The Refereeing Thread

[Prydzopolis]

IMO, There's enough backing there for a red. You need to hit 4 criteria for the red and it ticks all 4 boxes. The challenge was heavy and Tyson was way to late to it. The challenge was yellow in it self but besides this, the red is for Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity I'm which KGJ deemed it to be.

Sorry what 4 criteria?

 

If you look above, you have seen that the DOGSO theory is wrong.

[

Serious foul play - If he's sent off for this the referee has to be convinced that the foul was worthy of a red card in isolation. It wouldn't matter where it happened on the field or the position of the defenders, just that the foul itself was using excessive force and was worthy of a straight red card.

Then there is an obvious error.

I have a theory that he has said DOGSO at the time but afterwards when the referee puts in his post match report from the game he might add in SFP to DOGSO for the Tyson red. This way, if WSW ask the red to be over turned then they can justify the decision by saying if the DOGSO was wrong then it was still SFP.

Bozza made the argument that just because he got the ball first doesn't execuse him from flattening the attacker. I disagree, unless it's studs up or a tackle from behind which is clearly stated in the rules (exactly what happened to Scott in the box). There was nothing illegal about the contact, Tyson was just stronger.

What bozza said is true, there is a move now especially in England where you can no longer justify a hard tackle by saying "I got the ball" or "I was playing the ball". Players can get a red card especially if a player goes into a challenge with excessive force with an emphasis of putting the opposition player at risk.

 

However, I think that Tyson was just as much at fault as the other bloke. The burj bloke wasn't in control of the ball but neither was Tyson, but how was either bloke meant to stop? Tyson turned his body to protect himself against a player running into him but that's serious foul play?

[Paul01]

 

IMO, There's enough backing there for a red. You need to hit 4 criteria for the red and it ticks all 4 boxes. The challenge was heavy and Tyson was way to late to it. The challenge was yellow in it self but besides this, the red is for Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity I'm which KGJ deemed it to be.

Sorry what 4 criteria?

 

If you look above, you have seen that the DOGSO theory is wrong.

[

Serious foul play - If he's sent off for this the referee has to be convinced that the foul was worthy of a red card in isolation. It wouldn't matter where it happened on the field or the position of the defenders, just that the foul itself was using excessive force and was worthy of a straight red card.

Then there is an obvious error.

I have a theory that he has said DOGSO at the time but afterwards when the referee puts in his post match report from the game he might add in SFP to DOGSO for the Tyson red. This way, if WSW ask the red to be over turned then they can justify the decision by saying if the DOGSO was wrong then it was still SFP.

Bozza made the argument that just because he got the ball first doesn't execuse him from flattening the attacker. I disagree, unless it's studs up or a tackle from behind which is clearly stated in the rules (exactly what happened to Scott in the box). There was nothing illegal about the contact, Tyson was just stronger.

What bozza said is true, there is a move now especially in England where you can no longer justify a hard tackle by saying "I got the ball" or "I was playing the ball". Players can get a red card especially if a player goes into a challenge with excessive force with an emphasis of putting the opposition player at risk.

 

However, I think that Tyson was just as much at fault as the other bloke. The burj bloke wasn't in control of the ball but neither was Tyson, but how was either bloke meant to stop? Tyson turned his body to protect himself against a player running into him but that's serious foul play?

well said Prydz.

Imo it was more likely to be a yellow on buhagiar or play-on/ drop ball for the injury on the ccm winger.

[Prydzopolis]

FFS should see some comments under the Foxsports video of Tyson's "shoulder charge", ******* numpties. Some of my fav's

Wtf was he planning on doing? Looks like he was trying to catch the ball out of the area, either way he was always getting red... what a moron

Guy above didn't even watch the footage it seems

It's a rule that you cannot run into an opposing player, whether he gets that ball or not he has completely just ran into him and knocked him to the ground which is a foul according to the rules, and if it's a fouls it has to be a red because well I mean he was the keeper, quite literally the last man.

Clearly I wasn't taught this one

It doesn't matter whether or not the player "wins" the ball the referee is still entitled to send the keeper off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. If Tyson had not have hurled himself at the player he could have chipped him and scored.

One of many that didn't see Tyson divert the ball off his body

Tyson didn't get the ball first so it's all irrelevant

How about watch footage before commenting

Way outside box. Deliberate handball.

Professional foul.

#whocaresaboutshoulder

Deliberate handball

Ticks 4-5 things in Law 12 for a send off.

Wow, 4 or 5 things? What things are they?

[KGee]

FFS should see some comments under the Foxsports video of Redmayne, ******* numpties. Some of my fav's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just thought it would be fun to quote this.  I have no actual input in to this thread.

