Match destroyed by the worst red card decision you’ll ever see. Ibusuki sent off late in the first half, with Adelaide United going into the break with a well-earned lead.

Sydney score two early second half goals. Adelaide have just equalised. Game on. Sydney suck. The referee sucks.

Laughable .. .

A bit rich for Brattan to get frustrated by play stopping for a foul on Juande. Play has had to stop five times due to Brattan’s “injury”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a team’s playing culture built around gamesmanship more in any sport.

You should watch Angie’s Celtic then. 

Ange’s Celtic can play football. Football first, gamesmanship second.

By the way I forgot to reply to this.
That was hilarious.

Brattan sat down like 3 times when his team were under the pump then carries on when we are unfairly down to 10, pulled back the draw and sat down every time a Sydney player IDIOTICALLY went in too hard and late for OBVIOUS fouls.

I really truly dislike everything about Sydney FC (except one or two fans on here to be fair aha)

Caceres - barely a foul on Goodwin, but gets a yellow. More studs showing than Ibusuki. Should have been a straight red with VAR confirmation. #consistency

2-2 seems fair

2-2 full time. Sydney played for the draw at home against ten men and got it.

The referee started shakily, made a horrifically bad decision that significantly impacted the rest of the match, and set himself the standard for the remainder of the game. The longer the match went, the less control the referee had over it.

Good game and decent crowd 

Match wasn't destroyed at all. Reds showed huge character. Sydney have cause to be worried. 

TBF Sydney are ahead of where most of our supporters thought they'd be after last seasons shambles.

Good attendance, good football. I reckon you have a gem in Wood. Should be starting ahead of ALF. 

https://keepup.com.au/news/live-isuzu-ute-a-league-on-sunday-october-23-goals-highlights-updates-reaction-analysis

Ibusuki launched with studs exposed. He had no control.

Just because he did not make a full on connection does not change the dangerous nature of the action.

There is always a chance that the opponent holds back when he sees the dangerous challenge coming in and making the action seem less dangerous.

I thought the red card was excessive personally, but I totally understand why it was given.

Thanks for confirming you have nfi.

Always a pleasure :)

Did you notice the part that said I personally found the card excessive - and I have nfi? So you must think the card was not excessive or you agree with me? Maybe some idea... ;)

Red card now rescinded, so once again you have no fucking idea. 

doesn't surprise me, saw nothing close to a red card in that challenge. Gomulka's red last week wasn't deserved either imo.

Oh Dan

Your closed-minded rudeness does you no credit.

The result is actually what I said from the start when I said I thought it was excessive. So perhaps a decent human being would admit I might have sfi after all or just leave it where it lies.

Flame on my friend. Your personal attack has no meaning when neither of us knows the other at all.

To be fair you did have a bet both ways.
You also very much justified the decision.
Seems like you were one of only 3 people in the country who could "see why it was given" ;)

The other two just wanted to stand with me I think.

Most know the answers; some are still looking for them (t-shirts available).

I always like to try and work out why things happen. As much as it sounded like a bet each way, my intention was always to try and justify what happened. I prefer seeing a world where the officials know what they are doing.  

Best place for that sort of thought process is in here I find.

Ha Ha you can't be serious!

If you want to disagree with anything please do...?

So every time a player does an overhead kick they should be sent off regardless of whether contact was made, because there is a chance that they COULD have kicked someone’s head off.
Then we could introduce preventative red cards. If a player has a history of send offs then after a certain number of card free games just send them off in case they make dangerous contact with someone during the game.

Yes, every time a player does an overhead kick near enough to an opponent to make contact it is a dangerous play.

Where does it say you have to make contact, break a leg, knock someone unconscious? Dangerous play does not require death or injury.

People like you cheering this garbage on is why it just gets worse every year. Will you be happy when it’s a totally non-contact sport?

I didn't say I agreed with it - just that I could understand the call. He lunged in a dangerous manner and was uncontrolled.

Did you think last week's slipping over red card was warranted? No intent - but equal disregard for safety and lack of control.

