-
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.
'Vukovic erupts at second ref' - SMH
- Thread starter fedelta
- Start date
MountainsMariner
Member
Deej said:
And if players didn't make mistakes we would score much more and never let the opponents score!
Referees and players mistakes are part of what makes sport so frustrating. But they are part of the game and will always be.
Deej
Well-Known Member
MountainsMariner said:
Agreed - but referees should be of a higher standard IMO, and that is my point.
Poor decisions could could clubs a lot of money, I honestly believe that referees should be accountable for their decisions on the field good or bad! When Porter got sent off by O'Leary against QLD we all know it was a shocking decision, Smitta didn't get 1 apology. What should happen IMO is if a referee makes a poor decision (like Danny did when he struck Shield) they should be reviewed and made accountable.
It's ok to punish a player for making a bed decision, but not ok to punish a referee for making a bad decision!
I can see how the GF was extreme circumstances; the whole stretch from the 5-4 Syd loss, to the race to the Prem and the finals series, through to the GF seemed like crucial refereeing decisions continually cost CCM at critical moments...
Although that's no excuse, that lead-up to the dying moments of the GF is a completely different set of circumstances and emotions to a pre-season trial against a visiting junior squad, in high-school grounds... nothing at stake, and you're not even playing at the time???
I wasn't there, didn't see what happened, but nor were most people (especially non-supporters, AKA potential supporters). While I am well aware of possible media sensationalism, these reports are all I can draw from and they paint a worrying picture.
Although that's no excuse, that lead-up to the dying moments of the GF is a completely different set of circumstances and emotions to a pre-season trial against a visiting junior squad, in high-school grounds... nothing at stake, and you're not even playing at the time???
I wasn't there, didn't see what happened, but nor were most people (especially non-supporters, AKA potential supporters). While I am well aware of possible media sensationalism, these reports are all I can draw from and they paint a worrying picture.
midfielder
Well-Known Member
Danny ........ hit a ref in the grand final .......... all over the news for the last few months ......... of course he is being watched ...... DAH
AS for refereeing being shit, well someone has to do it, keep attacking them amd who will put up their hand.
AS for refereeing being shit, well someone has to do it, keep attacking them amd who will put up their hand.
Bear
Well-Known Member
Capn Gus Bloodbeard said:
Bit hard when people who weren't there (thats you) immediately assume it's the players fault once they hear about a decision with the slightest bit of controversy.
For the record, I was there, the game was getting a bit out of control, this incident happened right in front of the mariners bench, from a distance it DID look like the whole bench was having a go, and it did look like for some reason that Danny was singled out from the others, so maybe YOU should not jump to conclusions either.
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
Deej said:
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. You probably don't realise just how much flak is copped by referees over correct decisions.
If I'm refereeing a match, and an attacker goes down in the box as a result of a heavy challenge, then I have 2 possible decisions - penalty or no penalty.
One of those decisions is correct.
Each of those decisions only has one side agreeing with it.
Thus, chances are, no matter which option I take, half the people there are going to yell at me. (actually, if the attacking team reckons it should be a red for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but I know it isn't even though I put down a penalty, then I could end up with every person there yelling at me
Hey, it happens!!)Believe me, I wish minimising abuse was as simply as getting more decisions right - I'm sure every referee does - but that simply isn't the reality.
Bearinator said:
Yawn. I know you like to believe that referees are directly responsible for player's indiscretions, but where exactly have I jumped to any conclusions? As I - and others - have said, even if the referee got the decision wrong, it's still pointless arguing, and only harms your team by doing so. I also suggested a few possible reasons WHY Danny may have been singled out (by your post it sounds like you didn't actually hear what was said, did you?) - one of which may have been nothing more than 'well I've gotta pick somebody, the keeper stands out most so you'll do'. It's the reality of being a keeper - and it's considered far better match management than booking each player involved.
