Round five of the A-League was certainly a riveting weekend of football. Enthusiasts indulged in some exciting clashes full of drama, tension and its fair share of controversy.
Melbourne Victory were left depleted, gallantly fighting A-League frontrunners Brisbane Roar with a nine-man show and ultimately sharing the spoils while the Roar extended their impressive unbeaten streak to 33 games.
Sydney FC battled its way back from a two-goal deficit against Gold Coast United to remarkably steal the points with a dubious penalty in stoppage-time, sending the Sky Blues faithful into ecstasy.
Though United boss Miron Bleiberg didn’t share the analogous emotions. While the Mariners and Jets tasted triumph, there were no winners between Adelaide and Heart; an entertaining, a point favoured neither side dwindling in the bottom half of the table.
There were several talking points to come out of the weekend’s fixtures. Let’s analyse some of the key issues and incidents.
Refereeing standards
Whilst refereeing is seemingly an arduous assignment, the inconsistency illustrated with the officiating this season has been a major point of concern.
We’ve seen several instances where referees have made atrocious decisions, consequently impacting on the result of particular fixtures.
When the Heart hosted Sydney, we saw the visitors awarded a corner when it should have been a goal-kick, and the Sky Blues equalised from the resulting corner in stoppage time.
Furthermore, during the match between Wellington and Victory an assistant referee called for offside from a Melbourne throw-in, whilst the same official disallowed Archie Thompson from scoring an impressive brace when onside by a good two metres.
Football supporters understand and accept mistakes from the officials, although when they are of this magnitude – in a professional environment – mediocrity should not be accepted.
The most contentious matter was Matthew Foschini’s dismissal in the 37th minute against Brisbane Roar last Saturday night.
After correctly giving Ante Covic his marching orders a minute into proceedings, referee Ben Williams obnoxiously dismissed the full-back for a challenge on Thomas Broich which in all honesty was worthy of a yellow ticket at best.
Yes the challenge was mistimed and late, but it was not worthy of a sending off by any means.
This unfortunately changed the whole complexion of the tie – with Victory on the back-foot defending with nine men – and should have never come to fruition.
If an incident like this was worthy of an early shower, then anticipate to see an array of red cards in the coming weeks – assuming the officiating will be of a consistent nature.
Football is a physical sport, and while it’s imperative to clean up the game, the sport will not win over many fans with this outlandish, drastic approach from the men in charge.
Match Review Panel
As discussed, Foschini was issued with a red card for a clumsy challenge on Broich. With support from the media and its fans the Victory rightly attempted to appeal the decision in order to abolish the mandatory one-week suspension.
However, Football Federation Australia responded irritably. Here is a segment of their press release:
“The MRP unanimously determined that the Obvious Error Application should be rejected and that the decision of the Referee to award the Red Card was justified.
“The MRP unanimously determined that the Obvious Error Application of the Club was frivolous for the purposes of clause 9.8 of the A-League Disciplinary Regulations.”
To add salt to the wound, the MRP decided to append an additional week to Foschini’s ban, on the grounds of a “frivolous” appeal.
Labelling Melbourne Victory’s appeal in such manner, implying self-righteousness, is disrespectful to the club, and significantly to its ardent supporters. It displays a level of arrogance, to reply in such a poor, inarticulate way.
If a club fervently believes the referee has made an error, it has a right to voice their opinions, on behalf of its brand and fans.
Disregarding the matter with such insolent behaviour is a sour look from the MRP, its relationship with the lifeblood of Australian football, the clubs itself.
Antony Golec’s Twitter fiasco
Adelaide United youngster Antony Golec, 21, has landed himself in hot water, following his distasteful remarks towards referee Ben Williams, via social medium Twitter.
He criticised the performance of referee Williams during the heated encounter at Etihad Stadium between Melbourne and Brisbane.
Golec originally tweeted: “Ben Williams worst referee ever”, before explicitly writing a homophobic message entailing: “Ben Williams you are gay, biggest homo going around, you gypsie.”
The defender’s remarks were ostensibly unintelligent and dim-witted. Since then, Golec has been forced to apologise, with an expected reprimand forthcoming by the FFA.
It is a valuable reminder to social media addicts that if used incorrectly, it can incur severe ramifications. As your mother may have once told you, “If you’ve got nothing good to say, don’t say anything at all.”
Miron Bleiberg’s sensational rant
Some may call him impertinent; others may think he is a comical genius, whichever way you desire to depict him, Miron Bleiberg coveys entertainment. His colourful, yet audacious character has grabbed the headlines once again.
Evidently frustrated with his side’s 3-2 defeat – conceding a questionable spot-kick in stoppage time to gift Sydney FC victory – the Gold Coast boss didn’t hide his emotions, in what was an incredible post-match press-conference, acutely aimed at the A-League hierarchy.
