Just wow have calmed down after all the emotion of that shark feast and have a couple of comments observations. Think the officiating is just downright incompetent rather than corrupt, If Kraev dosnt pick up a stupid yellow in the first half he dosnt get sent for a very soft yellow in the 2nd half. Our players seem to pick up soft yellows far too often and it could really hurt us later in the season. Sails yellows for time wasting are just dumb. Not worried to much about the 2nd penalty as that dosnt happen if the first isnt awarded. Dont get why we wernt shown vision from behind the goal its there they chose not to show it. Wont use his friggen name but that ref shouldnt be allowed near another Phoenix game for some time,its not the first time he has tried to screw us. Love how the players continued to fight for the game when we went down to 10 then 9. BUT the question has to be asked where was that same fight in those games that we have given up late goals in this season. They have shown they can do it so there is NO excuse why they cant show that same fight for the rest of the season. Is it any coincidence that we get a clean sheet when Rufer is back and involved, im sure plenty will say no. But i think its his type of involvement that the back 4 have been missing. So come on guys know show us that sort of fight and spirit wasnt just a one off thing.
Woke up with the biggest smile on my face this morning. What an incredible match that was, but sadly will be remembered for all the wrong reasons - terrible officiating and just blatant Sydney bias coming to the fore, I don't think you can call it any other way. That ending surely has to rank right up there as one of the most farcical endings to a game in the history of the A-League, right?
Twitter and social media still going off about it, and there's some bloody gems out there, but this take from Chiefy takes the absolute piss-take cake 😆😆
I don't think people should calm down and move on. I think the club should demand answers. The Phoenix have been on the end of some horrific VAR decisions, enough to call it a trend, and here's another four in one game.
The first red / second yellow card is absolute nonsense. A-league referees never give that the other way. The second red card is everything wrong with football. Burgess was fairly aggressive, beyond what's normally acceptable when players square up. They're either both reds or neither reds.
Even the first penalty, I'll concede the fan footage shows it hit his left-hand. Not a chance in hell that is given the other way around - the defender's back is turned and his arm is as down to the side as it can be.
How well has Zawada come back from his frustrations last week and how patient and ruthless was that goal! Brilliant stuff 1 v 4. He was on fire that first half.
With the chances falling to Ball and Kraev we could have put the game away before the break. Another day we would have. Then none of the other stuff would have happened as Kraev would have been subbed, job done, for Van Hattum or Old.
When Sydney missed the first penalty, one of their players was inside the penalty box before Le Fondre kicked the ball (so was another Sydney and also a Nix player). However, as the Sydney player in the red circle was directly involved in the incident, which gave them the second penalty (he crossed the ball, which hit Elliot’s arm) - should VAR not have ruled against the penalty?6653B6D9-1C15-439C-9D1A-2F92586D5358.jpeg334 KB
The great outcome from the game (apart from the obvious 3 pts), is now how everyone is fired up about the season again - players (look at Sail) & fans. It had been all dull, low profile really, until this match.
There is suddenly a shark load of energy around again about the Nix, and wouldn't surprise if got a decent crowd against CCM at the ROF next home game. Providing yes goes okay verus Roar this weekend.
A standard 1-0 win without any drama, wouldn't have bought half the publicity this game did. Thanks Shaun Evans/VAR.
Perhaps, in a funny way, they needed a game like this to chuck some hot coals upon the fire in their bellies. Put that chip back on their shoulder, the same chip that’s always been there when this club has gone deep in the past. This win could just be the push to get them rolling.
No issues with the reds. Kraeve did foul the player catching him on the shin from behind. A little soft considering some others not punished, but not a terrible call in isolation.
No issue with Pennington red either. He put his hands on the players neck as well as fully engaging in the head to head stuff. You simply can't do that.
Both pens were shocking calls and how VAR didn't spot the mistake on the first or found the arm on the second is beyond me. I blame VAR more than the ref as it is designed to help the ref not drag him down further into the mire.
Just show how fans can watch the same game and see different things. I do have issues with both reds Kraeves 2ndyellow was defiantly a foul but cant agree it was deserving of a card. The replay i saw he got the top of the other players boot nowhere near his shin. As for Pennington if he got a Red then they both should have got them he wasnt the instigator. Yes he shouldnt have put hands on his neck but you cant see what the other guys right hand is doing.
