP accepts only a yellow should have been issued but can't downgrade a red to a yellow.
If that's correct I can accept that Sigmund deserved to get a yellow and is therefore just a victim of rules.
But the whole clusterfuck still leaves the dive unpunished with the illogical rationale that "because we can't downgrade Sigmund's red to a yellow on a technicality, we will just ignore a blatant attempt at cheating".
Have I got any part of this wrong or has the world actually gone mad?
Yeah nah spot on.
For its own credibility I do think that FFA need to explain this decision. The video evidence points so strongly in favour of at worst a yellow for Sigmund and an unequivocally clear red for Geronimo. To argue otherwise would be like saying its a nice sunny day at 3am in the morning in the middle of winter.
Surely the case for "not an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" is as much about the fact that the ball was running through to Paston anyway.
The Nix press release seems to imply that the MRP accepts only a yellow should have been issued but can't downgrade a red to a yellow.
If that's correct I can accept that Sigmund deserved to get a yellow and is therefore just a victim of rules.
But the whole clusterfuck still leaves the dive unpunished with the illogical rationale that "because we can't downgrade Sigmund's red to a yellow on a technicality, we will just ignore a blatant attempt at cheating".
Have I got any part of this wrong or has the world actually gone mad?
For its own credibility I do think that FFA need to explain this decision. The video evidence points so strongly in favour of at worst a yellow for Sigmund and an unequivocally clear red for Geronimo. To argue otherwise would be like saying its a nice sunny day at 3am in the morning in the middle of winter.
Im not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
Siggy knows me as an out spoken critic in the past but last 2 years he has been outstanding for us. Back him all the way. Football is a small world in N Z. Don't sit family 2 rows down.
Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn
A: Simulation is not a red card offence. Torres was shown a 2nd yellow this morning which gave the appearance of red.
B: Interesting that Simon Mecalef on the MRP is a former FIFA referee who refereed when the Kingz were about.
C: If people accept that Sigmund should have had at worst, a yellow, then you can't have Jeronimo for simulation. As there is a defensive foul, you can't have a dive, which is what the MRP stated.
Effectively, the only way you give Sigmund a yellow is because Jeronimo was never going to get to the ball (it was Pastons easy as) so it does come back to being wrong in law because it was not a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Still think they should have over turned it based on the failure to apply the correct law. They literally said that themselves.
Grumpy old bastard alert
Surely the case for "not an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" is as much about the fact that the ball was running through to Paston anyway.
The Nix press release seems to imply that the MRP accepts only a yellow should have been issued but can't downgrade a red to a yellow.
If that's correct I can accept that Sigmund deserved to get a yellow and is therefore just a victim of rules.
But the whole clusterfuck still leaves the dive unpunished with the illogical rationale that "because we can't downgrade Sigmund's red to a yellow on a technicality, we will just ignore a blatant attempt at cheating".
Have I got any part of this wrong or has the world actually gone mad?
I think the problem is they are seeing this as the same incident when it's not. When Jeronimo takes two balanced steps after the contact then the fould is finished, Once he see's Paston has the ball he then dives.
The out they should have used is that there were two seperate incidents and Jeronimo himself split them by maintaining his balance before diving.
A: Simulation is not a red card offence. Torres was shown a 2nd yellow this morning which gave the appearance of red.
B: Interesting that Simon Mecalef on the MRP is a former FIFA referee who refereed when the Kingz were about.
C: If people accept that Sigmund should have had at worst, a yellow, then you can't have Jeronimo for simulation. As there is a defensive foul, you can't have a dive, which is what the MRP stated.
Effectively, the only way you give Sigmund a yellow is because Jeronimo was never going to get to the ball (it was Pastons easy as) so it does come back to being wrong in law because it was not a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Still think they should have over turned it based on the failure to apply the correct law. They literally said that themselves.
I get A but am struggling with C. Surely simulation can still occur after a foul? Just because someone is fouled doesn't give them licence to act like they have just been tasered.
http://www.swimcapz.com/designyourcap.php#
Shipment of Custom Yellow fever swim caps in time for Adelaides next visit to the ROF?
A: Simulation is not a red card offence. Torres was shown a 2nd yellow this morning which gave the appearance of red.
B: Interesting that Simon Mecalef on the MRP is a former FIFA referee who refereed when the Kingz were about.
C: If people accept that Sigmund should have had at worst, a yellow, then you can't have Jeronimo for simulation. As there is a defensive foul, you can't have a dive, which is what the MRP stated.
Effectively, the only way you give Sigmund a yellow is because Jeronimo was never going to get to the ball (it was Pastons easy as) so it does come back to being wrong in law because it was not a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Still think they should have over turned it based on the failure to apply the correct law. They literally said that themselves.
Snorkels.
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/523860201/swimming_diving_set_dive_mask_snorkel.html?s=p
Yellow fever diving squad. 24 Feb 2013
As an Auckland fan, can the YF please, please PLEASE get together and make a few "relevant" banners for the next game.
Some ideas:
Fuck of FFA
Fuck of Gillet (Someone correct me if I have the wrong fuckwit)
Diving School 0800 REDS SUCK airplane
etc etc...
Sneak the banners in if you have to (perhaps some mini 1x1 meter ones that can perhaps fit in a large pocket)
As an Auckland fan, can the YF please, please PLEASE get together and make a few "relevant" banners for the next game.
Some ideas:
Fuck of FFA
Fuck of Gillet (Someone correct me if I have the wrong fuckwit)
Diving School 0800 REDS SUCK airplane
etc etc...
Sneak the banners in if you have to (perhaps some mini 1x1 meter ones that can perhaps fit in a large pocket)
You are wrong tos ay "As there is a defensive foul, you can't have a dive. Sigmund did something resembling a foul in a dangerous situation, and also Jeronimo dived. There is no reason why a foul and a dive can't occur in close proximity to each other, and there's no reason both can't be pulled up in some way. Video evidence shows that they were two separate things. There was contact by Sigmund, and then after that, Jeronimo dived - his falling over like he did was in no way due to the contact by Sigmund.
The contact by Sigmund was mild, but mild free kicks are often given. You could call it a professional foul as it was a dangerous situation, possibly why Sigmund did it, in which case you could choose to give him a yellow. Not a clear goal scoring chance though (despite Sigmund being 'last defender'), so shouldn't have been red. Jeronimo clearly dived, and should have been punished for it. The ref would have been within his rights to yellow card Sigmund and Jeronimo. Yes there was some sort of foul (by the refs interpretation which was maybe harsh), and yes there was simulation by Jeronimo.
I think the problem is they are seeing this as the same incident when it's not. When Jeronimo takes two balanced steps after the contact then the fould is finished, Once he see's Paston has the ball he then dives.
The out they should have used is that there were two seperate incidents and Jeronimo himself split them by maintaining his balance before diving.
