Sydney FC's Ryall cleared of simulation

Oh for God's sake, who cares. I know I don't. I'm only on this thread because I think Stebre has been treated way too harshly.

Spot on, Batou! I can honestly say I never dived for a foul whilst playing football, but every time I was tackled I'd ask the question of the ref. When you're running flat out with the ball and an opponent crunches into you it's impossible to know if the opponent got the ball first, or got your leg first. So, you ask the question of the ref and I certainly asked the question every time. I didn't argue with the decision. Just asked the question and moved on if the ref said 'play on'. I've not respect for Ryall for many other reasons on the night and on other nights, but I don't have any ill feeling over the actual penalty. I blame Strebre for that. When Strebre admitted in the last year's A-League Semi-Final he made a mistake not awarding Milligan a penalty his excuse was "I need to be 100% sure before I give a penalty". Clearly, Strebre only has this attitude when Victory are the attacking team. PS: As far as i'm concerned there was no foul on Antonis. We'll get people arguing about that for years. But the Ryall incident no one - not even Ryall - thinks it is a penalty.

He obstructs him by getting in his way, if we are going to be literal about it. No, I'm not a science teacher, thank God, but at least I don't need a dictionary to illuminate the meaning of the word obstruct. Finkler, either wittingly or unwittingly (the latter it would seem) moves across Ryall's path and there is contact. Therefore he obstructs him. From the Oxford dictionary: Definition of obstruct in English: VERB [WITH OBJECT] 1Block (an opening, path, road, etc.); be or get in the way of: she was obstructing the entrance. Congratulations, however, on correctly spelliing "preposterous".

Spot on Waz. The way some people see are carrying on you'd think that there are only two possibilities, that it's a pen or he dived. He actually just tripped over. As for raising his arms and looking to the ref, surely anyone who has played had felt they have been fouled and protested in the heat of the moment when it wasn't actually the case. Even as a spectator I frequently get worked up over perceived referring blunders that are shown later to be correct calls. Strebre made a mistake, it shouldn't have been a penalty. Simple. He also made a mistake the other way by not awarding Sydney a penalty for the foul on Antonis earlier.

Ryall didn't say it wasn't a penalty at the time, he said he was sure he hadn't tripped over his own feet but that there was contact. Therefore he was entitled to appeal. No doubt the worst penalty appeal and award in a long time but let's not let our opinions get in the way of facts - there was contact, the contact was enough to take the player down, an independent panel verified this, his appeal is reasonable enough on the circumstances - football players appeal all the time (watch the cricket and see them in action). If you're calling it simulation the evidence no longer supports your argument.

Well the evidence says he didn't simulate it so no yellow card; his behaviour afterwards (irrespective of whether it was a penalty or not) was worthy of a yellow card.

Yes but not for 10 years now; but you won't like the law: "A foul is an unfair act by a player, deemed by the referee to contravene the game's laws, that interferes with the active play of the game" - the key is the phrase "deemed by the referee" so you can look at this several ways (1) did Ryall take a dive - no, evidence proves there was contact (2) was he guilty of simulating a foul? Again on the evidence presented no, there was contact and enough to bring a running player down (3) was a foul commuted and therefore was it a penalty? On the evidence no, therefore the referee may be guilty of refereeing what he thought he saw and not what he actually saw - this is not unusual as refs have to simultaneously interpret what they see and form an opinion often in a split second and under pressure (4) was Ryalls behaviour afterwards misconduct? In my opinion yes and worthy of punishment both at the time (yellow card) or afterwards (one match suspension). I haven't seen the new footage but I wasn't convinced he'd dived at the timd BUT didn't think it was a penalty either.

He's got until Monday at 5 PM to prove there was no contact with his crotch ...

That's my understanding too.

Seems reasonable. The Gallop thing seems like a social media beat up.

I'm sure this is not true. First he has not been charged with any offence so he can't front any panel. He's been issued with a "show cause notice". As far as I know Berisha has 7 days to respond to this 'please explain' from the FFA and the 7 day period ends on Monday. Berisha is named in a full Victory squad that was posted on the FFA's website this afternoon for the match in Brisbane tomorrow night. Only DelPierre is unavailable. All this information is publicly available for anyone who keeps up to date with A-League news.

If it hasn't already been said above. Berisha will be fronting an FFA panel tonight. One of the witnesses to testify will be David Gallop himself. Another interesting night of drama ahead.

Cleary contact. Could tell from original footage. I real time, Finkler does trail his leg. Leaves it hanging there a little.

Yeah. It was clear he looked expectantly to the ref. and interestingly he knew exactly where the ref was placed. Hmmm On the other side of finkler's body, that's where. He knew Stebre could not have seen the con he was running. It was a 50/50 if he got the foul/pen/indirect free kick. Now that this ruling has occurred there'll be even less disincentive for this sort of rubbish tactics.

Incorrect Uncle. He lay on the ground on his stomach with his hands in the air looking at the ref. That's actually quite a difficult posture. Watch the footage again. Clear as day.

The article I read said Ryal told the MRP after he reviewed the video he agreed it wasn't a penalty. I'm no fan of Ryall. In fact as a player and a man, I've no respect for him. But, to be fair to Ryall, he didn't really appeal. He went down after he lost his footing and before he had any chance to appeal the ref had blown the whistle and pointed. In fact, I don't recall any of the Sydney players appealed for a penalty? If you watch Tavares he's assuming the ref had pointed for a goal kick - that's how removed it was from a foul.

A player with Ryall's experience is going to know that it wasn't a foul (and that it was impossible for Finkler to foul him from that position), and this should have been the line of questioning taken by the prosecution. It beggers belief that a professional footballer would think that the defender is the one in the wrong when you collide with his heel as he runs away from you. It's like someone saying "he headbutted my elbow!" Therefore, by the FIFA definition, his appealing for a penalty is "pretending to have been fouled" which is simulation and worthy of a ban. What the FFA ruling does is to say "If there is contact you are free to pretend you have been fouled (simulate) as long as you can front up to the MRP and say "I thought I was fouled"". Ludicrous.

I think if you had Ryall under oath and asked him did he think Finkler purposefully tripped him, he would say no. Then ask him why then he appeal for a penalty as he fell on the ground? It was simulation. It was unsporting. In fact he told the MRP that it wasn't a penalty. I wonder then how he explains his appealing as he landed on the ground? Stebre is ultimately at fault, but Ryall has placed a huge question mark over his credibility and sportsmanship.

There seems to be significant misunderstanding from some that the MRP decision means Ryall was fouled and it was a legitimate penalty. That's utter nonsense. The MRP did not say: it was a foul, or it was a penalty. They merely said there was no simulation. Simulation occurs when a player falls to the ground "simulating" he's been fouled when there was no contact with an opponent. Anyone who has played outdoor sport (doesn't have to be football) at adult level would understand that, more often than not, you lose your footing playing sport without someone else intentionally or recklessly tripping or pushing you. What this means is a player falling to the ground does not automatically mean it's a foul. Also, if a player falls to the ground and there has been no foul, it does not automatically mean he's diving. Only if a player falls to the ground and there is no contact with an opponent and the ref thinks he was trying to pretend he had been fouled that equals 'simulation'.

I'm pretty sure Stebre had an impeded view courtesy of finkler's body. Who judged it to be a pen? Assistant?? Ryall milked it. To be sure. Therefore the clip afterwards was very sinister. Should have been waved on. And a yellow for simulation, no less.