By Pippinu
October 2nd 2008 @ 12:43am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Is the A-League really a credible competition?
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, trying to slow him down illegally.
I can only assume the referee 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 referee in his nether regions, and therefore, was allowed to continue playing.
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 on-field behaviour than that which 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, instituted at the start of this season, 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 some 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. Tthey were absolutely flying.
Three weeks later, with three consecutive red cards, while Melbourne shares top spot with Sydney, it is on the verge of going into freefall, no thanks to a spate of red cards which on closer inspection, and in comparison to what is happening with its rivals, looks rather harsh.
For starters, for any club in any league to receive 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 referee actually witnessed anything at all (and yet at one point the FFA was happy to increase the penalty from six weeks to nine weeks when the Victory appealed).
You might conclude that it must mean that Melbourne has a disciplinary problem. In fact, Melbourne has the lowest yellow card count and the lowest foul count of any team in the league this season!
And it gets worse.
In the last three weeks, there 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 it 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 and 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, in the interests of building up the support of the other clubs it really can’t afford to have Melbourne dominate the season like it did two seasons ago. It is ‘much better’ if the silverware can be shared around a bit more
2. The FFA has just announced that it will proceed with a second 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 second Melbourne team alongside it.
Of course, many will find such a scenario far-fetched. But they 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.
The fact that the owner of SFC is actually on the FFA board does nothing to improve the perception that the competition is perhaps susceptible to being overridden by third party interests.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(194)
Tony in Canberra said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:33am | Report comment
I thought the Fabiano suspension was extremely harsh, he didn’t spit at anyone - he was yelling in portuguese and the camera from the front shows that for all to see.
The decision not to charge Tiatto is an out and out disgrace - he clearly (and with his form, you could argue deliberately) raises his elbow to make contact.
But other than that? WOW, Pippinu… they’ll be coming for you for this one…
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:53am | Report comment
hmm. conspiracy theories.
Like 2002 was rigged to help out south korea.
I wouldn’t jump to match fixing and ulterior motives yet.
Really incompetence if far more likely reason. Sometimes conspiracy theory assume that people are logical, intelligent and competant when simple stupidity/laziness etc can explain why decisions are made.
The problem is lack of transparency. Perhaps they should release a written detailled publically available report in why each case is rejected and why a ban is given. Therefore people like Pippinu would stop writing articles about how the league is rigged.
The Fabiano spitting. Vdeo maybe inconclusive but Breeze was adamant that it was intentionally spitting and that is enough testimony to convict Fabiano. Some people may say it was impossible for Breeze to see the event by the video evidence. However is it possible for Breeze to hear it. If breeze heard a spitting noise then that will be guilty enough. Nevertheless I’m speculating (just like Pippinu) and that’s what happens when there is lack of transparancy and we have no idea what was exactly the evidence given that convicted Fabiano. It leaves things up to imagination and allows people like you and me to become creative.
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:57am | Report comment
I’ll also say that according to PFA head the media are allowed to attend the hearing (that’s what he said during the World Game). I wonder why there are no articles about what exactly happen in there if that’s the case. All we know is the Breeze was adamant that he was spitting. Why?
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 1:05am | Report comment
Yes tiatto elbow was bad but then again Muscat has been just as thuggish and got away from it as well (as pointed out by the round ball analyst)
Midfielder said | October 2nd 2008 @ 1:06am | Report comment
Pip
That forest on your shoulder …….. sorry chip ………. mate ………… MV get it hard…….. last year the Mariners lost to the flying circus who I have since called the choppers ………. we had four players carried off and all out for some weeks ……Heff is still hurt …….. had two players sent off ………. got 9 yellow cards for those players left on the field … Andrew Clark soaked in blood from head to foot stayed on ………… the choppers two yellow cards all night ……….. Kossie’s gang kicked the shit out of us all night ………….. every club has its story.
F me Pip when you have Kevin M on your team voted the most hated player in England …….. and thats when Robbie Savage was playing as well ……….. Pip on this one your up yourself
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 1:43am | Report comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIuEIawLM3Y
To prove my point.
Victer said | October 2nd 2008 @ 2:41am | Report comment
Aaaaamen brother Pippinu!! Someone must stand up for the Victory’s injustices! Frank Lowy must sell his team now! The only yellow that should have been given was Theoklitos’. And even his was a stretch
Mick of Newie said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Pip
we can all trawl through games and find perceived injustices. As a jets man I can go back 2 seasons ago round 5 Jets still waiting for their first win, away at the Mariners, injury time, scores level, Griffiths drive into the box gets clearly fouled. No penalty, Griffiths gets a yellow for diving and is sent off. Suspended one week. No review of decision. 2 weeks later Nick Theo gets punted having failed to get a win in first 7 weeks.
