|
|
Post by blackadder on Oct 10, 2007 8:56:13 GMT 10
There is a time and place for reaching for the privates of another man, Joel just needs to learn the right time. At least he has come out of the closet. maybe where you hail from Glenn but not on my watch ;D Could it be the closet door has flung open to reveal a little something else ;D No!!!!!!! I am not the one doing the private reaching unlike Joel  |
|
|
|
Post by Chimmi Churri on Oct 10, 2007 9:18:59 GMT 10
Might be a silly question....but why hasn't the assistant ref in question stepped forward? Is it just because he doesn't want to be seen as 'soft' or is he happy with the yellow?
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Oct 10, 2007 9:23:57 GMT 10
Probably didn't feel any contact, the yellow was only issued for showing disent to the AR, nothing about the punch.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesandman on Oct 10, 2007 11:27:21 GMT 10
Chimmi - they generally don't like referees to be public about their decisions. Not something I agree with - situations like this I think we all need to know exactly what the hell went wrong. It'd be nice if the FFA released a statement or something, if nothing else...
The officials probably have strict instructions not to talk to the media, so if that's the case then the AR can't come forward.
|
|
mrkaant
Local league player
Posts: 50
|
Post by mrkaant on Oct 10, 2007 13:34:51 GMT 10
Might be a silly question....but why hasn't the assistant ref in question stepped forward? Is it just because he doesn't want to be seen as 'soft' or is he happy with the yellow? simple the a/r has acknowledged that joel has only 'just'/ or possibly only made contact with the shorts, and deemed the punishment of a yellow ticket worthy. and it had nothing to do with dissent by word. The ref raised his flag only when joel ATTEMPTED to hit him, which was after joel gave him a piece of his mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Chimmi Churri on Oct 10, 2007 13:42:18 GMT 10
simple the a/r has acknowledged that joel has only 'just'/ or possibly only made contact with the shorts, and deemed the punishment of a yellow ticket worthy. and it had nothing to do with dissent by word. The ref raised his flag only when joel ATTEMPTED to hit him, which was after joel gave him a piece of his mind. That sounds like allot of guesswork - do you have a source for this? |
|
mrkaant
Local league player
Posts: 50
|
Post by mrkaant on Oct 10, 2007 13:46:54 GMT 10
No i dont, but why else would he of only recieved a yellow ticket, if he actually made FULL contact he would have been staright off. think about it, players get straight reds for pushing another player, if you 'punched' a ref in the high thigh wouldn't u think that would be a straight red tooo??
|
|
|
|
Post by T on Oct 10, 2007 13:49:36 GMT 10
The fact that he even attempted to punch the AR should have earned him a Red!!
|
|
mrkaant
Local league player
Posts: 50
|
Post by mrkaant on Oct 10, 2007 13:54:49 GMT 10
Obviously it's not, otherwise he would have been sent, especially with matty B officiating, who already has a strong dislike for joel
|
|
|
|
Post by Bearinator on Oct 10, 2007 15:08:02 GMT 10
Obviously it's not, otherwise he would have been sent, especially with matty B officiating, who already has a strong dislike for joel Do you know matty B? Do you know he already strongly dislikes Joel? Do you know its called a card, not a ticket? |
|
mrkaant
Local league player
Posts: 50
|
Post by mrkaant on Oct 10, 2007 15:16:19 GMT 10
No i dont, sorry ill correct it, Matthew Breeze.
Im just surmising, after seeing numerous exchanges between the pair.
Sorry for that, jsut me and a few of my referee mates call it that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Oct 10, 2007 15:19:19 GMT 10
All referees hate Joel Griffiths.
Actually, everyone that follows the A-League and isn't a Scum supporter hates him.
|
|
mrkaant
Local league player
Posts: 50
|
Post by mrkaant on Oct 10, 2007 15:35:38 GMT 10
But im sure most would LOVE to have him in their team
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Oct 10, 2007 15:39:42 GMT 10
But im sure most would LOVE to have him in their team I'm not so sure about that. Why don't you go onto a couple of the other forums and start a poll, then we'd see. |
|
|
|
Post by Bearinator on Oct 10, 2007 15:42:08 GMT 10
But im sure most would LOVE to have him in their team FARK NO |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Oct 10, 2007 16:20:23 GMT 10
Obviously it's not, otherwise he would have been sent, especially with matty B officiating, who already has a strong dislike for joel |
|
|
|
Post by omni on Oct 10, 2007 17:59:26 GMT 10
The Laws state: "striking or attempting to strike" contact does not matter.
In terms of the Caution & Send Off Codes (In NSW), there aren't really Y Codes for striking (Unless you count the elbow code, but that's more an accidental elbow). R1 on the other hand IS for striking which suggests that it would be a straight red for that sort of thing, again whether or not there is contact.
From the sounds of it the caution was for dissent and not for striking, as such has the referee really dealt with it? I'm sure the Assessor has dragged Glasgow & Breeze over the coals for it, it's hard enough for referees but when this thing is deemed acceptable it just makes it that much harder.
PS - I do not represent any referee's association this is just my opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by thesandman on Oct 10, 2007 19:46:51 GMT 10
omni - actually, that part of the law only relates to 'direct free kick' offences - doesn't apply to incidents against a referee. It just comes under 'violent conduct', nothing more specific is written.
I would love to see the FFA come out with a press statement explaining what the hell went wrong to permit him to stay on the field, exactly why he was cautioned, and a general statement that they don't condone referee attacks etc etc. Although that may be slightly hilarious, considering they haven't bothered to take action against Sydney FC for their fans attacking Shield. Considering how bad this last weekend has looked, the FFA needs to make some public statements instead of just praying that everybody will forget about it all.
And last but not least - let's all PLEASE ignore this troll!!! He only keeps returning because people keep responding!!! Even calm, non-argumentative posts are only encouraging him!!
|
|
|
|
Post by omni on Oct 10, 2007 21:06:49 GMT 10
I know, I was just making it clear that making contact is actually irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.
The FFA has seriously dropped the ball on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by curious on Oct 10, 2007 21:53:39 GMT 10
I'm surprised that if Buckley is able to act without hindrance, he would allow this incident & the monkey sago to be shut down so readily. The AFL has very strong laws governing both & were the first (if memory is correct) to enact racial vilification laws into sport, so Buckley would be very familiar with a severe & uncompromising stance on both issues.
Even a slight push on the ref to clear your path in AFL will find you sitting out games. Slight verbal abuse of the ref/officials will also see you in trouble. The same can be said for most sports btw.
I can only come to the conclusion that Buckley is being hindered & is not being allowed to do what his instincts tell him he should be.
The kindergarten mafia secrecy that goes on with the FFA has to stop, they have to be transparent & seen be be, they need to look at the success of citing by an independent review panel in other sports, even if it means fighting with FIFA, as Australia has a very different demographic to old football nations. ( a MUCH higher expectation of transparency, a demand of justice that is seen to be done, a very low tolerance of secrecy & whitewashing, & an abhorrence of being treated like a muchroom.)
Australians in general see the latest example of 'one set of rules for football & another set of rules for everyone else' as just another reason to continue to believe football will never be more than keystone cops, unwilling to allow any degree of accountability to enter it's vocabulary.
I have my own opinion on why they continue with this attitude, but for now I'll keep it to myself.
Does anyone else have an explanation?
|
|
