• 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.

Piss Ants V Mariners

Huddo

Well-Known Member
Wrong and right there Capn - I know of at least 3 red cards that have been rescinded in the A League - Cristiano and Allsopp both in the 2009 (?) Grand Final and Besart Berisha for Victory against Brisbane about 4 years ago.

I agree with you - it doesn't natter whether he called the ref a disgrace or a f***ing disgrace it is still "using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures"

I had heard a different version - from a very much inside source that he said "that's a disgrace - it wasn't a f**king penalty" - he didn't call the ref a disgrace just the incident (now that is splitting hairs) and if you gave a red card for every time someone said that's not a f**king free kick/corner/throw in/offside/handball etc we would have no players left by half time in any game.

Anyway - hopefully it is rescinded and some sanity prevails.

Now for a bit of controversy - and I will say in advance this will not be popular.

I was as disgusted/annoyed/angry as anybody with some of the decisions during the game. But my anger is directed solely at Adam Fielding not Kurt Ams. I know Ams isn't popular with a lot (probably most) of our supporters but just settle down and look at things realistically.

The VAR didn't make any of the decisions against us - nor did he award any of the penalties. Every decision was made by Fielding - and technically they can all be interpreted as correct. Not that I agree with any of them but bear me out.

The first one Mauk knocks the ball pass Tongyik, Tongkik pulls out and pulls back and Mauk throws himself forward. It is obvious that Tongyik hasn't played the ball and the referee gets confirmation that there was contact between Mauk and Tongyik - which there clearly was. The referee had already made up his mind that it was a foul and he sought confirmation that there was contact. The fact that Mauk threw himself into the contact wasn't taken into account by the ref when it should've been,

Second pen - Nisbet has hold of Mauk - no question. Mauk also has hold of Nisbet and uses his body weight to drag them both to the ground. VAR confirms that Nisbet did hold his opponent - therefore penalty. Soft as F**k and the the VAR could only confirm what he could see on the angles available. What amazes me is that the referee didn't pick that up in the first place and the person he should've asked was the AR standing almost in line less than 15 metres away with a clear view of both players holding each other. Its the first person the ref should've gone to.

Neither of these would've been overturned had the referee gone to the review screen.

Third one - correctly referred by the VAR because there WAS a handball in the penalty area - again no question. The referee didn't award the penalty initially so he needed irrefutable evidence on the replay that it was a handball. Everyone has seen there was enough doubt that the ball came off his foot first, maybe even his face, that the opposition player was in such close proximity that it couldnt be avoided and even balancing your body in that manner is not an unnatural position. However it was ADAM FIELDING, the referee who made the decision that it had not come off Kye's foot, the attacker was far enough away for contact to be avoided and the hand was in an unnatural position - not Kurt Ams the VAR who was actually doing his job and referring a handball in the box for the referee to decide on.

So tear Fielding apart as much as you want, but spare the VAR who actually got his job right. We have a better record under AMS than we do nearly all other A League referees who have refereed us more than 3 or 4 times. Because of our terrible performances over the last few seasons, we don't have a better than 30% win record under any referee (5 or more games). Our worst is Jonathon Barreiro who we have won 0 games out of 10 when he has refereed.
Fair analysis, disagree in certain areas, as for Ams Ref record, I suggest you look at his record Reffing Adelaide, last stat I read was 10 wins from 14 (11 from 15 from sources on here), a majority away from home, the only team that has a higher winning percentage is Syd FC.
 

true believer

Well-Known Member
Commentators had plenty to say as well and in particular Harper. Still think it will be swept under the carpet. Their problem is if they suspend Ams and Fielding they probably don’t have enough cover for them. Terrible situation and not being punished as they should be is not a good look. Harper had a go at them for putting a very inexperienced ref in the VAR for the Scum game but they have no one else. VAR can be done from anywhere these days snd is not taxing health wise so this shouldn’t be happening.
appoint the top referee's from npl bris,syd,mel,sa and wa
and drop fielding,stephen lucas and ams .
we could do a lot worse .
 
