|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's funny that people actually expect us to control an entire match on the road from start to finish, of course Syria are gonna get a bit of momentum at some point in the game, the expectations placed on a very average Socceroos outfit are laughable, we should be wrapped with the draw and away goal. These guys are no mugs, you don't get draws against South Korea, Iran and Japan (friendly) if you are completely rubbish. good points. meanwhile as a queensland state of origin fan I'm baffled by comments that "we should focus on our performance rather than the ref" queensland fans focus on the ref after every loss.....like every single time. And they have always played like champs If you complain about a single refereeing decision, it comes across as poor sportsmanship. Sometimes the referee makes the wrong call and sometimes he makes a rough call (the latter being the case here, imo). Particularly if you play poorly and that happens, then it just comes across as making excuses. It's more becoming of a gentleman to silently pissed off and not to make a fuss. Ricky Ponting style (barring the occasional outburst) and to praise the opponent if they deserve it. By and large, there's no conspiracy. The annoying thing is that we, Aussies, have a bit of a reputation for whinging.The reputation is largely unfair (we're no worse, or better, than anybody else). But if people go about making a fuss, particularly when this isn't exactly Graham Poll at the World Cup and we just play average for too much of the match, it really worsens that reputation. who cares. It was a terrible decision and probably corrupt so I'm calling it out. In the low scoring sport of football single decisions matter a lot What evidence have you got of corruption? I'm sorry but it's wholly unsubstantiated. The penalty was, imo, rough. But there was contact, was there not? Strictly speaking, it can be called an infringement. The referee is human. He can only call it for what he thinks it is. This wasn't, strictly speaking, a huge mistake but even if it had been; people make mistakes. I think it was rough (because I give people the benefit of the doubt) and it's ever so tough to be consistent about that sort of contact if you're quite that punitive. But there's just no evidence of a conspiracy. And, even though football is a low scoring game, you get decisions go your way too (providing there's no conspiracy). Look at the match against Thailand. There were far worse decisions made in that (from which Australia benefited) than anything in the match against Syria. it wasnt a harsh pen it was a corrupt pen leckie literally jumps up and down. corrupt pens happen in this sport. No conspiracy needed If there's no conspiracy, it's not corrupt. For it to be corrupt, there needs to be an agenda or bias. That's the implication of corruption in this context. Otherwise, at worst, it's a simple mistake on the ref's part (which is hardly a cardinal sin). In this case, it's not even a mistake. It's simply rather a puritanical interpretation of the laws of the game. In the course of jumping up and down, Mathew Leckie made contact. For that reason, it can be deemed an infringement. Nevertheless, it's a puritanical sort of ruling. But there's no evidence to substantiate any claim of corruption. No it is a massive mistake, that horrific decision compared with the horrific refereeing in favour of Syria the entire 90 minutes, there was a definite bias. I think it was a very rough call. But I can understand how it was given. I just wouldn't make a call like that as I think it's better to give the benefit of the doubt. As for the refereeing, in general... I'm sorry but I didn't notice much at all to recommend the suggestion that there was definite bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's funny that people actually expect us to control an entire match on the road from start to finish, of course Syria are gonna get a bit of momentum at some point in the game, the expectations placed on a very average Socceroos outfit are laughable, we should be wrapped with the draw and away goal. These guys are no mugs, you don't get draws against South Korea, Iran and Japan (friendly) if you are completely rubbish. good points. meanwhile as a queensland state of origin fan I'm baffled by comments that "we should focus on our performance rather than the ref" queensland fans focus on the ref after every loss.....like every single time. And they have always played like champs If you complain about a single refereeing decision, it comes across as poor sportsmanship. Sometimes the referee makes the wrong call and sometimes he makes a rough call (the latter being the case here, imo). Particularly if you play poorly and that happens, then it just comes across as making excuses. It's more becoming of a gentleman to silently pissed off and not to make a fuss. Ricky Ponting style (barring the occasional outburst) and to praise the opponent if they deserve it. By and large, there's no conspiracy. The annoying thing is that we, Aussies, have a bit of a reputation for whinging.The reputation is largely unfair (we're no worse, or better, than anybody else). But if people go about making a fuss, particularly when this isn't exactly Graham Poll at the World Cup and we just play average for too much of the match, it really worsens that reputation. who cares. It was a terrible decision and probably