Pennington was effectively being assaulted. He was being pushed back and there was clear violent intent being waged upon him. He did not, as claimed, ‘grab’ the offenders throat; he simply defended himself. How anyone can see what Pennington did as a red card offence is totally beyond me. Kraev’s second yellow was also a travesty. Clearly a foul but no more.
No issues with the reds. Kraeve did foul the player catching him on the shin from behind. A little soft considering some others not punished, but not a terrible call in isolation.
No issue with Pennington red either. He put his hands on the players neck as well as fully engaging in the head to head stuff. You simply can't do that.
Both pens were shocking calls and how VAR didn't spot the mistake on the first or found the arm on the second is beyond me. I blame VAR more than the ref as it is designed to help the ref not drag him down further into the mire.
Just show how fans can watch the same game and see different things. I do have issues with both reds Kraeves 2ndyellow was defiantly a foul but cant agree it was deserving of a card. The replay i saw he got the top of the other players boot nowhere near his shin. As for Pennington if he got a Red then they both should have got them he wasnt the instigator. Yes he shouldnt have put hands on his neck but you cant see what the other guys right hand is doing.
Pennington was effectively being assaulted. He was being pushed back and there was clear violent intent being waged upon him. He did not, as claimed, ‘grab’ the offenders throat; he simply defended himself. How anyone can see what Pennington did as a red card offence is totally beyond me. Kraev’s second yellow was also a travesty. Clearly a foul but no more.
Could not agree more. I do hope we hear of an appeal re Pennington. As i understand it, only straight red alleged offences can be appealed. Reds as a result of two yellows cannot be appealed.
When Sydney missed the first penalty, one of their players was inside the penalty box before Le Fondre kicked the ball (so was another Sydney and also a Nix player). However, as the Sydney player in the red circle was directly involved in the incident, which gave them the second penalty (he crossed the ball, which hit Elliot’s arm) - should VAR not have ruled against the penalty?6653B6D9-1C15-439C-9D1A-2F92586D5358.jpeg334 KB
Read online that because both teams had players encroaching it should have been a re-take.
Just had a quick chat to Tim Payne at the airport. Says the ball hit him where his back meets his left shoulder for SFC’s first penalty. Hard to fathom how VAR didn’t correct the original decision to award the pen.
When Sydney missed the first penalty, one of their players was inside the penalty box before Le Fondre kicked the ball (so was another Sydney and also a Nix player). However, as the Sydney player in the red circle was directly involved in the incident, which gave them the second penalty (he crossed the ball, which hit Elliot’s arm) - should VAR not have ruled against the penalty?6653B6D9-1C15-439C-9D1A-2F92586D5358.jpeg334 KB
Quite why you’d argue for a missed penalty to be retaken I don’t quite understand, unless you are a Sydney supporter.
No issues with the reds. Kraeve did foul the player catching him on the shin from behind. A little soft considering some others not punished, but not a terrible call in isolation.
No issue with Pennington red either. He put his hands on the players neck as well as fully engaging in the head to head stuff. You simply can't do that.
Both pens were shocking calls and how VAR didn't spot the mistake on the first or found the arm on the second is beyond me. I blame VAR more than the ref as it is designed to help the ref not drag him down further into the mire.
Just show how fans can watch the same game and see different things. I do have issues with both reds Kraeves 2ndyellow was defiantly a foul but cant agree it was deserving of a card. The replay i saw he got the top of the other players boot nowhere near his shin. As for Pennington if he got a Red then they both should have got them he wasnt the instigator. Yes he shouldnt have put hands on his neck but you cant see what the other guys right hand is doing.
Pennington was effectively being assaulted. He was being pushed back and there was clear violent intent being waged upon him. He did not, as claimed, ‘grab’ the offenders throat; he simply defended himself. How anyone can see what Pennington did as a red card offence is totally beyond me. Kraev’s second yellow was also a travesty. Clearly a foul but no more.
Could not agree more. I do hope we hear of an appeal re Pennington. As i understand it, only straight red alleged offences can be appealed. Reds as a result of two yellows cannot be appealed.
Don't hold your breath for it to be rescinded. This is the A League we are talking. It'll be 3 weeks for Pennington. Just look at how Sasse was treated. Hope I'm wrong but.
It wasn’t a little bit of head to head though. Pennington was retreating and the Sydney player very aggressively continues to incite it.
It’s either both red or none.
That's the issue for me. You can argue a red for Pennington. But, by the same standard, why not a red for Burgess?
