Perth glory- robbed

[Caesar]

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

Of course I am. Have you ever played soccer? Depending on the circumstances, what is in fact legal contact can often feel like a foul.

By saying that the referee bases his decision on the reaction of the player you are basically saying that penalties will be called based on what the attackers claim, and if they get it wrong then they will be booted from the game. Utterly silly suggestion.

The reason we have referees is so that you have someone impartial to call the game.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Yep, good video TODN.. absolutely no contact.

 

[harmesy 37]

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

[YOUTUBE]UJOj-SrfhKw[/YOUTUBE]

Wow! you have selectively shown the bits that suit your argument. You don't show the actual dive though in this clip and the celebration after he gets his free kick.

So that is enough contact you are saying for someone to fall to ground like a dramatic ballerina? (ie the bit you aren't showing in the video). He still planted his foot cleanly on the ground after the "contact". The FACT is that it is to his benefit to put on a song and dance act after any contact that close to goal. That is why if I played soccer as a defender I wouldn't go within a metre of any "striker". The disadvantage of even touching a fingernail is too much.

 

[Defacto]

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

[YOUTUBE]UJOj-SrfhKw[/YOUTUBE]

When they showed the first angle I thought yeah sure there was some contact but he recovered but using that first angle in conjunction with the second angle it's very very very clear that there was no contact.

That clip is reaching. Problem is you can't defend the indefensible. It's very clear that the penalty shouldn't have been given. It's also pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that you shouldn't use a ref who is in a relationship with one of the participating clubs employees. Especially a ref who also has a 75% win rate for that club opposed to a 45% win rate for any other club.

 

[Homer Jnr]

Especially a ref who also has a 75% win rate for that club opposed to a 45% win rate for any other club.

That would hold some weight, if the Roar hadn't won an exceptional amount of games over the past 2 years.

 

[Caesar]

Official reaction:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ty-against-perth/story-e6frexni-1226336637276

Especially a ref who also has a 75% win rate for that club opposed to a 45% win rate for any other club.

Possibly the silliest comment in this thread.

 

[Zidane98]

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?

As a neutral observer I feel what most likely happened was Liam Miller clipped Berisha just prior to him pulling the trigger causing him to slightly lose his balance. This meant that Berisha missed the ball with his shot and fell over after the follow through mostly due to Berishas efforts in kicking the leather off the ball. It certainly was not a dive although one must question how much of Berishas balance was affected by Miller's clip and how much of his fall was down to how hard Berisha attempted to kick the ball. It wasn't a blatantly wrong decision nor was it a blatantly correct decision. Very tough on the ref that's for sure. And this incident does not take away from the fact that we witnessed a superb, drama filled Grand Final which will have the fans coming back in droves.

At least we didn't see the Grand Final decided by a goal that wasn't (Geelong 2009 GF goal awarded to Geelong after clearly coming off the post)

 

[SuperCats9]

It was off-side anyway.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Wow! you have selectively shown the bits that suit your argument. You don't show the actual dive though in this clip and the celebration after he gets his free kick.

Or I have selectively found a youtube clip made by somebody I do not know, and selectively embedded that clip in full for others to look at. I'm no youtube video editing guru, selectively or otherwise.

However, I fail to see how the way Berisha carries falls after the air swing or how he appeals for a penalty or how he runs around celebrating the penalty, has any bearing on whether contact was made, as I understand the ref made his decision based on the initial contact and not on whether Berisha comes across as a w***er or not. I haven't read the rule book lately though.

So that is enough contact you are saying for someone to fall to ground like a dramatic ballerina? (ie the bit you aren't showing in the video). He still planted his foot cleanly on the ground after the "contact". The FACT is that it is to his benefit to put on a song and dance act after any contact that close to goal. That is why if I played soccer as a defender I wouldn't go within a metre of any "striker". The disadvantage of even touching a fingernail is too much.

I have said repeatedly that the contact was not enough to make him go to ground. I've been horribly misquoted several times now. The contact made him stand on the ball with his left foot while his right foot was going back for a strike. The ball then bobbled away to the right and was not where he had set it to be for the strike. He then tried to adjust at the last split second but had an air swing as the ball had moved significantly. His left leg having moved dramatically towards the right side of his body, crossed him up and this combined with his attempted strike adjustment, caused him to lose balance.

Frankly if the ref is going to award a penalty in the box for that sort of contact, he is going to do so based on the contact to the calf and the fact it made him stand on the ball, and whether he went to ground or not afterwards, should have little bearing.

I say again though, that Miller allowed Berisha goalside and was forced to attempt a desperation tackle from behind, something to be avoided in football wherever possible, especially in the box, in order to hamper a one on one strike against the goalkeeper.

If it was a crime scene Miller was found covered in blood, with the murder weapon in his car, no alibi and no memory of the night before. You can still hypothesise that he might be innocent, but he's in deep trouble.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

When they showed the first angle I thought yeah sure there was some contact but he recovered but using that first angle in conjunction with the second angle it's very very very clear that there was no contact.

So you can see daylight between Miller's foot and Berisha's leg at all times? I can't. You also think the timing and movement of Miller's foot occurring at the same time as Berisha's lower left leg flicking up in the air inexplicably, is pure coincidence?