corrupt so I'm calling it out. In the low scoring sport of football single decisions matter a lot What evidence have you got of corruption? I'm sorry but it's wholly unsubstantiated. The penalty was, imo, rough. But there was contact, was there not? Strictly speaking, it can be called an infringement. The referee is human. He can only call it for what he thinks it is. This wasn't, strictly speaking, a huge mistake but even if it had been; people make mistakes. I think it was rough (because I give people the benefit of the doubt) and it's ever so tough to be consistent about that sort of contact if you're quite that punitive. But there's just no evidence of a conspiracy. And, even though football is a low scoring game, you get decisions go your way too (providing there's no conspiracy). Look at the match against Thailand. There were far worse decisions made in that (from which Australia benefited) than anything in the match against Syria. it wasnt a harsh pen it was a corrupt pen leckie literally jumps up and down. corrupt pens happen in this sport. No conspiracy needed In this case, it's not even a mistake. Lol lame attempts at comedy aside, the contact was on him. He had the space. The decision was corrupt and there is nothing you can instruct the players to avoid that. You could say concede less balls into the box, fair enough. But if you are closing down the game you will concede balls into the box. You could say concede less chances, but it wasn't a pen it was a corrupt decision so there is nothing you can instruct your players to avoid it (other than suicidal defending where you dont make any clearances). You could focus on the genuine chances you gave away, but you should analyse those regardless of the result. In the end we won 1-0 but corruption meant we needed to win 2-0 to go into the next game with that situation. Hopefully we won't face that again in the next game or are good enough to avoid it mattering Space? It was an inbound cross. They're both positioning themselves to try to be in the better position. There was contact (from both) and the other guy was in front. Not unlike a collision between two cars where there's not an awful lot in it but the one at the back cops it. It can be given. It's just a farking soft penalty to give. But it can be given. You just hope that refs refrain from making such puritanical decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
JoyfulPenguin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 798,
Visits: 0
|
+xsure if you are in a position to worry about fines (or trying to prove it in a court of law) you would need a high standard of proof But if you just want the most likely explanation of events then corruption is more likely than mistake mistakes that blatant rarely happens with the exception that the league is super low level (which it isn't) or the referee has his view obscured (which it wasn't) or there was heavy traffic or lots of players in motion (which didn't happen) its actually hard to find a similarly poor pen by a similarly high level ref (there was a dodgy handball nigeria v argentina which comes close). But its not hard to find examples of corrupt refs. Given investigation is rare (whose going to bother unless they get an anonymous tip) and even when white collar corruption is investigated due to plausible accusation of wrongdoing conviction is even rarer. So the number of instances of corruption would out number the number of times someone is caught by perhaps a few thousand fold. In any case even if people don't like saying corruption is more probable the more important takeaway is the score shouldn't factor into their post game autopsy any more than if the ball rebounded off an astroid and went into the goal. You can focus on the things more on your control (juric, leckie etc missing easy chances, the time we had the post hit in defence) but you are going to focus on those things anyway A giant conspiracy theory is a whole lot less likely than a referee just being a bit naff. Apart from that one decision I thought the ref did a good job, though I would have preferred him protecting Milligan more but that's just the way some refs see the game. These type of decisions get given in the A-League all the time and is just simple error not a giant conspiracy against Australia qualifying for the world cup.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xsure if you are in a position to worry about fines (or trying to prove it in a court of law) you would need a high standard of proof But if you just want the most likely explanation of events then corruption is more likely than mistake mistakes that blatant rarely happens with the exception that the league is super low level (which it isn't) or the referee has his view obscured (which it wasn't) or there was heavy traffic or lots of players in motion (which didn't happen) its actually hard to find a similarly poor pen by a similarly high level ref (there was a dodgy handball nigeria v argentina which comes close). But its not hard to find examples of corrupt refs. Given investigation is rare (whose going to bother unless they get an anonymous tip) and even when white collar corruption is investigated due to plausible accusation of wrongdoing conviction is even rarer. So the number of instances of corruption would out number the number of times someone is caught by perhaps a few thousand fold. In any case even if people don't like saying corruption