|
Post by Rubbernose on Oct 15, 2007 11:36:37 GMT 10
There's no doubt about it, Porter definitely should have taken his cue and punched O'Leary right in the junk.
|
|
skilbeck
State League player
aloisi johnny aloisi aloisi he's a mariner
Posts: 321
|
Post by skilbeck on Oct 15, 2007 11:43:49 GMT 10
I agree in the after match press conference with the managers, the ref should have to give a statement and accept questions from the press and other people in attendance. They have to tell us what was going through their mind when they make the decisions they do. I believe there should be a rule change where an appeal to the governing body can overturn the refs decision on the field when it has implications for future matches. Sorry that's where we have to agree to disagree. I believe that the match officials should submit a match report as they do now, and not answer any questions about their decisions or performance, nor made to participate in the media circus post match. I suspect that if a ref made an inappropriate comment (written or verbal doesn't matter) about a player or coach outside of the legal immunity that they have whilst officiating a game of football, they may find themselves subject to legal suit (ie Libel, Defamation of Character). However, the match should be reviewed by a match review panel and the refs should be made to account for controversial decisions, and poor performances. Refs should also be open to cross examination by all participants in a judiciary hearing too (if they aren't already made to do so). yeah i agree but we should make the process transparent and a post match press conference is one of the ways to do it, however i can see the downsides of these types of press conferences. I see that its one of those things that will never be perfect. Pete, are these match reports that are submitted by the officials avaliable to the public? and if so where do i get them? if not they should be
|
|
|
Post by thesandman on Oct 15, 2007 11:46:10 GMT 10
Even if it isn't a press conference - perhaps an interview on total football or something?
A press conference would likely result in referees being attacked by the media and put in a difficult position.
Heck, even if it was a written statement released via the FFA, I'm sure it'd be something.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 15, 2007 11:46:25 GMT 10
Skillbeck, I edited my post (whilst you were posting yours) that you have quoted to include that the Match Review Panel and Judiciary Hearings transcripts and decisions should be made public and on the FFA website. That's something I don't think they do now.
From my own experience in reading court transcripts in legal cases as opposed to what is said in the public domain, there are often good reasons behind why some decisions or judgements have been made.
But those tasked with enforcing laws and regulations do not have the ability to comment publicly about the situation, for fear of perverting justice and being held in contempt of court, whereas the defendants often has the public opinion to themselves to state their case.
It is only when you read what happened in the legal hearing that you find out that certain convenient facts weren't mentioned in the public domain by those pushing the defendants' cause.
That is when those tasked with prosecuting the matter can have the law enforcers' view put into the transcript and often you end up taking a different view on what actually happened.
Reading the decisions of a court often has the opinions of the panel members expressed very concisely too, and one ends up seeing where they sat on the issues at hand.
Therefore, if similar transcripts and decisions were made public in the football world's equivalent, we would all see both sides to any decision made by a ref on the field and how the panel would assess that decision.
In Judiciary Hearings, the player's views would also be assessed and a decision handed down about their side of the story too.
|
|
uncleyellow
Local league player
Yellow Yeah Yellow Yellow
Posts: 130
|
Post by uncleyellow on Oct 15, 2007 13:58:29 GMT 10
I was sitting near the tunnel, and on the way in from half time heard Frank F shake his head and say to Lawrie somehitng like "mate, there was nothing in that..." the rest was drowned out by the crowds boooo's.
I dont think there is anyone, anywhere prepared to defend that call...
Matty Mckay (who does shit me) had a look of totall desbelief over his face, as did evey player near the tackle, from either side... Even the QLD bench were shaking thier heads...
The man should be made accountable, I am when I f*** up!!!
|
|
uncleyellow
Local league player
Yellow Yeah Yellow Yellow
Posts: 130
|
Post by uncleyellow on Oct 15, 2007 14:00:03 GMT 10
I like the way when you type in f***... it comes out as F***, I only just realised... Clever forum people..
|
|
|
Post by ~Floss~ on Oct 15, 2007 14:39:47 GMT 10
While refs giving post-match interviews seems a bit over the top, I think there could be something released based on their match report.
