Phoenix City - Farewell

Has he got Russian support? With 3 home games coming up, this could be a very good month for us if it all works out with 3 home wins. Stick that one Bosnich.

Welcome in the new year with the latest episode of #PhoenixCity, out now in your favourite podcast app!

A disappointing 0-0 against Adelaide did nothing to lift the hungover spirits of the pod on New Years Day, we review that and get ready to take on Perth on Thursday. Meanwhile, the SS Prem is back in action, and brings with it a tasty TeeDubs vs Auckland City clash.

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/thekidsareallwh...

Fudge me. Did I say he couldn't? What i said is fox should have someone to counter his opinion. To offer some actual facts

Well done on lifting from the drossy game and delivering another good pod guys. Good discussion on the refereeing performance.

Did you guys change something with the pod?

My feed was throwing errors so I had to delete and resub to the pod to get this weekend episode.

picking us to beat Perth away. Big call. Gonna be hot

It's that time of the week... get the latest episode of Phoenix City now in your podcast app!

The pod reflect on the 2-1 loss to Perth, focusing in on Krishna's red and Keogh's headbutt, especially the lack of fallout from the former. We look forward to two games in 5 days, the first of which will be marred by another #12PubsOfLochhead. Meanwhile, the SS Prem is back from the Christmas break and Southern have managed to win again!

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/thekidsareallwh...

Fallout for the Latter I think you mean.

Mehhhh semantics ;)

Yep completely agree. The wording I've used is very poor on that point and not at all what I intended.

You also can't rescind a penalty once you've given it according to a certain SS Prem coach... Nice reason to abuse the fourth!

Actually I disagree.  The goal scoring opportunity was a 1-on-1 between Andy Bevin and the ACFC keeper.  That opportunity was denied by Bevin being pulled back.  Bevin was forced to push the ball wide due to the foul, to a team mate who fashioned a separate, far worse, opportunity (worse as the cross would have to have been for Bevin who was out of place due to the foul).  I see this as definitely a red for the ACFC player as the opportunity was definitely lost

surely it's a team opportunity though, not an individual. The team scored, so weren't denied the opportunity. 

All Chris's fault 

There was an example in Chelsea vs Tottenham a few years back where Cech (I think) did a DOGSO outside of box, but the goal went in anyway, therefore the red wasn't shown.

Besides, you're not actually disagreeing with Kerr, you're talking about different situations. The goal wasn't scored because of the holding, therefore the red was shown.

Kerr's talking about if the goal was scored anyway. Entirely different situation.

So Chris, are you saying that in this kind of situation, that the penalty given to the offending player is dependent on what the outcome is? I'm just wondering then about consistency. Should that be any different to a foul by a player that causes serious injury to the player [ie:, tripped up but the player goes down awkwardly and breaks a leg] to exactly the same foul but the other player skips through it and stays on their feet? You're probably going to say it isn't different and destroy my whole argument....

If a player dives in two footed in a dangerous manner (studs up etc etc) and the other player somehow manages to dodge the tackle, that doesn't absolve the tackler from liability, they can still be punished for it, but since they didn't collect the other player it'll likely be less harsh of a punishment.

In the case where there are two identical tackles that launch studs up into someone's shins, and one results in a broken leg and the other results in no damage at all, the injury caused to the other player shouldn't really affect the punishment, since the tackles are identical they'd be the same punishment. Punishment shouldn't change based on the broken leg just because there's a broken leg, if that makes any sense.

This is all based on my understanding of the laws of the game by the way, happy to be corrected by anyone :)

yeah either tackle is dangerous, so isn't affected by outcome. If the law was "dangerous tackle causing injury" then it would matter. 

But if a goal isn't denied, you can't really be sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity. 

So has Roly signed for City?

The outcome is dependent when there are tactical fouls. Examples are fouls that may appear minor like a trip but break up an attack, or a simple handball but it denies possession (this has been altered) or a striker than handles the ball with the intent of scoring. In those cases, the severity of the fouls is not so much important as the tactical impact it has. That does not absolve ignoring the severity of the foul however but when there is a potential tactical impact, that become a consideration as well i.e. the outcome.

Fouls you are talking about where a player may stay on his feet of go down are graded into 3 categories - careless (foul) reckless (yellow) excessive force or brutality (red). Within that, there are definitions and they are not outcome based and nor are they based on whether contact is made or not. Quote from law below:

* Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
* Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
* Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

Ok so that gives you the rough framework to guide you. More from law

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
* charges
* jumps at
* kicks or attempts to kick
* pushes
* strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
* tackles or challenges
* trips or attempts to trip

So in those cases, the old 'I was going for the ball' or 'there was no intent' does not work because while going for the ball, if the tackle or challenge is committed with a disregard to the danger to, or consequences for and opponent, regardless if you win the ball or not, make contact or not, the player goes down or not, you then caution that challenge.

The best example I can give you is a player tries to punch another player out and has an air shot. You still send him off as he will have committed and act that endangers the safety of the opponent regardless whether or not it makes contact.

Hope that helps.

Fantastic response, thanks Chris, appreciated.

New podcast out now at http://yellowfever.co.nz/podcasts!

Following wins against the Mariners and the Victory, the pod are in dreamland as they work out what went right for the Nix. We discuss the move to a 48 team World Cup and it's effects on NZ, talk about Auckland City jetting off to play some friendlies and wrap up all the action from the SS Prem.

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/thekidsareallwh...

I cant see it on the app

EDIT: Fudge me that was annoying to fix. Poddy up now on the website/apps!

Downloading now

Great pod lads. Awesome length.

T.

M.

I.

Great pods, you all seem happier when we win 2 games in 4 days for some reason.

Good stuff, lads. I do have to reiterate that Patrick's drum expertise is nothing to do with me, (I don't do free drum lessons) I thought he did a damn fine job in the last two games. 

Not sure about the scurrilous accusation that I tried to break the drum though! I couldn't go 90 minutes in the vicinity of a drum without hitting it, it's just that I'm used to hitting my drums fairly hard! 

Fudgeed if I know, but maybe the Nix should win some more to help out the pod.

all this positivity around us over the last week has me thinking we will tank it this weekend. Fingers crossed there is some squad rotation and the players who come in carry our form on. 

good pod lads.