That clip is reaching.

I'm afraid the contention that there was no contact is far more reaching at this point. The debate and level of evidence has evolved and the probabilities have gone back the other way.

Problem is you can't defend the indefensible. It's very clear that the penalty shouldn't have been given.

Based on? I mean, I wouldn't want to see minor contact paid a penalty every time. Miller is probably unlucky that his contact caused Berisha to step on the ball as this is what actually caused the following drama. He doesn't step on the ball, the plant food lands unimpeded, ball doesn't bobble, Berisha doesn't adjust, doesn't have an air swing, probably gets the strike wrong as the contact would have cost him some balance but no ref would have seen it. Who takes responsibility for the sequence of events? Miller does, as he chose to tackle from behind, even if he had little option.

It's also pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that you shouldn't use a ref who is in a relationship with one of the participating clubs employees. Especially a ref who also has a 75% win rate for that club opposed to a 45% win rate for any other club.

Well, it must be pretty easy for you to point out a host of pro-Roar decisions that helped them on their way to 36 games without defeat at one point.

What role does his girlfriend have at the Roar? Is their relationship over if he doesn't rig the result? I mean, is she that high up that the result carries a consequence for her?

If Carlton's property steward went out with goal umpire Chelsea Roffey, would that be a conflict of interest? What if he was going out with her before he started working at the club, does he not take the job or do they have to break up?

There is enough of an argument to be had for this penalty, regardless of who is dating who off the pitch.

In fact, given almost everybody thought there was no contact when the replay was shown straight after the incident, the fact that there now looks like there was probably contact, is a fantastic testament to the ref's instincts at the time.

The contact prevented Berisha was having a proper strike on the ball. Whether a penalty is too high a price to pay or not, is another debate entirely. There is no evidence of corruption though. The ref can't possibly engineer that set of circumstances at that time. Berisha is also not going to give up a full blooded strike on the ball in order to feign contact, step on the ball and hope for a penalty. Strikers don't sabotage themselves like that on a chance of a penalty, unless the opportunity has gone.

 

[Defacto]

It was off-side anyway.

This. So many mistakes.

 

[MaccaKnowsBest]

Official reaction:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ty-against-perth/story-e6frexni-1226336637276

 

[Mr_Bojangles]

Can I just say it's nice to see the footballaustralia board being used so much...

 

[freocuz]

It looks to me like there was contact, but you can only see it if you look really hard.

The issue then becomes, how the hell did Gillett see it from his position? Unless he has got some sort of Superman vision, when he can see through Miller's falling body, he would have to have been guessing and basing his decision on the reaction of Berisha.

Mark Shield says "But there is one angle that showed sufficient contact, and what pleased me was that Jarred gave the decision without fear or favour based on the view he saw." The problem with this argument is that the angle that he is talking about is not the angle that Gillett had.

In my opinion, he either guessed or he cheated.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The issue then becomes, how the hell did Gillett see it from his position? Unless he has got some sort of Superman vision, when he can see through Miller's falling body, he would have to have been guessing and basing his decision on the reaction of Berisha.

Mark Shield says "But there is one angle that showed sufficient contact, and what pleased me was that Jarred gave the decision without fear or favour based on the view he saw." The problem with this argument is that the angle that he is talking about is not the angle that Gillett had.

In my opinion, he either guessed or he cheated.

May have been action vs reaction. Tackle from behind by Miller vs botched strike. He may have seen Berisha's left leg move. It's just more speculation to suggest a guess or cheating. All you can go off is that there was contact and he called it. Lucky or not, he got that part right at least.

 

[Defacto]

So you can see daylight between Miller's foot and Berisha's leg at all times? I can't. You also think the timing and movement of Miller's foot occurring at the same time as Berisha's lower left leg flicking up in the air inexplicably, is pure coincidence?

I cannot see clear contact to Berishas leg. How can the ref?

I'm afraid the contention that there was no contact is far more reaching at this point. The debate and level of evidence has evolved and the probabilities have gone back the other way.

I disagree. The overwhleming majority of neutrals are on the side of "no penalty"

Based on? I mean, I wouldn't want to see minor contact paid a penalty every time. Miller is probably unlucky that his contact caused Berisha to step on the ball as this is what actually caused the following drama. He doesn't step on the ball, the plant food lands unimpeded, ball doesn't bobble, Berisha doesn't adjust, doesn't have an air swing, probably gets the strike wrong as the contact would have cost him some balance but no ref would have seen it. Who takes responsibility for the sequence of events? Miller does, as he chose to tackle from behind, even if he had little option.

All hypothetical. Who knows what would have happened. I bet if he had his time again he wouldn't pay it.

Well, it must be pretty easy for you to point out a host of pro-Roar decisions that helped them on their way to 36 games without defeat at one point.

This has just proven that you don't need a "host of decisions" to help a team to victory. What it has shown is 1 or 2 bad calls by the ref near full time can decide the game. First the offside and then the penalty that wasn't there. It doesn't take much for the ref to change the outcome of a game. Its no wonder cases of wide spread corruption have been uncovered in Europe.

