50 shades of grey in A-League’s Match Review Panel
By Vince Rugari, 30 Oct 2012 Vince Rugari is a Roar Expert
Adelaide United's Dario Vidosic heads the ball away, during their A League game against Wellington Phoenix. APP Image/David Mariuz
Related coverage
You’ve got to feel for Jarred Gillett. There probably won’t be too many Wellington fans who do, but on Saturday another key decision in the early stages of this young referee’s career fell smack bang in the middle of unchartered territory.
The Jeronimo Neumann/Ben Sigmund incident in the 77th minute of the clash between Adelaide and Wellington at Hindmarsh Stadium might just rival the Besart Berisha penalty in the controversy stakes.
It was a foul, a dive, a highly-contentious red card (and thus a one-game suspension) and a moment stranded in what could only be described as a black hole in A-League legislation – all rolled into one.
To truly understand the madness that has gone on, it’s important to look at this step by step, which is something that we must remember Gillett never had the opportunity to do.
The Match Review Panel did, however. But it turns out they were hamstrung by their own rules.
The foul. If you look hard enough, it was there. Sigmund uses his left hand to grab Neumann on his right arm and pulls him back, and that is probably enough to constitute a foul for holding.
The law states the player needs to be ‘prevented’ from moving past the other player by use of the arm or hands – depending on your level of pedantry, you could reasonably argue that Neumann was never ‘prevented’, because he was able to keep going, but I digress.
Yes, it’s soft, and it happens all the time and all over the ground in football, and it kind of opens its own can of worms if you’re going to award fouls for this sort of thing every time it occurs, but it was there. Just.
The dive. Neumann takes three paces after the grab and tumbles to the ground in, let’s be honest, what will go down in A-League history as one of the worst dives on Australian soil.
He took the tumble purely to accentuate Sigmund’s arm-pull in the hope of winning a foul, maybe a red card and hopefully a penalty. Gillett was technically right to award the first, but was duped on the second. Fortunately he didn’t fall for the third.
Would the foul have been given without the dive? That’s questionable, and a whole other story. But there was another source of motivation in Neumann’s dive – the fact that he wasn’t getting the ball in the first place. That leads us to…
The red card. A send-off can only apply in this situation, according to the Laws of the Game, if the player is denied “an obvious goalscoring opportunity”. There is no ‘last man’ or ‘last defender’ law. This is the rule.
At no point was the Argentine in possession of the ball. It was always going straight down the throat of Mark Paston, who approached the headed flick-on at a fairly leisurely pace and then took the ball comfortably – before a diving Neumann barrelled into his legs.
Even accounting for Sigmund’s pull, Neumann never slowed down. In fact, he’s probably quite fortunate to have taken the dive because if he didn’t, the diminutive South American was about to get rolled by Paston’s hulking frame.
This is Gillett’s error. How could Neumann have been denied an opportunity to score a goal, given all of this information?
Ricki Herbert was thinking the same thing and, fuelled by anger at the result and the dive, the Phoenix submitted an appeal via an Obvious Error Application (OEA).
The appeal. We’ve seen two players – Patricio Perez and Michael Baird – banned for simulation before, back in 2010-11. In the case of Perez, a successful OEA saw a red card to Liam Reddy rescinded – although from memory, the footage was not 100 percent conclusive.
Which makes you wonder what Sigmund has done to deserve this. The burden of proof for an OEA is so high, the only decisions that are overturned are the ones that “no referee in the possession of all the facts, including all Broadcast Footage, could reasonably have made”.
In other words, only the most blatantly wrong, obvious blunders get fixed. As obvious as it seems that Neumann was not denied a goalscoring opportunity, it’s just not obvious enough of an error to pass the supremely strict test of the OEA.
In turn it means that Neumann cannot be retrospectively punished for simulation – because for that to happen, an OEA needs to be upheld, and there needs to be proof that the player was not fouled, but rather pretended to be fouled.
After all, the Match Review Panel is there “to correct patently wrong decisions that no one can argue about. It’s not there to second-guess the referee,” according to A-League head Damien de Bohun.
An acceptable explanation. But not when a diver escapes scot free, and a tug of the arm costs a defender a week on the sidelines when it shouldn’t have.
So what happens now? Well, nothing. Herbert and Andrew Durante will probably find themselves in hot water for their comments, which have not exactly covered Wellington in glory.
But they only expressed what the footballing public was feeling – incredulity, that one of the most ridiculous dives ever seen in the A-League has gone unpunished.
This sends a message to those contemplating simulation that they may as well go for it. Why not? You won’t get banned unless the TV cameras manage to capture precisely the right angle of your dive. Or if there was a foul involved.
If this is the way justice is served in the A-League then maybe it’s the laws that need a good, hard look.