I doubt Danny is being targeted because of the GF incident - if the referees were going to do that to 'look out for their own', then don't you think they would've come out after Griffiths? After all, he didn't even gut punished for attacking a referee. So while possible, I think to immediately suggest Danny's going to be targeted is a little irrational - a more likely conclusion is that he was targeted because he stood out in some way - said the worst, the loudest, the first, the last words, was more animated than the rest. Or maybe it was by simple nature that he stood out more because he wore the keeper's jersey. Yeah, sometimes referees will single out players in these incidents.
Maybe we should be grateful that's the approach - if it wasn't then we'd be seeing a lot more players get booked. If that wasn't the approach typically adopted, then I'd say the entire bench would've been booked - including Danny - and not just one of the players.
After all, they've all shown dissent, so by the laws of the game the referee IS supposed to caution each of them.
Was the referee's decision on the tackle correct? Who knows, but I don't think it's relevant.
Deej said:
I agree that referees should be held accountable. Perhaps part of the problem is that there's no '2nd division' to drop referees to. FFA have a dogged faith in their top 3 referees, and they appoint them no matter what - we've seen those referees make massive errors, week after week, and have no accountability. Sure, their inspector may tear them a new one, but that's obviously not enough.
However, some officials HAVE been dropped for performance reasons throughout the seasons. It's simply because we don't hear about it in the media that we continue to assume that the officials aren't accountable. They are, but it just seems that some of them are immune to accountability. The entire system is under review, so hopefully that will change.
When a player who has assaulted a referee, suffered a massive suspension as a result, then comes back and gets booked for having a go at a referee straight away, then I think we need to start looking at our own problems.
Even when the referees get the decisions right, they still get abused -so trying to blame the referee's decisions for the abuse is simply trying to shift blame and ignore the discipline problem. Which only perpetuates the issue. Which leads to us losing key players in important matches.
It isn't poor refereeing that upsets people - it's the perception of poor refereeing. Sometimes people will perceive poor refereeing because it is poor, sometimes they'll perceive it through their own ignorance. Similarly, sometimes the ref will screw up, but won't cop any flak for it because nobody realises he's screwed up. Deal with the refereeing problems and it will help, but it won't come anywhere close to stopping the problem of abuse. Deal with the culture that encourages, even expects abuse, and condones it by blaming the officials instead of the players who can't control themselves, and the issue will be addressed - whilst keeping a close eye on the officials and make sure that stubborn and poor policy isn't getting in the way of doing what's best for the game, and isn't getting in the way of addressing the issue of underperforming officials nor prevents us from allowing the upcoming talent to have a go.
Everybody needs to be held responsible for their actions - but the more we try and blame everybody else, the more we just huff and puff, go around in circles without achieving anything, and perpetuate the problems we suffer.
MountainsMariner
Member
Deej said:
First, referees should be accountable for their mistakes.
Why should referees be "of a higher standard". At worst they should be equally as mistake free. Players are paid a mile more money and make much bigger game breaking mistakes.
In the GF if Vidmar hadn't of slipped over, if Aloi$i or Petrovski had got their shots on target, we would not be whining over Mark Shield missing one deliberate handball that was obscured by 21 bodies in the penalty area.
From the dug out
Well-Known Member
Capn Gus Bloodbeard said:Deej said:
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. You probably don't realise just how much flak is copped by referees over correct decisions.
If I'm refereeing a match, and an attacker goes down in the box as a result of a heavy challenge, then I have 2 possible decisions - penalty or no penalty.
One of those decisions is correct.
Each of those decisions only has one side agreeing with it.
Thus, chances are, no matter which option I take, half the people there are going to yell at me. (actually, if the attacking team reckons it should be a red for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but I know it isn't even though I put down a penalty, then I could end up with every person there yelling at me
Believe me, I wish minimising abuse was as simply as getting more decisions right - I'm sure every referee does - but that simply isn't the reality.
Bearinator said:
Yawn. I know you like to believe that referees are directly responsible for player's indiscretions, but where exactly have I jumped to any conclusions? As I - and others - have said, even if the referee got the decision wrong, it's still pointless arguing, and only harms your team by doing so. I also suggested a few possible reasons WHY Danny may have been singled out (by your post it sounds like you didn't actually hear what was said, did you?) - one of which may have been nothing more than 'well I've gotta pick somebody, the keeper stands out most so you'll do'. It's the reality of being a keeper - and it's considered far better match management than booking each player involved.
