Gold Coast United FC head coach and director of football, Miron Bleiberg (centre) celebrates with Football Federation Australia (FFA) CEO Ben Buckley (right) and Gold Coast United CEO Clive Mensink (left). AAP Image/Dave Hunt
Wednesday’s decision by the FFA’s Independent Match Review Panel to rescind Iain Fyfe’s red card from Adelaide’s 3-2 loss to Perth was staggering. It hints at an odd softening of the application of the laws by the A-League’s governing body.
Fyfe’s ‘game changing’ sending-off was a contentious moment for many, especially considering Mile Sterjovski’s poor first touch and the nature of the unfortunate contact between the two players.
In my opinion, Fyfe (as the last man) clumsily collided into Sterjovski without taking any piece of the ball and effectively denied his opponent a shot on goal. You can not do that and expect to get away with it. It was a red card.
Many will differ with that opinion, and that’s fine, but that only reiterates the point that it was a contentious moment.
So that makes the Match Review Panel’s (MRP) decision to cancel Fyfe’s ensuing suspension all the more staggering.
This is coming from the MRP who have averted controversy and ignored so many contentious incidents prior to this all season. In fact the MRP have rarely done anything major this season, bar a few extraordinary incidents involving Danny Tiatto and Charlie Miller at Etihad Stadium early in the season.
The MRP made a statement after Wednesday’s decision claiming: “The player was issued with an R5 Red Card for ‘denying the opposing team a clear goal-scoring opportunity’. The MRP firstly considered an Obvious Error Application by the player.
“The Obvious Error Application was upheld and, accordingly, the Red Card is expunged from the record of the player and he is not required to serve a sanction.”
So for the MRP to suddenly make such a decision, which appears totally inconsistent with prior conclusions, caught plenty by surprise.
So where did it come from? Why the sudden relaxation of the laws?
Indeed, there’s been a hint something odd has been going on at the FFA lately, after a separate, recent rule change which was kept rather quiet.
This rule change only really came to light during Fox Sports’s coverage of the Adelaide-Perth game, when commentator Mike Cockerill stated the FFA have changed the number of yellow cards a player needs to accumulate before they must serve a suspension from five to eight.
The staggering part was they had enforced this decision mid-season, before Round 21 to be precise.
The problem here isn’t that the rule change is wrong but rather that it is inconsistent due to it’s timing.
For example, a player like Perth Glory’s Jacob Burns, who has already served a suspension this season for accumulated yellow cards, can feel a little hard done by.
The situation has flashes of UEFA’s late decision to seed teams in the European World Cup playoffs.
Furthermore, it is curious that the FFA made no big deal of the rule change as a quick google search will tell you.
So the question is why the sudden need for changes?
Well, the FFA have recently been under plenty of pressure for their fixturing of the 2009/2010 A-League season due to the incomprehensible gap between the Grand Final and the World Cup which has left plenty of domestic players in need of a move away from Australia.
The threat of a mass exodus of A-League stars in January, arguably, has worried the FFA into taking action.
Indeed, the changes to the yellow card accumulation rule and the MRP’s Fyfe decision hint at a softening of policy to ensure more players are available more of the time.
Perhaps this way, they think they can soften the blow of big-name stars leaving the league by ensuring no other players needlessly miss games through suspension.
It is worth consideration and the evidence points toward such a situation. It appears the FFA have gone soft, mid-season.
George Burns
Guest
To anyone who understands football and is not biased there was no foul committed by iain Fyfe. Further is there any comments regarding the successful (goal scored from it free kick and defender yellow carded) dive that Archie Thomson enacted in the match on Saturday 23rd Jan 2010?
Phutbol
Guest
Have to agree to disagree with Gazz and co. looks like Sterj lost control of the ball and then fell over in an even contest for it. I dont think having the last touch deems you to be in control of the ball and he definitely wasn't. Fyfe had as much right to compete for it as Sterj.
jimbo
Guest
cheers davelee, yeah I've seen it - still looks like shoulder to shoulder to me and Sterj fell over too easily. Anyway, match committe overturned it.
davelee
Guest
Here's a link to the incident, 2:00 in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx8R3wEMiSE
Joe FC
Guest
I thought it was a red card.
davelee
Guest
Aka, you can't use your shoulder (or for that matter any part of your body) to knock a player off the ball. Jimbo, watch the replay and re-assess the 'facts' you've presented. 2, 3 and 4 are false and 1 is irrelevant. Remains a staggering decision by the FFA.
jimbo
Guest
1. At the time of the foul Sterj didn't have control of the ball, the ball was loose and they both contested it. 2. Making contact with the opposition is not a red card offense. 3. Neither player won the ball it ran loose towards goal out of Sterjovski's control. 4. They were still a long way from goal and the other defenders could have come across.
jimbo
Guest
Wasn't even a foul in my opinion and a snowflake's chance in hell of scoring from where he was gazz. Bad touch from Sterj and they both collided going for the loose ball and an expert FFA football panel agrees with us, so not such nobsense after all.
