Friday 19th April 2024

• Newcastle Jets vs Wellington Phoenix
  McDonald Jones Stadium
  Kick-off: 19:45 (Eastcoast time) / 21:45 (Kiwi time)
  Ref: Alireza Faghani
  Broadcast: Paramount+

Saturday 20th April 2024

• Western Sydney Wanderers vs Melbourne City FC
  Commbank Stadium
  Kick-off: 15:30
  Ref: Ben Abraham
  Broadcast: Paramount+
• Melbourne Victory vs Brisbane Roar
  AAMI Park
  Kick-off: 17:30
  Ref: Jack Morgan
  Broadcast: Paramount+
• Macarthur FC vs Sydney FC
  Campbelltown Sports Stadium
  Kick-off: 19:45
  Ref: Daniel Elder
  Broadcast: 10 Bold / 10 Play / Paramount+

CURRENT TABLE (APL RULES)										CURRENT TABLE (GLOBAL RULES)
Club	PL	W	D	L	GD	Pts	*			Club	PL	GD	Pts	*
CCM	25	15	4	6	18	49	*			CCM	25	18	49	*
NIX	25	14	7	4	13	49	*			NIX	25	13	49	*
MV	25	10	11	4	11	41	*			MV	25	11	41	*
SFC	25	11	5	9	6	38	*			SFC	25	6	38	*
MAC	25	10	8	7	-1	38	*			MAC	25	-1	38	*
WSW	25	10	4	11	-4	34	*			WSW	25	-4	34	*
MC	25	9	6	10	10	33	*			MC	25	10	33	*
AU	25	8	5	12	0	29	*			AU	25	0	29	*
BR	25	8	5	12	-12	29	*			BR	25	-12	29	*
NJ	25	6	9	10	-6	27	*			NJ	25	-6	27	*
WU	25	6	5	14	-19	23	*			WU	25	-19	23	*
PG	25	5	7	13	-16	22	*			PG	25	-16	22	*

Plenty of good games this round.

JETS v NIX
If Jets win, they will avoid the spoon. If they draw they will also likely avoid the spoon as there is no way PG can close the GD gap.
A Nix win puts them on track for the title.
WSW v MC
Spot in the finals on the line for both. Must win for both.
MV v BR
MV need the 3 points to extend the gap to secure the home final.
BR season effectively over. Mathematically they can make finals, but it would require too many teams above to lose. 
MAC v SFC
Both fighting for a home final and need to reduce the risk of dropping out of the 6. A draw could make things interesting next week.
CCM v AU
The postponement could be a blessing in disguise for CCM. All depends on when the game is rescheduled.
PG v WU
Battle to avoid the spoon. Must win for both.

Fck off VAR.

An absolutely blatant two handed push from Zawada off the ball into Jenkinson's back saw Jenkinson thrown into the path of the ball. No way in hell that should have been given as a handball and penalty on VAR review.

Glad Rufer missed it - but VAR is such an ignorantly delivered system. Clear foul before the 'handball' to start with, and no handball if the player wasn't fouled anyway.

The players were showing they thought it a push. The replays showing a clear push not challenging for the ball. VAR ignoring it.

Jets ran out of legs, but were managing the huge pressure from Nix quite brilliantly until then. Commitment and team work to come at every Nix player on the ball from two sides and sticking to it. Wave after wave of constant, effective attacking raids by the Nix, snuffed out by luck, skill, excellent keeping, desperation, structure and all that I think makes a really good defence.

Stamatelopolous is a fantastically creative danger. I particularly enjoy watching him play (except when he is hurting the Roar).

Great point for the Jets - an almost win that keeps the race for Premiers wide open for Mariners without making it easy.

Old is one of the league's most unobtrusive great attackers with the ball at his feet. Every game he shows such quality and puts in cross after cross despite everyone knowing what he can do and trying to stop it. He turns the best defenders into traffic cones all game.

Its going to be an interesting finish to the league season thats for sure.

I think it's really cool to watch coaches like Stanton and Italiano start their careers. 

Both have done a great job you gotta give credit to Stanton for keeping jets competitive all things considering.

Then Wellington have really been good this season without relying on individual players. 

Auckland must be wondering about the wisdom of signing McClaren. He looks very ordinary. 

The team that took the field for us tonight played a game I am really proud of.

They pressed hard and effectively, combined brilliantly to bring the ball forward, defended resolutely, and created fantastic chances. That was possibly the best half and a bit of football all season but mostly it was testament to our development under Zadkovich and the quality we are able to bring to bear.

Trewin was absolutely immense tonight. Burke-Gilroy and Brown were rampant, O'Shea was bringing it all together, and Hore was his scheming best. That said, the rest of the team played their part too and I could not pick a bad player out of our starting line-up tonight.

The red card to Geria was deserved but unfortunate and while it did not ruin the game it certainly changed the dynamic a bit. We continued to press with commitment and focus, and Victory continued to combine their own quality attackers to keep pressure back on us, but Victory made the defensive substitutions you would expect and tended to drop back more and leave the attack to a few very capable players.

