I can recall Melbourne's first red card of last season. Pantelidis was dribbling the ball down the left wing, going deep into the Jets' half, and for the whole of the 20 metre run, he had Joel Griffiths hanging off his shoulder, pulling him back, grappling him, in short, trying to slow him down illegally. I can only assume the Ref didn't blow the whistle because he paid the advantage to Pantelidis, but in the meantime, Pantelidis was getting mightily sick of Joel's close attention and foolishly swiped at him with his elbow. Straight red.
The sense of injustice was exacerbated by the knowledge that a few weeks earlier, by rights, Joel Griffiths should have been rubbed out for most of the season for SackWhackGate, alas, embarrassingly for the league, he received just a yellow for having hit a ref in his nether regions.
Melbourne was to receive two more red cards for the remainder of what was ultimately a disastrous season, and all were correct calls – but a nagging doubt started to form that the reigning champs were subject to a higher standard of onfield behaviour than what was apparent in other games on any given weekend.
At least the FFA was big enough to admit that the whole SackWhackGate had been unfortunate, and that a new post-match review process would ensure a bit more consistency in the manner in which players were judged to have gone beyond the normal bounds of on field behaviour.
Six weeks into the new season, and the promise of greater consistency looks a million miles away, indeed, we are further away from that goal than at any stage in the A-League's history.
Once again, Melbourne appears to be at the heart of the issue and a pattern has formed providing us with evidence that they are treated differently to other clubs when it comes to disciplining players.
Three weeks into the season, Melbourne was scoring freely, playing the most attractive football, in short, they were absolutely flying.
Three weeks later, with three consecutive red cards, and Melbourne shares top spot with Sydney, but is on the verge of going into free fall, no thanks to a spate of red cards which on closer inspection, and in comparison to what is happening with its rivals, look rather harsh.
For starters, for any club in any league to score three consecutive red cards is an extremely rare occurrence. I have looked for similar occurrences in the other major leagues of the world, but I am yet to find one. If we were to find it, one suspects that one or more of the cards would have been associated with violent behaviour.
But here is the rub – none of the Victory's three cards have involved violent behaviour, not even close.
So the whole scenario starts to look a little weird, but it gets even weirder.
Video footage of each of the incidents indicates that none of the reds were proven beyond reasonable doubt – they are all inconclusive, and in all honesty, questionable. Indeed, for Fabiano's spitting offence, it transpires that there is grave doubt that the ref actually witnessed anything at all (and yet at one point the FFA was happy to increase the penalty from 6 weeks to 9 weeks when the Victory appealed).
You may conclude that it must mean that Melbourne has a disciplinary problem. But in fact Melbourne has the lowest yellow card count and the lowest foul count of any team in the league this season!
But it gets worse.
In the last three weeks, there is has been one violent action that stands out in all the games played, and that was Danny Tiatto's elbow to Vargas in Melbourne's home game on Sunday against the Queensland Roar. It was of the type that most certainly would have got a player reported in the AFL.
No one denies that this occurred, and that it was clear cut, yet the FFA has concluded that Danny Tiatto has "no case to answer".
In the context of Melbourne's three consecutive red cards, in the context of Pantelidis' red card last season and Fred's two seasons ago (for elbowing), and in the context of the FFA's promise to improve the consistency of the whole disciplinary process – this decision is not only weird, it is not only inconsistent – it smacks of out and out bias!
But why would the FFA have an agenda for putting a dampener on Melbourne's bright opening to the season? I can think of two reasons:
1. The A-League is young and while it takes some solace in the numbers Melbourne is able to draw, it really can't afford to have Melbourne dominate the season like it did two seasons ago, in the interests of building up the support of the other clubs – in short, it is much better if the silverware can be shared around a bit more; and
2. The FFA has just announced that it will proceed with a 2nd Melbourne team in two seasons, and once again, the FFA can't afford to have such a strong Victory team if it wants to establish a 2nd Melbourne team alongside it.
Of course many will find such a scenario far-fetched, but they would have very short memories. Even the world champion of 2006 was found to have a domestic competition so riddled with corruption and match rigging that external bodies had to take some extreme measures.