is more probable the more important takeaway is the score shouldn't factor into their post game autopsy any more than if the ball rebounded off an astroid and went into the goal. You can focus on the things more on your control (juric, leckie etc missing easy chances, the time we had the post hit in defence) but you are going to focus on those things anyway A giant conspiracy theory is a whole lot less likely than a referee just being a bit naff. Apart from that one decision I thought the ref did a good job, though I would have preferred him protecting Milligan more but that's just the way some refs see the game. These type of decisions get given in the A-League all the time and is just simple error not a giant conspiracy against Australia qualifying for the world cup. apart from being responsible for 100% of the opposition goals through an inexcusible decision the ref did a good job got it ;)
|
|
|
|
|
miron mercedes
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's funny that people actually expect us to control an entire match on the road from start to finish, of course Syria are gonna get a bit of momentum at some point in the game, the expectations placed on a very average Socceroos outfit are laughable, we should be wrapped with the draw and away goal. These guys are no mugs, you don't get draws against South Korea, Iran and Japan (friendly) if you are completely rubbish. good points. meanwhile as a queensland state of origin fan I'm baffled by comments that "we should focus on our performance rather than the ref" queensland fans focus on the ref after every loss.....like every single time. And they have always played like champs If you complain about a single refereeing decision, it comes across as poor sportsmanship. Sometimes the referee makes the wrong call and sometimes he makes a rough call (the latter being the case here, imo). Particularly if you play poorly and that happens, then it just comes across as making excuses. It's more becoming of a gentleman to silently pissed off and not to make a fuss. Ricky Ponting style (barring the occasional outburst) and to praise the opponent if they deserve it. By and large, there's no conspiracy. The annoying thing is that we, Aussies, have a bit of a reputation for whinging.The reputation is largely unfair (we're no worse, or better, than anybody else). But if people go about making a fuss, particularly when this isn't exactly Graham Poll at the World Cup and we just play average for too much of the match, it really worsens that reputation. who cares. It was a terrible decision and probably corrupt so I'm calling it out. In the low scoring sport of football single decisions matter a lot What evidence have you got of corruption? I'm sorry but it's wholly unsubstantiated. The penalty was, imo, rough. But there was contact, was there not? Strictly speaking, it can be called an infringement. The referee is human. He can only call it for what he thinks it is. This wasn't, strictly speaking, a huge mistake but even if it had been; people make mistakes. I think it was rough (because I give people the benefit of the doubt) and it's ever so tough to be consistent about that sort of contact if you're quite that punitive. But there's just no evidence of a conspiracy. And, even though football is a low scoring game, you get decisions go your way too (providing there's no conspiracy). Look at the match against Thailand. There were far worse decisions made in that (from which Australia benefited) than anything in the match against Syria. it wasnt a harsh pen it was a corrupt pen leckie literally jumps up and down. corrupt pens happen in this sport. No conspiracy needed If there's no conspiracy, it's not corrupt. For it to be corrupt, there needs to be an agenda or bias. That's the implication of corruption in this context. Otherwise, at worst, it's a simple mistake on the ref's part (which is hardly a cardinal sin). In this case, it's not even a mistake. It's simply rather a puritanical interpretation of the laws of the game. In the course of jumping up and down, Mathew Leckie made contact. For that reason, it can be deemed an infringement. Nevertheless, it's a puritanical sort of ruling. But there's no evidence to substantiate any claim of corruption. No it is a massive mistake, that horrific decision compared with the horrific refereeing in favour of Syria the entire 90 minutes, there was a definite bias. I think it was a very rough call. But I can understand how it was given. I just wouldn't make a call like that as I think it's better to give the benefit of the doubt. As for the refereeing, in general... I'm sorry but I didn't notice much at all to recommend the suggestion that there was definite bias. I am a biased Socceroo supporter but as a forward ,if i jumped for a ball and got a nudge in the back like that I would want a penalty .It was a small nudge with his hands but definitely a nudge . When you are in the air even the slightest nudge is enough to make you miss a header. To be fair...I thought it was a penalty all day every day. If you contact an opponent in your area you are always taking a big risk. Having said that... you see forwards and backs grappling each other all the time on corners and nothing is done...but in this instance it was only one person manhandling and that was Leckie . He got sucked in and the forward knew it and did a spectacular dive to go with it. Can't blame the ref for giving it .
