Grand Final

[Atomic]

Let me put it this way.

Do you play Football and if you do would you be incredulous if a ref gave a free kick or penalty for that challenge, if it was you attempting a challenge??

Does that matter? I'm only going on what I saw on the video.

 

[Atomic]

For the non-believers, try this on for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOj-SrfhKw&feature=player_embedded

Please explain why that is not a penalty.

 

[kevrenor]

Law 12:

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent
* tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

* holds an opponent
* spits at an opponent
* handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

 

[ryan]

I must be going blind because I still don't see any contact. It looks as though he got close but misses him in the end.

 

[Atomic]

I must be going blind because I still don't see any contact. It looks as though he got close but misses him in the end.

Are you serious?

 

[ballantyne]

Law 12:

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent
* tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

* holds an opponent
* spits at an opponent
* handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Quite.

All this "why it was a penalty" crap is just face-saving - they never refer to the actual rules. It doesn't matter what led to what let to what, the issue is whether the contact between Miller and Berisha was a foul by Miller or not. The consequences are immaterial.

 

[Wombat]

Quite.

All this "why it was a penalty" crap is just face-saving - they never refer to the actual rules. It doesn't matter what led to what let to what, the issue is whether the contact between Miller and Berisha was a foul by Miller or not. The consequences are immaterial.

Correct.

No foul was committed.

 

[Wombat]

It's actually embarrassing for football to have our showpiece game ruined by that crap. Berisha is a known cheat and a known diver.

Also explain why Perez was banned for a similar dive last season when Reddy deliberately tried to take him out.
Shields was a terrible ref in first few years of HAL so it's hard to have any faith in an group he is in charge of.

 

[Wombat]

For the non-believers, try this on for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOj-SrfhKw&feature=player_embedded

Please explain why that is not a penalty.

Looking at that replay you could say that Berisha actually fouls Miller and forces him off balance.

 

[Forum Phoenix]

lol, that does show its the foot clip which causes his foot to hit the ball and create the bobble I had seen. Only hilarious mitigating factor is that Wombat is right, Berisha makes more contact with his push into Miller's chest than Miller makes with his leg.

But enough fun and games. Couldn't give a shit about of either of them. What's happening with our coach? That's all I really want to know.

 

[neverwozza]

I'm not going to enter the conversation about the penalty. My issue is at a far more pervasive level.

Whenever the Socceroos play in Asia, or in a World Cup we constantly hear about the physical nature of the team. This is done by the media, players and particularly the managers against who they play. When the game is underway 50/50 challenges where there is no foul are judged to be Socceroo fouls. If an opposition player goes down a foul is given, if a Socceroo is fouled - nothing.

Ange has pulled the same con job. He has made every other team the Socceroos. These teams are nowhere near as skilful as his teams and shouldn't be on the pitch. If something happens it must be their fault. The media believes it, the refs believe it and the Roar fans certainly believe it.

I noticed at about 33 minutes into the Grand Final that the foul count was 7-2. It should have been 3-3. That may not sound like a big difference but it can change the flow of the game. The first 6-7 minutes of the Grand Final were dominated by Brisbane, then Brisbane were awarded two fouls where the Roar players ran into Glory players contesting the ball. These at worst were non-fouls - I would have given one the other way. After these consecutive fouls Brisbane started to get into the game. Later, just before I saw the foul cont a Brisbane player clattered into the back of a Glory player and the subsequent foul somehow went to the Roar.

I am utterly sick to death with the officiating that only sanctions one team. To me it is a greater blight on the game than diving, to the extent that it is in Australia, is.

+1 and Broich gets the biggest free ride of all. He goes down squealing like a bitch at the slightest contact but can be quite grubby himself at times but the refs always let it go.

 

[ballantyne]

The Perez and Berisha cases are an object lesson in high school legal studies. Because there is no separation of powers, natural justice cannot prevail. Important to understand this not a malfunction. It is BUILT IN to the system.
I'm coming round to the idea of a separate A-League and FFA .

 

[Kareem]

Kareem, this was similar to an ankle tap; surely you wouldn't condone that on the field?? It's a different matter jostling the attacker from beside or in front, but ankle tap??

