Perth glory- robbed

[Smokin]

But how would you do it? You can review a penalty call easily enough because the ball is out of play. But reviewing non-calls is harder.

Do you stop play immediately? What if it's not a penalty? You've just ruined any momentum / attacking opportunity the team in possession had.

Do you wait until the ball is out of play next? That might be five minutes and several attacks (maybe even a goal) later and you can hardly bring play back then.

The main objection to video review isn't conceptual, it's working out how to actually implement it in a practical manner.

Yes, you can stop it immediately.

If it is good enough for a fake injury to cause play to effectively stop immediately, what is wrong with a penalty review?

I watch at least 1, and at least bits of 3-4 games on an average weekend - seriously, how many times would a player go down, or there be a serious, legit penalty call which isnt, and the offensive team still retaining that ball for 5 minutes or whatever?

id say never.

As soon as the defending team touch it, or it rolls out just review it. If the offensive team have it, again, they would score or lose possession within 10-15 seconds 99% of the time.

It can be a goal kick from there if a non penalty.

An absolute non issue, but good argument for a sport which seems riddled in corruption.

Clamp down on diving, ie if a dive cards can be given out via video to further stop the diving issues, and it is all win-win.

Unless you want the game to be as corruptible as possible.

 

[red+black]

has no one mentioned yet that berisha was also clearly offside?

It's been mentioned. The penalty was also awarded after the 4 minutes of added time. Farce all round.

 

[Caesar]

If it is good enough for a fake injury to cause play to effectively stop immediately, what is wrong with a penalty review?

I have never seen play stopped for a fake injury. Ever.

Generally the only reason the referee stops play for an injury with no foul is if it's particularly serious and requires immediate review / treatment (broken limbs, head clashes, etc.).

If you are talking about teams putting the ball out of play off their own foot, then that's different. It's not in the rules and is just a gentleman's agreement, with a tacit expectation that the ball will be voluntarily returned to them afterwards.

As soon as the defending team touch it, or it rolls out just review it. If the offensive team have it, again, they would score or lose possession within 10-15 seconds 99% of the time.

It can be a goal kick from there if a non penalty.

So many problems with this. Just because the defending team has touched the ball doesn't mean that the attacking opportunity is over. How would you like it if you had the defenders under pressure in their box, and the referee stops play to review a nonexistent penalty, and then your opponents get an uncontested goal kick?

Alternatively, if you wait until the defenders have cleared the ball out of the penalty area, then they might very well be on a counter-attack with their opponents on the back foot. You pull them back to review the penalty, it's a non-call, and they have to take a goal kick whilst their opponents reset their defence at their leisure.

In both situations, one team is significantly disadvantaged.

 

[Smokin]

I have never seen play stopped for a fake injury. Ever.

watch Serie A then

Yes, I am talking kicking out. Fact remains, a stoppage is hardly an earth shattering thing in soccer.

On a scale, you are arguing against a 9.9/10 effect on a game, to a 1/10 effect on a game which is probably even being generous as 7-8 times out of ten that ball will roll out or to the keeper in the event of a player doing down for a penalty.

Ok all red cards are given at a stoppage - would you object to them being subjected to a review?

Being a man down is probably worse than going a goal down, depending on the time in the game.

 

[Caesar]

Fact remains, a stoppage is hardly an earth shattering thing in soccer.

It depends when it occurs. When the ball is bouncing around in the penalty area, or a team is on a break against an outnumbered defence, it's a massive thing. Goalscoring opportunities are so rare that whenever they occur they are very important. You will rarely (if ever) see a professional team kick the ball out of play for an injury when they have a breakaway, unless it's something really serious.

Ok all red cards are given at a stoppage - would you object to them being subjected to a review?

As long as it's practical, I have no objection to any review of the facts using video. Did the ball cross the line? Was there contact in this tackle, or did he dive? Did player A hit player B? Was the attacker closer to the goal than the second last defender at the moment the ball was kicked? That sort of thing.

I would object to reviews of referee judgement. e.g. - was that an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity? Was that tackle careless or reckless? For the sake of consistency, you really need to have only one person making those decisions during a game.