Which just means we can all look for conspiracies, but the likely event is a stuff up. The incidents you refer to Pantelidis was clear cut, the spitting and stomping were the refs call and he had a better view than any replay and the Hernandez one was harsh.
Get over it.
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:22am | Report comment
dasilva
If there had been full transparency, I doubt I would have been writing this article. Like you, I have been asking too: where are the media reports on the FFA’s deliberations in relation to Tiatto? Not a word anywhere to be found.
Not a word!
For the rest who want to point individual incidents - you have missed the point of this article.
We are not talking about an individual incident - we are talking about a definite trend, a clear pattern, that highlights glaring inconsistencies in both match day officiating and post-match reviews, not helped at all by a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the FFA.
This is what you have to address (and towards whichI will now dedicate my blogging efforts).
LK said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:23am | Report comment
I love your work, Pips, but come on! Any proponent of team-based conspiracy theories looks slightly deluded, it doesn’t matter whether it is Storm in NRL, Swans in AFL or MV in HAL. When MV won the comp in season 2, how many penalties were they awarded in the home and away season? I’m not saying they weren’t justified but maybe it is “footy karma” catching up with MV. Or maybe it is bad luck, maybe ref’s incompetence, whatever.
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Midfielder
Are you referring to a game SFC was involved in? I rest my case.
Michael C said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I hear the NRL judiciary are so trigger happy that they’re threatening to sue Pippinu for this one too!!!!!
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:49am | Report comment
For those who do not countenance the possibility of a problem at head office - do you at least agree that fans of all persuasions could at least be appeased by a media report on the FFA’s deliberations on the Tiatto incident?
They could have said something like, I dunno: the video evidence was inconclusive, therefore Tiatto has no case to answer.
But let’s be honest - could they really have said that? What could they have said?! How could you rationalise it? Better to say nothing!
So now we understand why there are no media reports on it, why there is a deafening silence, and thus giving even more credence to the perception that something is fishy in Denmark.
sledgeross said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:50am | Report comment
I cant believe that people still believe Fabiano didnt spit! There is a camera angle that shows something larger than a mere spray going towrds that grub Cornthwaite.
I agree the processes involved, however, certainly dont show the A League in a professional light!
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Sledgecross
at the end of the day, what you say in your last sentence is what this is all about.
It’s not just the inconsistency on match day, but the FFA had assured us that they had developed a new post-match review mechanism that was going to overcome the problems inherent in SackWhackGate.
But six weeks in, with clear evidentiary problems in the review process, inconsistent decision making and then a clear lack of transparency and accountability - well - why shouldn’t I fear the very worst?!
True Tah said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Pip,
the A-League is a credible competition, your gripes seem to be with the FFA, and its disciplinary approach.
The fact that Frank Lowy is the chairman of FFA and also owns the majority of Sydney FC is to me, a clear conflict of interests, and I struggle to see why this was allowed to take place in the first place - its like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
One thing MC has pointed out, and I have since checked out for myself, is that the FFA is does not seem to be publishing any annual reports available for public viewing - is there any explanation why this is the case? Surely this is a lack of transparency??
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 9:12am | Report comment
TT
What is clearly emerging is a lack of transparency and accountablity across the board - and this most definitely affects the credibility of the comp (and if you want evidence of that, you need only look at the Serie A circa 2005-06).
Now the question is: why does no one jump up and down about this lack of transparency and accountability (as would happen in the other codes)?
This is the answer (each point being closely related):
1. immature league and governing body may also mean immature media segment;
2. many fans and media writers suffered such anguish during the “old soccer” days, that they want to believe that the “new football” era will be perfect, is perfect. They also feel that they have always had a poor deal from the media so all want to read good news only stories. Knowing the history, I can well understand this point of view. But it leads to bizarre situations, like the media contingency at a news conference applauding Buckley’s sponsorship announcement (despite the complete lack of detail). This was reported by an AFL reporter who couldn’t ever imagine an AFL media throng applauding anything the AFL did - but who well would have ripped into the spokesperson seeking more detail on whatever was being announced. That episode probably also showed a lack of maturity.
So, we end up with a situation where no one wants to put the hard questions to the FFA, no one wants to hold them to account, people want to believe that everything is perfect - that their game is finally and flawlessly heading the right direction.
Michael C said | October 2nd 2008 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Pippinu -
stop bringing Denmark into the equation!!!!
