but,but ,we want first

[dibo]

. dibo, i'm not going to argue for or against those comments but could you clarify for the ill-informed (me):



. i haven't heard this brought up as an issue before ... are you suggesting intent decides the outcome? what does or doesn't make it off-side?



. does that actually make any difference? is the difference that a red 'could be' subject to further review?

On the McBreen goal, if in the opinion of match officials, Bernie played the ball, McBreen's offside. I think Bernie played the ball (not to McBreen, but into Caira) who was also playing at the ball but less played it than had it bounce off him. Through the ricochet it went to McBreen, who benefited from being in an offside position. If there'd been a flag, I couldn't find much reason to complain, it's a real 50/50 call I reckon.

On the Hutch one, Hutch could *easily* have seen a straight red for Serious Foul Play (the same offence Tommy was charged with), for which he'd have been looking at 3 or so weeks on the sidelines (like Tommy) rather than the mandatory 1 for receiving a second caution.

 

[bikinigirl]

On the Hutch one, Hutch could *easily* have seen a straight red for Serious Foul Play (the same offence Tommy was charged with), for which he'd have been looking at 3 or so weeks on the sidelines (like Tommy) rather than the mandatory 1 for receiving a second caution.

. somewhat ironically, some would say that would have served us better

. oh and thanks for answering

 

[Kareem]

. a valid point i had mentioned before ... but don't worry oli will come good for the finals. am i correct in thinking that is the only time he has scored for us? if not it must be close.

He scored in our 1-0 win away to Sydney...

So he has only scored twice in my memory...never at home, only away!

 

[MrCelery]

Anyone who thinks that FFA wouldn't prefer the Bling, the Tards, and now the Westies on top of the table is seriously deluded. But would they conspire with the refs to make it so? Hell, yes! But then I've just consumed a bottle of the Hunter Valley's best reds. Has a tendancy to make one a little delusional.

 

[pjennings]

On the McBreen goal, if in the opinion of match officials, Bernie played the ball, McBreen's offside. I think Bernie played the ball (not to McBreen, but into Caira) who was also playing at the ball but less played it than had it bounce off him. Through the ricochet it went to McBreen, who benefited from being in an offside position. If there'd been a flag, I couldn't find much reason to complain, it's a real 50/50 call I reckon.

On the Hutch one, Hutch could *easily* have seen a straight red for Serious Foul Play (the same offence Tommy was charged with), for which he'd have been looking at 3 or so weeks on the sidelines (like Tommy) rather than the mandatory 1 for receiving a second caution.

The offside law is quite unusual. It mentions an offside position and an offside offence. McBreen was in an offside position all of the time. The question is whether there was an offside offence.

The ref seems to have deemed that when Ibini touched the ball (on the way thruogh to Caira) there was no advantage so no offence occurred. When Caira played it back later there was no offence since it was from Caira. Another ref might have interpreted both parts together and concluded that Ibini's touch has led to Caira miscontrolling his back pass and an offence had occurred.

As for the Hutch one it could easily have been a straight red. However, the ref was well placed. If you look at it from the sideline side (Harper preferred to concentrate on the other angle) it seems that Hutch is trying to belt the ball into Abbas to get the throw. Abbas moves the ball just before Hutch comes through and the strange (and violent) kick ensues.

 

[dibo]

I agree with your reading on both - it's just that both could very easily have been read another way without an obvious error having been committed. TBH, with the Heskey/McGlinchey decision and the offside call late on in the Newcastle game, they're probably not much less debatable.

What's not really debatable is that the tackle by Emerton on McBreen in the Sydney game was a deadset shocker and was insufficiently punished.

But debatable decisions do not a conspiracy make.

Celery, I agree that the FFA would likely *prefer* 'big' clubs in the finals. I'd probably need more than a couple of apertifs, a bottle of OP&OH and a few drams of scotch for me to believe it was some sort of conspiracy.

 

[Bex]

You want to see conspiracy, watch the "Senna" DVD. French men behaving badly LOL. It happens, but of course it doesn't happen to us

 

[LFCMariners]

He should have been World Champion in '89 as well. F**k Balestre.

And I maintain that my biggest concern is in the finals- would the FFA rather give glory to a team from an area of 300,000 people with no cross-code rivals, or:

a) Give it to the brand new team in Rugby League heartland to generate even more feel-good propaganda and draw the bandwagoners in like Brisbane in 2011

b) Give the football media an opportunity to have an "Isn't Ange wonderful!" wank fest

c) Give Sydney FC the dream run in the finals to drum up an even bigger rivalry with WSW and OMG! Del Piero!

The scary thing is, I am only half joking. And in football especially, anything can happen in one game...

