Merged Thread - Danny Vukovic Red Card (outcome page 42)

[Jaza_SFC]

I think now they have some sort of precident to work out fair n just punishments now.lets hope they do.

A precedent which stands in direct contrast to the rule book (which clearly stated 12mnths), and also in direct contrast to the lower levels of the game nationwide - where such a push would've easily given you a 12mnth ban.

In a game that prides itself on applying the same rules at all levels of the game (thus the lack of technology), this is a cock-up.

 

[MrCelery]

if it come down to it im sure the 1000+ danny fans who signed that petition and others would be willing to chip in $5-$10 each to send danny to olympics and make the differance between australia winning gold or bombing out early

Yeah, although I'd chip in for the lad, not for the results we may get.

It basically means that when you compare the penalties he was given, he's just been given the chance to buy his ticket to Beijing for $10k.

Smacks of being a bit mercenary. But who cares.

I wonder if Sheild will contribute some of his Grand Final payment to the cause, as penance for his almighty f@#k up that led to this?

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

A precedent which stands in direct contrast to the rule book (which clearly stated 12mnths), and also in direct contrast to the lower levels of the game nationwide - where such a push would've easily given you a 12mnth ban.

Nothing unusual there - there is a lot that's let get at the higher levels that would defy belief at the lower ones (flying studs up challenges on the shin for one).

Although if you're going to say that a player in a local league would definitely get a year for something like that, then you have more faith in local judiciaries than most of us ;-)

Danny got off lighter than the regulations state (they've really bent the regulations here), but he hasn't gotten off as lightly as the other 3 players guilty of hitting a ref (I'm including Petrovski here).

Time to stop whinging about the inconsistency and move on, and hope that the FFA are going to start showing a little bit of integrity from now on, and hope that Shield will actually have the balls to do the right thing in the future and not penalise a player's actions just because the TV cameras got a good shot of it, but to actually be consistent. 

 

[Tez]

im so happy  verhead:
and 7 rounds isnt too bad to go with out him i guess?

 

[northernspirit]

7 rounds is 1/3 of the season which is alot, im not complaining i mean it could have been MUCH worse but in such a short season 7 rounds is substantial and i hope we get a more competant #2 than matthew trott... will be so good watching some Mariners in China though, bring it!

 

[graaant]

Well now we just need to see if Arnold will pick him after all this shake up with Bouzanis...

 

[FFC Mariner]

1/3 of a season will really hurt us badly IMHO.

Trotty has demonstrated that he is not quite yet at HAL standard and Redmayne is a kid.

Also, both are injured. We are faced with the prospect of giving up a squad slot for a keeper to cover for 7 games.

Filan seems logical.

As for Bouzanis, too young, too unproven

 

[Gav...]

its a shame he wont be playing for the mariners til next year though!!!

 

[midfielder]

Great result

 

[Bex]

Danny got off lighter than the regulations state (they've really bent the regulations here), but he hasn't gotten off as lightly as the other 3 players guilty of hitting a ref (I'm including Petrovski here).

Time to stop whinging about the inconsistency and move on, and hope that the FFA are going to start showing a little bit of integrity from now on, and hope that Shield will actually have the balls to do the right thing in the future and not penalise a player's actions just because the TV cameras got a good shot of it, but to actually be consistent. 

Perhaps if the rules didn't prescribe a compulsory 12 month ban, then refs would be more likely to red card a player for striking an official. In my opinion, the 4 examples you've mentioned don't deserve 12 months and its borderline as to whether you could really call them violent. I don't think the ref would have felt threatened by Danny or Sash and the ref's assistant wouldn't have felt as though violence was about to be committed. I think the finger in the chest, and the groups of angry players around the ref would have made the ref feel more threatened. But if the ref could give those guys an immediate red card for "physical dissent" (rather than violence or striking), with the possibile outcome e.g. 4 weeks suspension, then it could be used more often.

If the ref really felt threatened and/or believed he was struck violently, then perhaps its the right time to have a minimum 12 month term.

I know that could be seen as undermining the safety of the ref, but if they strictly applied the red cards to even the slightest physical dissent, and also added some sort of penalty for crowding the ref, then I think players would get the message.

 

[Omni]

it's six rounds
29-31 Aug - 1
5-7 Sep - 2
12-14 Sep - 3
19-21 Sep - 4
26-28 Sep -5
3-5 Oct - 6

As for other people paying for Danny's fine, pfft I wasn't the idiot that touched a referee he can pay it himself. Mr Vukovic is a very lucky boy, I just hope that ALL players, officials and judiciary members have learned from this. Hopefully this results in a crack down next year with real suspensions rather than this bizzare one handed down.

 

[Bex]

Yes, and great result. I hope Danny is happy with it.

I hope he is not overlooked for the Olyroos due to politics :-(

 

[Gen (MarinerMum)]

WooooooHoooo!!! He's available for the Olympic's .   verhead: verhead: 

Shove your rules up your arse    as no one person has applied the rules consistently, whether referee, FFA, player.  No one.  Shields ignored his linesman's call for hand ball in the box, players are crowding the ref and to me that is far more confronting that what Danny did, and maybe Breeze might find the balls,    to apply the rules.

PIGS MAY FLY TO.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Perhaps if the rules didn't prescribe a compulsory 12 month ban, then refs would be more likely to red card a player for striking an official. In my opinion, the 4 examples you've mentioned don't deserve 12 months and its borderline as to whether you could really call them violent. I don't think the ref would have felt threatened by Danny or Sash and the ref's assistant wouldn't have felt as though violence was about to be committed. I think the finger in the chest, and the groups of angry players around the ref would have made the ref feel more threatened. But if the ref could give those guys an immediate red card for "physical dissent" (rather than violence or striking), with the possibile outcome e.g. 4 weeks suspension, then it could be used more often.