Vince Rugari is an Adelaide-born journalist who cut his teeth on the sporting graveyard that is the Gold Coast. He fancies the round ball and the Sherrin, and used to be a handy leg-spin bowler before injury curtailed a baggy green push. He is a Port Adelaide fan by birth, as painful as that has been recently. He's now sports editor of The Area News in Griffith, NSW.
- Explore:
- A-League, Adelaide United, football, Jeronimo Neumann, Wellington Phoenix

October 30th 2012 @ 8:22am
Finally said | October 30th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Interestingly the author questions jernomios actions, but wont question sigmunds? What motivation did sigmund have to obstruct jeronimo if paston had the ball covered.
October 30th 2012 @ 8:27am
Neil said | October 30th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
I have watched the incident several times as well and applaud the referee for having the integrity and mental toughness to rule on a foul if given, has to be ruled as a goal scoring opportunity. A lot of referees wimp out. It is not the business of the referee if in this case Neuman accentuates the foul. He was grabbed and has his leg clipped and yes he did dive, but the the original foul was not simulated and did happen. Only the most one eyed supporter would deny this, the only way to clamp down on simulation is for referees to severely clamp down on it, but be prepared for some innocent parties to be cautioned for simulation because referees will be over worry about being conned. So I say, let referees adjudicate what they see and not look for which may or may not occur. Also in football no two incidents can be exactly the same but can be similar, so false charges of inconsistency are often unfairly made. It is imperative that referees ensure that cheats don’t prosper, Sigmund in my opinion attempted to cheat by grabbing Jeronimo with only Paston to beat, nobody can predict the future 100% unless they hold some supernatural powers, the referee can only apply the laws of the game to the incident in their opinion at that time, that is what we ask them to do.
October 30th 2012 @ 8:55am
Roger said | October 30th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Good article Vince. Agree completely.
Not sure what the solution is, but let’s be honest, the current arrangements might be the better of two evils. It’s frustrating that these decisions are upheld, but at the same time, we wouldn’t want to see a situation where every second referee call is questioned. Perhaps overly the high bar is the best arrangement.
October 30th 2012 @ 9:26am
Fussball ist unser leben said | October 30th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
1. Sigmund fouled Jeronimo.
* There is no disputing that, or if people are disputing that, then that’s an interpretation issue & if you get 10 people to look at the same situation you will get some saying “foul” some saying “not a foul”.
* Soft foul or hard foul – I don’t care. A foul is a foul & the offender cannot feel aggrieved if he’s punished for the foul
* The fact that Jeronimo fell over has ZERO to do with the foul.
* If the ref thinks it’s a foul, then it’s a foul irrespective of whether Jeronimo fell over; or whether his shirt was ripped, or whether he injured himself, etc. etc. – all these are the result of the foul and should have no impact on the ref’s decision
2. Was it a red card?
The Laws of the Game state that a sending-off offence occurs if a player “denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick”.
The ref thought it was a free-kick.
The ref thought it was a goal scoring opportunity that was denied
The ref had to send Sigmund off.
Every law – in life & in sport – requires interpretation. In sport, the interpretation is done in a split second – not on the Tuesday after watching the event in super slow motion & discussing with you colleagues, friends & Twitter followers!
As usual, some people prefer to blame the victim for being “provocative” rather than the offender for being a thug.
I’d certainly rather have Jeronimo on the park next week in the A-League than Sigmund. The Nix are well-known in the A-League as a bunch of thugs & finally they’ve been punished. They get away with far more every week, but they never mention those times when the ref got it wrong in their favour.
October 30th 2012 @ 9:57am
Llew said | October 30th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
” The Nix are well-known in the A-League as a bunch of thugs & finally they’ve been punished. They get away with far more every week, but they never mention those times when the ref got it wrong in their favour.”
Jaysus mate, thats a pretty harsh call. I’m guessing you are an Adelaide fan.
You are, of course, fully entitled to your opinion, as misguided as it is. Likewise, I would be entitled to argue that Jeronimo’s actions are a cancer on the game, and one of the biggest reasons why football in Australia will always struggle to make ground against rival codes.
And the fact that partisan fans can delude themselves into thinking that there is something honourable about exagerrating contact in an attempt to gain advantage, and that the FFA is unable or unwilling to seriously address simulation, particularly as pronounced as this one, only adds to the risk of marginalising the sport.
Yes, Jeronimo is a handy player, but he is also, by the evidence of our own eyes, a diver. And if the Nix are, according to you, well known as a bunch of thugs, then Adelaide fans must also accept that Jeronimo is well known as a cheat. That will come back to bite him one day, hopefully.
October 30th 2012 @ 9:41pm
Ben of Phnom Penh said | October 30th 2012 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
Fuss being accused of being an Adelaide supporter!?! You have made my day, Llew.