The same for Kraev. I think the two yellows were not totally unreasonable. You can debate that. But if you apply the standard that gave Kraev two yellows then I think Sydney got away with a lot, without cards.
It's interesting to think what the call would have been if Pennington had simply put his hands in the air to make the point he was not engaging and continued to attempt to retreat. You'd think a yellow or worse for Burgess and nothing for Pennington.
Both Kraev and Pennington to miss the roar game. Just the 1 match.
Take that tbh I don't think you can overturn the two yellows? and Pennington's one there's not enough innocence there to overturn it but Burgess should be getting a match ban too.
Both Kraev and Pennington to miss the roar game. Just the 1 match.
Take that tbh I don't think you can overturn the two yellows? and Pennington's one there's not enough innocence there to overturn it but Burgess should be getting a match ban too.
Think that’s the thing that gets me (burgess), getting off completely. It’s ridiculous.
Both Kraev and Pennington to miss the roar game. Just the 1 match.
Take that tbh I don't think you can overturn the two yellows? and Pennington's one there's not enough innocence there to overturn it but Burgess should be getting a match ban too.
Think that’s the thing that gets me (burgess), getting off completely. It’s ridiculous.
1 game is reasonable. You can't put your hands at a dudes throat, no matter how much of an aggressive nob they are being.
But yea Burgess getting away with nada sharks me too.
Because this thread definitely needs some more officiating analysis; For me, the Kraev second yellow was soft as hell, in the moment I almost thought it seemed like the ref had gone for the card because it was a foul and it's usually about that stage of a game where lenient officials usually start flashing a little colour around, without considering it would be a 2nd card and a sending off. The pennington one I can't really defend, yes burgess was in his face and the instigator but you just can not raise your hands to someone in the modern game, it's red 90% of the time. Pen was bullshark and as such the 2nd one shouldn't have happened either. Up the nix, huge character, onwards and upwards.
When Sydney missed the first penalty, one of their players was inside the penalty box before Le Fondre kicked the ball (so was another Sydney and also a Nix player). However, as the Sydney player in the red circle was directly involved in the incident, which gave them the second penalty (he crossed the ball, which hit Elliot’s arm) - should VAR not have ruled against the penalty?6653B6D9-1C15-439C-9D1A-2F92586D5358.jpeg334 KB
Quite why you’d argue for a missed penalty to be retaken I don’t quite understand, unless you are a Sydney supporter.
My point is that the 2nd penalty shouldn’t have been awarded, as the Sydney player had encroached the penalty area.
When Sydney missed the first penalty, one of their players was inside the penalty box before Le Fondre kicked the ball (so was another Sydney and also a Nix player). However, as the Sydney player in the red circle was directly involved in the incident, which gave them the second penalty (he crossed the ball, which hit Elliot’s arm) - should VAR not have ruled against the penalty?6653B6D9-1C15-439C-9D1A-2F92586D5358.jpeg334 KB
Quite why you’d argue for a missed penalty to be retaken I don’t quite understand, unless you are a Sydney supporter.
My point is that the 2nd penalty shouldn’t have been awarded, as the Sydney player had encroached the penalty area.
Then the first penalty needs to be taken again, so there is really no point to your point.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, just to rub salt into the wound Burgess has been given the motm award by Sydney FC.
That's hilarious! 😆 How hollow must you feel getting a MotM award in a 1-0 loss, against 9 men, and with the rub of the green for all big (dubious) decisions going your way?
'Here, have this, you're our MotM!'
Put it on your mantle piece, or right up on the fridge at home Maxy - you bloody well deserved it! Ya dickhead. ✊💦
Both Kraev and Pennington to miss the roar game. Just the 1 match.
Take that tbh I don't think you can overturn the two yellows? and Pennington's one there's not enough innocence there to overturn it but Burgess should be getting a match ban too.
Think that’s the thing that gets me (burgess), getting off completely. It’s ridiculous.
1 game is reasonable. You can't put your hands at a dudes throat, no matter how much of an aggressive nob they are being.
But yea Burgess getting away with nada sharks me too.
Players have become quite astute at judging just how much they can get away with now days. Everyone knows that even a hint of a butting movement will get you sent off, whereas it's generally perfectly fine to get up into someone's face, press your forehead into theirs and scream abuse at them. For some reason it's not regarded as violent conduct, it hardly ever gets carded, and as a result we are seeing it more and more.
