Joel Griffiths = C*nt

[djebella]

No I'm saying that Danny didn't make contact with the ball and that Griffiths tried to milk it because he lost control of the ball. Having said that I think that Pete is spot on Karma got Griffiths in the end and if there are no further sanctions from the punch I think he'll find it hard to get any close decisions for a while.

[Pete]

thesandman said:

I hope that the FFA do have a means of dealing with it - but if they don't within the LOTG, then there isn't much they can do - if they try to do something illegal than I'm sure lawyers will get involved and it could get nasty.

He really mustnt have connected with the referee too much - at least not in the intended region.

Maybe the AR should thought like a player and hit the deck??

I do have to agree with greenpole's statements though!!

I know what would have happened if a nancy boy like Griffiths had taken a swing at my Jatz - that flag would have made a handy baton to belt the crap out of him as he laid there.

Good restraint by the Assistant Ref. - don't know how many of us would have exhibited the same professionalism.

[thesandman]

Griffiths actually has to be heading towards goal for it to be a red card - he was heading away from goal, a RC was never a possibility. If a player is angling as far away from goal as Griffiths was, he can't be considered to have an obvious goalscoring opportunity. I think Danny got some contact on the ball and pushed it out to the side, which in this case was enough to render the challenge fair. It's difficult to spot, some angles it doesn't seem like he touched the ball - and would've been very easy to miss - but there was some contact on the ball. Considering where Danny came from, it was clearly the way he intended to touch the ball. Sometimes touching the ball first doesn't mean it isn't a foul, but here it did. If it was a foul it would've been a yellow, but there was no chance for a red.

Griffiths may have milked it a bit, I didn't really think about it - I don't think Danny deliberately raised his leg. His leg barely came up, and could've been the natural result of his momentum.

Anyway, here's the FFA disciplinary code relevant to Griffiths:

FFA Disciplinary Code
4. Citing a Player or Team Official
4.1 A competition administrator may cite a player or a team official to appear before its Disciplinary Committee to:
(a) sanction a red card or serious infringement that has escaped the Referee's attention; or
(b) rectify an obvious error in the Referee's disciplinary (such as the right decision against a wrong player or mistaken identitiy).

4.2 The following guidelines apply to determine whether a Referee's decision amounted to an obvious error under clause 4.1(b):
(a) a decision must have been made;
(b) it clearly must have been a wrong decision; and
(c) it must have been a seriously wrong decision (and not, for example, a discretionary decision by a Referee as to whether an action was a foul or a yellow or a red card).

4.3 For the avoidance of doubt, neither a competition Administrator nor a Disciplinary Committee can change a referee's decision to issue a yellow card to a red card or vice-versa.

Unfortunately it appears that a citation is not possible under their disciplinary code (or the laws of the game). As much as I hate to say it, they're bound by their rules.

So personally I thought Danny's challenge was a good decision - and undoubtedly one that was made between the ref and the AR. I thought the only bad decision he made was the Griffiths one - but that could've been completely the AR's fault, depending if Breeze saw it (which I don't think he did) and what the AR said. Considering that Breeze was hardly shy with the cards, even issuing that mandatory caution in the dying seconds, I'd say that the AR talked it down. Heck, if there was barely any force behind it, it is possible that the AR thought the contact was completely accidental, and actually had him booked for what he said, and not the punch....

In a perfect world, the Jets would take some responsibility and suspend him themselves (idealistic I know!!). I think a lengthy ban (say 5-10 years - that'll finish his career anyway) would be well deserved. If it had been dealt with appropriately, I would be surprised to seem him get more than 6 weeks or so...

While he is a dirty, filthy, cheating, temper tantrum throwing little bitch, and gets away with WAY too much, I would've thought that this amount of stupidity was beyond even him.

I guess it just goes to show - never have high expectations of a Jets player because they'll soon prove you wrong!!!

[newieutd]

thres said:

I think Danny deserved a yellow, not a straight red as it looked as if he was going for the ball. That said, how many keepers are willing to slide tackle outside the box??

