clarifying a small point about Roy.

[Pirate Pete]

Central Coast Mariners striker Roy O'Donovan will spend most of the remainder of the season on the sideline after being slapped with an eight-week ban for an ugly headbutting incident.

Football Federation Australia's independent disciplinary committee issued the most severe ban recommended and one of the longest in the A-League. A two-hour long hearing served the latest blow to the Mariners season with one of their import players ineligible to play all but the final six games of the season.

The FFA disciplinary council recommended a suspension of up to eight weeks, suggesting O'Donovan's headbutt was as bad a foul as Kevin Muscat's sickening tackle on Adrian Zahra in 2011. That incident resulted in an eight-game ban for Muscat and a full knee reconstruction for Zahra.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...ue-history-20160106-gm0nps.html#ixzz3wS4O01WK
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

 

[Pirate Pete]

To be honest that is too long.

As the article says the headbutt from which the player got up and played the rest of the game was as bad as Muscats all but career ending challenge.

I beat the Muscat brothers have already had a good laugh about it on the phone.

 

[nebakke]

Perhaps it's more that Muscat's should have been longer - a deliberate attempt to end somebody's career.

It's funny how Serious Foul Play - which usually has the potential to break somebody's leg - is typically given 1-2 weeks, 3 if it's really nasty, yet violent acts which are much less likely to cause ongoing harm are given much less - and it's funny that as a society, that's kind of what we tend to expect.

I'll happily admit that I struggle with this whole situation... I don't condone Roy's actions - at all!... And I think I agree with you that K Muscat's should have perhaps been longer but...
The thing is, retaliation is mainly seen as completely unacceptable because we expect the officials of the game to protect the players from major incidents... What happens when they fail to meet that expectation?

 

[rbakersmith]

The Football Federation Australia (FFA) Disciplinary Committee - consisting of John Marshall SC (Chair), Dominic Villa and David Barrett - convened to consider an incident referred to it, which arose in or around the 58th minute of the Central Coast Mariners’ Round 13 Hyundai A-League Match against Wellington Phoenix on Thursday, 31 December 2015. The incident involved Roy O’Donovan of the Central Coast Mariners (the Player).
The Player was cited by FFA under clause 9.40 (Obvious Error – FFA Citations) of the Hyundai A-League Disciplinary Regulations for the incident.

The Player pleaded guilty to the offence of “Assault on a Player (e.g. violent conduct when not challenging for the ball)”.

The Disciplinary Committee determined that the Player must serve a suspension of eight (8) matches.

The Player has the right to appeal the determination of the Disciplinary Committee. If the Player intends to do so, he must advise FFA within 7 days of receiving the written determination.

http://www.a-league.com.au/article/roy-odonovan-receives-eight-match-ban/6crqo0j9da341floqdxzlc8nb

 

[dibo]

8 matches is ludicrous. 4 I'd happily wear, I'd grumble about 6, 8 is a nonsense.

 

[Big Al]

Appeal. What we got to loose got max anyway

 

[nebakke]

Appeal. What we got to loose got max anyway

It's the FFA - I don't think appeals exist, do they? (Bear in mind that this isn't the MRP)

Once that's said... Even if they could, it'd probably take so long there wouldn't be much point anyway eh?... It's not a great timeframe, but it's done, suck it up and move on I guess.

 

[true believer]

club based decision from the FFA mafia . what a joke

 

[rbakersmith]

It's the FFA - I don't think appeals exist, do they? (Bear in mind that this isn't the MRP)

He's got a week to lodge an appeal against a Disciplinary Committee ruling.

 

[rbakersmith]

Central Coast Mariners Chief Executive Officer, Shaun Mielekamp has made comment on the eight match ban issued to Mariners striker Roy O’Donovan as a result of tonight’s Disciplinary & Ethics Committee Hearing.

“We are extremely disappointed at this decision, the disparity in sanctions issued for this match highlights the flaws in the system. The media circus around the incident has had a high impact on the result and we will look at our avenues for appeal,” Mielekamp said.

https://www.facebook.com/CCMariners...61121205/10153717828891206/?type=3&permPage=1

 

[marinersince2006]

Times have changed. No longer acceptable to have any sort of violence.

