By someguyjc - 19 Apr 2024 10:40 AM
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+
Sunday 21st April 2024- Central Coast Mariners vs Adelaide United
(Postponed - DATE TBC) - Perth Glory vs Western United FC
HBF Park
Kick-off: 15:00 (WA time) / 17:00 (Eastcoast time)
Ref: Shane Skinner
Broadcast: 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 | * |
|
By NicCarBel - 22 Apr 2024 11:04 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJust 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.
+x+xJust 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 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.
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.
Yes, that is the bit that I noticed too.
But again, on that incident - Foul: Yes. Red Card: No.
I mean.. the distinction in the rules goes as far as this:
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
I wouldn't say he showed excessive force. Reckless? Maybe, but that's probably pushing it.
+x+x+x+x+x+xJust 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.
+x[quote]+x[quote]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 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. 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. They always say 'what would football expect' when you're not sure when reffing. Well football wouldn't expect blokes to be sent for that 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. 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.... 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)
|
|