I doubt Danny is being targeted because of the GF incident - if the referees were going to do that to 'look out for their own', then don't you think they would've come out after Griffiths? After all, he didn't even gut punished for attacking a referee. So while possible, I think to immediately suggest Danny's going to be targeted is a little irrational - a more likely conclusion is that he was targeted because he stood out in some way - said the worst, the loudest, the first, the last words, was more animated than the rest. Or maybe it was by simple nature that he stood out more because he wore the keeper's jersey. Yeah, sometimes referees will single out players in these incidents.
Maybe we should be grateful that's the approach - if it wasn't then we'd be seeing a lot more players get booked. If that wasn't the approach typically adopted, then I'd say the entire bench would've been booked - including Danny - and not just one of the players.
After all, they've all shown dissent, so by the laws of the game the referee IS supposed to caution each of them.
Was the referee's decision on the tackle correct? Who knows, but I don't think it's relevant.
Deej said:
I agree that referees should be held accountable. Perhaps part of the problem is that there's no '2nd division' to drop referees to. FFA have a dogged faith in their top 3 referees, and they appoint them no matter what - we've seen those referees make massive errors, week after week, and have no accountability. Sure, their inspector may tear them a new one, but that's obviously not enough.
However, some officials HAVE been dropped for performance reasons throughout the seasons. It's simply because we don't hear about it in the media that we continue to assume that the officials aren't accountable. They are, but it just seems that some of them are immune to accountability. The entire system is under review, so hopefully that will change.
When a player who has assaulted a referee, suffered a massive suspension as a result, then comes back and gets booked for having a go at a referee straight away, then I think we need to start looking at our own problems.
Even when the referees get the decisions right, they still get abused -so trying to blame the referee's decisions for the abuse is simply trying to shift blame and ignore the discipline problem. Which only perpetuates the issue. Which leads to us losing key players in important matches.
It isn't poor refereeing that upsets people - it's the perception of poor refereeing. Sometimes people will perceive poor refereeing because it is poor, sometimes they'll perceive it through their own ignorance. Similarly, sometimes the ref will screw up, but won't cop any flak for it because nobody realises he's screwed up. Deal with the refereeing problems and it will help, but it won't come anywhere close to stopping the problem of abuse. Deal with the culture that encourages, even expects abuse, and condones it by blaming the officials instead of the players who can't control themselves, and the issue will be addressed - whilst keeping a close eye on the officials and make sure that stubborn and poor policy isn't getting in the way of doing what's best for the game, and isn't getting in the way of addressing the issue of underperforming officials nor prevents us from allowing the upcoming talent to have a go.
Everybody needs to be held responsible for their actions - but the more we try and blame everybody else, the more we just huff and puff, go around in circles without achieving anything, and perpetuate the problems we suffer.
Farrrrk you can write....hope you didn't expect me to read it!
loyalist
Well-Known Member
+1From the dug out said:Capn Gus Bloodbeard said:Deej said:
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. You probably don't realise just how much flak is copped by referees over correct decisions.
If I'm refereeing a match, and an attacker goes down in the box as a result of a heavy challenge, then I have 2 possible decisions - penalty or no penalty.
One of those decisions is correct.
Each of those decisions only has one side agreeing with it.
Thus, chances are, no matter which option I take, half the people there are going to yell at me. (actually, if the attacking team reckons it should be a red for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but I know it isn't even though I put down a penalty, then I could end up with every person there yelling at me
Believe me, I wish minimising abuse was as simply as getting more decisions right - I'm sure every referee does - but that simply isn't the reality.
Bearinator said:
Yawn. I know you like to believe that referees are directly responsible for player's indiscretions, but where exactly have I jumped to any conclusions? As I - and others - have said, even if the referee got the decision wrong, it's still pointless arguing, and only harms your team by doing so. I also suggested a few possible reasons WHY Danny may have been singled out (by your post it sounds like you didn't actually hear what was said, did you?) - one of which may have been nothing more than 'well I've gotta pick somebody, the keeper stands out most so you'll do'. It's the reality of being a keeper - and it's considered far better match management than booking each player involved.