I have never said I want the game to be 'safe' in the sense you are suggesting, and none of my comments even remotely 'cheer it on'. That is a preconceived notion you have about 'people like me'.

The laws of the game address that in principle so it is not fantasy. You really cannot understand how the action today might reasonably be viewed as dangerous?

I don't think you saw it to be honest.

Unlike you, the MRP could not understand the call at all.

Unlikely.
This dud’s opinion is based solely on the involvement of AU, a team he’s excessively criticised for some time.

got to say I haven't noticed RIMB picking on your AU as much as you point out but bantering with Davide of late that is pretty light hearted imo.
The tackle don't think he means any harm but expressing his pov (too complicated :)) much like we all see any part of a game differently.
Lets just chill and get on having discussion/banter - the experts stuff up, every ref is different as we know how they react, us devotee armchair experts are never wrong :)

Ha ha
I like to think we have a secret gentlemanly agreement to dislike the other's team or opinion on style/tactics without ever getting TOO personal.

RIMB is a good guy who sees things differently to a lot of people who might have more of a "traditional" football upbringing but that's a good thing.

Just like if all teams played the same formation/style of football the sport would be much more boring

Is this just meant to wind ME up?

He never launched at all that's the point.
He slid in, swept the ball away and Caceras was where his sweeping action ended up
He did not launch directly in the direction of Caceras in any conceivable way

Any comparisons to Sassee the other week wpould be so idiotic as to render the comment trolling

Watching as a neutral, it bothered me that a contest between two teams was spoiled, by giving an unfair advantage to one team by a poor ref's decision.

No wind up but I am not using the same terms that others understand I think. By launched/lunged I did mean he slid in, in such a way as to not be able to control his momentum or direction. He did not start his slide with studs extended, but they did end up pointing at (into) his opponent.

His momentum and direction was towards the ball, but the direction of his opponent at the moment he started his slide is not the entire picture. It is reasonable to consider that where you are going to end up is also relevant. Otherwise, to be over the top, it would not be a foul if you launched an airborne flying kick at the ball with no-one next to it. but your opponent running to the same contest arrived after you had launched. You still have to be 'responsible' for where and how your body goes once you start a slide, lunge or leap.

The first replay I watched I said bullshit, that's not a red, and as I saw it the lower foot was the one making contact not the raised one. The second replay from back over Ibusuki's shoulder looked straight red - with him clearly sliding uncontrolled (his body not his foot which he mostly did control until the final contact) in a manner that ended up connecting with another player with his studs.

I say it was excessive to be a red and I meant that.

I also say I understand how the call was given in the first place given how at least one angle looked bloody awful and the ref may have seen a similarly damning angle in the moment. When VAR looked at it I expected the ref to be called to the monitor (as did everyone watching) then downgraded to yellow because he slid without control and made contact; but I also say I can see how the decision could stand for the same reason. Had his opponent just planted a foot slightly closer to Ibusuki there is a chance his ankle might have been broken. It did not happen, but that does not make the action 'safe'.

I can understand people violently disagreeing with the red, but I do not understand how people cannot see that it could be interpreted as dangerous play.

On that note, I have never understood how a 50/50 ball can involve a sliding tackle through the ball and into the keeper. The attacker has every right to go for the ball but in all aspects of football you still have to be mindful of how and where you end up. Reckless and dangerous cannot be wiped by a ball being 50/50 or even by making contact with the ball first - although they are all relevant to a decision.

For me the ref did the right thing calling a red first based on whatever he saw. The problem is that VAR found a legal way to support that call when it would have been the right call to get the ref to watch it again on the monitor. I cannot believe the match official would watch all the replays and still call it red.

Yes the striker is entitled to challenged for the ball BUT often a striker will slide in and collect the keeper after the keeper has control. They very, very rarely get given as a red.

I saw an instance the other week of a keeper jumping to punch the ball clear and while still in the air the whole of the forearm smashed into the strikers head.  As the ball was already gone could the keeper have been penalised?