 

[true believer]

 

[dibo]

a whole bunch of paranoid rubbish

You still haven't told us how the FFA "gives" games or "dream runs" to anyone. You ignored my previous post as well. I think it'd be better if you laid off the drugs.

 

[true believer]

i think melbourne have always recieved the bulk of 50/50 calls
going back to the melbourne croat's and especially the melbourne greeks.
old football ,new football nothing changed.

 

[kevrenor]

You still haven't told us how the FFA "gives" games or "dream runs" to anyone. You ignored my previous post as well. I think it'd be better if you laid off the drugs.

Not answering that question, but I do think there can be non-conscious a) groupthink, and b) crowd/occasion expectation pressure

 

[dibo]

Not answering that question, but I do think there can be non-conscious a) groupthink, and b) crowd/occasion expectation pressure

intimidating atmosphere is one thing. media pressure and common perceptions are another. they are 'home ground advantage' type factors, and we exercise a bit of the crowd pressure thing ourselves, but they are *very* different to a conspiracy.

 

[true believer]

what question ? who are you asking a question of ?
what are you saying ? that the ffa have never shown a desire for a team with
a higher media profile to get "favors" ? that's home AND away.
you can try and brow beat people to agree with you that the ffa are impartial
but the vast majority on this site believe .we have been miss treated by the ffa.

nobody rates us.we don't care...
ps fk melbourne,ange and anything else south of the hawkesbury

 

[LFCMariners]

You still haven't told us how the FFA "gives" games or "dream runs" to anyone. You ignored my previous post as well. I think it'd be better if you laid off the drugs.

I have documented before my thoughts on the 2008 Grand Final, via Mark Shield ignoring two clear cases for penalties in the final 20 minutes that could very well have seen the Mariners win 2-1. Just a coincidence that the Jets won their only Grand Final at the same point in time that the NRL team, for so long the #1 team in Newcastle, had come off one of their worst seasons with bad publicity to boot?

How about the 2011 Grand Final- a clear grab on Pedj Bogic goes unnoticed in the dying minutes leading to the corner and Paartalau's equalizer. Do you really think the FFA was going to let Brisbane's shot at glory slip, when there was a chance for a feel-good story in the aftermath of the floods and 35,000 bandwagoners who could say they saw the Roar win a Grand Final in their very first "sokkah" game and had been a fan ever since?

That's not even taking into account the screw around the Mariners were given in 2008, where a home advantage that should have been ours was taken away from us in the GF. Then even last year we had the FFA deciding the GF would be taken to Brisbane, even if the Mariners won the right to host it. I don't think it's entirely fanciful to suggest that the FFA could instruct the officials to go easy on a certain team, because there are so many variables in a single match that they can influence. In one game, all it takes are 2 or 3 crucial calls to dictate the outcome.

The FFA cares about getting more money from the plastic fans. They couldn't care less about dudding Mariners fans who've been there since day 1. Conversely, I would be interested to see evidence that, since the inception of the A League, the Mariners have been treated fairly and equally in relation to the other teams...

 

[dibo]

I'm not brow-beating anybody. I just don't for a second believe that the FFA rigs games.

You and LFCMariners appear to hold the view that it's obvious that games are rigged and demand to be convinced otherwise, I can't see how it's obvious at all. I'm not even close to convinced.

I don't believe for a second that any referee *ever* makes a deliberate mistake to favour one team over another. I've not seen any evidence that they deliberately favour any team.

Notice I'm not saying referees don't make mistakes. They do.

But to suggest that the mistakes are deliberate or worse dictated from on high to influence the outcomes of matches and championships is just fanciful.

The FFA have certainly f**ked us over in the past - inconsistent application of injury replacement rules in 2007, moving the grand final to the SFS in 2008 (and threatening to do it in 2011 and 2012), the ridiculous Canberra experiment in 2009/10...

This isn't it.

I think the whole "blame the ref" attitude is bloody awful. It's a whinging sore loser attitude to football, and I reckon anyone who holds that view should get over themselves.

 

[dibo]

Sorry, LFC, I missed your post. Refs making mistakes does not a conspiracy make. You and TB can both lay off the drugs.

 

[true believer]

there we go .wild accusations of drug use. coupled with subhuman, whinging defeatest, attiude slurs.
it's a bit of a staple ,old chap.
never mind you keep commenting in the manor of the thought police.
i'll believe what i see before my own eyes.

nobody rates us. we don't care.

 

[kevrenor]

but the vast majority on this site believe .we have been miss treated by the ffa

Mistreated yeah, rigged games no!

 

[dibo]

the vast majority on this site believe .we have been miss treated by the ffa.[/quote]

Let's test this claim.

POLL: Does the FFA conspire with Match Officials to rig games against the Mariners?