“My feeling and my players’ feeling is the referee fell for any excuse in order to give Sydney the game,” he revealed in the post-match press-conference.
“It’s good for football in Australia that Sydney are winning and close to the top. (If) that’s mine and my team’s contribution to the benefit of the A-League (then) so be it.
“Hopefully next time Sydney will have (a crowd of) 15,000 and then 20,000 and everybody is happy.”
If that wasn’t enough to make the headlines, the charismatic boss continued his rant, visibly irritated at the turn of events.
“The other type of referee is the one we call the ‘homey’ one. You know why they are the ‘homey’ one? Because all the time they favour the home team. Even when it’s 50-50, it goes the way of the home team.”
Bleiberg has since apologised for his outlandish remarks.
Ange’s Postecoglou’s tactical breakdown
While an exhilarating encounter unfolded at Etihad Stadium last Saturday night, in rather contentious circumstances, Melbourne Victory found itself deteriorating after being reduced to nine men after 37 minutes.
The home side were seemingly fighting for survival against a rampant Brisbane Roar outfit seeking to continue its extraordinary unbeaten run to 33 matches.
Reduced to playing with two less players – in conjunction with a debutant 19-year-old goalkeeper – Victory fought ferociously, defending their goal for an hour to share the points with a team portrayed as the best to have played in an Australian domestic competition.
Whilst Melbourne displayed traits exemplifying courage, fortitude and heart, it was Brisbane who failed to break down the stern Victory resistance.
Brisbane, renowned for their patient, yet effective football ethos, comprising of working the ball out from the back, accompanied with high levels of ball retention has been their trademark under coach Ange Postecoglou.
While its game-plan has been efficient, the Roar didn’t use their two-man advantage to their benefit.
With a young, inexperienced keeper in goal for Melbourne, the Roar didn’t test the custodian enough, nor apply strenuous pressure on the opposition’s goal.
Yes, Lawrence Thomas was called into action on more than one occasion, although the Roar could and should have applied further strain on the Victory’s defensive line.
Brisbane were mulish on their football philosophy, not desiring to take a risk, or try a different approach to break down the gallant Melbourne, spurred on by a passionate crowd just shy of 25,000.
Opportunities to take on an opponent, whip an early cross or take an unexpected long shot were not taken advantage of.
Whilst it is difficult to criticise the manner Brisbane go about their football, on this occasion is appeared the Roar didn’t have a “Plan B” to utilise.
Without question, Brisbane is a force to be reckoned with, although teams may not hold the same fear when locking horns with the table-toppers.
Courtesy of Goal Weekly
– Follow Robbie on Twitter @Robert Di Fabio
Football initiate
Guest
Hey I have read everything here and there's just a few things I wanted to add totally from a spectators point of view. I have always followed the World Cup but since my son has started playing for a club I have become interested in the A-league (since its inception) but I can see how much ground is needed to get the A-League out there to more bigger and broader audiences, to bring football Australia up to the highest level - thats my simple and passionate vision and intention. Someone said the referees are accountable - to whom? If they are, its an invisible process. That's the problem - the system might be all legally correct but to all appearances - to the general public, fans and players it seems like a closed shop - an organisation or governing body has to be seen to be fair, to be transparent, as well as meet the very high professional standards expected of it otherwise there's no point in it being 'right'. The other football and sporting codes have understood this and have thrived on the mechnisms for having decisions heard publicly and accountably and for using the best technologies to support their decision making. By closing down all appeals and thus all healthy discussion it simply leaves the governing body (and thus the code) open to thoughts (if not accusations) of corruption. You can achieve professionalism and high standards without that kind of rigidity. The future of any game is always with the youth involved - what sort of message is being sent out to them with the decision to punish a young player for thoughtless comments made in jest (and obviously frustration) in social media. It's just drawing attention to it anyway through punishment - now a lot more people have heard about it and laughed. It was unfortunate that the young person said that statement on his social media site but you know I think being punished by the ruling body of football in Australia is taking it a little bit out of context. He is only 21 and youth don't understand the medium as older people do, they use it differently. To put it in the context of anyone over 40 -what's happened would be like taping the FFA board at a private BBQ and then lodging defamation law suits against individuals based on that evidence with the biggest defaation occurring when people read about the upcoming case in their papers or hearing it on tv. The governing body should get a sense of robustness, proportion, context and even better, a sense of humour. (I mean even a warning would be more appropriate). There's no proper forum or mechanism to have peoples queries on decisions heard so of course this is the result - it goes underground and becomes gossip inuendo and generally brings down the code. If you have been a spectator on those fields when terrible inconsistent decisions have been repeatedly made and seen the impact on the supporter base but also the players. Its like 'and now its not only that we have to beat the team on the field - we have to also beat the referee as well' and now there's the added morale plunge of having that sort of response to an appeal - a heavier sentence because you dared to pose a question/ appeal. The FFA and the MRP are using Draconian methods, reminescent of a convict penalty system perhaps or maybe just the cold war mentality of the fifties. You can't control clubs or players or the code with fear and silence - lets allow the warm air of democracy to enrichen the code before its killed by a group that just doesn't get it - is so out of touch with the game and the grass roots. Bozza was right - the referees in Australia - at the moment - play too big a role in deciding the outcome of the game and this grossly distorts the game and people's enjoyment and respect for the game. I read and enjoyed Robbie's article because it is just right on. There are no outlandish or biased claims at all - I can see how astute his research has been. So keeping sticking to your frivilous story - no young people even know what that means - sounds like frilly knickers to them.