By referring to Sasse last week I mean the similarities of uncontrolled momentum resulting in accidental contact without intent. That is all. This did not happen - but you do not have to slide studs up directly at an opponent for it to be dangerous and a red. I hate hearing commentators saying 'did he even make contact' when considering whether an action was dangerous or not.

It was a very harsh red card, Ibasuki didnt mean to cause harm with that tackle, the refs are going with the rulebook and forgetting to use some common sense! 

Overall it was a decent game, im actually enjoying Sydney FC's style of football, they play good football especially with their front 3 and I thought Wood is much more suited up front and showed good hold up play even though he missed an 1v1 he looks to more effective than LeFondre who looks slow.

That is a moronic decision. 

I am surprised at anyone who thinks Sydney are playing bad football. They may have struggled to break down a resolute and skilful team of 10 (who doesn't) but it was not through a lack of cohesion, or quality attacks.

I think they are showing enough to be top 6 this season and how well they combine over the course of the season is all that will limit them.

Don’t think that’s a Red card- especially when he touched the ball first and only clipped opponent while sliding on ground?! Adelaide did well to score again with only 10 men and get 1 point

Ask another ref what they think?? Muz?

I always like to hear other considered opinions - makes the forum a good place to contribute.

VAR were the second ref - and regardless of not wanting to expose a bad decision or poor judgement I do not think they could have let the card stand if it was not 'within the boundaries of the laws' to issue it.

The question I think is better worded - how would other refs interpret the situation and would they be more inclined to issue a yellow in that situation (as with Decentric 2's comment above).

Would not be appropriate for a declared ref to comment on another ref - just to know how they personally might have decided differently.

Very true, Roar.

It is best when people disagree about football respectfully though. There is no place for abuse online.

Have to admit that I agree with most of what you post!

There was still some good football played, despite the ref's shocking decision and the replay of it supporting the send off.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/aleague-2022-hiroshi-ibusuki-red-card-in-sydney-fc-vs-adelaide-united-worst-decision-var-mistake-howler-video/news-story/ad8f0b2eadf5551220e16e090a3096f0

Rightly so. I'm struggling here. I can see the logic but that shows no feel for the game at all by the ref. 100% tackle is fine.

It's very rare you see every single pundit, both sets of coaches and players all agree a decision is 100% wrong.

I don't know why VAR didn't ask the ref to come see it again for himself.

It's baffling. Like I said elsewhere if this is a foul then so is every sliding tackle where the player wins the ball and then brings down the player.

Yes you can defend the ref's decision here but equally you could defend a 'play on', FK or a yellow. 

If this is a red then every sliding tackle on a GK where there is a collision is a straight red. Spoiler alert: They're not. 

Good to get input from an experienced ref, Muz.

Did it perplex you, like me, that the  video replay also supported the send off?

Not unexpected because because they usually don't undermine the ref's call.

Here's what I wrote elsewhere. 

Like I said you could sell that and get away with it but equally you could wave play on, give a free or give a yellow and far more people would be accepting. (And I understand the onus is on the player making the tackle.) The question you should ask is 'what would football expect?'. Do you 'expect' incidental contact due to momentum resulting in a FK? Note that they have changed the rules regarding contact in the penalty area to say (something along the lines of) contact does not necessarily mean a foul. That's to stop all those pens that were given because someone got a slight touch.

Believe me I'm on here usually defending the referees.

I thought there was some very good football played by both teams when it was 11 v 11.

IF I recall right Ibusuki did go in a couple of other times spiritedly before that to me like the rest going through settling period and both teams having a go......that I'm all for.
Nothing like seeing adrenaline and teams contesting with passion desire.
The Ref I feel considered enough was enough (to him) to stamp himself in the game BUT pulling a RED was so wrong it wasn't funny, YELLOW thats all it deserved full stop period making the statement ok guys settle it for his liking.
Unfair to AU, especially through that period showing more cohesion and reacting more picking up 2nd balls, creating space and chances.
Pity for the game was looking good - not taking away what followed to FT for kudos to AU they deserved the draw.
Would have SFC got those 2 back in quick turn early 2nd period v's 11 would have been interesting but no matter what they hit back well in quick time.
People should talk of Lollys well taken effort for the angle was juicy going across Gauci and build up play.
Haha VDSaag, doing what ex SFC players do scoring against the ol club.

