PRICHARD: Ridiculous that Smeltz has escaped suspension

He does not deserve a ban...

Except that Smeltz didn't "leave a foot in". He poked at the ball and played it. At no time did he pursue the ball in a dangerous manner. At no time were his studs up. Did you think Fernandez left his head in tonight? Do you think he should have pulled out of the challenge?

I trust we will now have similar outpourings of venom against Guyon Fernandez for his reckless challenge on Tando Velaphi tonight. There will be many here who will say he left his head in in the challenge and though it probably wasn't intentional, he should have seen Velaphi coming and pulled out of the challenge. He owed Velaphi a duty of care, right? Personally i think it was a challenge almost EXACTLY like Smeltz - two committed players going for the ball and the resulting collision causing injury.

Re the laws of the game. Smeltz did not use excessive force when challenging for a ball. He swung his foot in the same manner as anyone would against any other player. The keeper did not have control of the ball and despite claims by many that it "was obvious" that Birighitti would get to the ball first, that does not guarantee the he will effectively control it. Goalkeepers, like everyone else make mistakes and can fumble a ball particularly when in the process of diving. Smeltz is therefore entitled to challenge for the ball. As I've also stated, I've seen a keeper break another players leg in this situation. Outfield players can also just as easily destroy their knee or ankle in such a challenge. The danger is not all to the keeper. Smeltz is entitled to challenge for the ball. If the keeper doesn't dive, he isn't in danger, ergo, the actions of the keeper is as much, if not more, to blame for the dangerousness of the situation than those of the striker. Please show me in the rules where it states a keeper is allowed to create a dangerous situation for which the opposing player gets penalised.

I take your point Bondy and I agree the Kantarovski incident 'looked' far worse than Smeltz's and would have looked absolutely horrible if he had connected - talk about world wide exposure for the A-League, we would have got it! But Smeltz caused real injury by his actions and he knew full well that leaving a foot in would contact the goal keeper - I'm not saying he meant the damage he caused - but he would have been expecting contact and expecting to cause the goal keeper some discomfort. AND he has prior form having done it before causing injury to a goal keeper. So I rate them as equal. And for anyone who says Smetz's contact was accidental and occurred in a split moment - you are either conning yourselves or you have never played the game. When you are going for any ball you have choices; * just take the ball as cleanly as you can, or, * try and clip the opposition player in the process, or jump into his back, just make sure they know you are there, even at the expense of a free kick, but never to injure, [defenders do it all the time to forwards and sometimes vice versa], or, * completely pull out of a potential collision, or, * pursue the ball, or pretend to pursue the ball, in a dangerous manner expecting contact and without real regard for the outcome. All players make decisions consciously in tiny fractions of a second. It's part of being a professional player. Smeltz chose the last option which is the most unforgivable.

Phil The Kantarovsky incident was far worse than the Smeltz's incident . Kantarvosky should be taken out of the game and have it explained that his actions bordered on violence and should be taught how to tackle if he cant then it should be explained to him that he should be banned from the game otherwise, no positive outcome could've been achieved from his actions.

I wrote on the Roar in an an article last week that the MRP system was broken and the members should be the ones adjudicating on critical decisions in the game. My hypothesis was that we know what we want to see on the football field. Despite some extreme polarization on the replies here, the weight of opinion from supporters of various clubs is that Smeltz should have been sanctioned - and for the record I agree - he left a foot dangling in an area where he knew full well that the ball was beyond him and dangerous contact with the goalkeeper was likely - he failed in a duty of care to another player (and not for the first time). Kantarovsky should also have been banned for several weeks for that attempt to break another players leg but a yellow card meant he couldn't be sanctioned further - it's plain ridiculous and the members know it! So there you have it. In round 2, just one week after I commented, we have the FFA/MRP dishing up an outcome totally at odds with what the majority of the public think and want. More than half the A-League members would be feeling that the game has been let down once again by the administrators in two significant incidents - a major injury to a goalkeeper and a tackle that would have broken a players leg had the flying, double footed, studs up challenge, been only centimeters from where the players actually landed. It isn't good enough and the FFA need to fix it. I'm not big on the PFA and have written articles condemning their recent behavior. But I'd like to ask Mr Vivian where are you on all this? Why haven't you come out and spoken in defence of your Mission to' support the players and build the game'? Birighittti and the lucky Sydney player whom Kantarovski missed are the ones you should be supporting - they were playing football, while condemning Shmeltz and Kantarovski who by their actions tarnished the game on the weekend and certainly didnt 'build it'. You'd have a case this time for saying that the FFA through their inadequate rules, should charge themselves with bringing the game into disrepute. For once I'd agree with you.