TT -
glad so see you took that on board re Annual REports - - - it MAY just be a ‘little thing’,……….but, for me………..in the Australian context - - we DO have direct comparisons.
THe NRL this week is a clear example of why the AFL probably DO have it right (as much as it seems like ‘gagging’) that they absolutely discourage (via substatial fines) comment by coaches/players etc on specific umpires/decisions and the like.
And for Pippinu, following AFL as well ( and I presume this applies to the NRL as the points tribunal system I gather was pretty modelled on the NRL system) - - where the match review committee each week runs through the referred incidents in a media release the shows the justification to - or not to - pursue further.
I do know that re the AFL tribunal (no idea about NRL - - can anyone enlighten me?) that reporters are present and generally providing updates to the evening radio sports programs. Heck, there’s even been talk before about televising the tribunal hearings!!!!!
So - - - it’s in that context that we view the FFA and their handling.
I agree entirely with Pippinu on the immature media segment - - however, many soccer advocates have criticised SBS as only being inspired by sour grapes for being NOT so embracing or effusive of the HAL. Obviously there are many with such a keen interest as to not want to rock the boat - - and also, as I’ve figured for myself, what IS may not be perfect - but it’s better than what WAS.
Australians generally can smell a spin job, and the FFA and HAL will soon have to find their actually place in the mainstream - - and by Australian standards at least that will mean being a little more answerable and transparent. But - - as per his business practices - - one would speculate - - Not on Frank’s watch!!!
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 9:40am | Report comment
MC
dasilva mentions above that the FFA had advised that the media would be allowed in to view and report on the deliberations - but to date, I’m not sure I have seen any evidence of that.
Certainly, re this Tiatto incident - absolutely no one has reported it anywhere, except Fox mentioning just the once that the FFA had decided Tiatto had “no case to answer”.
It’s an incredible verdict, and one that the FFA probably doesn’t want being scrutinised.
Michael C said | October 2nd 2008 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Pippinu -
I gathered from SEN the other night with Fabio or whatever his name is - I recall they made a comment along the lines that there’d at least be now reporting of it until the end of it all - - so, media may have been permitted in - - but, I presume at least the doors were then locked.
However, the ‘care factor’ at present isn’t able really to generate widespread ’scandal’.
And, this in a sense is my gripe about our insular sports media - - I’ve stated it before, the AFL (re WADA and illicit drugs) were made to look crap in the PR stakes by a lazy media who were ignorant that FIFA was engaged in a similar but - as Millster would acknowledge - a far more important and meaningful campaign against WADA. So - - for the time being, the FFA we can expect to keep getting away with it. i.e. due to token and superficial media coverage.
It’s up to the true soccer fans to actually become MORE critical - on sites like this - rather than sickeningly towing the party line. It’ll be far, far better in the long run.
Millster said | October 2nd 2008 @ 9:56am | Report comment
While I distance myself from the over-the-top view that the HAL and FFA lack credibility, I did think Pip raises a valid point that the consistency of referee and judiciary decisions is critical and that the process must be under constant scrutiny and open to improvement.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy against MV - they are just having a run of bad luck in what is a very young system. But overall it provides opportunity to assess and improve the entire oversight of games both during and after they are played.
Koala Bear said | October 2nd 2008 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Pippinu wrote: It was of the type that most certainly would have got a player reported in the AFL.
Thank Heavens, I would have been so terribly disappointed if we didn’t get a line of type on Marn Grooky in this article .. somewhere … ;(
Glory, Glory, to Sydney FC…. Glory, Glory, to Sydney FC…. And we’ll go marching on.. 
~~~~~~~~
KB
True Tah said | October 2nd 2008 @ 10:01am | Report comment
MC,
the saying goes that disclosure is a forensic accountant’s best friend, and Ive looked at the annual reports for ARU/NSWRU/QRU and AFL, and tried looking up FFA - no disclosure here!
Michael C said | October 2nd 2008 @ 10:05am | Report comment
TT -
I’ve found for NRL - - -you need to look up either ARL annual reports, or NSWRL annual reports.
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Pippinu I actually disagree with the general gist of the article. I just believe it would have improve the credibility for the article you have written if you didn’t go out and stated why is it possible that Melbourne Victory been discriminated against and believe there is a conspiracy against them.
You are absolutely right about the transparancy. But that rant at the end means people will focused on whether there is any melbourne victory bias and not about transparancy. You’ll end up having a discussion about the wrong topic.
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 10:30am | Report comment
sorry typo.