I doubt Danny is being targeted because of the GF incident - if the referees were going to do that to 'look out for their own', then don't you think they would've come out after Griffiths? After all, he didn't even gut punished for attacking a referee. So while possible, I think to immediately suggest Danny's going to be targeted is a little irrational - a more likely conclusion is that he was targeted because he stood out in some way - said the worst, the loudest, the first, the last words, was more animated than the rest. Or maybe it was by simple nature that he stood out more because he wore the keeper's jersey. Yeah, sometimes referees will single out players in these incidents.
Maybe we should be grateful that's the approach - if it wasn't then we'd be seeing a lot more players get booked. If that wasn't the approach typically adopted, then I'd say the entire bench would've been booked - including Danny - and not just one of the players.
After all, they've all shown dissent, so by the laws of the game the referee IS supposed to caution each of them.
Was the referee's decision on the tackle correct? Who knows, but I don't think it's relevant.
Deej said:
I agree that referees should be held accountable. Perhaps part of the problem is that there's no '2nd division' to drop referees to. FFA have a dogged faith in their top 3 referees, and they appoint them no matter what - we've seen those referees make massive errors, week after week, and have no accountability. Sure, their inspector may tear them a new one, but that's obviously not enough.
However, some officials HAVE been dropped for performance reasons throughout the seasons. It's simply because we don't hear about it in the media that we continue to assume that the officials aren't accountable. They are, but it just seems that some of them are immune to accountability. The entire system is under review, so hopefully that will change.
When a player who has assaulted a referee, suffered a massive suspension as a result, then comes back and gets booked for having a go at a referee straight away, then I think we need to start looking at our own problems.
Even when the referees get the decisions right, they still get abused -so trying to blame the referee's decisions for the abuse is simply trying to shift blame and ignore the discipline problem. Which only perpetuates the issue. Which leads to us losing key players in important matches.
It isn't poor refereeing that upsets people - it's the perception of poor refereeing. Sometimes people will perceive poor refereeing because it is poor, sometimes they'll perceive it through their own ignorance. Similarly, sometimes the ref will screw up, but won't cop any flak for it because nobody realises he's screwed up. Deal with the refereeing problems and it will help, but it won't come anywhere close to stopping the problem of abuse. Deal with the culture that encourages, even expects abuse, and condones it by blaming the officials instead of the players who can't control themselves, and the issue will be addressed - whilst keeping a close eye on the officials and make sure that stubborn and poor policy isn't getting in the way of doing what's best for the game, and isn't getting in the way of addressing the issue of underperforming officials nor prevents us from allowing the upcoming talent to have a go.
Everybody needs to be held responsible for their actions - but the more we try and blame everybody else, the more we just huff and puff, go around in circles without achieving anything, and perpetuate the problems we suffer.
Farrrrk you can write....hope you didn't expect me to read it!
and i just wanted to quote this much writing
Bear
Well-Known Member
God you talk some shit to try and get your point accross Bloodbeard. You were not there, fact. Why cant you just except, from someone who was there, that it was possibly a harsh decission to card Danny?
And to be honest, this is all a f**king waste of time, as the ref did not include the card in his report anyway
And to be honest, this is all a f**king waste of time, as the ref did not include the card in his report anyway
Look we all want higher levels of officiating but until we have full time officials it will be as it is.
Decisions are made (like the send off of Smitta) that one angle looks like the right decision and from another its harsh. Fact is decisions bad or good are not the reason Danny was hit with a Phantom Yellow card - he needs to control his emotions....
Decisions are made (like the send off of Smitta) that one angle looks like the right decision and from another its harsh. Fact is decisions bad or good are not the reason Danny was hit with a Phantom Yellow card - he needs to control his emotions....
Teddy Bear
Well-Known Member
They were shouting you are just Mark Shield in disguise
Online statistics
- Members online
- 30
- Guests online
- 792
- Total visitors
- 822