Roger
Guest
AVD, don't talk down to me thanks. I get it just fine, and I find your attitude offensive. Am I not allowed to disagree with you? Or is it that i'm not allowed to disagree with MRP? Or FFA? Now, MRP *can* add an additional week onto an appeal if frivolous, but that doesn't mean they have to, and it also doesn't mean it's appropriate to, especially when it was such an inconsistent decision in the first place.
AVD
Guest
Bloody hell, I'm not very good at posting these comments in the right section am I?! ... above was in reply to Roger not you dasilva. LOL...perhaps i need to try better to keep up as well! :-)
AVD
Guest
LOL, you just don't get it do you mate? ... yes they did have to impose the extra weeks ban. that's the point of a frivolous appeal. You run the risk of facing extra punishment for wasting the tribunal's time. it is a common and standard rule in all tribunals and courts not only related to sport. it is designed to counter people continually making appeal after appeal whenever they simply disagree with the original decision...as Gorman puts it, it is designed to counter "the temptation ... for every club to challenge every red card, like buying a ticket in the lottery to see if you get lucky. That is not what the MRP is about". There was no tantrum from the MRP.... there have been tantrums from Bosnich and Victory supporters though. Do try to keep up old boy.
dasilva
Guest
Well Melbourne Victory made a frivolous appeal and the punishment for a frivolous appeal is an extra week suspension. Whether that is harsh punishment or not doesn't change the fact that Melbourne should have known better before appealing as if they new the rules, they should have known that they were risking an extra week suspension for Foschini. In any case I think it's fair enough as well Either a) Melbourne Victory didn't knew the rules and made an appeal under a misguided belief that the MRP had power to downgrade a red card to a yellow card. or b) Melbourne Victory knew the rules but decided to make an appeal as a publicity stunt especially when they complain so much about the decision after the match. Therefore treating the MRP as a joke Either way this extra week suspension seems to be an appropriate deterrant and I'm sure melbourne won't make the same mistake again.
Roger
Guest
See comment above dasilva.
Roger
Guest
Jumping to conclusions much? All I said was that it's hardly a surprise that the FFA support MRP. Was the appeal frivolous? Appears so, because the appeal - in it's very nature - was frivolous due to the fact Victory admitted it was a yellow card offence. Was it necessary for the MRP to throw a tantrum about the appeal and add a week to the suspension? Maybe not so much.
dasilva
Guest
I actually agree that MRP should have an expanded role able to downgrade red cards into yellow cards. The more correct decision the better I think. However, I have a feeling that FIFA may get twitchy if the FFA starts to overturn red cards that aren't clear cut incorrect and start downgrading red cards to yellow cards. FIFA may decide to overule that as they are nortoriously anti-technology. However from the rules that are given. Melbourne Victory was not a reasonable challenge. The MRP can only rescind a red card. They can't downgrade the punishment to a yellow card. It was either Foschini get suspended or he gets off scot free. Melbourne Victory admitted that FOschini deserves a yellow card and hence they had no case and was simply wasting the time of the MRP Here's what I imagine took place in the MRP Mr. Shields: For the red card to be rescinded, you have to prove that Foschini didn't deserve even a yellow card for that tackle. So why do you believe that Foschini Red card shoud be rescinded. MV: The red card was unfair, as the tackle only deserves a yellow card. Mr. Shields: Thanks for wasting our time
dasilva
Guest
Roger Whether this is a red card offence is debateable and I'm happy that people are discussing whether it only a red card offence or a yellow card offence However, Melbourne Victory appeal to the MRP is a separate issue and it is frivolous. IT was a naive appeal from a club that doesn't even know the rules. When a club appeals a decision and admits at the same time that their players did not reach the only possible criteria where that red card could be overturn in the process then the only possible conclusion is that it is frivolous. Was Foschini unlucky to get a red card - maybe Was Melbourne Victory being frivolous with the appeal. Answer is yes
AVD
Guest
You're joking right? ... yeah its a real surprise for the FFA to support the MRP, especially so when they are applying the rules correctly. I mean, honestly, the nerve of the FFA eh? . Pfft.
