'Vukovic erupts at second ref' - SMH

[fedelta]

he was stupid 4 hittin hin but
fifa should have stepped in at the start said no ur not goin thats final
then we wouldnt have spent all that money on the appealls
but wats done is done and on the mariners ide of things it better cos hes not suspeneded 4 as long

well said....i agree.

Exactly what i was thinking but i wasn't sure how to word it.

+1

 

[Bear]

No argument for either side....none of you know what was said by the people on the bench, therefore can't say whether it was or wasn't warranted

No, but I was there and saw the whole bench saying things to the ref, therefore iv got a better idea that Danny was being singled out. Compare this to someone who was not there, who saw nothing, is going off a report that Danny "erupted" at the ref  :-\ : and is so quick to jump on anyones back that makes the slightest hint that a ref might be wrong

 

[FMMH]

I agree Danny is an idiot but it's my opinion that the standard of refereeing is shit, if correct decisions were made on the field it could reduce the amount of player dissent

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.

Bit hard when people who weren't there immediately assume it's the referee's fault once they hear about a decision with the slightest bit of controversy.

Here's an idea - why don't we start blaming the players for acting like dickheads instead of patting them on the shoulder and saying 'there there, it's not your fault'?

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.

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.

I agree Danny is an idiot but it's my opinion that the standard of refereeing is shit, if correct decisions were made on the field it could reduce the amount of player dissent

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.

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 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.

Cliffnotes yo

 

[brett]

No argument for either side....none of you know what was said by the people on the bench, therefore can't say whether it was or wasn't warranted

No, but I was there and saw the whole bench saying things to the ref, therefore iv got a better idea that Danny was being singled out. Compare this to someone who was not there, who saw nothing, is going off a report that Danny "erupted" at the ref  :-\ : and is so quick to jump on anyones back that makes the slightest hint that a ref might be wrong

Gotta agree with keensy.

You say yourself Bear that you saw the incident from a distance. You say that the whole bench had a say, but that only Danny was carded. Yeah...that's exactly what the article says too. If you weren't close enough to hear exactly what was said, by who, and when, then you have no real insight over anyone reading Hassett's story.

Maybe the call was right, maybe the call was wrong. Maybe Danny was singled out, maybe he wasn't. All that can be sure out of this is that with what has happened he should be extra, extra careful with refs and this looks to be a dumb move. Hopefully it's the last one.

 

[Bear]

And again ill point to......

"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"

 

[FFC Mariner]

Reporters write stories and sub editors create the headlines (usually) so it is reasonable to expect that Danny will be the subject of some sensationalist articles for a while.

Whether he did (or didnt) say anything and whether he did (or didnt) deserve his yellow is neither here nor there for the press, they need to create "news".

Any other player and it wouldnt have got a mention. Unfair but sadly true.

Finally, how anyone can even begin to mount a defense for the f**king awful sub standard referreeing in this country is beyond me TBH. They are dragging the game down and dont go all "FIFA list" on me either, every country gets at least 1 its got nothing to do with talent.

Rant over.

 

[Bear]

Big mistake Greenpole, Bloodbeard is coming down on you hard now.

 

[Deej]

Reporters write stories and sub editors create the headlines (usually) so it is reasonable to expect that Danny will be the subject of some sensationalist articles for a while.

Whether he did (or didnt) say anything and whether he did (or didnt) deserve his yellow is neither here nor there for the press, they need to create "news".

Any other player and it wouldnt have got a mention. Unfair but sadly true.

Finally, how anyone can even begin to mount a defense for the f**king awful sub standard referreeing in this country is beyond me TBH. They are dragging the game down and dont go all "FIFA list" on me either, every country gets at least 1 its got nothing to do with talent.

Rant over.

 

 

[soccersensei]

So many valid points from both sides of the coin. Well argued you lot

Not much point trying to make new points... all been pretty well made...
So my two agreeing cents are...

1) Yep, poor officiating plagues us... or at the kindest... a poorly evolved level of officiating due most likely to inexperience plagues us... but either way we are plagued! 

2) Captain Gus can indeed write ;D and yes I actually did bother to read it Kudos not condemnation to be fair to Gus I think.

