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.

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

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

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. 

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!

Good to get input from an experienced ref, Muz.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Red card now rescinded, so once again you have no fucking idea. 

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?

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.

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

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" ;)

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)

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.

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

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



Is that really a referee's job?

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.

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.