[Prydzopolis]

 

Safari on my phone refreshes sometimes when I flick between apps. I save my progress to avoid losing posts

[Paul01]

Here's one that is in the rule book, sent off for fighting your own team mates

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/bailey-wrights-preston-teammates-jermaine-beckford-and-eoin-doyle-sent-off-for-fighting-each-other/news-story/2e98e8e9c326085e0fc95c4410002eab

[SomeGuy1977]

Here's one that is in the rule book, sent off for fighting your own team mates

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/bailey-wrights-preston-teammates-jermaine-beckford-and-eoin-doyle-sent-off-for-fighting-each-other/news-story/2e98e8e9c326085e0fc95c4410002eab

I remember watching Bowyer and Dyer punching on back in 05(ish; I'd google it but I'm too lazy) in front of the home crowd at St James park. Can't say I'd ever seen that before. I don't know which is funnier, team mates fighting or their surprise to being sent off.

[Gazmon]

Getting the ball never negates a foul. So the argument of 'getting the ball' is completely irrelevant. For example, I punch you, but win the ball... so I don't get sent off? Who gets the ball first is also irrelevant. Nothing in the LotG that state first to the ball. Another stupid comment that seems to have made its way into common football vernacular by the way of uneducated commentators. Much in the same way as the 'natural body position' for hand-ball situations.

 

Would like to see what Kris had down for the send off? He could have issued it for DOGSO (a stretch), but more than likely SFP.

 

Prydzopolis we need our own 'Referee's Corner' podcast. LMAO!

[Paul01]

Getting the ball never negates a foul. So the argument of 'getting the ball' is completely irrelevant. For example, I punch you, but win the ball... so I don't get sent off? Who gets the ball first is also irrelevant. Nothing in the LotG that state first to the ball. Another stupid comment that seems to have made its way into common football vernacular by the way of uneducated commentators. Much in the same way as the 'natural body position' for hand-ball situations.

 

Would like to see what Kris had down for the send off? He could have issued it for DOGSO (a stretch), but more than likely SFP.

 

Prydzopolis we need our own 'Referee's Corner' podcast. LMAO!

Here's an extract from the refereeing section of the FFA website on Law 12 relating to SFP

 

"3. Disciplinary action - serious foul play

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or

brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

 

Looks like KGJ changed it to serious foul play based on the extract.

[Gazmon]

 

Getting the ball never negates a foul. So the argument of 'getting the ball' is completely irrelevant. For example, I punch you, but win the ball... so I don't get sent off? Who gets the ball first is also irrelevant. Nothing in the LotG that state first to the ball. Another stupid comment that seems to have made its way into common football vernacular by the way of uneducated commentators. Much in the same way as the 'natural body position' for hand-ball situations.

 

Would like to see what Kris had down for the send off? He could have issued it for DOGSO (a stretch), but more than likely SFP.

 

Prydzopolis we need our own 'Referee's Corner' podcast. LMAO!

Here's an extract from the refereeing section of the FFA website on Law 12 relating to SFP

 

"3. Disciplinary action - serious foul play

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or

brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

 

Looks like KGJ changed it to serious foul play based on the extract.

 

 

Makes sense. But, a lot of keyboard warriors were saying that it was for DGSO. I can ask him if we're all interested? But, I think it does get noted when the case is looked at the MRP anyway. Only thing that may be effected is the length of suspension. Either way, 1 week is enough in my book.

[Paul01]

 

 

Getting the ball never negates a foul. So the argument of 'getting the ball' is completely irrelevant. For example, I punch you, but win the ball... so I don't get sent off? Who gets the ball first is also irrelevant. Nothing in the LotG that state first to the ball. Another stupid comment that seems to have made its way into common football vernacular by the way of uneducated commentators. Much in the same way as the 'natural body position' for hand-ball situations.

 

Would like to see what Kris had down for the send off? He could have issued it for DOGSO (a stretch), but more than likely SFP.

 

Prydzopolis we need our own 'Referee's Corner' podcast. LMAO!

 

Here's an extract from the refereeing section of the FFA website on Law 12 relating to SFP

"3. Disciplinary action - serious foul play

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or

brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Looks like KGJ changed it to serious foul play based on the extract.

Makes sense. But, a lot of keyboard warriors were saying that it was for DGSO. I can ask him if we're all interested? But, I think it does get noted when the case is looked at the MRP anyway. Only thing that may be effected is the length of suspension. Either way, 1 week is enough in my book.

The SFP is based on the use of the legs after a more careful reading.

Apparently, the coaching staff were told it was DOGSO as Popa said in the post-match interview.

I hope the MRP turn it over.

 

And if you know KGJ do ask him.

