Have I got this correct?? On Stuff (The bastian of accurate real journalism), they commented that whoever is the highest placed out of the two finalists gets to host the Grand Final - Another words, if CCM lose their semifinal and the Nix win theirs, the Nix could still have a Home Grand Final, even if we finish 2nd on Wed night??
That is correct. If we win our semi and ccm lose theirs, we host the final.
All is not lost then. Phew. We have 2 chances.
Yes, and I think there is probably still a 50/50 chance of us hosting even if we aren't #1 qualifier. Based on results tonight it is highly likely that Sydney FC will play CCM in the semi. Last time Sydney played CCM they thrashed them. Id give Sydney a 50/50 chance of winning a 2 legged semi against CCM
Of course the first thing is we need to win OUR semi but I can at least see there is still a solid chance of a home Grand final :)
City have a good chance against Victory. Its not like its really an away game and they have shown some good late form in the season so if City beat Victory, CCM will play them and we will get Sydney assuming CCM finish top of the table.
Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine us being on top of the table in our last regular season game. 11 points ahead of Victory, 15 ahead of Sydney, the least losses and goals conceded. It seems so unfair that Mariners will win the plate despite us being on top for most of the season. Football can be cruel. Aleague table round 27.PNG80.07 KB
They might not. If Everton can beat Liverpool then Adelaide can beat CCM.
I feel like that comparison would have been more apt for Jets v CCM, and we saw how that turned out. But anything really can happen in this league.
I think we are all agreed that tonight was probably the number one lineup just at the moment. With the likes Salas, Van Hattum and Al Taay as great options off the bench.
So my question is: If we had a fully fit Zwada, and presumably in the starting XI: Who misses out and what changes needed to formation (if any)?
Have I got this correct?? On Stuff (The bastian of accurate real journalism), they commented that whoever is the highest placed out of the two finalists gets to host the Grand Final - Another words, if CCM lose their semifinal and the Nix win theirs, the Nix could still have a Home Grand Final, even if we finish 2nd on Wed night??
That is correct. If we win our semi and ccm lose theirs, we host the final.
All is not lost then. Phew. We have 2 chances.
Yes, and I think there is probably still a 50/50 chance of us hosting even if we aren't #1 qualifier. Based on results tonight it is highly likely that Sydney FC will play CCM in the semi. Last time Sydney played CCM they thrashed them. Id give Sydney a 50/50 chance of winning a 2 legged semi against CCM
Of course the first thing is we need to win OUR semi but I can at least see there is still a solid chance of a home Grand final :)
Sydney first need to get past Macarthur, a team that beat them twice this season (including with 9 men).
Assuming CCM finish 1st, City beating Victory is my ideal situation. CCM's record in Melbourne is as bad as ours, they will be flying home from Oman that week & on their day, City can score a few goals. I fancy our chances more against Sydney/Macarthur than the Victory.
When we beat Macarthur the second time 2-1, after Rufer had dropped out of the starting XI, Sterjovski said, "there was only one team trying to play."
How about that, Mile?
And while you’re asking him questions, perhaps ask him how his club got the referees to agree a red card wouldn’t be a yellow for any ref?
Huh?
According to the pod the standard the MRP follows in order to completely overrule a red card is ‘no referee would have given a yellow card’.
The MRP has had a lot of marginal cards referred to them, such as the one that kept Rufer out of the CC game. However, up till the last game the most clemency shown was the minimal suspension.
After a lot of carry on by Jo Lolley and others during the MacArthur game against Sydney F.C., the MRP managed to overturned a MacArthur red card (though not the red card of Tommy Smith) leaving the MacArthur player free to face the Nix.
In order to do that the MRP must have concluded the high foot with studs would never have been considered a yellow by any referee.
When we beat Macarthur the second time 2-1, after Rufer had dropped out of the starting XI, Sterjovski said, "there was only one team trying to play."
How about that, Mile?
And while you’re asking him questions, perhaps ask him how his club got the referees to agree a red card wouldn’t be a yellow for any ref?
Huh?
According to the pod the standard the MRP follows in order to completely overrule a red card is ‘no referee would have given a yellow card’.
The MRP has had a lot of marginal cards referred to them, such as the one that kept Rufer out of the CC game. However, up till the last game the most clemency shown was the minimal suspension.
After a lot of carry on by Jo Lolley and others during the MacArthur game against Sydney F.C., the MRP managed to overturned a MacArthur red card (though not the red card of Tommy Smith) leaving the MacArthur player free to face the Nix.
In order to do that the MRP must have concluded the high foot with studs would never have been considered a yellow by any referee.
It's one of those cases of the right decision being made for the wrong reason. And once again, as if we needed any more proof, it shows that the game here is being officiated in a far from efficient or even rational way, especially in regard to post-foul VAR reviews.
I've watched quite a bit of the ACL this year and it's interesting to see that in general referees allow more physical and robust play. Yellow and red card thresholds are higher than in the A League. The local commentators doing the games are often quite comically appalled that challenges, which in the ALM would be a card or at least a foul, are completely ignored by the refs. I have to say it makes for a more enjoyable viewing experience.