Most big blunders result from errors of fact anyway. Professional referees have pretty good judgement and whilst supporters will often grizzle over whether something deserved a yellow or a red card, there's generally not TOO much serious disagreement. The big outcries are usually over stuff like this, where the video replay shows something that the referee didn't see which (if he had) probably would have changed his decision. That's where video can really be beneficial.

 

[stuart27]

I have no issue with video technology coming in to review penalty decisions, but in this case, people really need to cut Jarrad Gillett some slack.

Referees can only officiate what they see. Given where he was situated on the field, with a pack of players in front of the incident, seeing a Glory player sliding in behind the Roar player and then seeing that Roar player fall, clear penalty.

He is one of the best referees in the A-League, and any suggestion of bias is ludicrous. He made a call he could not possibly have known was wrong until he saw the replays.

 

[DTRAIN87]

I have no issue with video technology coming in to review penalty decisions, but in this case, people really need to cut Jarrad Gillett some slack.

Referees can only officiate what they see. Given where he was situated on the field, with a pack of players in front of the incident, seeing a Glory player sliding in behind the Roar player and then seeing that Roar player fall, clear penalty.

He is one of the best referees in the A-League, and any suggestion of bias is ludicrous. He made a call he could not possibly have known was wrong until he saw the replays.

There are still reasons to say what he saw were why he made the call and the call was correct.

 

[freocuz]

So many problems with this. Just because the defending team has touched the ball doesn't mean that the attacking opportunity is over. How would you like it if you had the defenders under pressure in their box, and the referee stops play to review a nonexistent penalty, and then your opponents get an uncontested goal kick?

Alternatively, if you wait until the defenders have cleared the ball out of the penalty area, then they might very well be on a counter-attack with their opponents on the back foot. You pull them back to review the penalty, it's a non-call, and they have to take a goal kick whilst their opponents reset their defence at their leisure.

In both situations, one team is significantly disadvantaged.

So the ref makes a call based on the reaction of the player in the box. One thing I have never seen in soccer is a player being infringed in the box and NOT claiming a penalty. If the player goes down like a sack of spuds claiming a penalty, then the ref goes upstairs. If it's deemed to not be a penalty, then red-card the player.

 

[Caesar]

That's ridiculous. Just because it's not a penalty doesn't necessarily mean that the player took a dive.

 

[Contador]

I think it needs to be accepted that the decision was not incorrect. There was contact from a sliding tackle from behind that got nowhere near the ball.

The major error was the defending from the four Perth defenders, as well as Heffernan for getting sent off.

In terms of punishments for diving, video reviews during the week and harsh suspensions are the best plan for eradication, as well as further encouragement for referees to hand out yellows/reds for what they believe are dives/overreactions.

 

[Forward Press]

The mere fact of contact (which was minimal at best) does not automatically equal a justified penalty or that a penalty decision was 'not incorrect'.

You can put up conjecture about the defenders not being positioned properly and Heffernan getting sent off, but in the end the decision was abysmal, no matter how you try and colour it.

 

[holy diver]

The decision was incorrect.

What needs to be accepted is that its all over and Brisbane have a tainted GF win. The questionable nature of the "win" will not slide.

 

[freocuz]

That's ridiculous. Just because it's not a penalty doesn't necessarily mean that the player took a dive.

Are you suggesting that players don't know what is and what isn't a penalty?

 

[Contador]

The mere fact of contact (which was minimal at best) does not automatically equal a justified penalty or that a penalty decision was 'not incorrect'.

I agree. But if a player slide tackles from behind, gets nowhere near the ball and possibly makes the player stumble when through on goal, it can be given. You could argue that it's soft but not that it's incorrect.

 

[harmesy 37]

People still haven't worked out if soccer is a contact sport masquerading as a non-contact sport, or is it a non-contact sport masquerading as a contact sport.


The game is at its core - compromised. There will be many matches decided in this manner in the future as there have been in the past. Australia vs Italy anyone?
It isn't a surprise to me that it occurs as the game of soccer has too many holes in it conceptually.


oh- and yes, i get it. No need for a troll to tell me it is the "world sport" etc... those poor people overseas have no choice - it is either soccer or rugby, so of course most people will choose soccer if their choice is between two flawed sports.