Pippinu I actually AGREE with the general gist of the article
onside said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:03am | Report comment
There should be two linesmen running the line on both sides of the ground. That would help.
The trouble I have with secret official ‘agendas’, such as ,’ keep a lid on Melbourne Victory ‘
is such a directive , no matter how subtle the hint, would be impossible to keep confidential..
One day the story would surface, because there is more than one person involved.
Pippinus’ three red card syndrome is as unusual as it is unfortunate. But it requires a paradyrm
shift in both logic and rational thinking to convert one unusual fact into a credible conspiracy..
I am not sure wether the following is in any way relevant, but the standard of play in the A League
can at times be a little clumsy compared with other competitons that play a higher standard football.
Added to that, the surface of many A league grounds is not always conducive to subtle football.
It is sometimes impossible for players to kick the ball along the ground with any degree of confidence..
How does a combination of player skills and ground conditions impact on the way a game is refereed.
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:12am | Report comment
dasilva & onside
The fact remains that for a club to receive three reds in consecutive weeks is an extreme occurrence - indeed, no one as yet has uncovered a similar occurrence anywhere in the world.
So we have this extreme occurrence, plus the fact that none of them are for violent conduct, plus the fact that the one person involved in violent conduct was completely exonerated by the FFA.
Sorry guys - far, far, too many coincidences.
And as we learned from the Serie A example in 2005-06 - there comes a moment when the pattern of odd refereeing decisions starts to point to something a little more sinister. And by the way, the Serie A scandal went for years before it was properly exposed.
In the present case, a simple explanation from the FFA as to how it came up with the decision with Tiatto would help a lot - their main problem is that it would be impossible to come up with a rationale explanation - and thus the silence on the matter.
And absolutely no one willing to question it - no one.
Dave said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Pippinu
Great to see such passion and belief (as well as frustration) come out in the article. I dont agree there is a conspiracy but you raise some important issues which the FFA need to address…that Tiatto wasn’t cited is a joke and the whole disciplinary procedures/reviwer system itself needs some fine tuning.
Transparency-TBH l just dont think there has been enough general interest from mainstream media to push this and the footballing media (of which there is only a few) seem to have enough on their plates keeping up with general team/game , international and intercontinental matters rather than following up with any in depth focus on such an issue. Therefore it hasnt been something the FFA have had to go out of their way to adhere to…it just aint being pushed as an issue (until now!!)
There is some truth in the suggestion that football fans have had to put up with such crap in the past re the local game and admin, that they are willing to look for the positives and sidestep the negatives because in truth until now any negatives have been trivial compared to what went on in the past…immaturity of competition and admin may have something to do with it….how were the AFL and NRL going after 4 seasons of competition…all honey and roses?
To the future and it is clear in between consolidating the comp, expansion, looking after national and intercontinental matters the FFA will need to address what is after all, and clearly demonstrated in this article, a matter that is fundamental to the belief of the fans in our great game. We are all aware of the horror stories in football and other sports o/s re integritiy of officials and competitions it is vital FFA ensure a review of such matters is held and the process be transparent.
Good work Pippinu although my suspicions do not include questioning the competition credibility more of an issue of ongoing fine tuning.
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Tiatto was just as lucky as Muscat is and so yes I don’t believe anything ppoints to anti-Melbourne agneda but in my mind MV should of have 4 red card in 3 weeks.
People accused Portugal and Holland match bad and overly strict refereeing due to the amount of cards dished out as it was unprecedented in a World Cup match. What also been ignored is that most of the card was fair and could be argued that the referee was too lenient and should have been even more send off in that match. Just because somethings rare doesn’t mean it is wrong.
Yes I agree that we should emulate AFL tribunal procedures.
Mick of Newie said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Pip
there are problems at head office. We in football are so eternally grateful to Frank Lowy for dragging us out of the mire we do turn a blind eye to somethings. My take is that the lowy family are somewhat reluctant investors in SFC. It is the failure of that organisation to build a sustainable club in what should be the premier market that has forced thier hand. On balance Lowy has made a massive contribution from getting us into Asia right down to Westfiled sponsoring the W league.
Yes FFA is lacking football people but that is as a result of 30 years of under development, the cupboard was bare.
But, and this is the point that does not prove a conspiracy. You identify 4 incidents of which many suggest 1 was a bit stiff and 1 controversial but that proves nothing.
md said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:47am | Report comment
Pippinu,
Congrats on another well written article. As you know though, I disagree.
