Adelaide United striker Hiroshi Ibusuki’s controversial red card against Sydney FC has been rescinded as an “obvious error” leaving him free to face Perth Glory.
With Adelaide leading Sydney 1-0, Ibusuki was shown a straight red for fouling Anthony Caceres as he slid for the ball in the 40th minute of Sunday’s A-League Men game at Allianz Stadium.
Closer inspection showed only minor contact with Caceres’ foot but the video assistant referee upheld the on-field ruling and the Reds were reduced to 10 men with more than half the game left to play.
Hiroshi Ibusuki of United is given a red card by referee Daniel Elder. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
Sydney took a 2-1 lead and while Adelaide fought back to draw 2-2, they were clearly hindered by their numerical disadvantage.
Football Australia’s independent match review panel (MRP) of Simon Micallef (chairman), Con Diomis, and Alan Davidson assessed the incident on Monday, with Adelaide contending the red card was an obvious error.
“The MRP held that no direct red card was warranted in the circumstances and the other matters required by the regulations were satisfied,” Football Australia said in a statement.
“Therefore, the application was accepted, as there was an obvious error in the issuing of the red card.
“Having accepted the application, the MRP has determined that Ibusuki would not be required to serve the mandatory match suspension, will face no further action for the incident, and will have the red card rescinded and removed from his record.”
The decision means Ibusuki remains eligible for the Johnny Warren Medal for the competition’s best player, as well as making him available for Sunday’s clash with the Glory.
Players who receive straight red cards during the course of the season are ruled out of the voting.
The A-Leagues warned coaches in the pre-season referees would take a dim view of tackles where a player’s studs made contact with their rivals.
In the MRP statement, referees boss Nathan Magill said officials would continue to home in on the three main focuses established in pre-season: “player safety, maximising ball in play, and enhancing the image of the game”.
coolncold
Roar Rookie
ps I deliberately watched the full match replay at the 40th minute. And you are right as the doctor checked on his right leg, not left leg. Sorry.
coolncold
Roar Rookie
In the match against WSW, Neville was behind WSW's last defending player by almost one foot (300 mm). There is no need for issue of "margin of error". In that match, VAR had a clear error on Neville's offside call. Main and assistant referees might make a mistake. But VAR should never make.
coolncold
Roar Rookie
Ahh... 1) in Paramount plus, the viewer cannot control the slow motion. In Paramount plus the slow motion is by the Paramount + editor. In KEEP.UP, the viewer has the choice to fast play and slow play. In slow play, the choices are 0.75x and 0.5x. 2) I have watched the Paramount Plus' Match Highlights again. The left leg hit the ball and then may hit on Caceres' right leg below the knee. And Ibusuki's right leg hit on Caceres' left leg almost simultaneously. However, in the match highlights (by Paramount +) there is no showing of boot stud marks on Caceres' leg. Maybe, you got that from other sources.
Lionheart
Roar Rookie
The decision was subjective and the ref clearly got it wrong. Off-side calls on the other hand, are objective, measurable and should not be open to interpretation by any official, as it is on almost a weekly basis by VAR and was in the Wanderers v Roar match last round. The FA or whoever oversees VAR implementation in Australia should stamp out the subjective interpretation of offside by their officials. It’s a digital call, yes/no. They will need a protocol, like a margin of error in measurement or a time limit to review, but they need to address it.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
My point about going to Paramount was to see the stud holes on Caceres leg after. You have the video of the tackle in slow motion on this website why do you need to use keepup. You cant even watch a video and work out what happened , its the left leg that hits the ball and goes on to hit Caceres just below the knee in the motion of hitting the ball. Imagine if you were in the VAR booth under time pressure, in this case the VAR has no business overruling the ref.
coolncold
Roar Rookie
Ahhhhhhhh... 1) Don't go to Paramount + for the play back as there is no easy Slow-Motion-Playback. Go to KEEP.UP instead, https://keepup.com.au/videos/id/sydney-fc-v-adelaide-united-maccas-highlights-isuzu-ute-a-league/6314214513112 In slow motion, Ibusuki slide kicks with his left leg on the ball successfully. Just that Ibusuki's right leg (not left leg that intended to kick the ball successfully ) had the momentum to hit on Caceres' leg. It is not the kicking leg that hit on Caceres' leg. To me, in the slow-motion play back, Ibusuki did not further extend his right leg to kick on Caceres' leg. So, it is an accident. It is an obvious error the the main referee and the VAR. The bigger problem is why the VAR could not tell the main referee. Maybe, the main referee could not see that because of his position. However, the VAR has good equipment to replay at different angles. To me, it is not the main referee to blame. It is the inability of the VAR. VARs have been doing errors continuously.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
There was clear contact with the studs on Caceres , just because the foot went to the side after the contact doesn't mean it was on the side. If you go back to Paramount plus you can see the bloodied stud holes on Caceres leg. Adelaide's relationship with the match review panel needs to be examined.
Stevo
Roar Rookie
Ibusuki’s raised boot simply clipped Caceres. It was not a direct studs on contact with Caceres, contact was made to the side of Ibusuki’s boot. At normal speed it clearly would have looked serious from the on-field refs viewpoint and a red would have seemed appropriate. The VAR should have done it’s job and pointed out to the ref that a mistake was made.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Its in your mind more like it. I dont see that much force in the Wellington tackle. There is the same amount of force from Ibusuki and he hits higher. If you wanted a leg breaker then Popovic did one in the same match but according to the commentators it wasn't even a foul.
Waz
Roar Rookie
It’s in the images if you watch. The Nix’s tackle was extremely dangerous and he was fortunate he didn’t break his opponents leg. That’s why he got sent off (the fact he slipped going in to the tackle is mitigation but only on length of ban). This tackle was no way best breaking someone’s leg. The reason it was reversed - imo - is the lack of force. It was barely a clip.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
So you have no actual explanation either.
Waz
Roar Rookie
The tackle for Wellington was a text book red card. It will be used in future training courses as a good example of a red. In this case I recon the slow motion replays helped the player - the nix player just looked dangerous at all speeds (imo)
Waz
Roar Rookie
VAR over turning an on field decision remains a rate event - the official argument is that they don’t want to “re-referee the game”. I recon when there’s tough decisions like this instead of doing the right thing, they prefer to hide behind the “re-refereeing” banner
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Apart from a gang people saying no way it was a red card, there is no explanation as to what was the clear and obvious error. Contact with the studs , there was enough force to draw blood clearly shown on the broadcast. The flip side is the three match suspension given to a lesser tackle for the player from Wellington against Adelaide.
Dennis
Guest
So why did the VAR not do his job and overturn it immediately? Was it Ams again?