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xsure if you are in a position to worry about fines (or trying to prove it in a court of law) you would need a high standard of proof But if you just want the most likely explanation of events then corruption is more likely than mistake mistakes that blatant rarely happens with the exception that the league is super low level (which it isn't) or the referee has his view obscured (which it wasn't) or there was heavy traffic or lots of players in motion (which didn't happen) its actually hard to find a similarly poor pen by a similarly high level ref (there was a dodgy handball nigeria v argentina which comes close). But its not hard to find examples of corrupt refs. Given investigation is rare (whose going to bother unless they get an anonymous tip) and even when white collar corruption is investigated due to plausible accusation of wrongdoing conviction is even rarer. So the number of instances of corruption would out number the number of times someone is caught by perhaps a few thousand fold. In any case even if people don't like saying corruption is more probable the more important takeaway is the score shouldn't factor into their post game autopsy any more than if the ball rebounded off an astroid and went into the goal. You can focus on the things more on your control (juric, leckie etc missing easy chances, the time we had the post hit in defence) but you are going to focus on those things anyway But you have absolutely no proof and you're focusing entirely on one questionable call. Did you cry out corruption with the match against Thailand? In this case, we're talking about a single decision which was rough. These things happen. You get decisions go your way and against you. But to cry foul over this smacks of sour grapes. Sorry Grazorblade but you're above that. You know a lot about sport and you have competed in sport at a very high level. It's awful to go down the path of the Salem witch hunts for something as petty as this. Especially if you specifically ignore other decisions which are far worse which happened to go in our favour. There's no evidence whatsoever of corruption so it's not at all fair to try to vilify the referee.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xsure if you are in a position to worry about fines (or trying to prove it in a court of law) you would need a high standard of proof But if you just want the most likely explanation of events then corruption is more likely than mistake mistakes that blatant rarely happens with the exception that the league is super low level (which it isn't) or the referee has his view obscured (which it wasn't) or there was heavy traffic or lots of players in motion (which didn't happen) its actually hard to find a similarly poor pen by a similarly high level ref (there was a dodgy handball nigeria v argentina which comes close). But its not hard to find examples of corrupt refs. Given investigation is rare (whose going to bother unless they get an anonymous tip) and even when white collar corruption is investigated due to plausible accusation of wrongdoing conviction is even rarer. So the number of instances of corruption would out number the number of times someone is caught by perhaps a few thousand fold. In any case even if people don't like saying corruption is more probable the more important takeaway is the score shouldn't factor into their post game autopsy any more than if the ball rebounded off an astroid and went into the goal. You can focus on the things more on your control (juric, leckie etc missing easy chances, the time we had the post hit in defence) but you are going to focus on those things anyway But you have absolutely no proof and you're focusing entirely on one questionable call. Did you cry out corruption with the match against Thailand? In this case, we're talking about a single decision which was rough. These things happen. You get decisions go your way and against you. But to cry foul over this smacks of sour grapes. Sorry Grazorblade but you're above that. You know a lot about sport and you have competed in sport at a very high level. It's awful to go down the path of the Salem witch hunts for something as petty as this. Especially if you specifically ignore other decisions which are far worse which happened to go in our favour. There's no evidence whatsoever of corruption so it's not at all fair to try to vilify the referee. my argument is based down probability it was a corrupt pen
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's funny that people actually expect us to control an entire match on the road from start to finish, of course Syria are gonna get a bit of momentum at some point in the game, the expectations placed on a very average Socceroos outfit are laughable, we should be wrapped with the draw and away goal. These guys are no mugs, you don't get draws against South Korea, Iran and Japan (friendly) if you are completely rubbish. good points. meanwhile as a queensland state of origin fan I'm baffled by comments that "we should focus on our performance rather than the ref" queensland fans focus on the ref after every loss.....like every single time. And they have always played like champs If you complain about a single refereeing decision, it comes across as poor sportsmanship. Sometimes the referee makes the wrong call and sometimes he makes a rough call (the latter being the case here, imo). Particularly if you play poorly and that happens, then it just comes across as making excuses. It's more becoming of a gentleman to silently pissed off and not to make a fuss. Ricky Ponting style (barring the occasional outburst) and to praise the opponent if they deserve it. By and