Roger
Guest
Yea, I read the story. But it's hardly surprising that an article appearing on the FFA website would support the MRP. I mean really, what else would you expect?
Roger
Guest
I think the point with this call is that it was completely out of step with every other call over the weekend, previous rounds, and previous seasons. Does that not warrant the viewpoint that it might have been an unfair call?
Matthew Galea
Roar Rookie
Perhaps it would be better to question the MRP's role. Is it right that the MRP doesn't have the ability to overturn this sort of decision because at the time it seemed 50/50? Personally, I don't think the tackle warranted a red card, but at the same time, when I saw it in real time, I thought that it was the sort of tackle Williams would love to punish with a straight red. Should the MRP be allowed to overturn decisions that are clear cut after the fact? For the record, though upon reviewing replays I don't think it was a straight red, I can certainly see that there is a valid interpretation of the rules that would suggest it was a straight red, and I think the MRP came to the right conclusion on the matter. I do think though that the description of the objection as "frivolous" is over the top and simplifies what was not a simple matter. The Foschini red card was not a clear cut red card offence, and hence terming a challenge to that suspension "frivolous" is not fair on the club. The club should not be punished further for trying to defend a player when there was a clear case to suggest the red card was incorrectly given. If that is how the MRP works, then perhaps this conversation should be opened up to discuss the role of the MRP and the sorts of decisions they can come to. It's far too black and white if a reasonable challenge, and I believe Victory's was a reasonable challenge, can be shut down and punished further with such little consideration, and for me, that defeats the purpose of having a MRP. The MRP should be able to operate in grey areas, instead of just black and white.
AVD
Guest
Interesting question mate. I question if the FFA would have the power to make such rules. It would be heading down the path of re-referring the match after the event. I think the current remit of the MRP is only to allow challenges based on clear and obvious error and would be limited to such to avoid heading down that path. I may be wrong on what FIFA might or might not allow of course. Given the tone of Gorman's article I don't think the FFA would want to head that way in any event and to be fair, i think that is probably wise.
Stevo
Guest
I'm sorry, but I'm not gutted by Foschini getting a red. It was either yellow or red and the Ref erred on protecting the player. But the biggest insult was Colosimo being brought down by Slory - not the other way round if you look at the replay. The same kind of incident occurred last weekend between Aston Villa and Norwich where Barnett (Norw) "dragged" down Agbonlahor. The Ref got that one right and penalised Barnett. Heart got the ruff end of the pineapple but not much media attention or whinging.
dasilva
Guest
I will say this whole controversy has brought a larger issue at hand. Should the MRP review panel power be expanded? Should they be given a power to downgrade a red card offence to a yellow card. So far the MRP is limited to a all or nothing approach. It's either a red card or a nothing offence. It was with Melbourne Victory incompetence in not reading the regulation in believing that the MRP has the authority to downgrade a red card to a yellow card. How would people feel if the MRP does have that power?
dasilva
Guest
The problem is Robbie, the MRP panel is not there to overturn line ball and debateable decision THe only way they can overturn a red card is if they decided that the offence doesn't even warrant a yellow card in the first place. So the player is completely innocent It's a very high standard written out to prevent endless debates about whether something is a red or not and it's there only to remove clear cut errors. Now Melbourne Victory appealed the red card by saying it only deserves a yellow card. Therefore they admitted that it warrants a yellow card and therefore admitted that it doesn't match the criteria for overturning a red card. If that isn't frivolous appeal than I don't know what is. They appeal a decision and openly admitted that they would not meet the criteria for overturning the red card in the process. It's one thing criticising the ref for making a bad decision on the day. However the MRP got it spot on.
Midfielder
Guest
Its good to see the FFA react to hot stories going around... I read the story when it came out and said well done FFA...
dasilva
Guest
The whole thing of consistency that has been trotted out. It's one of those things that is easier said then done. If the referee makes a correct call of giving out a red card and then miss a clear cut red card offence. People will complain lack of consistency However is it the case of people having different standards on what is a red card offence or is it simply a case of a referee simply just stuffing up and misjudge the scenario at hand. Maybe the referee missed the tackle or saw it at a different angle and the tackle didn't seem so bad from the position he was in or simply he just made a mistake.
dasilva
Guest
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/gorman-opinion-display/Nothing-frivolous-about-Review-Panel/42475 Here is the Lyall Gorman article that people are quoting