October 30th 2012 @ 11:01pm
Fussball ist unser leben said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
“I’m guessing you are an Adelaide fan.”
And, I laughed & I laughed!!
October 30th 2012 @ 11:42pm
Nathan of Perth said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:42pm | Report comment
Oh come on, who wouldn’t support the good ol’ Reds??
October 30th 2012 @ 10:19am
Tony said | October 30th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
“Well known as a bunch of thugs”??? What fantasy world are you living in, mate???
I suppose you imagine Sigmund was lucky not to have broken Jeronimo’s arm with the masive force he used on it.
Jeronimo dived plain and simple, and that’s what makes people angry.
If you say a foul is a foul… then a dive is a dive.
Can’t wait for more hardcore thuggery from the Nix this weekend!
October 30th 2012 @ 11:26am
Nathan of Perth said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
To elaborate on your points, these are the interpretation notes from the FFA regarding DOGSO:
“Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area.
If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.
Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
• the distance between the offence and the goal
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• the direction of the play
• the location and number of defenders
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick”
October 30th 2012 @ 5:50pm
Darwin Stubbie said | October 30th 2012 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
Not played the game much by the sound of it … And love how a MV supporter is preaching about Wgtn being a bunch of thugs … The team that brought us the biggest thug to pollute the A league
October 30th 2012 @ 10:18am
Ian said | October 30th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
i’m going off topic and say – jarred Gillett – keep going. you have to make decisions the rest of us would start whimpering over. in the heat of the moment with no technology and using what you have trained for you have made the right decision.
without referees there is no game.
i’m not a trainee ref – there are no caveats to my statement.
my only other point is – calling divers cheats when there is shirt pulling, elbows to the head, tripping going on- they are all intentional. so one isn’t cheating while others are playing physical and hard and just a bit rough. its either all cheating or nothing. breaking the rules is breaking the rules.
October 30th 2012 @ 10:28am
Kasey said | October 30th 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
LOL @ Llew:
Fussball is about as far from being an Adelaide fan as it is possible to be, being a MBV man! The simple fact here is that Jeronimo was fouled. Whether he ‘goes down too easy’ after a step or two is not really the point.
He was fouled and the MRP agree with the referee on that matter. No foul means no fall by Jeronimo and nux red card.
Of greater concern to me than this is the sheer number of offside decisions being made incorrectly by ARs. It is my understanding that ‘even is on’ (which gives the advantage to the attacking team) and thus creates more goal scoring opportunities. I am sick of seeing trigger happy ARs ruin good goals or good scoring opportunities in football and the HAL. Screw GLT, IMO it is in adjudicating offside that FIFA and IFAB should be working hardest towards getting sorted.
October 30th 2012 @ 10:50am
Llew said | October 30th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Kasey
Dont disagree on the number of poor offside decisions being made, which to me is another argument for use of video technology.
I also understand that, technically, Sigmund committed a foul, and that FFA are foisted on their own rules, but sorry, to say, ‘no foul means no fall’ is disingenous when evidence of our eyes shows player being lightly fouled, retaining his feet, taking two more steps, and then throwing himself to the turf. You might argue that without the foul there isnt a dive, I would argue that regardless of the foul, there is a clear dive in an attempt to extract maximum advantage. Yes simulation is not an uncommon thing, and perhaps it is unfair to single out Jeronimo for something that is so widespread, but I ask, when is football going to take it seriously? To me that is the point.
October 30th 2012 @ 10:44am
Ben said | October 30th 2012 @ 10:44am | Report comment
It’s an unfortunate chain of events. Ultimatley the foul was there, the dive was there but the send off was over the top. It would have been good to see the foul given, but a yellow card given for the dive. It’s scenes like this which make soccer a 3rd rate sport in Australia and New Zealand. What the A-League fail to notice is that AFL, League and Union are absolutely loving this media attention. The amount of cr@p I received through high school for playing soccer was bad enough, I imagine it’ll be worse now for kids playing.
October 30th 2012 @ 10:53am
dinoweb said | October 30th 2012 @ 10:53am | Report comment
I played football for years.
I can not count the number of times I was clipped by defenders, then managed to take a couple of steps before falling over. I never took a dive in my life.
Jeronimo was fouled. A free kick should be awarded.
Did he fall over deliberatly? I certainly can not know for sure.
Diving for me is where a player is not fouled, but falls over deliberately to try and undeservedly earn a free kick. That did not happen in this case.
As Ian says, the foul by Sigmund is no less a form of cheating than any supposed dive. Players are good at masking fouls. That is against the laws of the game. It is cheating. It is no less deserving of our condemnation than diving. The differences are, many defenders constantly make these types of fouls, and diving looks bad to spectators.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:33pm
Stu said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Diving for me is where a player is not fouled, but falls over deliberately to try and undeservedly earn a free kick. That did not happen in this case.