large, there's no conspiracy. The annoying thing is that we, Aussies, have a bit of a reputation for whinging.The reputation is largely unfair (we're no worse, or better, than anybody else). But if people go about making a fuss, particularly when this isn't exactly Graham Poll at the World Cup and we just play average for too much of the match, it really worsens that reputation. who cares. It was a terrible decision and probably corrupt so I'm calling it out. In the low scoring sport of football single decisions matter a lot What evidence have you got of corruption? I'm sorry but it's wholly unsubstantiated. The penalty was, imo, rough. But there was contact, was there not? Strictly speaking, it can be called an infringement. The referee is human. He can only call it for what he thinks it is. This wasn't, strictly speaking, a huge mistake but even if it had been; people make mistakes. I think it was rough (because I give people the benefit of the doubt) and it's ever so tough to be consistent about that sort of contact if you're quite that punitive. But there's just no evidence of a conspiracy. And, even though football is a low scoring game, you get decisions go your way too (providing there's no conspiracy). Look at the match against Thailand. There were far worse decisions made in that (from which Australia benefited) than anything in the match against Syria. it wasnt a harsh pen it was a corrupt pen leckie literally jumps up and down. corrupt pens happen in this sport. No conspiracy needed If there's no conspiracy, it's not corrupt. For it to be corrupt, there needs to be an agenda or bias. That's the implication of corruption in this context. Otherwise, at worst, it's a simple mistake on the ref's part (which is hardly a cardinal sin). In this case, it's not even a mistake. It's simply rather a puritanical interpretation of the laws of the game. In the course of jumping up and down, Mathew Leckie made contact. For that reason, it can be deemed an infringement. Nevertheless, it's a puritanical sort of ruling. But there's no evidence to substantiate any claim of corruption. No it is a massive mistake, that horrific decision compared with the horrific refereeing in favour of Syria the entire 90 minutes, there was a definite bias. I think it was a very rough call. But I can understand how it was given. I just wouldn't make a call like that as I think it's better to give the benefit of the doubt. As for the refereeing, in general... I'm sorry but I didn't notice much at all to recommend the suggestion that there was definite bias. I am a biased Socceroo supporter but as a forward ,if i jumped for a ball and got a nudge in the back like that I would want a penalty .It was a small nudge with his hands but definitely a nudge . When you are in the air even the slightest nudge is enough to make you miss a header. To be fair...I thought it was a penalty all day every day. If you contact an opponent in your area you are always taking a big risk. Having said that... you see forwards and backs grappling each other all the time on corners and nothing is done...but in this instance it was only one person manhandling and that was Leckie . He got sucked in and the forward knew it and did a spectacular dive to go with it. Can't blame the ref for giving it . there was no nudge his hands were against his body and the syrian player moved into leckie's space. Its not a harsh call. A harsh call is when leckie gets a foul for him. Its a wrong call
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt's funny that people actually expect us to control an entire match on the road from start to finish, of course Syria are gonna get a bit of momentum at some point in the game, the expectations placed on a very average Socceroos outfit are laughable, we should be wrapped with the draw and away goal. These guys are no mugs, you don't get draws against South Korea, Iran and Japan (friendly) if you are completely rubbish. good points. meanwhile as a queensland state of origin fan I'm baffled by comments that "we should focus on our performance rather than the ref" queensland fans focus on the ref after every loss.....like every single time. And they have always played like champs If you complain about a single refereeing decision, it comes across as poor sportsmanship. Sometimes the referee makes the wrong call and sometimes he makes a rough call (the latter being the case here, imo). Particularly if you play poorly and that happens, then it just comes across as making excuses. It's more becoming of a gentleman to silently pissed off and not to make a fuss. Ricky Ponting style (barring the occasional outburst) and to praise the opponent if they deserve it. By and large, there's no conspiracy. The annoying thing is that we, Aussies, have a bit of a reputation for whinging.The reputation is largely unfair (we're no worse, or better, than anybody else). But if people go about making a fuss, particularly when this isn't exactly Graham Poll at the World Cup and we just play average for too much of the match, it really worsens that reputation. who cares. It was a terrible decision and probably corrupt so I'm calling it out. In the low scoring sport of football single decisions matter a lot What evidence have you got of corruption? I'm sorry but it's wholly unsubstantiated. The penalty was, imo, rough. But there was contact, was there not? Strictly speaking, it can be called an infringement. The referee is human. He can only call it for what he thinks it is. This wasn't, strictly speaking, a huge mistake but even if it had been; people make mistakes. I think it was rough (because I give people the benefit of the doubt) and it's ever so tough to be consistent about that sort of