8 games......we are lucky it is not more. Roy will still get paid.....but his reputation and career will suffer.

Agree with all the comment about career ending attempted tackles. The referees and assistants clearly turn a blind eye to many poor and late tackles.

The FFA has had a disgraceful year......and they will not want to be seen in a bad light thru a soft short ban.

Our coaching team have to watch Jake and his tackling/enthusiasm . The refs will show no mercy to a rookie who they don't know,or don't have any relationship with.

 

[true believer]

Times have changed. No longer acceptable to have any sort of violence.

8 games......we are lucky it is not more. Roy will still get paid.....but his reputation and career will suffer.

Agree with all the comment about career ending attempted tackles. The referees and assistants clearly turn a blind eye to many poor and late tackles.

The FFA has had a disgraceful year......and they will not want to be seen in a bad light thru a soft short ban.

Our coaching team have to watch Jake and his tackling/enthusiasm . The refs will show no mercy to a rookie who they don't know,or don't have any relationship with.

umm no . watching football week in week out . there is clearly a double standard.
otherwise berisha would have got a straight red last week and "muskrat 2" would have been in the shower before
his 3rd attempt at nailing roys head

 

[Rowdy]

I beat the Muscat brothers have already had a good laugh about it on the phone.

News Flash ! .........they're NOT brothers.

But they do share the same genetic trait...

...... as does this guy.

 

[Gratis]

It's just how disproportionate it is that bugs me. Musknut actively and without provocation attacks a player causing injury - 2 weeks.
Roy retaliates after ongoing provocation - 8 weeks.

It's insane. Both deserve to be punished but a 3rd of a season vs 2 weeks? when in my opinion the initial aggressor is more in the wrong anyway

 

[Forum Phoenix]

Roy is being punished for his skill. Muscat is rewarded for his lack of it. Muscat's ineptitude grants him a lesser sentence - and if he could hit better - we'd probably still have a striker as well.

Roy copped two deliberate elbows sweet and did not strike back. Rightfully appealed but was ignored, and still did not lash back. Though violent in execution, he then only finally struck out upon Muscats third attempt at assault.

In many other situations if you were attacked twice, went to the police, and then your attacker tried to attack you a third time, but this time you knocked them down - you would certainly have a case in pleading it was self defence. But in football we have rules and referees to defend you, so you don't have to defend yourself if... hang on a second...

How many weeks did the ref get?

K Muscat got 8 for a malicious, unprovoked, potential career ending tackle, that did cause serious harm.

Roy was repeatedly attacked and provoked, sought intervention by the referee, and only on a third attack did he strike back, with a strike that while it looked nasty, did no real or lasting harm.

It is the age of trial by media. Where PERCEPTION is everything.

All tongue in cheek stuff aside, I'm glad they're appealing. We all know the head butt was bad, and that it should be punished, but the inconsistency and clear lack of taking into account the circumstances and context makes a joke of the decision and panel. It's poor justice. Once again.

 

[Rowdy]

Though I feel it should be, can't really see the appeal getting the 8 weeks reduced.

I mean cards have been rescinded before, but has any player EVER had their weeks reduced ???

 

[Forum Phoenix]

Yeah agree. On the other hand would anyone be surprised if they threw another 4 on...?

 

[MrCelery]

Roy's 'love tap' after being severely provoked multiple times by Muscat is a vastly different level of offence to Kevin Muscat's unprovoked career-ending vicious tackle, in my opinion.

Surely some grounds for an appeal to knock one or two weeks off the punishment.

I would have thought five weeks would have been a fair penalty. But FFA has never been accused of being fair. Totally inconsistent yes, but fair, never.

 

[FFC Mariner]

If you were reported by a referee for head butting someone in local or junior football, 6-8 weeks would not be unexpected.

 

[dibo]

Agreed, but people seem to get a single week for bad tackles and strikes that would see three or more in local footy, so who knows...