Yeah Lolley looks to be a very good pick up for you guys hey

One of those guys where you can know what he is about to do but you still can't stop him doing it!

yes he's that type.....if he can keep finishing some chances will help SFC stay amongst the leading pack.
Its time Corica gave Wood some start up time to test his coming of age, the kid gives more mobility up front than ALF.
Yazbek is also really coming along @ 20yrs in the mid role, mobile defensively and attack.
Grant played one of his better games in sometime as well.

RIMB well done you have class and talk much sense and as you said red card could have gone either way and it did!!!

So you were right!!!

so far as some  others jumping up and down and screaming, they can go to bed now and get a good nights sleep.

Thanks mate

Would like to hear the conversation between Daniel Elder and VAR. If the MRP can use the same video to arrive at the decision that it wasn't a straight red, then why didn't the VAR overturn the decision during the game. Elder can be somewhat excused in the moment as he is initially only going by what he has seen in real time, but the VAR obviously should have recommended Elder review the footage. Maybe Elder made the decision to ignore the VAR recommendation.

I agree.
I'd like to know how it unfolded as well.
They were happy to release VAR audio for social media  (Elsey's?) recently.

While I don't think much of Elder I don't blame him for the call anywhere near as much as VAR.

Having said that, I do still think it was a crazy rush of blood decision that showed a total lack of knowledge/insight into the actual game of football.

The most telling thing I noticed was no Sydney player rushed in to shirt front Ibusuki or surround the ref etc as ALWAYS happens in studs up red card challenges

The article talking about the decision being overturned mentioned that clubs had been advised of a crackdown on challenges involving stud contact this season.

Add that to the likelihood of Elder seeing something like we saw in the 'bad' video angle of the challenge that seemed to be a straight sliding tackle into his opponent and Elder's reaction is entirely legitimate. He has to call what he sees.

VAR involvement is the part that goes off the rails. VAR must be considering 'is there a way to legitimise the call' rather than 'is it the right call'.

I am not surprised it was Kurt Ams in the box making the decision to be honest.

Does anyone else find this weird and a bit of a worry?



Is that really a referee's job?

If it relates to excessive theatrics, general behaviour, and the game's credibility - then yes. In context there is nothing wrong with that.

To use this exact example, the VAR decision certainly fits in the 'image of the game' category as something that needs to be addressed with priority.

I think this was quoted in the coverage at the time, in the spirit to clean this up in the game early.
Was stupid the moment I heard it and as mentioned the red being pulled out, said it warranted a yellow nothing more.

It went for the VAR check and I was sure they would have said go review it on the screen but no.

His boot clipped/glanced by his shin imo and Caceras played it more than anything as any pro would for he sure wasn't suffering from it soon enough.
Prob had some marks on his shin but it wasn't in malice just stupid technique more than anything.

I actually don't get RIMB being on the fence, explains his pov but its either ither not 50/50 for how can that be a decision needs to be made in real time or VAR.
They both stuffed up in light of the extensive season overhaul of ruinning the game.

Hey LFC - not on the fence - I thought the red excessive.

My comments were making the only sense of it I could - that I could and still can see how someone could call it a red. Most disagree with that principle - I am fine with that.

ah ok got it, trying to make sense of it both ways - christ I should read more carefully lol

I really don't understand personal abuse for having a different perspective.

Funny that you use the word 'understanding' when you possess so little of it in the real world sense.

You are both much better than me at football. Well in and enjoy the win.

Hey Roar in me Blood just realised we haven't heard from you here since this.

Don't not come back at some point

here here mate, I noticed he being MIA last BR game waiting on his summaries :)

I'll tell you what happened. The ref got it wrong. The VAR bloke thought that maybe there was enough in it to not run over the top of him and make him look like a goose (because you can justify almost any decision) so he upheld the decision.

And here we are.