Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul01

HAL 2018/19 Round 22

Recommended Posts

Adelaide v Perth

Newcastle v Mariners 

Melb Vic v Brisbane

Nix v Wanderers

Smurfs v Heartle$$

Unfortunately go smurfs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Join WestSydneyFootball.Com and participate by registering an account.

This is Olyroos round

Adelaide potentially lose Blackwood and Largish

Perth potentially lose Brimmer and Wilson

Newcastle potentially lose Champness and Vujica.

Mariners potentially lose O'Neill and Rowles (called in today)

Melb Vic have potentially lost Deng

Brisbane potentially lose D'Agostino.

Nix have lost Singh due to suspension 

We have potentially lost Baccus, Tass and Majok.

Smurfs has potentially lost.....no one

Heartle$$ have potentially lost Atkinson, Wales and McGree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

This is Olyroos round

Adelaide potentially lose Blackwood and Margush (GK)

Perth potentially lose Brimmer and Wilson

Newcastle potentially lose Champness and Vujica.

Mariners potentially lose O'Neill and Rowles (called in today)

Melb Vic potentially lost Deng

Brisbane potentially lose D'Agostino.

Nix have lost Singh due to suspension 

We potentially lose Baccus, Tass and Majok.

Smurfs have potentially lost.....no one

Heartle$$ potentially lose Atkinson, Wales and McGree.

Fixed

Edited by Paul01
Correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olyroos have a friendly tonight against a Malaysian club side

There is another friendlt in a few days against a Malaysian national team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question regarding the Nix - are Australians and New Zealanders respectively considered local or overseas players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nux can sign Australian and Kiwi players as locals, whereas Kiwi's (like Barbarouses now, Marco Rojas or Shane Smeltz back in the day) signing for Australian teams are classified as foreign players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Carns said:

The Nux can sign Australian and Kiwi players as locals, whereas Kiwi's (like Barbarouses now, Marco Rojas or Shane Smeltz back in the day) signing for Australian teams are classified as foreign players.

Ah interesting. Was curious as I noted Transfermarkt indicates they have 6 internationals on their squad.  Guess a lot of them are All Whites plus Fijians etc.  So they have some unique advantages as well as disadvantages it seems.  Maybe I have been overly sympathetic towards them in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LeeMarvin said:

Ah interesting. Was curious as I noted Transfermarkt indicates they have 6 internationals on their squad.  Guess a lot of them are All Whites plus Fijians etc.  So they have some unique advantages as well as disadvantages it seems.  Maybe I have been overly sympathetic towards them in the past.

It's only an advantage if they can sign the very best Kiwi talent. And the best talent usually want to play elsewhere (Barbarouses only lasted 1 season even as marquee).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmed Olyroos

Adelaide lose Blackwood and Margush

Perth lose Wilson

Newcastle lose Koutrombus, Champness and Vujica.

Mariners lose O'Neill and Rowles (Simon still suspended)

Melb Vic lose Deng

Brisbane lose D'Agostino.

Nix have lost Singh due to suspension

 We lose Baccus, Tass and Majok.

Smurfs have lost.....no one

Heartle$$ lose Atkinson, Wales and McGree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting name on the bench for Perth tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, papersun said:

Interesting name on the bench for Perth tonight.

Used to be in our Academy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets missed their 3 Olyroos. 

Hopefully,  we don't miss our as much.

And Heartle$$ will miss theirs.

All the teams just above have lost.

If we win the table will look like this assuming that the Smurfs win

Perth .............51

Smurfs...........45

Melb Vic.........41

Nix..................31

Adelaide.........31

Heartle$$.......30

Newcastle......26

Wanderers.....23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I agree with that VAR intervention - sets a dangerous precedent for no encroachment ever for any penalty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Unlimited said:

Not sure if I agree with that VAR intervention - sets a dangerous precedent for no encroachment ever for any penalty

In this case, the goal is scored illegally so an obvious error has occurred. If Georgievski had missed, the referee would have had to award an indirect free kick to the Mariners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

In this case, the goal is scored illegally so an obvious error has occurred. If Georgievski had missed, the referee would have had to award an indirect free kick to the Mariners.

Well technically if encroachment occurs by only the attacking team or if the penalty is saved/missed/cleared with encroachment from only the defending team, the penalty was "illegal"

I'm sure someone can pull up some examples of the VAR mysteriously not getting involved then

 

Like I don't mind the letter of the law approach here but why now and not day 1? And will they keep it going from now on? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FFA seem to have decided on an interpretation for VAR that at Penalties, they only check encroachment if a player scores on a rebound.

They've never called a retake on a missed pen for defensive encroachment. They've never given a defensive team an indirect free kick for attacking encroachment. They've never called a retake when both sides encroached with the penalty being scored directly or from a rebound to the taker. They've never called a retake with a yellow card to the keeper for goalkeeper encroachment.

Tonight a rebound was put in by a player who had encroached, so VAR elected to overturn it. It also appeared to have ignored the Mariners keeper having one foot well off the line, which is also an offence but one that would have seen him sent off for a second bookable offence after being carded for time wasting.

I suspect the FFA will make clear in their little usual monday rug sweeping that their view is that they will only check encroachment when players who may have encroached are involved in a rebound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

watching fox sports news and they managed to put perth glory's logo next to brisbane roar's name, dont know how you **** that up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Neverbloom said:

watching fox sports news and they managed to put perth glory's logo next to brisbane roar's name, dont know how you **** that up

Getting ready for the next round when Melb Vic play Perth  :woah:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mack said:

The FFA seem to have decided on an interpretation for VAR that at Penalties, they only check encroachment if a player scores on a rebound.