I particularly disagree with the Fabiano issue. Breeze says he saw something (and the slo-mo replay actually backs this up because he clearly reacts before Cornthwaite complains) and made a decision that is entirely in accordance with FIFA and FFA directives. As the video is inconclusive as to whether it was a spit or an accidential spray, the FFA is bound to act on what the referee says he saw - regardless of what biomechanical speech pathologists specialising in Portuguese expletives, or any other university qualified fortune tellers, would argue. Any other decision is the first slide down a very slippery slope, where all decisions of a referee become temporary pending mid-week arguments by pseudo-scientific analysts and clever barristers using the Chewbacca defence to prove that nothing ever happened.
I will concede this though: The FFA and its refs have clamped down on all sorts of unsportsmanlike conduct at every club - particularly anything that smacks of dissent or retaliation. MV has been the victim of this, but so has Sydney and other clubs too. It has not clamped down as hard on other fouls which regularly draws attention, particularly from purists, such as dangerous tackles and the corollary, unnecessary diving and playacting. Possibly, it should be even in its distemper towards all fouls. That is a priorities issue for the FFA to pick and stick on - but it is not a credibility issue for the A-league as a competition.
Of course, MV is going to have to put up with all sorts of problems from now on, given that Pim thinks it is a longball side.
Cheers
md.
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Dave
good, considered response - I agree with the conclusion that if there is no transparency, questions of credibility can only arise.
dasilva
once again, you can’t pick up on a single game that has gone out of control and hold that up as a reason why three red cards in consecutive games is not unusual - history tells us that for a club to pick up three red cards in consecutive games is an extreme occurrence - indeed, it may well be a world first.
This alone means this scenario is worthy of some scrutiny (a lot of scrutiny!). And the amazing thing one finds when you review the evidence is that all three were at least questionable. So not only do we have the rarity of three in a row, but each and everyone is questionable - increasing the already long odds of this being a matter of bad luck. On top of that, MV has the lowest count in yellows and fouls!!
I’m sorry people - it points to something more than just bad luck (and that’s before we even get to the Tiatto matter).
jimbo said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:57am | Report comment
Pip,
while I agree with some of your sentiments, lets look at the conspiracy theory in a little more detail.
For the A-League to be corrupt it requires more than one person who owns 40% of SFC and is on the FFA board to be corrupt.
It requires many referees and linesman, the members of the Match Review Panel, the members of the Disciplinary Committee and the members of the Appeals Board to all be corrupt.
Do you honestly believe there are 20 or 30 people in the A-League administration who are corrupt and out to get MV?
Frank Lowy doesn’t sit on any of the review panels and doesn’t play any part in the A-League’s judicial system.
I am astounded that people still go on about how Fabiano is innocent and didn’t spit!
It was clear as day and you could clearly see the spit flying through the air in the replay.
20 other people on the Match Review Panel, the members of the Disciplinary Committee and the members of the Appeals Board all saw it too.
It’s a disgusting act and must be stamped out.
Any Perth Glory conspiracy theorists after Dino Djulbic got 5 weeks for spitting on the ground?
MC
Its wonderful how the AFL is such a clean sport, its players are so well behaved and has no disciplinary problems – maybe we should all follow AFL instead?
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Mick and MD
I can only repeat again that for a club to earn three consecutive reds is a World first - so whichever way you want to look at it - we are in fact talking about a pattern that warrants further scrutiny.
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Jimbo
I think you will find that the Serie A scandal involved far fewer than 30 people.
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
md good post.
Physical play has been going on for far too long and has always been given lenient treatment by referees on the park and off the park (I mean how come they give post match foul for handball but none for rough play) and by commentators who seem advocating for rough play and complains when they actually are dealt with properly.
I will always remember Mark Shield giving out legitimate red card to Steve Corica for a leg stomp and then been booed off the pitch, rubbish by commentators and getting litter thrown at him by fans as well as smart ass comments from Branko culina. I honest thought that was the turning point and from then on , physical play has then been allowed to take over the league and Shield became Mr. pussy cat in terms of dealing with rough play. No one wants to get tough on this type of rubbish and who could blame them after seeing what happen when they actually tried. So people like tiatto and Muscat can continue on being thuggish as that’s the way Australian play as we are all manly and tough blah blah blah.
If you want an explanation why tiatto was let off. I think this one and MD is the better one rather then a conspiracy
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Honestly I thought all 3 red cards were justified thats why I think it is ok Pippinu. Yes they were all controversial but overall I’m happy that after scrutiny that the 3 red cards were given fairly and in fact i believe it should have been 4. Gosh that’s my point.
Slippery Jim said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
This article would be fine if it was a piss-take, what alarms me most is that it meant to be deadly serious.