I find this baffling. The regulations don't regard this extremely aggressive and intimidating behaviour as worthy of a red card, yet if the attacked player makes the wrong movements defending himself he is immediately sent off. What's more, why should the forehead press be considered any less aggressive and disrespectful to your fellow footballer than spitting in his face, which is an automatic red card? It's bizarre, especially in this covid-sensitive age we live in.
Because this thread definitely needs some more officiating analysis; For me, the Kraev second yellow was soft as hell, in the moment I almost thought it seemed like the ref had gone for the card because it was a foul and it's usually about that stage of a game where lenient officials usually start flashing a little colour around, without considering it would be a 2nd card and a sending off. The pennington one I can't really defend, yes burgess was in his face and the instigator but you just can not raise your hands to someone in the modern game, it's red 90% of the time. Pen was bullshark and as such the 2nd one shouldn't have happened either. Up the nix, huge character, onwards and upwards.
For the Kraev one, I think the ref has thought that he's raked his studs down the calf. Doesn't look like it on the replay and the Sydney player goes down holding his back instead. Terrible card to give especially given Zawada gets that treatment in the first 10 minutes from Donachie (I think) and there is no card.
Its a Shaun Evans Issue. Inconsistent calls is why his games often end in controversy. All the individual incidents can be looked at in isolation and argued either way. But its the inconsistency over the whole match which leads to frustration and over reaction from players. which boils over towards the end of games. Not helped by Evans making rushed decisions (probably adrenaline induced) and brandishing cards creating the controversy as the game gets even more heated up. He loses control. He's just not up to it. Doesn't have the right character / temperament / judgement or what ever to be a top level official.
Going back to the Payne handball. I think at some stage it probably hits his left arm as it swings to back to gain balance. But I think there is also a good chance it has hit/glanced his back first/at the same time. Of course hitting the arm doesn't mean it's a handball. The LOTG say that: touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.
I find it hard to say that his arm is unnaturally bigger.
But anyway, I'm convinced Shaun Evens didn't actually see the incident based on his position. Looks to me there is at least one player in the way, and it is on the goal side of Payne. I think he's just guessed. And given we haven't seen any conclusive video from different TV angles since, I think it's safe to say that VAR didn't have another view to prove the decision was correct or not.
From a refs point of view though, is guessing good enough to award a penalty? From his position he must have been confident he could see the ball, it didnt move after passing his right hand which was raised (no contact) from the head of the Sydney attacker the ball hits him in the arm/back - which the ref may not have seen but from then onwards there is no logical step to call hand ball. The arm isnt extended to take up space, it's not raised towards the ball, just balance after challenging for the header. How Evans goes from "I can't see the ball" to that's definately a pen!" is the issue I have, and then for VAR to support it is bizarre as it's an obvious error.
From a refs point of view though, is guessing good enough to award a penalty? From his position he must have been confident he could see the ball, it didnt move after passing his right hand which was raised (no contact) from the head of the Sydney attacker the ball hits him in the arm/back - which the ref may not have seen but from then onwards there is no logical step to call hand ball. The arm isnt extended to take up space, it's not raised towards the ball, just balance after challenging for the header. How Evans goes from "I can't see the ball" to that's definately a pen!" is the issue I have, and then for VAR to support it is bizarre as it's an obvious error.
Evans believed the ball brushed Payne’s right hand from the cross. He cannot call the one in the back as there is no possible way ha could have seen it and the AR did not flag it.
From a refs point of view though, is guessing good enough to award a penalty? From his position he must have been confident he could see the ball, it didnt move after passing his right hand which was raised (no contact) from the head of the Sydney attacker the ball hits him in the arm/back - which the ref may not have seen but from then onwards there is no logical step to call hand ball. The arm isnt extended to take up space, it's not raised towards the ball, just balance after challenging for the header. How Evans goes from "I can't see the ball" to that's definately a pen!" is the issue I have, and then for VAR to support it is bizarre as it's an obvious error.
I think Shaun Evans is a ref that tends to get a bit influenced by the crowd. Especially when things get tense and heated.
From a refs point of view though, is guessing good enough to award a penalty? From his position he must have been confident he could see the ball, it didnt move after passing his right hand which was raised (no contact) from the head of the Sydney attacker the ball hits him in the arm/back - which the ref may not have seen but from then onwards there is no logical step to call hand ball. The arm isnt extended to take up space, it's not raised towards the ball, just balance after challenging for the header. How Evans goes from "I can't see the ball" to that's definately a pen!" is the issue I have, and then for VAR to support it is bizarre as it's an obvious error.