In the present case, I conclude the following: the A-League can have no credibility while its disciplinary process is seemingly so inconsistent, and the fact that the owner of SFC is actually on the FFA board goes no way to improving the perception that perhaps the competition is susceptible to being rigged.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
YOu know what mate
This is a great example of the problem in Australian football
We card a player for supposed simulation (lets be honest unless its plainly obvious it shoulnd be given) but another player who plays rough and physically gets away scot free
if this is the way the A-league is developing there is going to be a serious serous problem in the future... players with skill will get stifled.
Interesting contention mate, but I have to correct you, the FFA actually decreased Fabiano's ban from nine weeks to six on appeal.
This is precisely why this whole business stinks to high heaven. Carlos has hammered from pillar to post on Sunday night, yet he is the one walking at the 57th, and the player who was the most violent not only stays till the 90th (sniggering and snivelling all the way), but the FFA see absolutely nothing wrong with his elbow to Vargas?
Completely inconsistent, and maybe worse...
Re the Fabiano incident, if you read carefully, I say that at one point it was increased from 6 to 9 weeks. I don't provide any further details, and really, this whole incident warrants a full article in its own right.
The problem ultimately is not really whether Fabiano did or didn't, for me, the problem is with the conflicting evidence provided and the possibility that the referee didn't actually witness the spitting action - and if that's the case, we have to ask about the quality of this process, and whether it's evidentiary based, and it does beggar the question: how on Earth did the FFA initially think that the penalty should rise from 6 to 9 weeks?!
Pippinu
I share your frustration but I thinks its a stretch to conclude bias. At the end of the day Fabiano was shown a straight red, the ref has clearly stated that he saw him spit (though I agree the video evidence suggests that his positioning would make this impossible)
Theo's red was warranted, he clearly makes a motion to stomp on Petrovski. Unnecessary and clearly deserving of two weeks
Carlos red was a disgrace and I cannot believe he was not given the benefit of the doubt and play called on if the ref felt they was insufficient contact to justify him going to ground.
End of the day I believe this is more of a case of poor refereeing than bias. Our refs are just inconsistent and of poor quality.
Brendan
Even if we agree that Theoklitis did stomp (personally, I see that as a rather exaggerated description), it doesn't help explain why the FFA, with the benefit of clear video evidence, would conclude that Tiatto had "no case to answer".
If that weren't enough, why can't we read anywhere about the deliberations of the FFA - indeed, why is there absolutely no news on this item anywhere?
I'm sorry, it all stinks to high heaven and it helps underscore that the FFA lacks integrity.
Three consecutive red cards is not that rare or extraordinary.
In the Liverpool derby between Everton and Liverpool four red cards were issued in a single game.
http://www.sportinglife.com/football/premiership/everton/reports/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/99/09/27/SOCCER_Liverpool.html&TEAMHD=everton&DIV=prem&TEAM=EVERTON&RH=Everton&PREV_SEASON=1998
"Ittihad is now recognized in Saudi football history as being the first Saudi team to see two players handed red cards each in three consecutive matches. Ahmad Al-Dokhi and Ibraheem Suwaeed were handed red cards against Shabab. Manaf Abu Shgeer and Ittihad goalkeeper Mustapha Malaieka were handed red cards in the finals against Ahli. Hamad Al-Issa and Abdullah Haidar were also handed red cards against Hilal in the Saudi League match."
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=8§ion=0&article=92637&d=23&m=2&y=2007
I have also already mentioned elsewhere the match in which twenty (20) red cards were handed out in a single game.
Clubs like Scotland's Hearts are known for earning consecutive red cards, as are some other Scottish clubs such as Elgin who were also awarded four in one game not that long ago.
I believe four red cards have also been awarded in a single match in International football as well.
Clearly you are overreacting when it comes to your beloved MV. Perhaps the finger of blame should be pointed at the dirtyt Vic players rather than the officials?
Pippinu, now I know what you meant by your comment today on my blog.
Sorry, thought you were referring to Muscat.
Now there's a bloke who also has gotten away with far too much rubbish of late, and I refer back to the karate kick on Agostino - clear red card that wasnt sanctioned by video, seemingly because of the yellow...
On Sunday he was running side by side with a Roar youngster (Zullo I think from memory) and he just barged him off the ball with his hip and shoulder, a move that belongs in another code. It's not the first time he's done that either. There's been other incidents, almost weekly.
To me the refs let him and Tiatto get away with far too much. These blokes actually have an aura which intimidates the refs, and they get sway with stuff others wouldnt be allowed to get away with.