Last edited:

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
@pinklady

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

It is an offence if a player:

touches the ball with their hand/arm when:

  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)


Unless VAR could tell with certainty that Rowles didn't touch it before it hit his arm, it was 100% the wrong decision for VAR to intervene - and for Fielding to go with it
 

scottmac

Well-Known Member
@pinklady

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

It is an offence if a player:

touches the ball with their hand/arm when:


  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)


Unless VAR could tell with certainty that Rowles didn't touch it before it hit his arm, it was 100% the wrong decision for VAR to intervene - and for Fielding to go with it
Yep. I can't understand people saying that the VAR didn't give that penalty. Technically schmecnically (thanks FP) The VAR was certain it was a pen, looking at you Ams, and intervened then swayed the on field official to his interpretation. Like I said previously, I believe that if the VAR is to suggest a review in the case of anything but goal line, any field boundary and offside (ie: cases where it's a definitive yes or no) there should be a side line review by the match official and zero communication between VAR and on field ref. We only need one interpretation of the laws. This is where VAR is being let down. You can understand one official making a mistake. The game has lived with it for many many years.
 

true believer

Well-Known Member

Allreet?

Active Member
Wrong and right there Capn - I know of at least 3 red cards that have been rescinded in the A League - Cristiano and Allsopp both in the 2009 (?) Grand Final and Besart Berisha for Victory against Brisbane about 4 years ago.

I agree with you - it doesn't natter whether he called the ref a disgrace or a f***ing disgrace it is still "using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures"

I had heard a different version - from a very much inside source that he said "that's a disgrace - it wasn't a f**king penalty" - he didn't call the ref a disgrace just the incident (now that is splitting hairs) and if you gave a red card for every time someone said that's not a f**king free kick/corner/throw in/offside/handball etc we would have no players left by half time in any game.

Anyway - hopefully it is rescinded and some sanity prevails.

Now for a bit of controversy - and I will say in advance this will not be popular.

I was as disgusted/annoyed/angry as anybody with some of the decisions during the game. But my anger is directed solely at Adam Fielding not Kurt Ams. I know Ams isn't popular with a lot (probably most) of our supporters but just settle down and look at things realistically.

The VAR didn't make any of the decisions against us - nor did he award any of the penalties. Every decision was made by Fielding - and technically they can all be interpreted as correct. Not that I agree with any of them but bear me out.

The first one Mauk knocks the ball pass Tongyik, Tongkik pulls out and pulls back and Mauk throws himself forward. It is obvious that Tongyik hasn't played the ball and the referee gets confirmation that there was contact between Mauk and Tongyik - which there clearly was. The referee had already made up his mind that it was a foul and he sought confirmation that there was contact. The fact that Mauk threw himself into the contact wasn't taken into account by the ref when it should've been,

Second pen - Nisbet has hold of Mauk - no question. Mauk also has hold of Nisbet and uses his body weight to drag them both to the ground. VAR confirms that Nisbet did hold his opponent - therefore penalty. Soft as F**k and the the VAR could only confirm what he could see on the angles available. What amazes me is that the referee didn't pick that up in the first place and the person he should've asked was the AR standing almost in line less than 15 metres away with a clear view of both players holding each other. Its the first person the ref should've gone to.

Neither of these would've been overturned had the referee gone to the review screen.

Third one - correctly referred by the VAR because there WAS a handball in the penalty area - again no question. The referee didn't award the penalty initially so he needed irrefutable evidence on the replay that it was a handball. Everyone has seen there was enough doubt that the ball came off his foot first, maybe even his face, that the opposition player was in such close proximity that it couldnt be avoided and even balancing your body in that manner is not an unnatural position. However it was ADAM FIELDING, the referee who made the decision that it had not come off Kye's foot, the attacker was far enough away for contact to be avoided and the hand was in an unnatural position - not Kurt Ams the VAR who was actually doing his job and referring a handball in the box for the referee to decide on.

So tear Fielding apart as much as you want, but spare the VAR who actually got his job right. We have a better record under AMS than we do nearly all other A League referees who have refereed us more than 3 or 4 times. Because of our terrible performances over the last few seasons, we don't have a better than 30% win record under any referee (5 or more games). Our worst is Jonathon Barreiro who we have won 0 games out of 10 when he has refereed.
Disagree Pink Lady.

VAR should not have intervened in the third pen and should have intervened in the other two.

Some people are forgetting that VAR is not supposed to intervene except in really obviously wrong situations. First pen was obviously wrong (as called by the commentators). Second pen was very arguably wrong (again as called by the commentators).

Third pen - you still can't tell whether it hit Rowles' arm before hitting his leg or face despite numerous slo-mo and still pictures. The refs could only guess as to whether the ball hit the arm first. In other words, it wasn't a clear and obvious error, so does not fall within the scope of VAR intervention.
 

pinklady

Well-Known Member
Disagree Pink Lady.

