FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
LG - living legend
-
Join ccmfans.net
ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!
If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.
ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.
Merged Thread - Danny Vukovic Red Card (outcome page 42)
- Thread starter merrinator
- Start date
Bex
Well-Known Member
Capn Gus Bloodbeard said:
If they take the $10,000 fine into account in that consideration, then it should be a suitable decision for local committees.
The justification is of course very subjective and I obviously don't know what was said in the appeal, but I'm guessing it would be along the lines of ruining a young players career for what was a fairly sheepish and innocuous action. Sure, it is something that must not be allowed in the game, but 7 games A-League suspension in a 21 round season and $10,000 is an appropriate sentence in my opinion. Don't forget, he will also miss the entire pre-season.
It is great that Danny Vukovic will be able to go to the Olympics. Having attended the Sydney 2000 Olympics myself, I know that there is something very special about the event as it gathers the best athletes from all around the world for a festival in sports that is not just about football. And Danny earned his chance as well, being a young goalkeeper that has established himself as a regular since the inception of the A-League. Good luck to Danny and the whole squad as they embark on what will be the first major international tournament for most of the players.
That said, the FFA Appeals Committee which made the decision could be setting a very dangerous precedent. The original 15 month ban, with 3 months suspended, was originally reduced to 12 months on appeal with no allowance for the Olympics. The latest appeal has seen a major U-turn with the ban being reduced to 9 months and critically, there will now be a window during this ban period to allow Danny to play in the Olympics. It is great news for Danny and he has really earned this opportunity. However, what does this ban mean in terms of a precedent for the Independent Appeals Committee?
Surely the committee understands the principle of precedent given that the committee consisted of two QCs and one former professional. The effect of the present ban is that Vukovic will miss the pre-season as well as about seven games of the regular season when the A-League commences again. While the length of the ban, which is 9 months, sounds imposing, the actual effect is that he will only miss a handful of games. Apart from the fact that this seems like a pretty light sentence, does the decision create a precedent for seeking windows in bans because of the importance of games or the fact that the player will be on national duty? In the AFL, there are often hard-luck stories of players missing the grand-final because they received a ban in the games leading up. The AFL disciplinary committee itself has a dubious record with he left off Barry Hall for a striking charge. However, that may be an error in the decision rather than an error in principle.
The FFA Independent Appeals Committee has probably made an error in principle by allowing this window during the ban. While Im sure that if future incidents do arise, the committee will try and confine the Vukovic situation to the facts of the case which may stop it from becoming a dangerous precedent. Additionally, I dont think that windows will be created for individual A-League games because the window created here is for a tournament that is independent of the A-League. However, you can still see this precedent being pushed in future cases, particularly if the ban affects national team duties. The precedent could be justified in the sense that your behaviour in the A-League should not affect your ability to participate in the national team. However, this does break with international convention such as the case of Kallon which was banned for drug use without exception.
And in any case, while national team selection should be based primarily on merit, character should also be an important consideration. If your week to week performance for your club affects your selection, your on-field behaviour should also a relevant consideration, including any ill-disciplined acts. There is no one Danny Vukovic that plays for the Mariners and another that plays for the Olyroos, they are both one and the same person. The Appeals Committee should not make a decision that suggests that there is one Danny Vukovic who desires to play in the Olympics while another desires to cope a ban. This is the effect of creating a window in the ban and with this, the FFA is playing some games dangerous.
That said, the FFA Appeals Committee which made the decision could be setting a very dangerous precedent. The original 15 month ban, with 3 months suspended, was originally reduced to 12 months on appeal with no allowance for the Olympics. The latest appeal has seen a major U-turn with the ban being reduced to 9 months and critically, there will now be a window during this ban period to allow Danny to play in the Olympics. It is great news for Danny and he has really earned this opportunity. However, what does this ban mean in terms of a precedent for the Independent Appeals Committee?
Surely the committee understands the principle of precedent given that the committee consisted of two QCs and one former professional. The effect of the present ban is that Vukovic will miss the pre-season as well as about seven games of the regular season when the A-League commences again. While the length of the ban, which is 9 months, sounds imposing, the actual effect is that he will only miss a handful of games. Apart from the fact that this seems like a pretty light sentence, does the decision create a precedent for seeking windows in bans because of the importance of games or the fact that the player will be on national duty? In the AFL, there are often hard-luck stories of players missing the grand-final because they received a ban in the games leading up. The AFL disciplinary committee itself has a dubious record with he left off Barry Hall for a striking charge. However, that may be an error in the decision rather than an error in principle.