I'm sure all the local Referees Branches will be asking him the same question.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Paul01

[Gazmon]

The SFP is based on the use of the legs after a more careful reading.

Apparently, the coaching staff were told it was DOGSO as Popa said in the post-match interview.

I hope the MRP turn it over.

 

And if you know KGJ do ask him.

I'm sure all the local Referees Branches will be asking him the same question.

 

I've sent him a message. He's not that active on Facebook, so I don't expect a reply anytime soon.

 

Strange that Popa was told it was a DOGSO... perhaps the 4th official (I think it was Stephen Lucas from memory?) assumed that rather than SFP. Either way, it's a send-off in my book.

[Prydzopolis]

Ref's Corner

 

Let's make it happen, so many people out there with no clue. If you check the Foxsports page, so many people with no idea much like half the park football players I referee

--------------------------

Help me out Gaz, what exactly are we talking about with SFP?

 

Two players running at full pace, CCM wasn't really in control of the ball and neither was Tyson but was Tyson at fault because he put the other player in danger? I can't see how Tyson is at fault, when they both put themselves in the situation.

 

I'm not sure what players are supposed to do anymore, Tyson was legitimately challenging the ball & he had as much right going for it as the Burhja. How was he supposed to avoid contact? He didn't go into the tackle to shoulder charge him but turned his body to protect himself from the contact. If Tyson had just collided with him it would be okay?

 

Is that a body charge or what could be considered to be charging?

[Gazmon]

Ref's Corner

 

Let's make it happen, so many people out there with no clue. If you check the Foxsports page, so many people with no idea much like half the park football players I referee

--------------------------

Help me out Gaz, what exactly are we talking about with SFP?

 

Two players running at full pace, CCM wasn't really in control of the ball and neither was Tyson but was Tyson at fault because he put the other player in danger? I can't see how Tyson is at fault, when they both put themselves in the situation.

 

I'm not sure what players are supposed to do anymore, Tyson was legitimately challenging the ball & he had as much right going for it as the Burhja. How was he supposed to avoid contact? He didn't go into the tackle to shoulder charge him but turned his body to protect himself from the contact. If Tyson had just collided with him it would be okay?

 

Is that a body charge or what could be considered to be charging?

 

Doesn't get any better the higher up you go in level either. They just think they know more. *cough* Mehmet Durakovic... *cough* nutcase *cough*.

 

With the Tyson incident, I'll confess I've only seen it once (was cooking at BBQ for the in-laws who were vegged out on the couch watching the game...

 

Just watched again on YouTube now. Hmmmm... on reflection DOGSO is off the table with the 2 defenders coming in behind. SFP has to be the call. Can only assume Kris has decided that the challenge was unwarranted and that contact could and should have been avoided. He did try to turn his body away. Perhaps Kris went more on reaction than the actual contact itself? Tricky one. If you were a Mariners player, fan or coach and only a yellow card was shown would you have been a bit hard done by?

 

Never an easy one that's for sure.

[Paul01]

 

The SFP is based on the use of the legs after a more careful reading.

Apparently, the coaching staff were told it was DOGSO as Popa said in the post-match interview.

I hope the MRP turn it over.

And if you know KGJ do ask him.

I'm sure all the local Referees Branches will be asking him the same question.

 

 

I've sent him a message. He's not that active on Facebook, so I don't expect a reply anytime soon.

 

Strange that Popa was told it was a DOGSO... perhaps the 4th official (I think it was Stephen Lucas from memory?) assumed that rather than SFP. Either way, it's a send-off in my book.

4th official was Kurt Ams

[Gazmon]

 

 

The SFP is based on the use of the legs after a more careful reading.

Apparently, the coaching staff were told it was DOGSO as Popa said in the post-match interview.

I hope the MRP turn it over.

And if you know KGJ do ask him.

I'm sure all the local Referees Branches will be asking him the same question.

 

I've sent him a message. He's not that active on Facebook, so I don't expect a reply anytime soon.

 

Strange that Popa was told it was a DOGSO... perhaps the 4th official (I think it was Stephen Lucas from memory?) assumed that rather than SFP. Either way, it's a send-off in my book.

4th official was Kurt Ams

 

 

Thanks. Saw that Stephen was in Adelaide too, after the Merrick sacking.

 

Kurt is a good guy Really good photographer too, some of his drone work is amazing.

 

Managed to find only one decent photo of myself and the man, the legend, the myth, Mr. KGJ doing an NYL game many years ago at the SFS...