As such it is, with all due respect for a usually well-balanced writer, absolute loopy rubbish.
The entire premise is an extreme accusation of corruption and match fixing motivated by an anti-Melbourne Victory bias. This is the kind of stuff managers of football clubs are fined huge sums of money for alluding to.
Not only does Pippu write this article completely without any evidence whatsoever, except supposed refereeing inconsistencies, but he writes from a position of having less actual evidence or witnessing less of the actual events, than either the referees, or disciplinary bodies. And what could possibly motivate this angst? The Vics are top of the table!
The following corrections need to be made to paint a more accurate picture;
”But here is the rub: none of the Victory’s three cards have involved violent behaviour. Not even close.”
Peter Green sent Theoklitos off for – as everyone except Pippu seems to know “Violent Conduct (stamping)” it doesn’t matter if Pippu agrees with that or not, as he wasn’t the man standing on the field close to the incident, with the whistle in his lips, and obviously the video evidence did not indicate an obvious error on Greens part as Melbourne Victory themselves chose not to appeal the sending off for violent conduct.
Having established that at least one of the offences WAS for violent conduct and Melbourne Victory as club have accepted this verdict, next point of contention is;
“for any club in any league to receive three consecutive red cards is an extremely rare occurrence”
However clubs and even national teams in the past have had three, four, and even up to twenty (20) red cards (between the two opposing clubs) on one occasion issued to them! Now there are possible grounds for a grievance! Or not, as the behaviour that led to the cards would no doubt indicate… Three reds in consecutive games may be a new low for Melbourne, but is not really that freakish for rough or dirty teams, such as those in the lower Scottish leagues for example.
“Video footage of each of the incidents indicates that none of the reds were proven”
This is a false premise as video evidence has nothing at all to do with the referee’s decision on the day to send off the players. Video evidence used in the appeals process is only one of several lines of evidence the tribunal use to reach a conclusion. It is also neutral, in that it is of use to both prosecutor and defence.
The FFA have worked hard to improve the fairness and consistency of decisions and refereeing, as per the below:
From foxsports on Aug 15th,
“FFA chief executive Ben Buckley hoped the changes would “eliminate many of the inconsistencies that existed in the system over the first three years of the A-League”.
In another significant move, disciplinary and appeals committee hearings will now be open to the media.
The regulations were reviewed because we wanted to ensure that football’s disciplinary provisions are not only consistent with those of the sport internationally, but also with community expectations within Australia,” Buckley said in a statement.
Other key changes include:
- The appointment of a three person match review panel to review footage of each match where players receive a red card;
- The appointment of a disciplinary committee to hear player appeals and direct referrals;
- The capacity for FFA to directly refer matters to the disciplinary committee if the referee has made an obvious error and the matter is contrary to the good image of football;
- An increase in the number of accumulated yellow cards to five before a one match suspension is received. For every three yellow cards after this, the player receives a two match suspension.
The new match review panel is to be chaired by former referee Barry Such.
Other members include former Australian players Alan Davidson and Jean Paul de Marigny and another former referee, Simon Micallef.
The disciplinary committee is to be chaired by John Marshall with lawyer and former Socceroo Peter Tredinnick as deputy chairman.”
Couldn’t really ask for much more could we?
The actual club in question, Melbourne Victory, have no concerns about the process that was followed, in fact they sing the praises of the new revamped process, Victory football operations manager Gary Cole said recently regarding the Fabiano appeal process, “I think the FFA has been very open and very transparent. This is a much better process than happened in year one. The A-League’s four years old and it is evolving and the processes are evolving. They’re looking to make it more transparent, and there’s no doubt that’s what happened here.”
None of this is meant to be a personal criticism, I am merely trying to address the bizarre claims made in the article with facts.
Quite clearly, the A-League is a credible competition, even if certain fan’s outrageous, biased and unfounded allegations of corruption are not.
jimbo said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Pip,
true, you can influence the result of a game by bribing just the referee and the goalkeeper or wicketkeeper/bowler. These usually involve big betting stings and crime gangs.
The MV incidents went through three stages of judicial review so you couldn’t get away with bribing just a couple of people - you’d have to bribe the lot.
It doesn’t make sense to penalise MV.
They are the best supported club in the A-League and bring in the most revenue - why would the FFA want to turn their fans away?
Conspiracy - No
Bad Refereeing Decisions - definitely Yes in some cases and MV have suffered, but they aren’t the first or last football club in the world to be on the receiving end.
Anyway, MV plays Perth this week and both teams are down a player because of spitting.