I agree he was going for the ball. But he was the last man hence it should be a red

[newieutd]

thesandman said:

Griffiths actually has to be heading towards goal for it to be a red card - he was heading away from goal, a RC was never a possibility. If a player is angling as far away from goal as Griffiths was, he can't be considered to have an obvious goalscoring opportunity. I think Danny got some contact on the ball and pushed it out to the side, which in this case was enough to render the challenge fair. It's difficult to spot, some angles it doesn't seem like he touched the ball - and would've been very easy to miss - but there was some contact on the ball. Considering where Danny came from, it was clearly the way he intended to touch the ball. Sometimes touching the ball first doesn't mean it isn't a foul, but here it did. If it was a foul it would've been a yellow, but there was no chance for a red.

Griffiths may have milked it a bit, I didn't really think about it - I don't think Danny deliberately raised his leg. His leg barely came up, and could've been the natural result of his momentum.

Anyway, here's the FFA disciplinary code relevant to Griffiths:

FFA Disciplinary Code
4. Citing a Player or Team Official
4.1 A competition administrator may cite a player or a team official to appear before its Disciplinary Committee to:
(a) sanction a red card or serious infringement that has escaped the Referee's attention; or
(b) rectify an obvious error in the Referee's disciplinary (such as the right decision against a wrong player or mistaken identitiy).

4.2 The following guidelines apply to determine whether a Referee's decision amounted to an obvious error under clause 4.1(b):
(a) a decision must have been made;
(b) it clearly must have been a wrong decision; and
(c) it must have been a seriously wrong decision (and not, for example, a discretionary decision by a Referee as to whether an action was a foul or a yellow or a red card).

4.3 For the avoidance of doubt, neither a competition Administrator nor a Disciplinary Committee can change a referee's decision to issue a yellow card to a red card or vice-versa.

Unfortunately it appears that a citation is not possible under their disciplinary code (or the laws of the game). As much as I hate to say it, they're bound by their rules.

So personally I thought Danny's challenge was a good decision - and undoubtedly one that was made between the ref and the AR. I thought the only bad decision he made was the Griffiths one - but that could've been completely the AR's fault, depending if Breeze saw it (which I don't think he did) and what the AR said. Considering that Breeze was hardly shy with the cards, even issuing that mandatory caution in the dying seconds, I'd say that the AR talked it down. Heck, if there was barely any force behind it, it is possible that the AR thought the contact was completely accidental, and actually had him booked for what he said, and not the punch....

In a perfect world, the Jets would take some responsibility and suspend him themselves (idealistic I know!!). I think a lengthy ban (say 5-10 years - that'll finish his career anyway) would be well deserved. If it had been dealt with appropriately, I would be surprised to seem him get more than 6 weeks or so...

While he is a dirty, filthy, cheating, temper tantrum throwing little bitch, and gets away with WAY too much, I would've thought that this amount of stupidity was beyond even him.

I guess it just goes to show - never have high expectations of a Jets player because they'll soon prove you wrong!!!

I have always been against these rules, even though it looks as though they have saved Griffo.

Ridiculous rules that need to be better thought out.

[thesandman]

newieutd - to have the consideration of 'last man', the attacker needs to be heading DIRECTLY towards goal. Griffiths was angling quite severely away from goal. Draw a straight line from his direction of travel, he was headed for the goal line, but nowhere near the goal.

Going for the ball doesn't mean there's no foul, agreed - but I think he actually got the ball. Just, but got it anyway. As I said, difficult to spot, and some clips it doesn't look like he did.

I've always been in favour of the above rules, as it does undermine the authority of the referee to change his decisions (agree or not, I think that's the main justification). Also, if the referee knows that his decision is going to be looked at and judged later, it may encourage him to take a 'soft' approach and make it somebody else's problem - look at the NRL and how rare it is for a player to get binned or sent off these days, because the referee knows he can just report it and make it somebody else's decision and have no direct consequences himself.

Although this incident clearly shows that there needs to be exception for particularly serious incidents.

[Bearinator]

newieutd said:

thres said:

I think Danny deserved a yellow, not a straight red as it looked as if he was going for the ball. That said, how many keepers are willing to slide tackle outside the box??

I agree he was going for the ball. But he was the last man hence it should be a red

He was the last man, yes, but its like the thugby league penalty try rule. To be the last man and get sent off, the player has to be in a guaranteed scoring position. And its griffo, so the is never a guarantee. Plus he should have not even been on the field at all anyway, so there should be NO complaints from any scum. I know that is going to fall on deaf ears tho.

[brett]

I just wonder what the AR said to Breeze.

Surely if he mentioned in any way that Griffo had physically hit him, soft, careless or otherwise, Breeze would have immediately redded.