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Gazmon

[Prydzopolis]

Just watched again on YouTube now. Hmmmm... on reflection DOGSO is off the table with the 2 defenders coming in behind. SFP has to be the call. Can only assume Kris has decided that the challenge was unwarranted and that contact could and should have been avoided. He did try to turn his body away. Perhaps Kris went more on reaction than the actual contact itself? Tricky one. If you were a Mariners player, fan or coach and only a yellow card was shown would you have been a bit hard done by?

 

Never an easy one that's for sure.

If you understand the rules, would this be an issue? It is clear that many people misunderstand the rules & even though you joke about starting up a podcast but going by that facebook post nobody had a clue about the LOTG & I saw that tackle I'd be up in arms. I agree with you on it not being an easy one, refereeing depends a lot on judgement. Would be easy to determine that he used excessive force going into that challenge but would be a harsh call.

 

In real time I would probably agree with you, looked like a very heavy challenge but how do you avoid that contact? Burn wasn't in control of the ball & neither was Tyson going into the tackle, essentially they both ran into each other. Both players had eye for the ball & neither had the opportunity to avoid hitting one. I don't know how Tyson can avoid it unless he doesn't challenge for the ball.

[KGee]

So it wasn't for the a reckless challenge but DOGSO per MRP.

 

Appeal?

[Paul01]

Quote

"The independent Match Review Panel (MRP) have met to consider the incident involving Western Sydney Wanderers goalkeeper Jerrad Tyson.

The independent Match Review Panel (MRP) – consisting of Simon Micallef (Chair), Matthew Breeze and Adam D’Apuzzo - convened today to consider an incident involving Jerrad Tyson (Western Sydney Wanderers FC) in or around the 59th minute of Western Sydney Wanderers FC’s Round 9 match against Central Coast Mariners on Saturday, 3 December 2016.

The MRP has the authority to consider the incident as Jerrad Tyson was issued with a direct Red Card by the referee.

The MRP confirmed that Jerrad Tyson will serve a suspension of one (1) match, being the minimum sanction for the offence of denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an offence that is punishable by a free kick or penalty kick."

 

To overturn the decision it would have had to unanimous!

[mack]

Still not sure where they get an obvious goalscoring opportunity when the ball flew away before the "foul" took place.

[Prydzopolis]

Still not sure where they get an obvious goalscoring opportunity when the ball flew away before the "foul" took place.

Maybe they didn't review the footage?

[Paul01]

Checked the FFA Disciplinary Regs today.

No appeal possible for Tyson as there was no OBVIOUS ERROR.

 

I still don't get how the incident is not a simple collision with a stoppage for injury followed by a drop ball instead of a DOGSO.

 

KGJ might be at one of our first two Referees Meeting in the new year.

I'm sure with the number of Wanderers members in our branch that he will be asked the question.

Haven't done it before but I might wear my jersey to that meeting.

 

I am waiting with bated breath for the return of Jared Gillett this round after being dropped.

Unfortunately, we are due to get the other Queenslander Peter Green.

If you don't remember him, he was the referee for the Valentines Day Massacre where he gave Aspro 2 yellows.

[smp]

I know Prydz has been on about this in the past, and I agree. The FFA could do worse than have something similar to Ref Watch on the Tuesday edition of EPL's Football Today. I think it can only help both the punters AND the brain dead commenators to have the rules explained via an analysis of contemporary decisions.

 

The Tyson send off is a prime example of where it would do everyone a world of good to sit down and have a chat about what actually goes on. Some might see it as an opportunity to show the refs up as incompetent clowns, but I reckon it might do them some good to have an opportunity to have someone defend them to be honest.

[Zelinsky]

What would be FFA's reaction be to this, I wonder...

 

 

No more paper allowed in HAL grounds? Or a five weeks ban for the coach?

[SomeGuy1977]

Damn it! We'll never get Toulouse to Spotless until we root out those paper plane thugs. It's all fun and games until someone gets a head injury after being hit in the chest. When will these people learn?

[Pup55]

Gazmon - is one of the other officials with you in that pic Lance Greenshields?

[Gazmon]

Gazmon - is one of the other officials with you in that pic Lance Greenshields?

 

Yes... Don't get me started on Lance...

[Paul01]

 

 

Gazmon - is one of the other officials with you in that pic Lance Greenshields?

Yes... Don't get me started on Lance...

Didn't call the jersey tug on Pio when it should have been called on McGowan with the ball in the back of the net against Adelaide?

[Gazmon]

 

 

Gazmon - is one of the other officials with you in that pic Lance Greenshields?

Yes... Don't get me started on Lance...

Didn't call the jersey tug on Pio when it should have been called on McGowan with the ball in the back of the net against Adelaide?

 

 

Haha not specific footballing decisions, more so his path to the A-League refereeing panels... long story.

[Pup55]

lol - I know Lance through the Golf Industry.