The whole Australian football family will be looking on with great interest at the referee’s performance and there isn’t any guarantee whatsoever that there won’t be any more judicial controversies to talk about.
But which football league or any sport in the world for that matter, can guarantee that?
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
MC
about SBS.
I find it absolutely hard to believe why does anyone think SBS are overly negative. Having watch the world game and Craig Foster shoot out for a long time. They have been nothing but effusive praised for FFA. The only difference is that SBS criticise FFA once every 3-4 months and other media outlet criticise FFA rarely or never.
Slippery Jim said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
“I can only repeat again that for a club to earn three consecutive reds is a World first”
Pippu, as I posted on your li pila blog yesterday, with links to prove it, three consecutive reds is NOT a world first, not even close, and you know it. One club I mentioned even had three consecutive double sending offs. Repeating it is a world first does not make it any more true, and just makes you lose more and more credibility on this topic.
NUFCMVFC said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Still thinking on the issue, but I recall the difference in what happened with Freds red card for elbowing an SFC player Milligan in season 2 yet when Tiatto deliberately elbows Vargas in the throat nothing!
In terms of this and other issues am getting a bit irritated at FFA’s lack of accountability, have some very good sports business administrators but that does not excuse their increasingly arrogant and bullying outlook, there is not much transparency or accountability to the football community at all, in fact they have never actually gone into bat for the fans whenever they have been subjected to character assasination after every MVFC vs SFC match by elements in the Australian media, too out of touch and suceptible to the hype…
md said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Pippinu: let’s test the 3 card theory:
Fabiano: as above.
Theoklitos: This so dumb as to be funny. It reminds me of that early Simpsons episode where Bart starts walking around punching the air and warn’s Lisa that if she happens to be within his air-space, its her fault if she gets punched. I cannot see any good arguments why Theoklitos should not have been sent off for his reaction. “It was only handbags and anyway he started it guv” was never going to cut it. MV didn’t appeal and have stayed silent on the issue, so presumably they could not find any good arguments either. I suspect Theo has been serving some penance within the MV cone of silence for his brain explosion.
Hernandez: Fair first yellow. 60/40 maybe 50/50 second yellow. If each is viewed as a single incident on the merits of the incident alone, (which clearly must be the test) each yellow card is unremarkable. If the argument is that this second yellow should not have been given because of previous decisions involving different referees in past games, then it is, with respect, a fairly flimsy argument.
Cheers
md
Millster said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
For once and only once I am with Slippery Jim and his pro-establishment line. Without removing any of my agreement that we should always be vigilant and aim to improve standards of refereeing and review, Pip’s allegations are very serious and would indeed be sanctionable were they made by anyone else than a mere punter. The FFA and HAL are not perfect. But they aren’t crooks either. There are simpler and more likely explanations to this than corruption.
Michael C said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
daSilva -
re SBS. Fair enough - - it was merely a sentiment I saw a couple of soccer folk share a while back and it’s probably turned around a bit since then.
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Thank you very much Md.
Theoklitos was an ass. There was a clear stomping action and then straight after he stomp he starts jumping around pretending that it was accidentally jumped on him. What a crafty guy.
Mick of Newie said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
I am with Slippery Jim (gee that hurts).
The real story for the last 3 weeks for Melb Victory is how the top of the table team playing at home, chooses to play ugly long ball and gets 1 shot on goal ands 1 ball into the box in a half of football that they still had 11 players on the park. That had nothing to do with the FFA or the ref or the disciplinary panel.
md said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Michael C - I think it has turned around, BUT, it will be interesting to see if that changes now that the Southern Cross FC (which engaged Les Murray as a consultant) looks to have lost its bid to be Melbourne’s second club. I posted elsewhere that this created the potential for a perceived conflict of interest for Murray. The propriety of his involvement in the Southern Cross bid and whether it affected TWG’s stance towards the A-league can now be judged by whether TWG once again returns to A-league bashing as a hobby. For mine, I think Murray is a good and honourable journalist and the TWG turnaround has been a genuine one.
Nevertheless, as the people who pay TWG’s wages, we all should be monitoring closely!
Cheers
md
Millster said | October 2nd 2008 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
MD and others - this may be a bit counter-intuitive but I want to test the views that conflicts of interest are ALWAYS bad.
Whether its Lowy as a financier and administrator, or Murray as a consultant and media identity, maybe its from one perspective not so bad that the members of the football family that hold such influence have some skin in the game and some exposure to the daily ‘cut and thrust’ of life within a HAL club.