Agree, the Tiatto elbow was red, but so was the Muscat karate kick a few weeks ago.
Violent behaviour of any kind on the football field should be condemned and punnished even if you are a former socceroo who use to play full back but turns out regularly as Midfield enforcer for your A-league club.
Muscat was not the first defender this season to use his hip as his primary method of dealing with Zullo and if players like Zullo are going to be constantly barged to the ground withou ref intervention the A-League is going to become boring real quick.
Melbourne are not a dirty side, nor are they being victimised. The Reffing needs to impove especially now that we have lost Mark Shields.
There was a guy who used to blog about bad ref decision in the A-League last season but he seems to ahve stopped... presumabley from exhaustion.
SJ
I have already said to you that this isn't about a mass of reds in a single game (where things have obviously gotten out of control), this is three consecutive reds over a three week period, none of which involve violent conduct, for an average of 52 minutes lost game time per player, juxtaposed against the most violent act we have seen all season which has been completely exonerated by the FFA with a "no case to answer".
But where are the media reports on the latter? Are we offered with a rationale? Not only is the FFA inconsistent, it lacks accountability and transparency.
Ultimately, that is what is driving this article - not one (or ten) bad decisions.
If anyone has tracked down any media reports on the deliberations in relation to Tiatto - please let us all know!
Tony
re the Tiatto incident, what concerns me above all else is that the FFA has decided that there was "no case to answer" (as briefly reported by Fox FC), but we have seen or heard nothing further on the matter since.
Why not an explanation of the FFA's deliberations? A rationale? Too difficult to explain? Better to sweep it under the carpet?
That's what makes the whole affair stink to high heaven.
the video review panel is a star chamber. they pick and choose what they look at, and don`t have to explain it.
they found the time to slap a penalty on young kantarovski for handball, but saw no case to answer for danny vs vargas`s throat.
there is a level of secrecy to the ffa which is a bit fishy. i think i saw somewhere that the guy who heads the a-league isn`t allowed to talk to the press.
as for the reffing, i don`t see a conspiracy. i just see a group of refs who are overwhelmed and need more support. ffa needs to increase the size of the pool of available refs, they need more training, and they need the feeling that the ffa is behind them. how about some imports? or doing some swaps with neighbours in asia? currently the reffing standards are all over the place. and the inconsistencies are driving the players crazy.
clayton
Pippu, a stamp is violent behaviour, and if you want to defend spitting, good luck. That's not the point, as you well know red cards are NOT just given for violent behaviour. The fact that you are so upset about three legitimate red cards over three games when some clubs have had more than that IN ONE GAME is, with all due respect, ludicrous in the extreme. Muscat got away with a similar, but more intentional malicious tackle that earn Corica a red in a previous season. If it was all a big conspiracy by the officials, he would have been given a red.
If you want to attempt to openly accuse Frank Lowy and the FFA of corruption and match rigging, you had better have some concrete evidence up your sleeve. Yet, you have none. I think you have gone off the deep end quite honestly - I suggest it is time to hold your hand up and call for a pool attendant before you get yourself in a real spot of bother.
Clayton
your description of the review process as a star chamber is apt - part of the problem is that we don't know anything about their deliberations - and with that being the case, they absolutely open themselves up to criticism.
SJ
I repeat, no one is yet to find another situation anywhere in the world where a club has received a red card in three successive games - so that immediately means this scenario is worthy of some scrutiny.
As is the FFA's post-match process, including its transparency and accountablity. If you honestly believe that Theoklitis' actions constituted violent conduct, then it becomes even more mystifying how the FFA adjudicated that Tiatto had "no case to answer".
Once again, a brief explanation (if a rational one were at all possible) would go a long way towards allaying concerns of action untoward.
Pippu, re-read my post above. One club had TWO RED CARDS PER MATCH FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE MATCHES.
Also, I know of one club whose player was red carded in FIVE CONSECUTIVE MATCHES in 06/07 season in Bulgaria. (Georgi Kakalov).
If you still need another example, Farsley Celtic received three consecutive reds at the end of February. Enough?
Besides which, Since August this year the FFA have increased transparency by opening all disciplinary and appeal committee hearings to the media. If they were corrupt in any way, why would they allow that kind of fair and open scrutiny of the process, let alone introduce it? They are not keeping anything secret from anyone.