They've never called a retake on a missed pen for defensive encroachment. They've never given a defensive team an indirect free kick for attacking encroachment. They've never called a retake when both sides encroached. They've never called a retake with a yellow card to the keeper for goalkeeper encroachment.

Tonight a rebound was put in by a player who had encroached, so VAR elected to overturn it. It also appeared to have ignored the Mariners keeper having one foot well off the line, which is also an offence but one that would have seen him sent off for a second bookable offence after being carded for time wasting.

I suspect the FFA will make clear in their little usual monday rug sweeping that their view is that they will only check encroachment when players who may have encroached are involved in a rebound.

The LOTG are clear 

Defensive entry, award goal if scored directly, retake if missed.

Attacking entry, retake if scored directly, IDFK to the offensive team if missed.

I will have to read up and check if rebounds are mentioned.

In this case, Georgievski entered the penalty box significantly earlier than all the other players and gained advantage illegally so a retake was ordered.

As to not ordering retakes more often, it is because the A-league match officials have been directed to have a free-flowing game as possible. Hence, they ignore foul throws, fail to order throwers back to where the ball went out, ignore so-called minor fouls (especially for the Smurfs). I think that this was more important when the A-league was the pre-cursor to Premier League on Fox Sports.

The whole issue of officiating as seen in the A-league compared to enforcing the LOTG makes it difficult for grassroots referees. It should be the same standard for all levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I hear the commentator in the Victory game suggest that we were 'World Leaders' in the use of VAR? FMD !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartinTyler said:

Did I hear the commentator in the Victory game suggest that we were 'World Leaders' in the use of VAR? FMD !!

The problem is where we are leading to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather forecasts

Wellington NZ fine about 17C

Leichhardt 50% chance of rain about 18C

Looks like the weather has swapped between Sydney and Wellington NZ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Paul01 said:

The LOTG are clear 

Defensive entry, award goal if scored directly, retake if missed.

Attacking entry, retake if scored directly, IDFK to the offensive team if missed.

I will have to read up and check if rebounds are mentioned.

In this case, Georgievski entered the penalty box significantly earlier than all the other players and gained advantage illegally so a retake was ordered.

As to not ordering retakes more often, it is because the A-league match officials have been directed to have a free-flowing game as possible. Hence, they ignore foul throws, fail to order throwers back to where the ball went out, ignore so-called minor fouls (especially for the Smurfs). I think that this was more important when the A-league was the pre-cursor to Premier League on Fox Sports.

The whole issue of officiating as seen in the A-league compared to enforcing the LOTG makes it difficult for grassroots referees. It should be the same standard for all levels.

Step into the box by an attacker means that an indirect free kick us awarded to the defending team ie Mariners.

Clear and obvious error to have the penalty retaken. Should have been an IDFK

The only way for the penalty to be retaken is by a defender stepping in and the ball being saved by the goalkeeper.

Edited by Paul01
Added info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul01 said:

Weather forecasts

Wellington NZ fine about 17C

Leichhardt 50% chance of rain about 18C

Looks like the weather has swapped between Sydney and Wellington NZ 

Apparently, according to the journos the Smurfs v Heartle$$ game is in danger of postponement. Pitch inspection at 3pm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

Step into the box by an attacker means that an indirect free kick us awarded to the defending team ie Mariners.

Clear and obvious error to have the penalty retaken. Should have been an IDFK

The only way for the penalty to be retaken is by a defender stepping in and the ball being saved by the goalkeeper.

Both teams encroached,  multiple players on each team. Georgevski was almost alone on the right where he was, there were several others on the left, including a couple ahead of Georgevski. So, your last paragraph situation did occur.

I don't know the rules, and how they are applied, well enough, but to me denying the goal was correct (as I think everyone agrees). The problem/question then is which team is favoured by the next decision. With both teams encroaching significantly neither of the teams clearly merit a favourable decision. Unfortunately,  maintaining the status quo of retaking the penalty does favour the attacking team. Maybe that's the best result, given they earned a penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Edinburgh said:

Both teams encroached,  multiple players on each team. Georgevski was almost alone on the right where he was, there were several others on the left, including a couple ahead of Georgevski. So, your last paragraph situation did occur.

I don't know the rules, and how they are applied, well enough, but to me denying the goal was correct (as I think everyone agrees). The problem/question then is which team is favoured by the next decision. With both teams encroaching significantly neither of the teams clearly merit a favourable decision. Unfortunately,  maintaining the status quo of retaking the penalty does favour the attacking team. Maybe that's the best result, given they earned a penalty?

It's always the first offender. Georgievski was already inside the penalty box BEFORE the ball was kicked.

So let's see if Wilson comes out and says they should have awarded an IDFK. I have called encroachment by both attackers and defenders at grassroots, and it is easy to spot. 

Unfortunately,  because the Level 1 (A-league and W-League match officials) are told to keep the game flowing retake are not usually done, except by Mack on Twitter. 

As far as I'm concerned,  it's in the Laws of the Game and should be enforced, no matter if it's the u12s at Jamison Park or Hunter Fields or EPL or the World Cup. Same rules for everyone.

Edited by Paul01
Correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could live with the encroachment decision but if u review every pen taken u will see it regularly, just don't want to see it reviewed every game and piss people off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Paul01 said:

I will have to read up and check if rebounds are mentioned.

It doesn't. The laws are about where players are before the ball is kicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×