I 100% acknowledge that it is not a perfect argument or situation, but I think it is a point worth putting that (to use the Les Murray situation) SBS’s credibility of commentary on the HAL can only be enhanced by one or more senior journalists being really close to the league, its clubs, its administration, its triumphs and its tribulations. Similarly Lowy’s guidance and influence at FFA level is surely refined to some extent by his being able to see things from a club interest perspective as well as from a ‘helicopter view’.
Just a thought… maybe I’m off my rocker, but at 1.13pm on a thursday it makes a little bit of sense to me…
Michael C said | October 2nd 2008 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Millster -
no issue re commentators being involved - - in AFL alone we have sufficient commentators who are club presidents, player managers etc. Murray acting as a consultant- - well, why wouldn’t you engage him.
It’s really only the Lowy situation that looks messy. (from where I stand).
dasilva said | October 2nd 2008 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Honestly, I always thought the overly negative SBS was always a myth. SBS has been praising FFA ever since the old crony has been kicked out of Soccer Australia. Only when they have the balls to criticise FFA once every while does everyone rise up and go on about being overly negative. Man people are sensitive. Nothing has pretty much change recently.
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
SJ
Then why is everything all quiet on the Western front in relation to the deliberations surrounding the Tiatto elbow on Vargas?
We have heard nothing on the matter, except that, according to Fox FC, he had “no case to answer”. (and did you note their clear discomfort at announcing that, and quickly wishing to move on - they knew it was a disgrace but either were too gutless to say so, or were under instructions not to talk about it from their employer and major stakeholder)
Is that not worthy of further explanation? Where is it? Nothing.
History tells us that where organisations are secretive and slow on the disclosure front, they normally have something to hide.
And if anyone out there thinks that three consecutive red cards is an every day event - then they really need to think about it a bit more - especially when in the most recent the one copping the most physical punishment from Tiatto, is the one who gets sent off on dubious grounds.
Something is very, very wrong - and as usual people are reluctant to talk about it.
Mick of Newie said | October 2nd 2008 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Pip
Re Tiatto, Trimboli expressed a pretty clear view, Harper assumed the position on the fence and Slater made no sense, a common occurence when he talks about his mates. My take is that the match review panel have had a reflex reaction to the strong criticism they got over the D’apuzzo decision (given Harper led the way on that one it tends to muddy the waters a bit on a Fox conspiracy) by going the other way. I expressed my view the other day that he had a clear case to answer. It does not make it right, but if Vargas had been injured I have no doubt the media would have whipped it up and he would have been cited.
This debate reminds me of the grand 9/11 conspiracy theory that got run on 4 corners a couple of weeks ago. The best line in it was one that said something to the effect “Governments are too incompetent and leak too much to organise a conspiracy of that scale.”
This is a different scale but I am pretty sure the FFA are too incompetent and too prone to leak to get away with anyhting approaching Pip’s conspiracy.
Slippery Jim said | October 2nd 2008 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
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.
Yey another example of three red cards in consecutive matches is MLS DC United who received three red cards in two weekends in August 2005.
An interesting article on abuse and disrepect of referees decisions in Australia notes that Sydney United recently copped three reds in ONE GAME! Sydney United had Joe Moric, Damon Collina and Todd Brodie sent off.
More shameful, though, is the abuse towards the referee afterwards by the angry fans. Sometimes passion for your club can go too far.
http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/matthewhall/archives/2008/08/referees_under.html
Pippinu said | October 2nd 2008 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
SJ
You keep bringing up examples of multiple cards in the one game - whereas I’m talking about the same club copping it in three consecutive games - all on their lonesome.
And you keep avoiding the issue that no one anywhere has written up what happened in the Tiatto deliberations - surely a succinct explanation would go a long way to dispelling any concern anyone may have.
Mick
I’ve been meaning to add that bias within referree ranks can be institutionalised without it necessarily being a direct instruction from head quarters - and the same goes for the review panel.
Slippery Jim said | October 2nd 2008 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Pippu. It seems the red mist is still obscuring your vision. As per above, DC United from the MLS (very comparable to our A-League) received three red cards in two weekends in August 2005. That was over three consecutive matches.
Another example is Farsley Celtic who received three consecutive reds at the end of February. The other examples I have sited are far worse cases of multiple red cards, both for clubs and individuls, such as Bulgarian player Georgi Kakalov receiving five consecutive red cards in the 06/07 season, and including the local Sydney Utd match above.
Satisfied?
I have noted that you have downgraded from three consecutive reds being a “world first” statement to a more moderate “not an everyday event” description which I would certainly agree with, so at least some common sense is getting through to you.