The loss of Burke-Gilroy and Hingert to injuries cost us a lot. The moment Zadkovich subbed in Lofthouse we lost our effective front end and gave Victory time and space to breathe. I have to say that at this stage in his development, Lofthouse has the touch of a Clydesdale, and in the tight spaces of the Victory box we lost our potency.

From that substitution on the game was an even match (including the fact that it was 10 v 11). He hits the ball metres longer than he intends, or falls over his feet, and 50% of his efforts give the ball away - making it 10.5 players for each team. He is not useless by any means, but the difference in our play was that obvious. I do not blame him for us not winning just noting how much poorer our attack was when we switched out some of our starting team.

Both teams had great chances to score - us having a lot more across the game - and again our finishing was lacking - but that did not lessen how capable we were bringing the ball forward under pressure and probing at a heavily guarded penalty area with intent and promise.

Finally we see enough of the promise in this team coming into game day.

Well fought to Victory. The commentators keep blathering on about how the ten men were not being dominated by the full team, but when you have a few really good attacking players it is ignorance to equate 10 men to submission. We kept at it, and they kept up their desperation. A bit of luck our way and we had a couple of goals - same as any team and any game. Victory had their chances and I think Trewin was probably the difference for us tonight. Take him out and it is another game entirely.

Good to be playing into some really good form regardless of the end of season in our faces. We have the players and capability to be in finals but we could not deliver enough consistently through the season to earn that.

Carn the Roar!

Just saw that red for the bloke kicking Lolley. What a farce.

Fold the game when 2 blokes are going for the ball like that and that's a red.

My thought was that they both went for the ball with a similar action. If it was red for dangerous play for one then it should have been an equally dangerous red for the other.

Should not have been red though - just a genuine contest.

Personally I thought the other red was hammed up and exaggerated and should not have been red either. The defender was fending off the advancing player and it just went a little high. The 'victim' hid his face as most actors do when contact is nothing significant. The elbow into throat later in the game was far more serious in my eyes and should have seen Brattan gone if the first incident was considered red-worthy.

I haven't seen the second one yet, but the one on Lolley... Well.. I can understand how that gets given on review, but again on the whole issue - not a clear and obvious error to not give a red card there.
Don't think Lolley has gone in dangerously, his studs aren't showing towards the player, so I can't say it's 'both have been playing dangerously'

But I wouldn't be giving that a red either in general play.

EDIT: Having now seen the second one, that one is a lot more understandable. Sure, you can say that there's a bit of playacting, but... a cocked elbow to the face like that is 99% of the time a red card.

The first red card never was a red, the second one however it was a red.

The similarity is just that both went for the ball at the same height and one just a little quicker than the other wore the studs. The guy who got the card was trying to toe poke the ball so his studs came up in the action rather than him lunging in studs first. If Lolley had been the moment slower his foot coming up to the ball would likely have exposed studs just the same. A dangerous action does not need contact to be dangerous and carded (but so often it does take contact to be called) so if one boot was high and dangerous I thought really both of them were.

I found the replays of the arm to face quite fuzzy/distant (maybe that is my eyes) - all I could see was the general forearm up pushing then the hiding face act for what felt like an eternity - then the repeated rinsing of mouth and checking of teeth that just reeked of acting. If he cocked his elbow and delivered to the face I would also call it a red - just not what I could see in anyway conclusively when I watched all the replays.

Brattan's elbow later was cocked and delivered in what seemed a lot more deliberate fashion. It was then also followed by minutes of throat holding acting by the 'victim'. I just found the two incidents to be somewhat similar but only one treated seriously.

Fair point on the Brattan one, if that's how it went down. I haven't seen that one so can't comment just yet.
But the second red card was a red card, I don't think many people can deny that.

As for the foul on Lolley... while I don't particularly agree with the red card, you can't go on and say "if the other person came in earlier" or "if they came in later" would result in xyz. When there is contact like that, we can only judge on how the foul happened. Lolley got there first and made a deliberate and reasonable play for the ball. If you're going to call Lolley's initial play 'dangerous' then well, every ball must be played on the deck from now on.

Yeah it's nuts. Particularly as they weren't facing each other but more perpendicular. Both were going for the ball. It was a bad decision but not as bad as the one earlier in the year when the were literally side by side and one bloke kicked the other whilst both of them had their feet raised in the air. Can't remember off hand who it was but just idiotic.

Can you imagine in our matches NCB how many blokes we'd be sending off every week if that's a red?

Christ.

Funny story from last weekend.

I'm the AR and a pen's been given. 2 blokes going for the same ball in the air but the defender misses the ball and kicks the fuck out of the other blokes foot and knocks him over. CTR immediately blows for a PK because, you know, bloke A kicks the bejesus out of bloke B.

Goal is scored and the bloke who gave the pen away stomps towards me as I'm going back to the line going 'you'll have to explain that one later on, how is that a pen etc etc blah blah'.

I said 'you kicked the shit out of him' and he goes, completely incredulously, 'but we were both going for the ball!'

I said 'BUT YOU KICKED HIM'. He just couldn't understand it. Just then the GK goes to his own player 'that was a pen all day'. Hahahaha. 