3) Clearly refereeing is a shit of a job that you wouldn't wish on anyone... Especially Shields & Breeze 

4) I strongly agree with Deej that very poor decisions obviously contribute to dissent. Stakes may not seem GF high to some, but watching a team mate get taken out will always bring fire from the bench.

(I wish so much that they would instate a tennis inspired three challenge per coach rule for football.)

5) I agree with Greenpole, based on what we have seen from our "three top referees"  honestly, how could you not? 

Oh and I agree with Bear, it's all mercifully irrelevant at the end of the day...

But just posting :-X  :-X :-X is no farking fun at all

 

[marinermick]

Look we all want higher levels of officiating but until we have full time officials it will be as it is.

even going fulltime may not help

we have to remember that graham poll was one of the few fulltime referees in england

 

[Ursus]

And again ill point to......

"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"

It is not a waste of time if it gets through some very thick heads that there is absolutely nothing to be gained from dissent towards officials except a card.
Simple, simple, simple.

 

[From the dug out]

Went to make a sub last weekend....called the linesman to get the attention of the ref......the ref stopped the goalkick from being played by blowing his whistle.....both teams look over to see which coach was making the sub.

Then I called out "REF", whilst rotating my arms in the cirlulair motion (the one you do when you are making a sub).....the ref looked at me with a strange look on his face, without moving....I then repeated my call and circulair motion. The ref then finally realised it was him who I was trying to sub.

22 field players, 6 subs, 4 parents, 2 onlookers and a blue cattle dog burst into laughter....heck even the young linesman had to turn away so he was not seen laughing....Unfortunatley the ref didn't see the funny side of this....was that you Capt Gus Bloodbeard irate: irate:


Dam...I've posted this in the wrong topic.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

I do apologise for the essays - once I get started on a rant I can't help myself

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?

I'll accept that the day you accept that there are reasons for decisions which you may not be aware of

I even suggested WHY Danny may have been singled out.

But oh no, guess I was talking too much shit there.  Because you've clearly demonstrated your knowledge of the ins and outs of refereeing decisions and the laws of the game, and you've DEFINITELY supported every claim you've made.  No sirree bob, no shit-talking there

But heaven forbid somebody dare suggest that players need to be responsible for their mistakes.  No, clearly their behaviour is directly controlled by referees and we need to start caning referees when players dissent

Here's an idea - try taking up the whistle yourself.  THEN maybe you might find that the reality is a lot starker than you think, and it really isn't all quite so simple. 

No, it's too easy to criticise from the sidelines and bag out anybody who actually tries to reason with you, isn't it?  Heaven forbid you try and be part of the solution - it's much more fun being part of the problem.

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

If that's the case, the referee will probably cop a bit of shit for that, and rightly so.

Actually, Danny wasn't eligible to play, which means he wasn't a named substitute - hence, he couldn't be cautioned.  If a card was shown, then I'm guessing the ref didn't realise he wasn't a sub at that point.

And again ill point to......

"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"

Then don't participate ;-)

It may be a f*****g waste of time, but isn't that the point of the internet?

Reporters write stories and sub editors create the headlines (usually) so it is reasonable to expect that Danny will be the subject of some sensationalist articles for a while.

Whether he did (or didnt) say anything and whether he did (or didnt) deserve his yellow is neither here nor there for the press, they need to create "news".

Any other player and it wouldnt have got a mention. Unfair but sadly true.

Finally, how anyone can even begin to mount a defense for the f**king awful sub standard referreeing in this country is beyond me TBH. They are dragging the game down and dont go all "FIFA list" on me either, every country gets at least 1 its got nothing to do with talent.

Rant over.

Good post actually.  In other threads I've tried to say why I think the refereeing isn't as good as it should be, and I think the system behind the referees is heavily responsible, not just the referees themselves (our referees seem to perform a lot better on internationals than on HAL matches).  As for the FIFA referees, we have a few refs, but the FFA have a pretty hard policy that the #1 ref will get the #1 game, #2 ref - #2 game, and so forth - and they don't seem to be interested in reassessing those rankings.  Anybody who's had anything to do with appointing referees know what a stupid idea that is - and the worst thing is, FFA are too damn stubborn.  I remember a few years ago Williams (#3 ref) was clearly showing signs of stress and fatigue, and was having some utter rubbish games, yet FFA kept appointing them.  So yeah, this worshipping of the FIFA panel refs is causing a lot of problems.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Then I called out "REF", whilst rotating my arms in the cirlulair motion (the one you do when you are making a sub).....the ref looked at me with a strange look on his face, without moving....I then repeated my call and circulair motion. The ref then finally realised it was him who I was trying to sub.