contact if you're quite that punitive. But there's just no evidence of a conspiracy. And, even though football is a low scoring game, you get decisions go your way too (providing there's no conspiracy). Look at the match against Thailand. There were far worse decisions made in that (from which Australia benefited) than anything in the match against Syria. it wasnt a harsh pen it was a corrupt pen leckie literally jumps up and down. corrupt pens happen in this sport. No conspiracy needed If there's no conspiracy, it's not corrupt. For it to be corrupt, there needs to be an agenda or bias. That's the implication of corruption in this context. Otherwise, at worst, it's a simple mistake on the ref's part (which is hardly a cardinal sin). In this case, it's not even a mistake. It's simply rather a puritanical interpretation of the laws of the game. In the course of jumping up and down, Mathew Leckie made contact. For that reason, it can be deemed an infringement. Nevertheless, it's a puritanical sort of ruling. But there's no evidence to substantiate any claim of corruption. No it is a massive mistake, that horrific decision compared with the horrific refereeing in favour of Syria the entire 90 minutes, there was a definite bias. I think it was a very rough call. But I can understand how it was given. I just wouldn't make a call like that as I think it's better to give the benefit of the doubt. As for the refereeing, in general... I'm sorry but I didn't notice much at all to recommend the suggestion that there was definite bias. I am a biased Socceroo supporter but as a forward ,if i jumped for a ball and got a nudge in the back like that I would want a penalty .It was a small nudge with his hands but definitely a nudge . When you are in the air even the slightest nudge is enough to make you miss a header. To be fair...I thought it was a penalty all day every day. If you contact an opponent in your area you are always taking a big risk. Having said that... you see forwards and backs grappling each other all the time on corners and nothing is done...but in this instance it was only one person manhandling and that was Leckie . He got sucked in and the forward knew it and did a spectacular dive to go with it. Can't blame the ref for giving it . there was no nudge his hands were against his body and the syrian player moved into leckie's space. Its not a harsh call. A harsh call is when leckie gets a foul for him. Its a wrong call It's not Leckie's 'space'. There was contact in the course of contesting an incoming cross. The other chap had the positional advantage. He made a meal out of it when he and Leckie came into contact. But there was contact between the two. A very rough call, imo. A questionable call, yes. An incorrect call? Not exactly. It was borderline. Unfortunately, the ref was excessively judicious in this instance. Just a shame that the benefit of the doubt isn't given. But no evidence of corruption. +x+x+xsure if you are in a position to worry about fines (or trying to prove it in a court of law) you would need a high standard of proof But if you just want the most likely explanation of events then corruption is more likely than mistake mistakes that blatant rarely happens with the exception that the league is super low level (which it isn't) or the referee has his view obscured (which it wasn't) or there was heavy traffic or lots of players in motion (which didn't happen) its actually hard to find a similarly poor pen by a similarly high level ref (there was a dodgy handball nigeria v argentina which comes close). But its not hard to find examples of corrupt refs. Given investigation is rare (whose going to bother unless they get an anonymous tip) and even when white collar corruption is investigated due to plausible accusation of wrongdoing conviction is even rarer. So the number of instances of corruption would out number the number of times someone is caught by perhaps a few thousand fold. In any case even if people don't like saying corruption is more probable the more important takeaway is the score shouldn't factor into their post game autopsy any more than if the ball rebounded off an astroid and went into the goal. You can focus on the things more on your control (juric, leckie etc missing easy chances, the time we had the post hit in defence) but you are going to focus on those things anyway But you have absolutely no proof and you're focusing entirely on one questionable call. Did you cry out corruption with the match against Thailand? In this case, we're talking about a single decision which was rough. These things happen. You get decisions go your way and against you. But to cry foul over this smacks of sour grapes. Sorry Grazorblade but you're above that. You know a lot about sport and you have competed in sport at a very high level. It's awful to go down the path of the Salem witch hunts for something as petty as this. Especially if you specifically ignore other decisions which are far worse which happened to go in our favour. There's no evidence whatsoever of corruption so it's not at all fair to try to vilify the referee. my argument is based down probability it was a corrupt pen And there the arguments falls flat. Probability implies there's statistical evidence to back your argument up. There's none of that. We're basically talking about a single decision about which we (a forum of mostly Australians) cannot come to agreement as to what the correct ruling ought to be. There's no evidence whatsoever. It's unsportsmanlike to attempt to impugn the character of the ref in this instance. Please let's not add fuel to the infuriating, embarrassing (and largely incorrect) notion that Aussies have a tendency to be unsportsmanlike.