I saw him Saturday and said 'what were you on about last week whinging about that pen when you kicked him' and he says 'I don't even remember what I said'. 

Hahaha, players are great.

Unfortunately my brain does go on and ask that ;) - but only from a point of understanding the complexities better.

I understand what you are saying and the nature of getting to the ball first giving you 'rights' to the space. The issuing of a yellow card because the player who got to the ball first was fouled I understand - having questioned the nature of that some time ago and being answered by some of the knowledgeable souls on here.

My question is more about why both raised boots are not considered equally dangerous as it is only the flicker of a second that puts one foot on the ball before the other. I am not arguing for either or both to be red - I think it was a poor decision - more that if one person's dangerous play is relatively mirrored by the other's actions why would they both not be called dangerous? The only difference in the 'danger' may be that one got the ball first - does that make the similar actions less dangerous? It seems the red card was issued for 'reckless/dangerous play involving injury' rather than 'reckless/dangerous play' and I did not think there was such a distinction in the rules.

As an aside, I wonder if someone puts their boot just about waist height going for a ball and the other player touches the ball first (so considered 'in possession') and effectively hits the 'raised studs' with their hand/arm is that any different? Raised boot, studs showing, contact made above the ankle while challenging for the ball. Is it that important to never move your foot in such a way that your studs might show to an opponent - even if it is the opponent bringing themselves onto your studs? I did see that Lolley side footed his initial contact making it less likely that studs could come into play. Better technique in that alone.

Don't think about it too much RIMB or your head will explode. That's what's great about grassroots. No replays.

Particularly baffling is when a player goes for the ball with his foot raised and then an opposition player comes out of nowhere, that the player couldn't have even seen because he's watching the ball, and then that player gets collected after the original bloke has kicked the ball. Then the kicker gets sent off because under the laws he has, in big finger quotes here, 'a duty of care' regardless of what is happening. That's to say if you raise your foot and someone runs into you that's YOUR fault because that was a dangerous position to put your foot in. And then it's, well where did the foot strike the bloke, in the chest, above the ankle etc, hence these stupid reds.

Absolute garbage. How are you responsible for what someone else does?

It happens all the time in grassroots where a player will kick the ball and then clean up someone else with a follow through. There's not a single bloke on the field expecting a RC for that. I'll stop the play if someone's injured like that, ask the bloke if he's OK, tell him it was an accident and that was just momentum or follow through or whatever an 99 times out 100 they'll accept it. 

I'd never send a bloke for what happened to Lolley the other day. When you're not sure when reffing they always say 'what would football expect?'. Well football wouldn't expect blokes to be sent for that sort of thing that's for sure.

Yes, I hate seeing things like that. There was an incident I saw on refchat a month or so ago, when a defender was penalised (possibly sent off too, but I can't remember) because the defender was clearing the ball (as in literally mid-kick : kicking foot raised, and non-kicking foot next to the ball), and in the time of the defender swinging his foot in to kick the ball, a striker has gotten his foot in between the ball and the defender's kicking foot, missed the ball himself, and got cleaned up by the defender's kick. Pretty sure it was Premier League too. Will have to find it.

I wouldn't have even given a yellow. They've both gone for it. He's missed it and kicked the other bloke. There was no malice or intent. I mean possibly give the yellow to let the other players that's not on and to be careful.

Just watching the replay now and Harps and Hill are both saying YC.

Whether the decisions were correct or not, the time it took the referee to walk over to the screen and "review" them was ridiculous. VAR is a blight on the game. The home crowd would have rioted in days gone by if this shit was around then.

Sanity prevails. Red card rescinded. 

https://aleagues.com.au/news/ivan-vujica-red-card-rescinded-macarthur-fc-sydney-fc-independent-match-review-panel-geria-smith-melbourne-victory/

I mean.. if we don't give yellows for everything that isn't malicious or intent, well... there wouldn't even be a need for a yellow card in our pocket.
But....

...  in reality, the referee has done the right thing here, and VAR has caused this mess. From watching the clip (including the one embedded in the link Muz shared later on), the referee has initially not given it a foul, and stops play when he's noticed Lolley has stayed down in pain (and at that point he's well within his rights to give the foul and yellow card, which I believe he did, as the footage of him giving the red card also shows him cancelling out the yellow).

I meant in that specific incident it was nothing more than an accident.

I can understand why a YC was given (be careful there fella) but I probably would have just had a word. (Unless that was his third quick foul or he was being a general PITA.)

Yes, I can understand the yellow, or even just a foul. 
To me, this sending off is more a VAR issue - 9/10 it's being used to stick their fingers in a pie mum has taken out of the oven before she can put it on the table.

I 'like' VAR - but it's overused. It's supposed to be for clear and obvious errors, and it's been used to re-referee the game.

EDIT - I might actually put this Vujica incident on Refchat (with the knowledge that the red card has been rescinded) and gauge the opinions there. I'm pretty sure they'll come to the same conclusion as us and the MRP (foul, possibly yellow, but never a red)