The FFA Independent Appeals Committee has probably made an error in principle by allowing this window during the ban. While Im sure that if future incidents do arise, the committee will try and confine the Vukovic situation to the facts of the case which may stop it from becoming a dangerous precedent. Additionally, I dont think that windows will be created for individual A-League games because the window created here is for a tournament that is independent of the A-League. However, you can still see this precedent being pushed in future cases, particularly if the ban affects national team duties. The precedent could be justified in the sense that your behaviour in the A-League should not affect your ability to participate in the national team. However, this does break with international convention such as the case of Kallon which was banned for drug use without exception.
And in any case, while national team selection should be based primarily on merit, character should also be an important consideration. If your week to week performance for your club affects your selection, your on-field behaviour should also a relevant consideration, including any ill-disciplined acts. There is no one Danny Vukovic that plays for the Mariners and another that plays for the Olyroos, they are both one and the same person. The Appeals Committee should not make a decision that suggests that there is one Danny Vukovic who desires to play in the Olympics while another desires to cope a ban. This is the effect of creating a window in the ban and with this, the FFA is playing some games dangerous.
Vukovic keen to lose tag
Article from: Herald Sun
Tom Smithies
May 19, 2008 12:00am
DANNY Vukovic knows his life will never be the same after being labelled as the goalkeeper who struck a referee in the grand final.
But the 23-year-old Central Coast keeper yesterday spoke of his determination to restore his reputation and become a role model.
After striking the arm of referee Mark Shield in the A-League grand final, Vukovic was given a nine-month ban. After two appeals, his ban was split to allow him to play at the Beijing Olympics.
Vukovic said he had had to be talked into mounting the successful appeal after his brain-snap.
"I'm not too sure what was going through my head. It happened so quickly," the Olyroo said.
"It's very embarrassing. I turned to run back to my goal. It was as if somehow I couldn't take in what I had done. Then he blew the whistle and I knew I'd be sent off.
"I didn't know what the penalty would be, but a few people said anything from six weeks to 12 weeks. Then I got a call from a journalist on the bus home who told me it was from one year to life.
"I just felt scared all of a sudden. The Olympics were in the forefront of my mind and I was so angry with myself for what I had done."
"I'm determined to lose that label, and earn the right to be known for the good things I do on the field. Ultimately you listen to what the referee says and what he says goes. It's as simple as that. You can't change their mind.
"If I thought I was going through a tough time - when my girlfriend was lying in intensive care, I also saw some families and patients in there - what I was going through just doesn't compare. There's a lot more to life than just football."
& I found this while looking for the KFC add....
Total Football interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJXHOO4i64
Article from: Herald Sun
Tom Smithies
May 19, 2008 12:00am
DANNY Vukovic knows his life will never be the same after being labelled as the goalkeeper who struck a referee in the grand final.
But the 23-year-old Central Coast keeper yesterday spoke of his determination to restore his reputation and become a role model.
After striking the arm of referee Mark Shield in the A-League grand final, Vukovic was given a nine-month ban. After two appeals, his ban was split to allow him to play at the Beijing Olympics.
Vukovic said he had had to be talked into mounting the successful appeal after his brain-snap.
"I'm not too sure what was going through my head. It happened so quickly," the Olyroo said.
"It's very embarrassing. I turned to run back to my goal. It was as if somehow I couldn't take in what I had done. Then he blew the whistle and I knew I'd be sent off.
"I didn't know what the penalty would be, but a few people said anything from six weeks to 12 weeks. Then I got a call from a journalist on the bus home who told me it was from one year to life.
"I just felt scared all of a sudden. The Olympics were in the forefront of my mind and I was so angry with myself for what I had done."
"I'm determined to lose that label, and earn the right to be known for the good things I do on the field. Ultimately you listen to what the referee says and what he says goes. It's as simple as that. You can't change their mind.
"If I thought I was going through a tough time - when my girlfriend was lying in intensive care, I also saw some families and patients in there - what I was going through just doesn't compare. There's a lot more to life than just football."
& I found this while looking for the KFC add....
Total Football interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJXHOO4i64
midfielder
Well-Known Member
good stuff
bikinigirl
Well-Known Member
. when i first saw the posting i thought - is that the one that called the handball or missed it?
. nice to see an admission though, maybe he has now set a precedent and in years to come when officials retire they will have a 3 day press conference to point out a few of the things they got wrong
. nice to see an admission though, maybe he has now set a precedent and in years to come when officials retire they will have a 3 day press conference to point out a few of the things they got wrong
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
He was the other guy who didn't see anything. Gibson was at that end of the park (at the Jets supporters end)- it was the AR at the far end who spotted the handball.
mariners4ever
Well-Known Member
but in that article it says that gibson is one of shield's close friends...
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
Hmm? What's your point?
mariners4ever
Well-Known Member
Capn Gus Bloodbeard said:
my point is that shields could had word with his mate
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
During the match Shield did ask Gibson if he saw a handball - Gibson said no.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 8
- Guests online
- 689
- Total visitors
- 697