VAR should not have intervened in the third pen and should have intervened in the other two.

Some people are forgetting that VAR is not supposed to intervene except in really obviously wrong situations. First pen was obviously wrong (as called by the commentators). Second pen was very arguably wrong (again as called by the commentators).

Third pen - you still can't tell whether it hit Rowles' arm before hitting his leg or face despite numerous slo-mo and still pictures. The refs could only guess as to whether the ball hit the arm first. In other words, it wasn't a clear and obvious error, so does not fall within the scope of VAR intervention.
That's not what the IFAB states. The VAR does not intervene - simple. The VAR cannot in initiate a review - only the referee. The VAR can recommend a review in a number of instances - it is still up to the referee to accept that. And it is not limited to clear and obvious error - it also includes serious missed incident. The referee can only change his original decision if there was a clear and obvious error. In the first two there was a foul committed by our players - yes it was soft, Mauk contributed to both of them by diving and they should never have been given.
I agree with you on the third one - but it comes under serious missed incident as the referee allowed play to continue so the VAR should have recommended a review. How Fielding came to the conclusion that it was a penalty is still beyond me but it was not the intervention of the VAR - it was Fieldings interpretation of the video.
I am absolutely filthy with Fieldings refereeing and decisions - I think any anger towards the VAR is misguided.
 

style_cafe

Well-Known Member
Yep. I can't understand people saying that the VAR didn't give that penalty. Technically schmecnically (thanks FP) The VAR was certain it was a pen, looking at you Ams, and intervened then swayed the on field official to his interpretation. Like I said previously, I believe that if the VAR is to suggest a review in the case of anything but goal line, any field boundary and offside (ie: cases where it's a definitive yes or no) there should be a side line review by the match official and zero communication between VAR and on field ref. We only need one interpretation of the laws. This is where VAR is being let down. You can understand one official making a mistake. The game has lived with it for many many years.
This is why we, as fans, need to be able to hear the conversations between the referee,AR`s and the VAR so we all know what is going on.
When this occurs the referees and AR`s,VAR, 4th Official can then be scrutinised properly and the betting public can then be assured that their money is fairly won/lost...:popcorn:
A failure to do this will always bring the game and put match officials into disrepute.
 
Last edited:

scottmac

Well-Known Member
This is why we,as fans,need to be able to hear the conversation between the referee and the VAR so we all know what is going on.
Haven`t we paid for that in our tickets...:popcorn:
There shouldn't be a conversation. Just a beep/noise that signals review required then the ref looks at the replay. One ref, one interpretation.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
So, if it's true that Rowles said 'that's a disgrace - it wasn't a f**king penalty' then he's lucky Fielding botched it; had he simply issued him with a yellow there'd be no getting out of it and he'd be suspended.

That's not what the IFAB states. The VAR does not intervene - simple. The VAR cannot in initiate a review - only the referee. The VAR can recommend a review in a number of instances - it is still up to the referee to accept that. And it is not limited to clear and obvious error - it also includes serious missed incident. The referee can only change his original decision if there was a clear and obvious error. In the first two there was a foul committed by our players - yes it was soft, Mauk contributed to both of them by diving and they should never have been given.
I agree with you on the third one - but it comes under serious missed incident as the referee allowed play to continue so the VAR should have recommended a review. How Fielding came to the conclusion that it was a penalty is still beyond me but it was not the intervention of the VAR - it was Fieldings interpretation of the video.
I am absolutely filthy with Fieldings refereeing and decisions - I think any anger towards the VAR is misguided.
It absolutely was the intervention of the VAR. VAR is only to recommend an on-field review if they believe a clear and obvious error has occurred - and I don't accept that one hadn't occurred the first 2 times; even Delovski has agreed on that.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
There shouldn't be a conversation. Just a beep/noise that signals review required then the ref looks at the replay. One ref, one interpretation.
So, say the ref awards a penalty for handball. VAR sees that there's a difficult to spot deflection before, one that would nullify the handball. Or any one of a thousand things where it might not be obvious at first what the issue is.



Pings the ref, puts it on the screen. Ref is standing there thinking 'I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at here, what are you wasting my time for?'.

The VAR needs to put forward their observations otherwise the ref may not even be looking at the right thing.
 

Online statistics

Members online
9
Guests online
192
Total visitors
201

ccmfans.net merch

For more info or questions about the merch, check out this post

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
6,264
Messages
298,222
Members
2,295
Latest member
ChuckJaf
Top