 

[robiecampbellbrown]

I agree. But if a player slide tackles from behind, gets nowhere near the ball and possibly makes the player stumble when through on goal, it can be given. You could argue that it's soft but not that it's incorrect.

I still haven't recovered from the Hawks' loss to the West Coast Selwoods, but just saw the soccer replay on the news. There was no contact. He fell over after a fresh air shot. That is why soccer is deeply flawed, and I don't support either team. The only solution is video replays for penalties.

 

[Defacto]

Sounds like a baseless rumour. Next we'll hear he killed Kennedy.

Was confirmed today by the GM of the roar. His girlfriend works for them part time.

HOW THE **** IS THAT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN????

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I still haven't recovered from the Hawks' loss to the West Coast Selwoods, but just saw the soccer replay on the news. There was no contact. He fell over after a fresh air shot. That is why soccer is deeply flawed, and I don't support either team. The only solution is video replays for penalties.

You saw the wrong replay and most likely at live action speed. The evidence suggests there was contact to the plant foot while in the air, and the plant foot then goes on to step on the ball and throw him off balance, therefore affecting the strike with the right foot.

Look at the replay looking towards the goal on Fox Sports. They did raise the spectre of offside at the same time they showed contact.

 

[Bradesmaen]

You saw the wrong replay and most likely at live action speed. The evidence suggests there was contact to the plant foot while in the air, and the plant foot then goes on to step on the ball and throw him off balance, therefore affecting the strike with the right foot.

Look at the replay looking towards the goal on Fox Sports. They did raise the spectre of offside at the same time they showed contact.

What evidence? The same video has been viewed by everyone and 90% of the public say there was no contact. How can you say that is evidence of contact?

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Word just in, Old Trafford is dead against video reviews.

 

[SuperCats9]

Worst decision i've seen, the Roar player had a fresh-airy and then dived as if he was shot, and now today, says that it "was" a penalty, get real. Pathetic and there should be a rule where you can overturn such decisions because Perth were clearly robbed, they will be filthy and that ref should be ashamed.

Its such a shame because it was the GF, everyone was looking forward to it and that is how it ends. Brisbane were just gifted their 2nd A-League title.

 

[SuperCats9]

You saw the wrong replay and most likely at live action speed. The evidence suggests there was contact to the plant foot while in the air, and the plant foot then goes on to step on the ball and throw him off balance, therefore affecting the strike with the right foot.

Look at the replay looking towards the goal on Fox Sports. They did raise the spectre of offside at the same time they showed contact.

I've watched the replay over and over again and there is no contact to his planted foot, infact there is NO CONTACT AT ALL, the guy just dives because he missed the ball and knew his oppertunity of scoring had passed.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I've watched the replay over and over again and there is no contact to his planted foot, infact there is NO CONTACT AT ALL, the guy just dives because he missed the ball and knew his oppertunity of scoring had passed.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...rth-glory-robbed/story-e6frf4gl-1226336223619

No contact to his planted foot, but contact to his plant foot as in the foot that was still in mid air about to be planted so he could strike with his other foot.

This suggests contact. Watch the left leg move almost to the point of crossing over with the right leg that he was lifting to strike. You can talk inconclusive if you like but you can't definitively say there was no contact and then you have to explain the way his left leg splayed over to a point that he clearly stood on the ball.

When you talk dive, consider the ball bobbling out to the right after he stood on it, and what that would do to your striking action that was lined up for a ball that was in a different position when you set yourself. Any balance issues you can see there?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Someone went to the trouble of slowing it down and spelling it out.

[YOUTUBE]UJOj-SrfhKw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[desko]

Yep that video is clear cut. His left foot moves at the moment the sliding tackle reaches its climax. It would be pretty slick play acting to time the slight clip of his foot to the guy behind him that he couldn't see, down to miliseconds in a slow replay.


He then fell over due to the pressure applied to his body from an air swing. Its impossible for a guy that size to stay on his feet with that much power in the shot. Strikers often fall even after they've made contact with a strike because of the power involved.