The summaries released already show something like "Red Cards: Porter 31'" Why not make it "Red Cards: Porter 31' - Dangerous Tackle"?
Reffing guidelines should also be (if not already) accessible to anyone, eg. "If, in the referee's opinion, ................ has occurred, then a recommended punishment of ........... shall apply. The referee may choose to take further disciplinary action if ............."
Giving the fans access to this information should save a considerable amount of ref abuse in some cases, by showing how thay interpereted the incidents. Eg. "Joel Griffiths - Yellow Card, dissent" shows that he didn't see it, whereas "Yellow Card - striking an official" shows that he's seen it but stuffed up
|
|
|
Post by mariners4ever on Oct 15, 2007 18:06:03 GMT 10
the standard of today's referee's are such a disgrace that its actually got to a point where i am tempted to send an email to the FFA to complain.
Even frank farina said that he was surprised at the send off of brad porter
|
|
|
Post by thesandman on Oct 15, 2007 18:22:22 GMT 10
Floss - I don't fully understand your second last paragraph? The laws of the game, questions and answers to the laws of the game and all FFA directives, a number of coaching manuals, and many NSW circulars (we don't have a national referee's site) are available for public viewing. Essentially the laws do already state (more or less) that 'if, in the opinion of the referee, X occurs, then a free kick will be awarded. If reckless the player will be cautioned, and if using excessive force then they'll be sent off' - which if more or less what it seems you're saying. Then there's the other bits about tactical fouls, and other reasons to show cards, and how any challenge which endangers the safety of an opponent will be sanctioned as serious foul play (red card). Obviously O'Leary's intperpretation of the incident comes under the latter - and the replay does make it look a bit like Porter jumped at the player after he was already in front of him. That's not how it happened - in real time they both went in at the same time, but I can kind of understand why he made the decision, even if it was still a f*** up. Sadly it was just one of many last night.... Well done to Lawrie for his self control
|
|
|
Post by ~Floss~ on Oct 15, 2007 19:25:53 GMT 10
Floss - I don't fully understand your second last paragraph? The laws of the game, questions and answers to the laws of the game and all FFA directives, a number of coaching manuals, and many NSW circulars (we don't have a national referee's site) are available for public viewing. Essentially the laws do already state (more or less) that 'if, in the opinion of the referee, X occurs, then a free kick will be awarded. If reckless the player will be cautioned, and if using excessive force then they'll be sent off' - which if more or less what it seems you're saying. Then there's the other bits about tactical fouls, and other reasons to show cards, and how any challenge which endangers the safety of an opponent will be sanctioned as serious foul play (red card). Obviously O'Leary's intperpretation of the incident comes under the latter - and the replay does make it look a bit like Porter jumped at the player after he was already in front of him. That's not how it happened - in real time they both went in at the same time, but I can kind of understand why he made the decision, even if it was still a f*** up. Sadly it was just one of many last night.... Well done to Lawrie for his self control Yea, i guess the rules are pretty straightforward, but still need to be open to the ref's judgement on individual cases - and this is reflected in the way the laws are laid out. I think i was hoping there was more structure to it than that, like if refs were told, for example " any 2-footed tackle should be a red" then you would know why something the crowd didn't think was "serious foul play" was interpreted by the ref as a red. That way, when the fans get all fired-up and start discussing it on the internet, someone could just quote something that is clear enough for everyone to go "oh, i get it, it's because he did this or that..." So at the moment we can only assume that it fits somewhere under the broad explanation of "serious foul play" ..."which endangers the safety of an opponent" If so, that's bollocks, because for Matt McKay to touch the ball first, he had to go into the challenge just as committed (and safety-endangering) as Porter. If Brad had touched the ball first, would the red go the other way?