If the ref really felt threatened and/or believed he was struck violently, then perhaps its the right time to have a minimum 12 month term.

I know that could be seen as undermining the safety of the ref, but if they strictly applied the red cards to even the slightest physical dissent, and also added some sort of penalty for crowding the ref, then I think players would get the message.

No referee should consider the suspension when deciding on a sanction - the referees shouldn't even be aware of them, IMO.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the on-field decision.

I don't think the 12 month suspension has anything to do with the lack of discipline

1)griffiths - was sanctioned for verbal dissent because the strike wasn't felt, and neither the ref nor AR were watching him
2)Milligan - I'd assume Shield just had a brain freeze.  However, I know that he ducks away from big decisions when he can in order to make himself look good, so perhaps he was banking on nobody seeing it
3)Petrovski - was overshadowed by Vukovic

IMO they all deserve red cards, because IMO if you contact - or attempt to contact - the ref in any aggressive/intimidatory manner, you should be sent.

You're right that these incidents aren't exactly 'violent', yet they're forced to come under 'violent conduct'; IMO there needs to be an 8th red card offence, specifically for these sort of incidents.

However, a referee assault was inevitable; players have been crowding the ref more and becoming increasingly abusive.  Any idiot could see what was going to happen.

I do feel that Milligan's finger was far more aggressive than what Danny did.

I don't really have a problem with mandating a minimum 12 months for these offences, but then again I might be a little biased being a referee myself.  The main thing I want is integrity and consistency - that's a massive part of justice. 

 

[marinerbhoy]

wow. i cant say i agree with this. whats the point in having laws and standards. the FFA could not have handled this any worse

 

[Mariner Girl]

I'm on holidays in Dubai and just got on the internet to catch up on things. Fantastic news for Danny.  verhead:
Catch up with everyone when I get back at the end of the month.
BTW - I rode a camel yesterday and before you all say poor bloody camel - he is fine  :

 

[Demented Freak]

Well there you go, never again can you lot claim that SFC gets preferential treatment. He's banned, but then he's not, then he's banned again.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Well there you go, never again can you lot claim that SFC gets preferential treatment. He's banned, but then he's not, then he's banned again.

Yes we can - Milligan did something worse (most people I know - including neutrals - think that a poke in the chest while yelling at somebody is far more aggressive than slapping their hand as you storm off) and didn't get anything for it - not so much as a yellow card.

Personally I think the idea of one team getting preferential treatment, or another team being deliberately hard done by, is ludicrous and a total cop-out, but I just couldn't let an argument as bad as yours stand

 

[soccersensei]

Absolutely brilliant result.
Danny deserves nothing less.

That said, a two month ban, a ten thousand dollar fine, media profiling, and two months of gut wrenching emotional heartache... certainly implies there is still a strong punishment in place to me... Yet some people clearly feel that unless it follows the "Laws" exactly as written down, then its tantamount to giving the ok to violent conduct.

I'm sincerely surprised at the number of people who feel that what has occured with Danny's reduced sentence sends such a mixed message or shows tolerance towards bad conduct. I must be crazy, because I'd be nothing less than staggered to hear that any player in the A league isn't thinking by now, holy shit, after what Vukovic just went through, there's no way I'm touching a ref!

There is much talk of "consistency" and if that means anyone who offends should be made to answer for what they have done, of course. Yet a blanket execution of pre ordained punishments does not reflect consistency. In actuality it represents primitive law. What strikes me - if you'll forgive the pun ;D - is that some people, seem to see the nature of "law" as simply a static and inflexible set of rules and punishments. The purpose of the law is not to punish, it is to serve and protect...and to best meet these demands, most of the worlds legal systems have evolved via the understanding that to be truly fair and just the law by nature needs, like a living creature, to be able to respond to the particular situation or circumstance that is being brought before it. It is firm in structure and guidelines, yet essentially organic in process. AND FOR GOOD BLOODY REASON. Laws are the neccessary guidelines through which we maintain fair governance, practices and conduct, yet laws are not full proof and nor should they be treated as such. The legal system understands this. It is the reason the appeals system exists -- so that new evidence may be considered - or further relevant information or circumstances which may also have baring on the particular application of a law, and the severity of a punishment can be considered to best achieve a fair and just outcome. The ability to appeal and modify a sentence is one of the greatest facets of law and I find the hard line blanket justice approach a depressing idea which belonged to the middle ages where it was most fervently applied.

Danny knows he was wrong, he expresses great desire to atone and change (The most altruistic purpose of punishment) he has suffered, and he will continue to suffer through the further punishment that has been meted out... Yet also through consideration and obviously long and careful assessment one of his greatest dreams has not been denied to him, and I believe this is a wonderful piece of justice and cause for great celebration - and certainly not righteous indignation, or zealous condemnation.

SO CONGRATS  DANNY BOY!!!!!
SHINE BRIGHT LAD!!!!
AND ENJOY HAMILTON  ;D ;D ;D

verhead: verhead: verhead: verhead: verhead: verhead: verhead: verhead: verhead: verhead:

 

[bikinigirl]

What strikes me - if you'll forgive the pun ;D

. only if it was intentional 

though [size=6pt](in fact i think it would close off the thread rather nicely)[/size]