Danny vs Joel ( click to see more! )

[RADINHO]

Basically which ever video is deserving a longer ban than the opposing then vote 4 it.

Joel Griffths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swOokQZKbM8

Danny Vukovic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wBl2gsSKTk

 

[thomas477]

This is a silly thread as much already know wat the poll is gonna say, Joel griffths should have been suspended not danny

 

[kevrenor]

This is a silly thread as much already know wat the poll is gonna say, Joel griffths should have been suspended not danny

Then don't vote! 

It says: "Which incident is more violent and DESERVES a longer ban"

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Griffiths - purely for the region of the body that he attacked.
Unfortunately I can't find a clip of the Middleby poke online, which IMO is more serious than Danny's, and possibly more serious than the griffiths one as well. 

 

[skilbeck]

its a pointless poll though because it is fact that griffos incident is worse than Dannys

 

[A.J.V]

    .                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXUumQK0T8

 

[RADINHO]

its a pointless poll though because it is fact that griffos incident is worse than Dannys

i agree we all know that Griffith's attack is more deserving but the f*****g FFA don't think so

 

[skilbeck]

its a pointless poll though because it is fact that griffos incident is worse than Dannys

i agree we all know that Griffith's attack is more deserving but the f*****g FFA don't think so

but the question you should be asking is:
are you a sane person who saw a great injustice was done?
OR
are you a biased scum supporter troll who idolises the little wanker and therefore can you not have an objective view about the incident?

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

I think this poll needs 3 options:

1)joel griffiths (don't capitalise his name, he isn't worthy of that level of respect)
2)Danny Vukovic, and I'm a Mariners supporter
3)Danny Vukovic, and I'm a Jets supporter

Because the only reason I can possibly think of for 2 people to vote 'Danny's as worse is if those people are Jets supporters and they're voting that way just because they can.

 

[skilbeck]

expect 0 votes for #3

 

[Ted]

lmfao, a hi 5 is worse than a touch up? Yeah Joel lacks the balls and has to man handle someone elses for quick feel on what he is lacking....

 

[Jimmy]

Well, i wonder what the outcome of this poll is going to be, its a mariners (marinators) forum for crying out loud. It's a pointless poll.

 

[Ted]

good way of seeing just how many trolls are on the forum I guess...

 

[sorjesk]

its a pointless poll though because it is fact that griffos incident is worse than Dannys

i agree we all know that Griffith's attack is more deserving but the f*****g FFA don't think so

sorry to be a pain but its not that the ffa don't think so, because the incident was "dealt with" on field with the yellow card the ffa had no power to suspend griffiths - those are the laws that fifa wrote and there is nothing that can be done about it. IMO griffiths was worse but hey - shit happens, danny will know more than anyone how stupid it was and now he will suffer the consequences.

 

[~Floss~]

its a pointless poll though because it is fact that griffos incident is worse than Dannys

 
i agree we all know that Griffith's attack is more deserving but the f*****g FFA don't think so

sorry to be a pain but its not that the ffa don't think so, because the incident was "dealt with" on field with the yellow card the ffa had no power to suspend griffiths - those are the laws that fifa wrote and there is nothing that can be done about it. IMO griffiths was worse but hey - shit happens, danny will know more than anyone how stupid it was and now he will suffer the consequences.

All been said before, but while this conversation is still going on i'll try to contribute sensibly:

Surely punching a ref in the balls should be a red card offense. If the ref didn't give a red at the time, to me that says he missed or misinterpreted what happened, so it wasn't dealt with at the time.

...either that, or he is a ref not worthy of the national league if he genuinely judged it to be yellow-worthy. One of them should have been suspended.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Neither the ref nor the AR knew of the punch- Joel Griffiths was cautioned for verbal dissent, NOT dissent by action, despite what the FFA website says. 

 

[~Floss~]

Neither the ref nor the AR knew of the punch- Joel Griffiths was cautioned for verbal dissent, NOT dissent by action, despite what the FFA website says. 

IF that's the case, then it wasn't dealt with on or off the pitch.

Are the reasons for cards always kept secret or is there a way to find out? I think in cases of exceptional amounts of potentially defamatory debate, they should be able to prepare a statement for the media.

 

[jaypee]

its a pointless poll though because it is fact that griffos incident is worse than Dannys

i agree we all know that Griffith's attack is more deserving but the f*****g FFA don't think so

sorry to be a pain but its not that the ffa don't think so, because the incident was "dealt with" on field with the yellow card the ffa had no power to suspend griffiths - those are the laws that fifa wrote and there is nothing that can be done about it. IMO griffiths was worse but hey - shit happens, danny will know more than anyone how stupid it was and now he will suffer the consequences.

In fact this is incorrect.

Last season in the EPL someone got absolutely pole axed and the perpetrator was given a yellow card.
He was later cited and suspended for 6 - 10 games. SO its not a FIFA rule it was the gutless FFA that stuffed it up...

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Neither the ref nor the AR knew of the punch- Joel Griffiths was cautioned for verbal dissent, NOT dissent by action, despite what the FFA website says. 

IF that's the case, then it wasn't dealt with on or off the pitch.

Are the reasons for cards always kept secret or is there a way to find out? I think in cases of exceptional amounts of potentially defamatory debate, they should be able to prepare a statement for the media.

The reason (dissent, unsporting behaviour etc) is available....I think on the FFA website.
If you're after a more specific reason (cynical tackle, called the referee a joke, or whatever) then no, these aren't available.

I do agree that in some rare cases the FFA should release a statement - if the FFA had released a statement to the public explaining why griffiths wasn't sent off, and done it immediately, I think the football public would've been a lot more understanding.  Most of the time it's easy enough to figure out the reason for a card, even if you don't agree. 

jaypee - it is a FIFA rule that an organisation can't effectively change the colour of a card, however some organisations have ignored that in extreme cases, and FIFA turns a blind eye to it.  There may be some latitude to take additional action on a caution (including suspension), but not actually change it to a red, though I could be wrong.

Regardless, I believe that under the FFA's own rules could've fined him, or taken action against the entire team or club.

 

[Tez]

     .                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXUumQK0T8

this is a good video

Regardless, I believe that under the FFA's own rules could've fined him, or taken action against the entire team or club.

Totally agree - something more should have been done - but the FFA couldnt of been bothered with the effort.. i swear a buch of trained monkeys would do a better job that the FFA!