|
|
|
Post by thesandman on Oct 15, 2007 19:34:37 GMT 10
Floss - gotcha. Most referees have enough of a concept of spirit of the match, and go through enough education, that there will generally be a roughly consistent approach. But yeah, most of the laws is written 'in the opinion of the referee', and I don't think the game really lends itself to having many 'If a player does then, X will occur' rules.....there's too many variables to consider. But for instance, pretty much everybody knows that a player jumping in with studs and making contact will get sent off - even if it isn't explicitly stated there. Anyway, while I can only assume the red was for serious foul play (endangering the safety of an opponent), that doesn't mean he got it right - most neutral referees I've spoken to agree it probably wasn't even worth a free kick. Those who disagree have only seen the slow motion replay, which does look bad. I don't think the game really lends itself to a style of refereeing that doesn't involve discretion (although discretion isn't applicable for everything) - but obviously that's going to have a mixed result, and being human referees are going to get it wrong at times. Although Football NSW have issued a directive like what you're saying - that any studs up challenge will be at minimum a caution. But the referees are pretty much universally ignoring it, as we don't think that anybody is actually benefitted by removing our discretion. Just an example. Even when there are pretty definite guidelines, there can still be a lot of argument. I posted several incidents from the A-league on several referees forums (incidents that I think the referee got wrong), and all of those incidents are covered pretty clearly by law, yet there was still massive debate. Case in point, Danny's challenge on Joel Griffiths last week. The instructions on 'denying a goalscoring opportunity' are pretty clear, and a player must be heading for goal, yet there was still a lot of disagreement about whether or not - had he foulled griffiths (which I don't think he did, but hard to tell from the clip) - Danny should be sent off. Actually, all the incidents were those sort of offences - and some which I thought were pretty clear cut according to the law incited a surprising amount of debate. Heck, I find that even if the laws or local rulings are explained, in detail, people will STILL usually argue against it
|
|
|
Post by Foriegnmariner on Oct 15, 2007 20:39:27 GMT 10
hmmm nothing will be done about this and the FFA will sweep this under the rug.
Sorry to say it and i might be a bit negative and not trying to come up with a convienent solution to this problem but that's just whats gunna happen and untill the FFA have the guts to speak in public about issues that concerne this great sport it's all gunna be swept under the rug.
|
|
|
Post by Fish on Oct 15, 2007 22:02:38 GMT 10
I feel really sorry for Porter, he gets what could have been one of a limited opportunities to show his wears before we are back to full strength in the next month defensively and its taken by an inept official. All we need now is the appeal to be sucessful and Brad gets another opportunity this week.
|
|
|
Post by greenpoleffc on Oct 15, 2007 22:43:46 GMT 10
With Ossie sadly out for the season and Clarkie not looking too comfortable at this level any more I think his chance will come again this season.
Although I expect Wilko to play RB to keep Viddie/Boogs together in the middle
|
|
|
Post by Fish on Oct 15, 2007 22:45:55 GMT 10
Agree, just would have been nice for him to be able to get some game time now not the 20 odd minutes the c**t in black took from him
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 16, 2007 3:04:50 GMT 10
Yeah you have to feel for Porter - I bet he felt like real shite when he came off and was there alone in the rooms. Damn good competitor and pretty good with his technique skills, just needs more gametime.
|
|
|
Post by hilly2111 on Oct 16, 2007 11:18:39 GMT 10
What about a new Mariners tradition:
Every time Smitta comes on as a sub or comes off getting subbed, the whole stadium gives him a standing ovation?
|
|
|
Post by Chimmi Churri on Oct 16, 2007 12:00:08 GMT 10
We should acknowledge every player who comes off the bench - the "Oh Matty Matty" was great when Simon came on.
Does Smitta have a chant all to his own?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 16, 2007 12:59:47 GMT 10
We should acknowledge every player who comes off the bench - the "Oh Matty Matty" was great when Simon came on. Does Smitta have a chant all to his own? "CHICKEN!!!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by yellowcake on Oct 18, 2007 19:21:13 GMT 10
Red rag to a bull Some clown obviously thought this would be a cackle... Mariners vs. Phoenix 4th officical: Peter O'Leary So, for 90 mins Lawrie gets to sit 5m away and contemplate why this week he's crossed the ditch with a 14 man squad (if Kwas's ruled out injured) and how handy an 11th player might have been for an hour last week, trying to claw back a point or three.
|
|