Brama suspension for horror tackle – too lenient or fair judgement?

I smell a conspiracy, Roar players spits in direction of player, 7 weeks ban. Roar suffers a potentially leg breaking dangerous tackle, the guilty party gets only 2 weeks. You figure it out.

Eddy It is a tactic used all over the world, encouraged by coaches (me included) at the end of a tight game. Fans of the side winning the game don't have a problem with it. However, I agree it can be frustrating and cynical but had the ahem, boot been on the other foot, Brama would have had no trouble doing it for the Mariners. A possible solution to the issue is to mark an area near each corner flag. In the last 5 minutes of a game, the ball cannot be in the area for any longer than say, 5-10 seconds.

The disciplinary committee have effectively confirmed that spitting at a player is more than 3 times as bad as almost crippling one.

Agree Lionheart. Generally it is a foul, but how bad does one foul look from the next is interpretation and debate fodder. From our individual point of view the severity of the suspension is subjective, but I would say that from a refs and the games POV subjectivity is its own can of worms. Given the list of offenses and the associated suspension terms, my only thought on a solution would be potentially suspending the offending player for the duration of the recipients injury. Still in this case Brama, fortunately and luckily for Gamerio, wasn't injured so the 1 game + red card suspension more or less stands. In this case should the suspension terms be upgraded? Interpreting severity leads us back to subjectivity... For me it was reckless, rather than a miss-timed foul, so something you don't want to encourage. 2-4 games sounds about right, though, without injury imo.

Haha Chris, carry on... 8-)

The MINIMUM suspension is 1 week for this offence. The maximum is 2 years. There’s some leway in there which they chose not to use.

Football has been sucked into a situation that when someone says something that is deemed 'offensive' then they must be punished severely. But, jump karate style into someones leg oh well, a couple of weeks will do. Rugby League and Rugby Union banned the 'shoulder charge' for player safety. The penalty for doing it is extremely severe. So the full contact sports have tried to increase player safety but, football has given a amber light , proceed with caution, to maniacs to try and mame opponents. I read the names of the 3 panelists and it is a case of who, who and who. Apparently they thought Brama was trying to win the ball. Are they for real. Clearly they were trying to find a way out to give Brama a short suspension as Brama had no intention of playing the ball . Football has a lot of maturing to do when it comes to violent conduct such as Brama's.

Or course he should have got a lot longer, like the rest of the season. Sadly this was always going to happen because teams are using extra time to stand in the corner 'hiding the ball' with no intention to play football. Someone was going to lose it one day and it's sad but predictable it eventually happened. If commentators and journalists got on to this terrible time wasting early in the season that tackle would not have happened and the crowds would not be disappearing. This diabolical standing in the corner and not attempting to play football combined with the cynical tackles when teams try to break are killing the game. Imagine sitting next a neutral friend you took to a game and they had to watch 5 minutes of a player/s hiding the ball in the corner. You can be sure of one thing he/she will not comeback especially as they have already suffered 90 minutes of cynical fouls and diving. The shame is that the standard of play, when it actually happens, is not bad at all. Problem is the cynical rubbish is just killing HAL.

No matter what your opinion is, the FFA publishes what the minimum and maximum punishments are for the various Red Card offences BEFORE the season starts. The punishment for Serious Foul Play (when challenging for the ball) in the FFA document is a 1 match suspension. The MRP added 1 additional match. The punishment listed in the FFA for spitting is 6 weeks. The MRP reviews every red card incident and imposes the punishment as per the FFA document unless it refers the incident to an independent committee as hapoened with Papadopoulus. There is a problem with incidents reviewed by the VAR cannot be reviewed by the MRP.

Griffo I was trying to be funny : )

Spitting deserves what it got. How far off target was the spit? I don't know so I really can't say too much about it. I don't see how the severity of the injury can be related to the penalty. The intent in the tackle was obvious enough I thought, no need to look at the injury. Three weeks is a joke. Apparently some sports do award greater penalties for severe injuries whereas others award on the offence alone. It's an ageless argument based on personal opinion.

While I personally don't think a 2 week suspension is an appropriate punishment for such acts, it actually is on par with the penalty that's doled out globally. Recall Martin Taylor's sickening challenge on Eduardo Da Silva when at Arsenal. A flew in, studs aimed at the shin and broke Eduardo's leg so severely he spent 18 months on the sidelines and the images of the bone piercing skin will last a lifetime. He got 3 weeks. Manifestly rubbish bans, but at least consistent. Consistency is more important than random cases of making an example out of someone.

It sets the precedent that no tackle is worth more than 2 games. Thats just about as bad as it gets. Thankfully it didn't break his leg (though i wonder if it had, would it still be 2 weeks?). He gets one week for the red and another week as its his second red of the season (correct me if im wrong). 4 weeks should be minimum for that kind of tackle.

I don't think whether the saliva hit the player or the ground matters at all - the act itself is totally undesirable in the game. However, I think the point on structure of sanctions, severity, and associated suspension time is ideal for consistency, if it does not exist. Also keep in mind that some matters cannot be dealt with outside a match review panel if the ref has dealt with it on the field with a certain card. Also a committee is still a little subjective, although guidelines would help alleviate this to a degree.

Does spitting bring the game into disrepute more than a foul with disregard for a fellow players well-being? The rules might deal with degree of severity of a foul in relation to a players well-being and position the foul was committed in relation to the field and ball posession, but spitting may not be dealt with directly, coming under another area that has different conditions. My point being spitting is socially reprehensible, and is not part of the game, while a foul is (unfortunately). Spitting happens infrequently and is very undesirable (ie: not a good look for the game as well as not a part of it), while a foul can range from a late or mistimed attempt at dispossessing a player, to a professional foul to stop play, to just plain reckless attempt at stopping a player without regard for their health. I'd say if Gamerio's leg was broken (and looking at a similar time off to Ronny Vargas at the Jets), the suspension would have been longer. I would not say that a suspension of a player for spitting would differ that greatly depending on whether the saliva landed on the player or the ground.

Exactly! The spit didn't even hit anyone.

There's a couple of points that need to be cleared up Michael. Firstly, the referee initially issued a Yellow card and upgraded to Red on advice from the VAR, and after some strong words from the Roar captain. I don't agree that the ref 'could not assess just how bad the tackle was at the time'. Initially, it was poorly handled by the referee who had a clear view of the tackle. Secondly, Avraam Papadopoulos did not spit on anyone. He did spit, and apparently it was toward Matt Simon, or in his general direction (I actually haven't seen video with the two players in it). But he certainly did not spit on him. I think it's actually a three match ban, one compulsory plus two. He deserved at least the same as Papadopoulos.

I just don’t agree with the opinion that a 2 week suspension is long enough I think we’ve moved on from the attempting to break someone’s leg type tackle . You can be a hard player, without that kind of tackling . I always preferred the physical contact for when I played the other footy codes but within the rules ..... and I always enjoyed the skill element of when I played football/ soccer with the thought of tackling someone to actually get the ball back , not break his leg .!! But that’s Just my opinion

What I dont understand is how the match committee comes up with penalties associated with dangerous play when compares to others. It seems to be completely random. Out of the three big suspensions the A League has had in its short career (Vukovic, Muscat, Papadolpous) only one has been been for dangerous play (Muscat). The other two have been essentially been for bringing the sport into disrepute. Now I dont and wont dispute the merits for the other two suspensions, but to me, it sends the signal the A League is more concerned with their 'brand' than the welfare of their players. Brama's tackle was shocking - he had no intention to go the ball - was late, high and forceful - it was dangerous and negligent. Those plays are lawsuits waiting to happen.