This is where you and the rules differ. Irrespective of if its a foul or not if a player attempts to decieve the referee he is guilty of simulation (ie holding your face when being hit in your chest or faking injury then jumping right back to your feet). If the referee was to enforce the rules correctly it would be a yellow card.
October 30th 2012 @ 11:03am
Brendo said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Jeronimo was fouled end of story, don’t care if he did sommersauts afterwards to let the ref know about it. As oebn of the posts above says a foul is a foul and you just cannot get away from that.
The only issue is was it a red card. I think not but its not an obvious error so ref’s decision stands
October 30th 2012 @ 11:52am
Kasey said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
I think most reasonable minded AU fans can see that Jeronimo milked the free kick to the maximum extent.
October 30th 2012 @ 12:08pm
Nathan of Perth said | October 30th 2012 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Pity the cow that got milked like that, though!
October 30th 2012 @ 12:14pm
Kasey said | October 30th 2012 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Hey, I’m just trying to be reasonable here. At the end of the day, there are certain truisms in football, one of which is the League table doesn’t lie. I’m biased but I thought AU were better over 90 minutes than the Phoenix. Perhaps not 3-1 better; but definitely 3 points for the win better. The potential bath I foresaw Fenton and Ifill giving our right flank never eventuated due to Cassio switching often with Bowles and both players especially Cassio having great games. Huysegems is a gun though, watchout Besart Berisha….if the Belgian gets on a run of form, your golden boot title could be up for grabs.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:47pm
Nathan of Perth said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Huysegems has, after a stuttering start with his first couple shots at Necevski, produced some of the finest, most cool-headed finishes we’ve seen in the A-League, a perpetual danger, no doubt!
October 30th 2012 @ 1:36pm
Brendo said | October 30th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Desclaimer I am not a AUFC or WPFC suppoprter
Of course he milked the free kick but that statement alone implies that there was a free kick to be awarded. That means he did not dive. The diving part is a none issue, free kick was there and he made the most of it
October 30th 2012 @ 1:41pm
Kasey said | October 30th 2012 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
+1 Brendo
The free kick WAS there and Jeronimo simply made sure the ref would be forced into action.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:54pm
Nathan of Perth said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Now this is of decidedly unofficial nature, however, one of the recent You Are The Ref strips on the Guardian UK referenced a very similar situation; I refer you to the second situation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/27/you-are-the-ref-alan-pardew
Note the Keith Hackett listing the answers is the same Keith Hackett who was General Manager for the mob that manages the pro pom refs and was FIFA badged.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:56am
Brendo said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Fair enough and if Sigmund had of not made contact then I would concur with this ruling but he did make contact.
October 30th 2012 @ 3:41pm
langou said | October 30th 2012 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
So what we are saying is that as soon as you get the slightest touch from an opposition player it is all right to throw yourself on the ground.
Way to keep Soccer a niche sport!
October 30th 2012 @ 4:25pm
nordster said | October 30th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Not everyone sees football in relation to the rougher sports…even in australia. For a football fan here, there is in fact not enough fouls given compared to other leagues perhaps…i’d like to see players (at least in a team i am following lol) take every foul they can.
I think the attitude here means some players will stay on their feet even if they were fouled, for fear of being accused of diving.
Any attacker who takes a clip in range of goal should be hitting the deck. Especially given the risk of injury when resisting the natural physics at play.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:59am
Brendo said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:59am | Report comment
If contact is incidental then the ref will wave play on. No foul has occured and play continue.
However if a player deliberately grabs at a player to retard his progress and obstruct his passage to the ball this is not incidental contact. Foul every time in my book.
October 30th 2012 @ 11:15am
Llew said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
I’m not saying he wasnt fouled, or that fouls are acceptable. I am saying quite clearly he milked it for maximum advantage. If some of you think that this is perfectly acceptable behaviour, I think thats half the problem.
And yes, I played football for many years too Dinoweb, and yes I’ve been clipped before. Players know the difference between a fall and a dive. And I would care if someone does somersaults at every touch to bring it to the referees attention. That would be silly.
This FFA decision, constrained by their own technicalities, legitimizes the obvious exaggeration.
Some of you seem to think thats OK. I’m questioning whether it is OK.
October 30th 2012 @ 11:35am
Roger said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Nail on the head.
Well stated!
October 30th 2012 @ 1:42pm
Brendo said | October 30th 2012 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
I do think its ok, sure I would like to see players try and push through these little fouls but the foul was committed and if a player chooses to make the most of it so be it. I don’t like it but I don’t think its unlawful or cheating.
To me a dive is only a dive when no foul has been committed. That is cheating and should be clamped down on as the defender and their the team have been unfairly punished.