Evans believed the ball brushed Payne’s right hand from the cross. He cannot call the one in the back as there is no possible way ha could have seen it and the AR did not flag it.
Assuming that's the case the VAR saw that it did not touch his hand so has to reverse the call.
Going off the controversial calls. I thought we were brilliant in the first half. But in the second half we changed our attitude and dropped off in intensity letting them back in the game. Even at 48 minutes Lewis was time wasting by ambling over to take a corner. Maybe this is what's called managing the game. But we always play worse when we are leading.
From a refs point of view though, is guessing good enough to award a penalty? From his position he must have been confident he could see the ball, it didnt move after passing his right hand which was raised (no contact) from the head of the Sydney attacker the ball hits him in the arm/back - which the ref may not have seen but from then onwards there is no logical step to call hand ball. The arm isnt extended to take up space, it's not raised towards the ball, just balance after challenging for the header. How Evans goes from "I can't see the ball" to that's definately a pen!" is the issue I have, and then for VAR to support it is bizarre as it's an obvious error.
Evans believed the ball brushed Payne’s right hand from the cross. He cannot call the one in the back as there is no possible way ha could have seen it and the AR did not flag it.
Assuming that's the case the VAR saw that it did not touch his hand so has to reverse the call.
I would have thought this too, but VAR have not publicly justified their call. It is possible they agreed it brushed the hand, it is possible they considered it to not be a ‘clear and obvious mistake’ as it ‘may have brushed the hand’ If they said they were not sure, Evans should have gone to the monitor. If either gave it for the ball in the back, then they are simple wrong; arm was in a natural position and ball struck his body first, so even if it did strike the arm it is not hand ball.
It wasn’t a little bit of head to head though. Pennington was retreating and the Sydney player very aggressively continues to incite it.
It’s either both red or none.
That's the issue for me. You can argue a red for Pennington. But, by the same standard, why not a red for Burgess?
The same for Kraev. I think the two yellows were not totally unreasonable. You can debate that. But if you apply the standard that gave Kraev two yellows then I think Sydney got away with a lot, without cards.
It's interesting to think what the call would have been if Pennington had simply put his hands in the air to make the point he was not engaging and continued to attempt to retreat. You'd think a yellow or worse for Burgess and nothing for Pennington.
Your last paragraph is exactly it. Pennington should've dropped to the floor holding his face. In a different league it would've been a red card for Burgess. (Although I doubt that would've happened yesterday.)
Of course we don't want players flopping to the floor, but here you see why they do it.
Going off the controversial calls. I thought we were brilliant in the first half. But in the second half we changed our attitude and dropped off in intensity letting them back in the game. Even at 48 minutes Lewis was time wasting by ambling over to take a corner. Maybe this is what's called managing the game. But we always play worse when we are leading.
Yea I feel like if we get the lead we always become super defensive and focus on bodies in the box as opposed to possessing the ball which is on of Uffies strategies that drive me mental.
If we are pressing and holding the ball it's harder for the opposition to score but we retreat to our half and give them way too many opportunities.
It wasn’t a little bit of head to head though. Pennington was retreating and the Sydney player very aggressively continues to incite it.
It’s either both red or none.
That's the issue for me. You can argue a red for Pennington. But, by the same standard, why not a red for Burgess?
The same for Kraev. I think the two yellows were not totally unreasonable. You can debate that. But if you apply the standard that gave Kraev two yellows then I think Sydney got away with a lot, without cards.
It's interesting to think what the call would have been if Pennington had simply put his hands in the air to make the point he was not engaging and continued to attempt to retreat. You'd think a yellow or worse for Burgess and nothing for Pennington.
Your last paragraph is exactly it. Pennington should've dropped to the floor holding his face. In a different league it would've been a red card for Burgess. (Although I doubt that would've happened yesterday.)
Of course we don't want players flopping to the floor, but here you see why they do it.
Unfortunately...they are professional players who get paid to win games....if they have to somewhat “act" to get a much better chance of winning games, and knowing it's allowed by the rule of the game, they would and should be doing that.
It's the thing I hate most about football. If you get fouled and don't hit the ground you more than likely don't get the call so you have to do the theatrics.
Look at it this way, we could debate it until the cows come home but we won, put it behind us and move on to the next game. It was an exciting game to watch, done that 3 times now.
.png)