Pippinu, whilst I do not hold the belief the A-League is rigged, I certainly support what you're doing. In circumstances like this, someone has to keep the spotlight on.
Fabiano's ban was a stretch given the evidence (or lack thereof), Theoklitos' appeal against "stomping" being rejected when the camera only showed the top half of his body was a bit much and today we hear in the paper that Hernandez hasn't been sent off in his entire career!
At this stage I'm just a frustrated Victory fan, another red card next week and I might be prepared to join you...
Mike, the Victory chose not to appeal Theoklitos' red card for violent behaviour.
They also support the transparency of the appeals and disciplinary process.
Mike
thanks for the support - I felt I had to go in hard on this one because too little was being said about it (and absolutely nothing has been said about the Tiatto incident - nothing).
SJ
re the bloke who was red carded in five consecutive matches - apart from suggesting that he was a bit demented - presumably he had rests from the game in between the matches he actually played in?
sj
re the Vics being happy with the whole process (hard to believe really), perhaps the FFA said to them: tow the line boys, or you'll be getting more of the same, nudge, nudge, wink, wink...
They were consecutive for him individually, not for his club, as of course he had to serve the match bans. You would have thought he would have been extra careful after at least the first three. I sense you are looking for a loophole?
Interestingly, after this incident, demented or no, he was picked for the first time for his national team!
Pippinu - interesting stuff, but your arguments are a little confused.
And as for your conclusions, my response is if there an outcome that could be the result of incompentence or a conspiracy, go for incompetence every time.
A few comments:
- you mention 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's not the standard of proof in these matters. It's the balance of probabilities, ie it's more likely than not to have happened as alleged.
- I think it's wrong to bundle your complaints about the match review committee and the referees.
Our referees are, on the whole, poor. The retirement of Mark Shields will be a loss.
The Committee is bewildering. does it have terms of reference? I think it should only look at violent conduct that was either missed or dealt with inappropriately. Not convinced that it should publish its reasoning. Do other similar bodies do this? If so, a few paragraphs of explanation couldn't hurt.
-On the decisions themselves:
Ref decisions:
1. Fabiano - I don't think it was a spit. However, I think the ref at the time could have easily thought that it was, and could justify a red card. If he saw the projectile rather than the action, perhaps it woudl have been prudent to call in the assistant ref. Breeze is our worst ref.
2. Theoklitos - violent conduct. Puerile, but violent. A red. No surprise that MV didn't contest.
3. Hernandez - 2 yellows rather than a red. Both were harsh, the one for diving more so.
Committee decisions:
4. Tiatto - how this escaped sanction is beyond me. But, taking Tony's point, perhaps a person that supports a team with Muscat in it shouldn't be pushing this issue too hard ;-)
Hoodooguru
thanks for the comments - all I can say is: let's see how things go in the next few weeks.
Here's a prediction - we will see things far worse than any of those 3 reds go compeltely unpunished (already fulfilled in one sense).
Re transparency and accountability - you are the first person I can ever recall saying that the FFA owes no explanation to anyone - the end result of that sort of approach can only mean more articles like this one.
Wow - 22 posts!!
you are the first person I can ever recall saying that the FFA owes no explanation to anyone
I'm just saying there are somethings that the FFA need not disclose. I'm cynical of the media trumpeting 'the public's right to know', which really means give hacks fodder that can be used to sell papers.
Having thought about it, I'm leaning towards the view that the match review committee should probably give reasons for its decisions once it considers an incident (are incidents referred to it, or does it review of its own volition?).
From a practical point of view, I don't think it should give reasons for not looking at an incident at all - that's a bit too much.
Hoodooguru
yes - spot on about the last point - if they don't select something to review, fine, end of story.
But if they do and announce that there is "no case to answer", it really would help everyone to understand how they got to that decision, even if it's a one liner (wasn't considered overly agressive or violent; it was an instinct reaction to protect hiself; whatever)
And Sydney FC were denied two excellent shouts for handball last night. They happened just in front of where I was sitting (I'm yet to check them out on the replay).
There's no conspiracy. Our standard of refereeing is atrocious.
Matthew Breeze, take a bow.
Sorry to hear that hoodoo - see my next article for some heart cheering news.
Post a Comment