|
|
|
|
|
maxxie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Corruption is definitely way too big a call. The non-call for Sains for the pen against Thailand was more egregious than the pen in this game. It was very very soft, but still a call you see given every now and then.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xCorruption is definitely way too big a call. The non-call for Sains for the pen against Thailand was more egregious than the pen in this game. It was very very soft, but still a call you see given every now and then. lol non-call pens happen all the time. Its like a forward pass in league. This was the equivalent of a beam ball hitting a batter in the face and being called out bowled. Hence corrupt
|
|
|
|
|
Gruen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
If you cannot see how the referee could genuinely think on one viewing at full speed in the pressure of the game that Leckie went straight through the back of Al Somah then I feel very sorry for you.
|
|
|
|
|
jas88
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Tough call but his elbow his hom in the back... were in Asia... does no one remember 2002 world cup referees? You got a striker defending crosses and were wondering why he gets penalised...
|
|
|
|
|
Eniri
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 762,
Visits: 0
|
This argument you guys are having and the whiff of corrupt or biased refereeing that is being discussed is the exact reason you don't use an Iranian ref for a qualifying match with a super close to Iran Assad backed Syrian team. I thought it was a crazy bad call and no penalty at all. I also found it a bit suspicious that the two major calls in the game that seemed really perplexing were opportunities for Syria to directly score (as opposed to general play). 1 was not calling the ball going out in the attempt on goal that Ryan saved (that one was actually fairly fast so understandable), and 2 was the penalty that wasn't.
Was the penalty call due to error? Bias? Deliberate? I don't know. But it is a hell of a lot more of an issue when you have a ref from Iran. You need a truly neutral ref otherwise you end up with the suspicion of corruption even if there isn't any.
|
|
|
|
|
Gruen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
Game 2, what changes to the team are expected?
|
|
|
|
|
The Fans
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xGame 2, what changes to the team are expected? Ange to fix the things that worked well and stick with the things that didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
hotrod
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGame 2, what changes to the team are expected? Ange to fix the things that worked well and stick with the things that didn't. So true. Socceroos to plod around for 85 minutes and get the winner with a dubious penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
johnszasz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
I expect to see
Ryan
Leckie Milligan Sainsbury Jurman Behich
Mooy Luongo
Kruse Cahill
Juric
Kruse will be allowed to do his roaming and runs. This is what I think will happen. I even get a suspicion that Smith will start. We should keep a sub free and bring on Langerak if, God forbid, we go to penalties.
My side would be
Ryan
Degenek Sainsbury Jurman Behich
Milligan
Mooy Luongo
Leckie Cahill Goodwin
|
|
|
|
|
Pasquali
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xGame 2, what changes to the team are expected? Ange to fix the things that worked well and stick with the things that didn't. So true. Socceroos to plod around for 85 minutes and get the winner with a dubious penalty. Post press conferance Interviewer: Many are saying this was one of the poorest home games in recent memory, what do you say about that? Ange: Yeah today was just to prove all the critics wrong, I am really proud of the boys and the performance today *walks out*
|
|
|
|
|
Glh37
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xGame 2, what changes to the team are expected? Ange to fix the things that worked well and stick with the things that didn't. So true. Socceroos to plod around for 85 minutes and get the winner with a dubious penalty. While we all want to see a high calibre performance and a 2, 3 or 4 nil scoreline it becomes about results much more than performance when the chance to make the World Cup is at stake. Whether its a 90 minute 0-0 or 1-0 result, a 120 minute 2-1 result or a penalty shootout win after 1-1 after 90 and 120 minutes I personally would take any of these without hesitation even if its aided via a penalty (or non penalty) no matter how dubious. Bring on Tuesday night.