22 field players, 6 subs, 4 parents, 2 onlookers and a blue cattle dog burst into laughter....heck even the young linesman had to turn away so he was not seen laughing....Unfortunatley the ref didn't see the funny side of this....was that you Capt Gus Bloodbeard irate: irate:

Ahh crap, I was hoping nobody would mention that on here   Hahaha, nah, not me - I've got enough embarrassing incidents of my own!!

Look we all want higher levels of officiating but until we have full time officials it will be as it is.

even going fulltime may not help

we have to remember that graham poll was one of the few fulltime referees in england

And he was one of the world's best officials - but while referees are still human, they're still going to screw up (FIFA actually caused a lot of problems themselves by trying to interfere with the referees too much - that's why the best officials refereed like clowns at that tournament).  Best thing any player can do is treat the referee like a field condition.  You may have a crap field with a bump right in front of goal, or something like that which causes problems for your team - you can't change it so you just have to work with it.  Same as a referee.  Even if he's the worst ref in the history of the game - there's not a damn thing you can do about it, so all you can do is put up with it.

I've seen quite a few games where the winning team has wound up getting frustrated with the referee and focussed so much of their energy on antagonising him that the other team saw the lapse of discipline and completely destroyed them.  Honestly, I've lost count of the number of times such a team has lost a game because they've decided to argue with the ref.

 

[Bear]

Capn Gus Bloodbeard, sorry to throw this one back at you, but I have been a ref before.

And I say to you, heaven forbid someone, anyone, bag a ref in the slightest way at all, as you seem to think its your moral responsibility to jump on your high horse and defend refs world wide whenever a decision goes against them.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

As opposed to you, who instantly blame a ref the moment a player misbehaves?  Sorry, who's jumping on who's moral high horse?

I'll only defend the referees when people make completely unfounded and ridiculous accusations - though usually (as in this thread) my 'defence' will only go so far as suggesting possible explanations for his actions.

I've also said a lot against referees on here.  It's mainly when people show ignorance that I'll jump in and try to offer some potential reasons.

It's rather surprising to see that you're a ref, considering you're usually amongst the first to blame the ref with no support or reasons, or interest in possible explanations, whenever a player misbehaves. 

But it seems that too many people aren't actually interested in WHY decisions may be made - it's too much fun to hide in your ignorance and scapegoat officials.

As I said, I simply provided a few possible reasons why Danny may have been the one who got carded - and even suggested that even if he was singled out, there may have been reasons other than what happened at the grand final, as well as explaining why I don't think there's any logical reason (it's possible, but unlikely) for Danny to be singled out for his assault when none of the others were.

Though as others have said - even IF the referee made a mistake on the challenge in front of the bench (And no, the bench all rising up in protest does not prove the ref got it wrong), it still doesn't justify dissent.  And even IF Danny was singled out - and even IF it was because of the GF incident.....well, if he actually kept control of his temper then none of this would have been an issue now, would it?

At least I've tried to look at the reasons behind the decisions - ALL of them, good or bad - instead of finding any possible excuse to bag out somebody.  Seems to be a lot more than you're doing in regards to trying to understand what actually happened.  Too easy to just pretend our guys are innocent little angels and the referee's a corrupt f**ktard who's destroying the game. 

Anyway, as I said ages ago in this thread - I completely agree with others who say that referees aren't accountable enough for their actions.  However, players also aren't being held accountable - and that's largely because the attitude of people like you encourage this ill-disciplined plague on the game. 

Unless you're quite happy to see our players cop suspensions from sheer stupidity and a total lack of self control.  I know I'm not.

Just be grateful that referees make far, far fewer mistakes than the players do, despite being paid far, far less and having far, far less time and opportunity to develop their skills.

 

[Bear]

'll only defend the referees when people make completely unfounded and ridiculous accusations - though usually (as in this thread) my 'defence' will only go so far as suggesting possible explanations for his actions.