Breeze must have said "I didn't see it, yellow or red?" at which point the linesman should say red but mustn't have!

[Ursus]

How about applying some logic.
No red card for Danny because Griffiths should have been off the park. ;D

Seriously though Breeze dogged the decision to send Griffiths off because of all the bad press (unjustified) that Shields got for "ruining" "Thge match of the Season" by sending off Corica.
He probably thought about it after and tried to even things up by not seeing Danny's tackle for what it was.
There was no way he was going to send off a Mariner after letting Griffiths off.

[Pete]

Joel's strike at the assistant ref is on Ten's Morning News -which is hardly a football only timeslot. So he is getting widespread coverage of the matter, which may bring the "bringing game into disrepute" issue for the FFA?

[thedoc]

At the game i only saw him have a go at the linesman and that was enough for him to get a yellow. But hitting an official should have been a straight red!

Loved Danny's tackle!! The dirty cheating so and so got what he deserved. And we got the ball :-)

[thedoc]

www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,22548949-23215,00.html

Article about Griffiths, nofurther action to be taken
I tried to hyperlink it but it wouldn't do the whole link.

[curious]

The charge should be no less than striking an official. If anyone thinks different I'd like to hear your rationale for the opinion.

If we care to look up the penalty for such a breach in other sports as well as football, we will find anythiung from 1-5 years suspension, through to a life ban.

If the FFA can invent a new explanation for the use of the word monkey, simply to suit the politics of the day & hide racist attitudes, it can & will do anything it pleases regarding citing a player, or anything else it chooses.

[Pete]

The FFA should really be posting up their reasons behind the 'monkey' issue with Musialik and - when they make a dodge on Griffiths - on their website.

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

petethebusdriver said:

The FFA should really be posting up their reasons behind the 'monkey' issue with Musialik and - when they make a dodge on Griffiths - on their website.

they have made their reasons clear in each case. they've been shitheads, but hardly hiding the fact.

link here.

[curious]

thedoc said:

www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,22548949-23215,00.html

Article about Griffiths, nofurther action to be taken
I tried to hyperlink it but it wouldn't do the whole link.

I read the article. If this is the case, & the FFA through it's inaction & their "we make our own rules & f*** what's right" attitude, they again allow the Aleague to be justifiably seen as the laughing stock of Australian sport, they can stick their play school league & comedy professionalism up their noses.

I wouldn't want to part of what is a blight on Australian professional sport.

The pathetic bastards would corrupt a chook raffle.

[blackadder]

What a shock no further action will be taken, more and more the FFA remind me of Labozetta and the coruption that was Soccer Australia.
Okay it's open slather to go around punching match officials, the FFA won't take any action.

[thesandman]

As much as I hate to say it, FFA are following the laws of the game and their own disciplinary procedures. That can't be called corruption. The 'monkey' incident could vary between attempting to be overly politically correct (we don't think it was racist but we'll suspend him just in case) to a cover-up to protect the image (it was racist but we'll suspend him and say it wasn't).

Aaanyway, here's the highlights from the match.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=sti3jLhYAjY

go to about 2:30 for Danny's tackle. Pretty clear that Griffiths is heading away from goal to start with. I still think Danny got a touch on the ball.

I think calls of Danny lifting the leg are a bit rich - the leg came very slightly off the ground, which you'd expect from his momentum and the impact with the ground.

Actually, the more I watch that, the more I think Griffiths took a dive.

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

looking at the vidoe again, i think he probably had the toe on the ball. that was certainly what i thought in the ground, i actually didn't think for a second he was in trouble then, but watching it first thing this morning i thought he missed it.

just watched it again actually, and you can see the ball change direction quite a bit from where vuko's toe takes it away.

i was wrong, great tackle.

[uncleyellow]

On the face of things they are following their laws yes, but at the crux of it they are letting what should be seen as a serious offence, go unpunished.

Strike an official youre gone... simple as! If it had been decided by the yellow, it should have been overuled as many have said previously, by the "bringing the game into disprepute" rule.

Now the FFA are taking backward steps which will only bring the Aleague into disrepute..

Gutless by the FFA, anyone would think it was one of Frank Lowy's players that had struck an official.

Letting it go hey? SO obviously wrong, it smacks of corruption and agendas IMO!
Tony Vidmar out for two weeks for one dodgey yellow and one fair yellow, but if you strike a linesman your sweet??? PLEASE EXPLAIN>>>
WTF???