|
|
|
|
|
bruno
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 85,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xGame 2, what changes to the team are expected? Ange to fix the things that worked well and stick with the things that didn't. So true. Socceroos to plod around for 85 minutes and get the winner with a dubious penalty. While we all want to see a high calibre performance and a 2, 3 or 4 nil scoreline it becomes about results much more than performance when the chance to make the World Cup is at stake. Whether its a 90 minute 0-0 or 1-0 result, a 120 minute 2-1 result or a penalty shootout win after 1-1 after 90 and 120 minutes I personally would take any of these without hesitation even if its aided via a penalty (or non penalty) no matter how dubious. Bring on Tuesday night. That's the point. WCQ is all about results, not pretty football. If our bone head coach had done that from the start we wouldn't even be playing these games because we had already qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThat's the point. WCQ is all about results, not pretty football. If our bone head coach had done that from the start we wouldn't even be playing these games because we had already qualified. Shhh don't enlighten this forum with such crazy concepts that games are about results because they can't accept the fact that Ange is 100 percent to blame for the predicament that the Socceroos are currently in. Anyone who indulges the tin foil hat idiocy about referees & penalties is seriously deluded.
|
|
|
|
|
Summerteeth
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 769,
Visits: 0
|
Any idea about the latest pax?
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAny idea about the latest pax? No idea but I am having difficulty putting 2 tickets together for category C.
|
|
|
|
|
footbawler
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 430,
Visits: 0
|
Bought tickets this morning and pax is a tick over 40,000
|
|
|
|
|
schimch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
looking at over 50k then?
Can't imagine people were rushing given it's ANZ, and that walk up could be strong considering it should be decent enough weather
|
|
|
|
|
footbawler
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 430,
Visits: 0
|
Yeah hopefully it's good walk ups
Problem is an 8pm kickoff at Olympic park means people realistically won't be home to places like penrith before 11 and probably later than that. On a Tuesday that rules out anyone who has work early and is only a casual supporter.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitedge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 261,
Visits: 0
|
> that rules out anyone who has work early and is only a casual supporter.
And young families. The game was first mentioned for 7PM. I guess they made it 8 PM to get more TV money.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xCorruption is definitely way too big a call. The non-call for Sains for the pen against Thailand was more egregious than the pen in this game. It was very very soft, but still a call you see given every now and then. lol non-call pens happen all the time. Its like a forward pass in league. This was the equivalent of a beam ball hitting a batter in the face and being called out bowled. Hence corrupt I'm afraid the analogy does not work at all. The bowler bowls a beam ball, hits the batsman and the umpire gives the batsman out bowled? Your example does not mention him trampling on his stumps. How does the umpire give the batsman out bowled when the bails haven't even been dislodged? This Mathew Leckie example is entirely different. Qualitatively, he made the contact with the part of his opponents body which give the ref grounds for awarding a penalty. I think it was a rough call. But what you describe doesn't work at all. I don't know a thing about rugby league. This example has more in common with a referee in rugby union awarding a penalty for collapsing the scrum when it's very much six of one and half a dozen of another. Or, in cricket, before the DRS era, if the umpire gives the batsman our leg before and it looks incredibly tight. Then hawk-eye suggests that the smallest fraction of the ball would have nudged a fraction of a stump. A bit rough. But it's not corrupt at all. Sorry but rose-tinted glasses and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
Gruen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xCorruption is definitely way too big a call. The non-call for Sains for the pen against Thailand was more egregious than the pen in this game. It was very very soft, but still a call you see given every now and then. lol non-call pens happen all the time. Its like a forward pass in league. This was the equivalent of a beam ball hitting a batter in the face and being called out bowled. Hence corrupt I'm afraid the analogy does not work at all. The bowler bowls a beam ball, hits the batsman and the umpire gives the batsman out bowled? Your example does not mention him trampling on his stumps. How does the umpire give the batsman out bowled when the bails haven't even been dislodged? This Mathew Leckie example is entirely different. Qualitatively, he made the contact with the part of his opponents body which give the ref grounds for awarding a penalty. I think it was a rough call. But what you describe doesn't work at all. I don't know a thing about rugby league. This example has more in common with a referee in rugby union awarding a penalty for collapsing the scrum when it's very much six of one and half a dozen of another. Or, in cricket, before the DRS era, if the umpire gives the batsman our leg before and it looks incredibly tight. Then hawk-eye suggests that the smallest fraction of the ball would have nudged a fraction of a stump. A bit rough. But it's not corrupt at all. Sorry but rose-tinted glasses and all that. The ball hits the batsman and then the stumps? Geoff Lawson was bowled by bouncer which broke his jaw first.
|
|
|
|