Now I'm not saying players shouldn't be protected against potentially dangerous tackles but I do think the pendulum has swung way too far in the wrong direction here, and that VAR has too much influence. I don't even necessarily blame the referees. The standard gets set for studs up or hand to the head/throat contact and referees run to their little TV, stare at a slow motion replay a million times and think, heck, the more I look at it the worse it gets, I better upgrade this to a red or I might get in trouble.
Sure. But you can’t change the standard at the end of the season because a Sydney FC player says so. It’s a completely wrong decision as it gives MacArthur special treatment ahead of other clubs.
Sure. But you can’t change the standard at the end of the season because a Sydney FC player says so. It’s a completely wrong decision as it gives MacArthur special treatment ahead of other clubs.
Agreed, but let's be honest the referee/VAR got it completely wrong, which unfairly punished Vujica and badly disadvantaged Macarthur in a crucial game in their hunt for a top four finish. From that point of view I wasn't altogether unhappy to see the red card rescinded.
Should it have been? No of course not, it makes no logical sense and just ends up looking like appeasement.
Its a gutting thought that we have been top of the league for the majority of the season yet will likely get tipped out in the very final minutes of the final game of the season. That really sux.
Sure. But you can’t change the standard at the end of the season because a Sydney FC player says so. It’s a completely wrong decision as it gives MacArthur special treatment ahead of other clubs.
Agreed, but let's be honest the referee/VAR got it completely wrong, which unfairly punished Vujica and badly disadvantaged Macarthur in a crucial game in their hunt for a top four finish. From that point of view I wasn't altogether unhappy to see the red card rescinded.
Should it have been? No of course not, it makes no logical sense and just ends up looking like appeasement.
It just confirms to me that they just make crap up.
I don’t agree that the ref got it completely wrong with that challenge - even though I don’t want the standard set there- I thought it was consistent with the way the season had been refereed. It was high studs in a challenge. Everyone had been warned. It wasn’t a case of mistaken identity or of the ref missing something or some other factor.
The push by Smith was a much bigger joke. And there have been other equal or irritating red cards throughout the season.
It destroys the credibility of the process and the referees. Now any owner or coach can be justified in complaining because of this example. And any time it isn’t rescinded it looks like favoritism.
It adds to Rudan’s conspiracy theories and makes it worse as his team got no consideration. For us, we didn’t have Rufer against Central Coast. And yet looking back I think each one of those and this one can be justified as a red card.
Foots high and the studs are up contacting the player. Not always given, but wrong? This can easily be called a red card, and definitely a yellow. IMG_9817.jpeg745.65 KB
It’s comparable to this one which Sydney FC had to wear earlier in the season which is much worse in my opinion because the player (Wood) is clearly first to the ball and is unsighted about the challenge coming in. The Victory player can see everything, is second to the ball and initiates contact. However, it and other decisions, set a strict standard for contact when the foot is raised in the challenge. IMG_9818.jpeg34.37 KB
And for example, if we compare the Germain non- red which looked like a retaliatory trample (in fact wasn’t given even as a foul ) with what Rufer was sent for, you’d have to conclude Rudan was correct. Germain should’ve been sanctioned.
But I think the one actually overturned just makes a mockery of the refs authority and will undermine them for seasons. Especially with owners running the league.
The panel had nothing else they could do - if the ref issued a yellow and then upgraded to red, the panel could argue to leave it at yellow. But with a straight red it can only be rescinded, not downgraded.
Both red cards for the high foot contact were wrong IMO. You have an uncontrolled ball in the air and two players actively playing at it/contesting for that ball. In one instance, the guy who wins the ball gets a card, the other, its the guy that misses. Its dumb!
Neither instant was dangerous as the leg hit was raised, not planted meaning the chances of a break are almost 0 as the leg can move with the impact unlike a grounded leg with no where to go.
Intent needs to be considered alongside risk. No intent, plus no 'real' risk of injury = no red card.
The panel had nothing else they could do - if the ref issued a yellow and then upgraded to red, the panel could argue to leave it at yellow. But with a straight red it can only be rescinded, not downgraded.
Ah okay- pod put me wrong there then if that’s the case. Confusion over rules, misled by pod experts. Waves fist at clouds… Waaaait! Rufer’s was a yellow first though too? And Wood’s also iirc? So MacArthur just won a lottery and are the only team who got a rescinded card?
But also Daniel McBreen argued when he was on TV that Kaltak had gently tackled David Ball with his studs so not a red. So going to keep that in mind when listening to his opinions with the head ref.
Both red cards for the high foot contact were wrong IMO. You have an uncontrolled ball in the air and two players actively playing at it/contesting for that ball. In one instance, the guy who wins the ball gets a card, the other, its the guy that misses. Its dumb!
Neither instant was dangerous as the leg hit was raised, not planted meaning the chances of a break are almost 0 as the leg can move with the impact unlike a grounded leg with no where to go.
Intent needs to be considered alongside risk. No intent, plus no 'real' risk of injury = no red card.
If that’s the case then all the refs need to know, otherwise it’s confusing as all heck and a waste of time for all involved!
Not having the same knowledge of the rules as you I’m looking at what they’ve ruled and twice this has gone to the VAR and come back as red. Why on earth is that if the law is clear?
As for intent, yes and no- I believe an example was the Sasse slip over tackle. However, that was quite dangerous as the guy had a planted leg.