What role does his girlfriend have at the Roar? Is their relationship over if he doesn't rig the result? I mean, is she that high up that the result carries a consequence for her?

If Carlton's property steward went out with goal umpire Chelsea Roffey, would that be a conflict of interest? What if he was going out with her before he started working at the club, does he not take the job or do they have to break up?

There is enough of an argument to be had for this penalty, regardless of who is dating who off the pitch.

Name one other professional sport that would allow a referee, who is in relationship with an employee of one participating clubs, to adjudicate a final (I.e. grand final, Super Bowl, world series, cup game)?

You won't find any because there is a clear conflict of interest.

In fact, given almost everybody thought there was no contact when the replay was shown straight after the incident, the fact that there now looks like there was probably contact, is a fantastic testament to the ref's instincts at the time.

Turn it up. There is no way he could see any contact. I can't see it on slow mo replay so how can he in real time. He made the wrong call.

The contact prevented Berisha was having a proper strike on the ball. Whether a penalty is too high a price to pay or not, is another debate entirely. There is no evidence of corruption though. The ref can't possibly engineer that set of circumstances at that time. Berisha is also not going to give up a full blooded strike on the ball in order to feign contact, step on the ball and hope for a penalty. Strikers don't sabotage themselves like that on a chance of a penalty, unless the opportunity has gone.

LOL what????? He attempted to strike the ball. When he misjudged the kick and missed the ball he then feigned and fell over and appleaded for the penalty.

Plenty of strikers give up an opportunity to feign for a penalty it's part and parcel of the game. To say other wise is just ludicrous.

Youre starting to sound like the Iraqi information minister.

 

[mojito]

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I cannot see clear contact to Berishas leg. How can the ref?

So you subscribe to the mysterious involuntarily reflex where his lower leg inexplicably flicks inward at the exact same time as you can see no gap between Miller's foot and Berisha's leg, during an attempted tackle from behind that just happened to be travelling in the same direction? Miller himself allowed room for there having been minor contact. You will never be convinced because you have already made the over emotional corruption call and you can't recant once you have gone extreme.

I disagree. The overwhleming majority of neutrals are on the side of "no penalty"

The vast majority of neutrals have either responded to an initial observation or real time footage or have also gone too far too early in their assessment. The Fox Sports vote showed the sentiment was 60-40 as to whether it was a penalty, let alone whether there was contact. As more comes to light, a certain parity is established.

Turn it up. There is no way he could see any contact. I can't see it on slow mo replay so how can he in real time. He made the wrong call.

I don't know what to tell you. I can see that contact is extremely likely but short of showing a hot spot, there is no way of being that conclusive.

LOL what????? He attempted to strike the ball. When he misjudged the kick and missed the ball he then feigned and fell over and appleaded for the penalty.

He didn't misjudge. He lined up for a full on strike, stood on the ball with his plant foot during his backswing and could not adjust sufficiently on the strike, and this overbalanced. He was almost crossed up. Why are you still concentrating on his misjudging of the strike, when you know for a fact that he stood on the ball and the ball bobbled. That is some serious denial.

Plenty of strikers give up an opportunity to feign for a penalty it's part and parcel of the game. To say other wise is just ludicrous.

So you are suggesting he had a proper opportunity for a full blooded unimpeded strike one on one with the goalkeeper in the dying seconds of a grand final, and instead opted to fake contact and take the odds to receiving a penalty? I mean, I have seen strikers take a dive before but their odds of scoring are a lot less as the ball has generally run on towards the goal line and the angle of any strike would be very difficult.

Youre starting to sound like the Iraqi information minister.

Anybody got a mirror?

 

[Contador]

In fact, given almost everybody thought there was no contact when the replay was shown straight after the incident, the fact that there now looks like there was probably contact, is a fantastic testament to the ref's instincts at the time.

I won't quote the whole thing but this is a quality post. Explains everything that needs to be explained. Gillett should be applauded for an excellent decision.

 

[Mr_Bojangles]

I won't quote the whole thing but this is a quality post. Explains everything that needs to be explained. Gillett should be applauded for an excellent decision.

Yeah..nah.

 

[Defacto]

I won't quote the whole thing but this is a quality post. Explains everything that needs to be explained. Gillett should be applauded for an excellent decision.

laughable post

 

[DTRAIN87]

Gillett made a great decision.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Awful diving and hideous sportsmanship by running around like a **** afterwards

Edit: So t u r d is censored but not shit?

 

[Mile High Tiger]

The footage from behind the goal shows it clearly. Some people on here are in denial. Berisha's fall and stupid premature celebration have nothing to do with it. The rules of the game state that Miller's actions are a foul and the act occurred inside the box.

Clear-cut penalty. Great decision.

For those bleating that there will now have to be 10 pens given each game, please show us the game in which there are 10 contentious non-calls of this nature. Holding, shirt-pulling, yes, but not clips from behind.

Pity about the offside non-call.

 

[cos789]

Why is this a "we was robbed" thread?
Shouldn't it be more of "what can we do prevent further occurances."?

I for one are for giving the refs an eye check up.(prior to the game)

.