An Ankle tap is a clear foul, and usually has no relationship with the ball. Usually warrants a yellow card as well!
Just the sticking issue is
1) There can be no certainty if there was contact
So admittedly this means he probably shouldn't be retrospectively punished (as if FFA would have anyway)
2) His foot clearly lands on the ground. He didn't lose his footing.
And if he didn't swing to shoot (yes ofcourse he should shoot lol...it's a GF and he is in the box), he wouldn't have fallen over. And yes I can see that I am talking hypothetical...but tbh so are the pro-penalty supporters...

 

[Kareem]

For the non-believers, try this on for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJOj-SrfhKw&feature=player_embedded

Please explain why that is not a penalty.

1:03
The tibia (lower leg) never changes in direction to suggest contact.

His foot clearly plants on the ground.

The biggest fault in the pro-penalty argument is no1 seems to acknowledge that it is possible for a bobble to happen for no reason and for a professional player to take an airswing.

It can happen...and we talk always about benefit of the doubt to the attacker's team for offside...I think benefit of the doubt should go to defenders for penalties when you can't be sure there was contact.

Think about that logic for a sec. Do you know how lucky a defender could be to illegally impede a player without looking like he touched him at all...I don't think this would occur that often!

And majority of penalty claims have clear contact. The question is whether the contact was significant enough...only occasionally is it a contact vs no contact issue!


But this is only my opinion...

 

[gull]

I'm not going to enter the conversation about the penalty. My issue is at a far more pervasive level.

Whenever the Socceroos play in Asia, or in a World Cup we constantly hear about the physical nature of the team. This is done by the media, players and particularly the managers against who they play. When the game is underway 50/50 challenges where there is no foul are judged to be Socceroo fouls. If an opposition player goes down a foul is given, if a Socceroo is fouled - nothing.

Ange has pulled the same con job. He has made every other team the Socceroos. These teams are nowhere near as skilful as his teams and shouldn't be on the pitch. If something happens it must be their fault. The media believes it, the refs believe it and the Roar fans certainly believe it.

I noticed at about 33 minutes into the Grand Final that the foul count was 7-2. It should have been 3-3. That may not sound like a big difference but it can change the flow of the game. The first 6-7 minutes of the Grand Final were dominated by Brisbane, then Brisbane were awarded two fouls where the Roar players ran into Glory players contesting the ball. These at worst were non-fouls - I would have given one the other way. After these consecutive fouls Brisbane started to get into the game. Later, just before I saw the foul cont a Brisbane player clattered into the back of a Glory player and the subsequent foul somehow went to the Roar.

I am utterly sick to death with the officiating that only sanctions one team. To me it is a greater blight on the game than diving, to the extent that it is in Australia, is.

Missed this earlier in the week but it is an excellent and very accurate post.

How Smeltz didn't get the free kick when his face got smashed is beyond me. Blatant elbow from Smith in my opinion but the commentators dismiss it as an accident and so does everyone else. It's amazing how much influence commentators have they have over people's opinion.

By the way it's still no penalty for mine. Watched it heaps and can't see that it a clear penalty. Berisha fouls Miller first anyway and he's offside both of which were missed before the penalty decision.

The fact that you need a million views of the slow motion and it's still not clear (to me anyway) means it was a hasty decision by the ref too.

 

[Wombat]

The ref couldn't wait to blow the whistle!

Watch his reaction.

Ange's mates on Fox Sports must think we are mugs.

Bozza explanation didn't make any sense at all.

 

[adz]

And what about what they said about the offside decision of Fox Sports FC... I think it was something along the lines of "ok we draw a line here, this is the offside line... and technically he is offside... but blah blah blah...."

What's all that about? Someone can be technically offside, in other words by the letter of the law, but some allowances can be made .... ??

 

[pjennings]

And what about what they said about the offside decision of Fox Sports FC... I think it was something along the lines of "ok we draw a line here, this is the offside line... and technically he is offside... but blah blah blah...."

What's all that about? Someone can be technically offside, in other words by the letter of the law, but some allowances can be made .... ??

I can undertsand why ARs miss close calls with a mistimed run when a player is running through. But wasn't Berisha coming back from an offside position?

 

[Kareem]

spot on PJ
No doubt that Perth scored an offside goal vs us...but that was a player running through

The Berisha incident was clearly obvious, and like you said running back from an offside position...I would be thinking Shield has to be investigating that. You can't be sloppy in a GF

But credit to the Perth fans...haven't heard them whinge about offside...obviously because they can't complain after the Mariners win!