Aka
Guest
In my opinion, it was side on shoulder to shoulder. No foul.
davelee
Guest
Spot on Gazz, Four questions; 1.Who had the ball? Sterjovski 2.Was there contact? Yes 3.Did Fyfe win the ball? No 4.Was Fyfe last man? Yes Red Card
gazz
Roar Pro
I can not believe some of the comments that I'm reading!! Jimbo says "Fyfe was sent off because the ref thought he was the last line of defense, but it was a harmless obstruction really. There was no damaging tackle or any harm done." No harm done!! The Glory just had a goalscoring opportunity taken away from them because Fyfe (yes he was the last man) was caught behind Sterjovski and clumsily ran into him. What nonsense Jimbo, honestly!! Phutbol says, "Not only was it not a red card it wasnt even a foul! Sterj knocked the ball in front of Fyfe’s running line then ran into him! Fyfe didnt change direction or rate of movement to stop him, and even then it was shoulder to shoulder so should have been play on." Mile was in behind Fyfe, how can he run into him. Mile's first touch can take him wherever he wants, Fyfe, though, can not take him to ground, which he did. Indeed, Fyfe didn't change direction which was the exact reason for the foul. Win the ball or pull out. As for a few comments about shoulder to shoulder. More nonsense. Thnk about the official rules; A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: • denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
Australian Football
Guest
I didn't see the fixture only the hi-lights of the match. I am not shore what happened exactly from that vision, but he seemed to me to be the last man, but however, it also looked to me that he challenged shoulder to shoulder... Therefore a fair challenge and wrongly red carded imo, so in the light of that I feel the FFA have made the right call. ~~~~~~~ AF
Australian Football
Guest
Welcome back Slippery Jim... Just in time for Chelsea's treble ;) ~~~~~~~ AF
Ben
Guest
Whilst I agree with the eventual overturning of the decision, please be careful - an 'obstruction' only occurs where there is no contact between players. If there is contact it is either a hold, charge or push.
markwakefield
Guest
i agree.. and by the way, mile has never has great touch...
Tom
Guest
Yeah, this surprised me as well. Certainly didn't seem to qualify as a clear misinterpretation of the rules, which I believe is the standard. It'll be interesting to see how Fyfe goes on Saturday. He's probably not the ideal centre-half to take into a game against Kruse and Thompson, frankly.
Slippery Jim
Roar Rookie
It is an anomoly in world football terms that the FFA can state that the red card will be expunged from his record. Australia and England are the only countries in the world (in my understanding) in which FIFA has allowed special dispensation for players to appeal a sending off decision. Under this rule in England for a straight red card, for any offence, a player has the right of appeal. The club must submit video evidence and written statements which prove the referee has made a 'serious and obvious error' either in law or judgement. This submission is then considered, along with the referee's misconduct report by a four-man independent panel, who assess the evidence and reach the decision with the help of a secretary versed in technical aspects of law. Three panel members are FA Council members; the fourth is selected from the FA's 'football panel' - including ex-professionals. The onus is on the club to prove the referee was wrong. The panel can overturn the decision of a referee with a simple majority verdict if they find the referee has made a 'serious and obvious error', even if that is only evident from a viewing angle the referee did not have. If the appeal succeeds, the red card remains on the record which is why technically the red card is not rescinded but more correctly the appeal for wrongful dismissal is upheld and the suspension overturned, but this does not lead to an additional ban if the player is sent off again during the season. If the appeal is deemed to have 'no prospect of success', an additional one or two-match ban may be added to the sentence to prevent clubs abusing the system.
jimmy
Guest
i agree completely, mile either had a horrible first touch or cynically put his path in front of the defender (depending on how you look at it*) and then changed direction to collide with fyfe. no foul, play on (at worst its obstruction, so indirect and no card) * based on mile's form i'm more inclined to think it was just a bad touch
hazza
Guest
It wasnt a red card offence in the first place. Congrats on the FFA .
Phutbol
Guest
Not only was it not a red card it wasnt even a foul! Sterj knocked the ball in front of Fyfe's running line then ran into him! Fyfe didnt change direction or rate of movement to stop him, and even then it was shoulder to shoulder so should have been play on.