Soooooo is that every single time someone mentions the words "referee" and "mistake" in the same post? Seems to be what you do, and thats what shits me. Seems nobody can have a bad opinion about a ref without you jumping in with an essay on why that person is wrong. To be fair, when is comes the Mark Shield, you dont defend him, but I dont think anyone is that stupid

It's rather surprising to see that you're a ref

Was a ref, not is

Just be grateful that referees make far, far fewer mistakes than the players do

Is that not a tiny bit one eyed?

Seems to be a lot more than you're doing in regards to trying to understand what actually happened.  Too easy to just pretend our guys are innocent little angels and the referee's a corrupt f**ktard who's destroying the game.  

Refs are destroying the game
Point of the matter is nobody, except the bench and the ref, will know what happen. Why jump on peoples back when they bag the ref, when it would seem (seem, not saying its correct in any way) from someones point of view who was watching, that it might have been a bit bias?

 

[soundsdifferent]

g wizzz im starting to think maybe danny is a bit like corey worthington...

 

[MattSimon]

g wizzz im starting to think maybe danny is a bit like corey worthington...

Yeah he never takes his glasses off.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Soooooo is that every single time someone mentions the words "referee" and "mistake" in the same post? Seems to be what you do, and thats what shits me. Seems nobody can have a bad opinion about a ref without you jumping in with an essay on why that person is wrong. To be fair, when is comes the Mark Shield, you dont defend him, but I dont think anyone is that stupid

Hahaha, had to laugh at that one.  Yeah, sorry about the essays, but like I said...once I start ranting.  The only thing I generally try to defend referees over is when the 'attack' seems to be based on ignorance, or if it's completely unfustified.  Through this thread all I've tried to do is post possible reasons why Danny may have been 'singled out' - and acknowledge that it's possible (albeit unlikely) that he was targeted over what happened in the GF.  And come on, I did that without once making a reference to the integrity or dedication or referees - surely I get SOME credit for that?

Just be grateful that referees make far, far fewer mistakes than the players do

Is that not a tiny bit one eyed?

How so?  I think it's a useful consideration that can help to keep things in perspective, but if you don't think it's a fair statement then I'd be interested in hearing why.  You're the first person who's argued it so far.

Seems to be a lot more than you're doing in regards to trying to understand what actually happened.  Too easy to just pretend our guys are innocent little angels and the referee's a corrupt f**ktard who's destroying the game. 

Refs are destroying the game
Point of the matter is nobody, except the bench and the ref, will know what happen. Why jump on peoples back when they bag the ref, when it would seem (seem, not saying its correct in any way) from someones point of view who was watching, that it might have been a bit bias?

Depends if I'm the ref or not
As a referee myself, I find that the majority of abuse comes from ignorance and people immediately jumping to conclusions suggesting the worst - conclusions that generally completely defy reason (seriously, most of the abuse I witness, and cop myself, leaves me scratching my head at the sheer stupidity of it).  Hence, when I see those same sort of conclusions, I like to try and suggest possible explanations for the decisions.  I don't mean to jump on anybody's back (well, depends how much of a muppet they're being) - although you're also quite guilty of jumping down my throat the moment I try and 'defend' (using the term loosely) a ref in that fashion.  What's the saying about he who casts the first stone?

As you said, very few people know exactly what happened (I may know the AR involved, so I could try and find out) - as such, if you think my opinion on something I didn't see is invalid, wouldn't the same also be true for everybody bagging out the referee?  After all, they don't really know what's happened either.

At least I (well, it's my intent) haven't tried to say 'this is what's happened', merely 'well, maybe this is why that happened'.

The fact that I'm a philosophy major is probably also partly responsible for why I get so frustrated at irrational arguments

Anyway, I acknowledged it MAY have been biased, but I think there are a lot of other potential explanations which would make more sense - as I said, if Danny was going to be targeted over the GF incident, then wouldn't you assume Griffiths would've been as well?  Maybe he was targeted, maybe he wasn't.  I suggested a few other explanations, that's all - so what's the big deal?

Anyway, I've also posted a lot of criticism of the referees on here myself, so I don't think I can possible be accused of always sticking up for them on here.