It was Stephen Hunt, Reading who was involved with Cech.

Late and reckless and boot into the face - has to be at least a card, no? He definitely left a boot in there, when he certainly knows better.

He learnt a few things from Ljubo unfortunately in the professional foul area. This wasn't one of them.

Sorry, the laws of the game say that Smelz has a duty not "to endanger the safety of an opponent", and if he does, he is "guilty of serious foul play". That is so whether he intends to or not. I apologise for going on about this, but the laws are quite clear whether the players or commentators know them or not. It is obviously up to the referee to interpret them, and they have to do it immediately, and limited to only what they and the other officials can see. However in my opinion they got the Smelz/Birighitti incident wrong.

Was Fornaroli reckless in the derby game for his goal? no. If Vuckovic didn't pull out of the challenge and went head first at his feet ala Birra, we may well have ended up with a similar situation. Birra was brave, he copped it as a result, and Smeltz has every right to go for the ball, as did fornaroli. Mountain out of a mole hill, move on.

Lol! You got me there fadida. It's The Hague for me. Actually, my comment was more insulting to sheep though wasn't it? :)

Smeltz reckless? Ho hum...

That's quite the hyperbole you've got going there.

Similar discussion as the one everyone had about the Berisha red card back when he played for the Roar against Melbourne heart, with one of the situational differences being that this incident was more malicious and the other more important distinction being that Smeltz plays for Sydney. Thoroughly unsurprising result on the balance of things.

By your criteria that is a "racist comment" Horto, as I have no doubt that like Greek folk you consider New Zealanders to be a separate "race"? :)

I don't know that there's much disagreement there about accidents happening and risks taken. I think the arguments are about the interpretation of the law - which for mine comes down to if GKs are treated differently, as you highlight, and if the accidental nature matters (it doesn't, as far as I can tell). The other area for disagreement is highlighted by your description. For mine, it's clear Birighitti is going to get to the ball before Smeltz, who is running in a direction that will take him past Birighitti and the ball, and smeltz starts taking his swing then. As I said somewhere above though, it all happens in a split second. My opinion is that regardless of intent and likelihood, it's still reckless to swing your boot near someones face.

As you can see from my quotes of extracts from the current laws of the game above [and below], I do not think that your views are based on current reality. As you have stated, strikers have every right to challenge a goalkeeper for the ball in the same way they would challenge any other player However, from “Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees” "A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred inside the offender’s penalty area)." [You will note that there is no mention of intent in these extracts. Lack of intent is no protection against committing a foul, or against being guilty of serious foul play.] My interpretation of the Smelz/Birighitti incident would be that Smelz was clearly guilty of serious foul play as he “endangered the safety of an opponent”. He therefore should have been sent off. I am happy to be corrected in this view if I am interpreting the laws incorrectly.

This sort of challenge has been part of football as long as there have been keepers. Smeltz didn't attack Birighitti's head, he challenged for the ball. He is in the motion of striking for the ball long before Brighitti puts his head in the way. No one forces goalkeepers to put their heads in dangerous positions like this, it is their choice, and strikers have every right to challenge for the ball in the same way they would challenge any other player. There was no guarantee that the keeper was going to take the ball cleanly, and that a touch by Smeltz wouldn't have put it in the back of the net. I have seen a similar situation where a player struck a keeper in the forehead with his shin as the keeper dived. The outfield player had his leg broken in two places, the keeper was fine to continue. Should the keeper have been sent off for dangerous play? Accidents happen. You can not legislate that a keeper in the motion of diving suddenly prohibits other players for contesting an unclaimed ball.