clarifying a small point about Roy.

[style_cafe]

Looks like an appeal will be lodged against the severity of the suspension & the disparity between Muscat & O`Donovan`s bans.
Well done Shaun!!

 

[Big Al]

Chris Gayle says I feel your pain. Guilty by Media.

Thank you Fox Sports commentators.

To be fair Headbutts are grubby but - no butts shouldn't have done it.

Personally think it's excessive but it is what it is

 

[dibo]

Chris Gayle is another kettle of fish entirely.

 

[Rowdy]

Chris Gayle is another kettle of fish entirely.

Fish ??? Wrong species for your phrase.

Gayle's more a 'Trouser Snake' type of guy.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Chris Gayle says I feel your pain. Guilty by Media.

Thank you Fox Sports commentators.

To be fair Headbutts are grubby but - no butts shouldn't have done it.

Personally think it's excessive but it is what it is

If you mean doing something that would get you sacked in any workplace? Then yes.

 

[localpom]

Yep.

Way I see it:

• If Muscat does not elbow Roy... the incident never happens and their is no head butt, no disrepute upon the game, and no suspension.
• If Roy goes down to try as Muscat and many other cheats do to get the other player sent off... their is no head butt, no disrepute upon the game, and no suspension.
• If the referee acts correctly and books Muscat... their is no head butt, no disrepute upon the game, and no suspension.
• If after Roy's appeal to the referee, even if he isn't interested or missed the action, he simply pulls in what are clearly two agitated players to speak with them as he should... their is no head butt, no disrepute upon the game, and no suspension.
• If after Roy has been elbowed, ignored, and then ran off to get on with things, Muscat did not follow him and run in at him to have another dig... their is no head butt, no disrepute upon the game, and no suspension.
• But all these things occur, and are allowed to occur, and Roy lashes out violently, and is rightly cited and punished (Length of ban debate aside)

The facts are that there are several things beyond Roy O'Donovan's control, which finally led to him losing control. This is not an incident he started. He then sought intervention from the proper authorities after what has been judged as violent conduct. He then sought to avoid any further involvement...
Yet this seems to have had no baring on the MRP. The commentators and press. Unless they were going to ban him for the full length of the season.
He should be punished. But it should be placed within it's context and it is hard to accept that it has when Muscat and the referee should both have been punished as harshly or harsher.

My feelings exactly. I have no problem with Roy been punished, he deserved 3 or 4 weeks, but there was so much that happened that preceded it. The media also beat it up into a frenzy, and as we don't have many friends in the fox team they were pretty vocal about it. Roy was basically given the maximum possible to ensure no one complained about the severity of the ban.

 

[adz]

I think we are all forgetting one important thing about the headbutt. It was entertaining!

 

[yorkshireman]

Interesting to hear this, surely they must give some ground after saying that!?! (last paragraph)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...-roy-odonovan-very-harsh-headbutt-ban/7075880

 

[dibo]

Not necessarily, they're saying they regret that they didn't get their hands on Muscat, not that they think they were overcooking Roy's sanction.

 

[adz]

Curious as to why they have two different panels/committees/groups of people to deal with these issues?
So the FFA independent disciplinary committee has proven they are "a more serious body" than the match review panel. Is this a bit of a pissing contest, or was that bit chucked in by the journalist?
Either way I guess that's one way of making sure you have inconsistent rulings.

 

[MagpieMariner]

Not necessarily, they're saying they regret that they didn't get their hands on Muscat, not that they think they were overcooking Roy's sanction.

And had he appeared before them, he would have got more (and I read that as implying he would have got MUCH closer to what they dealt Roy). Therefore, the chance of Roy getting a reduction doesn't look good.

 

[dibo]

Curious as to why they have two different panels/committees/groups of people to deal with these issues?
So the FFA independent disciplinary committee has proven they are "a more serious body" than the match review panel. Is this a bit of a pissing contest, or was that bit chucked in by the journalist?
Either way I guess that's one way of making sure you have inconsistent rulings.

I think it's just that they made a bum call on how serious the strike was - they've treated it like striking with a fist rather than with an elbow (and from some angles it looks like a forearm, so there's a skerrick of an argument for that approach).

 

[nebakke]

And had he appeared before them, he would have got more (and I read that as implying he would have got MUCH closer to what they dealt Roy). Therefore, the chance of Roy getting a reduction doesn't look good.

I do have to admit though - it's not much, but I'm grasping at straws, and it makes me feel a little better because it seems an obvious indictment of the punishments that the MRP is dishing out... As was suggested by Cap'n amongst others.
It'd be easier to swallow an 8 week ban if the guy that arguably caused the situation to occur in the first place, hadn't just gotten off so lightly.

 

[yorkshireman]

Can't they therefore over rule as a clear mis handling? why was Roy done by one and Muscat by the other?

 

[nebakke]

Can't they therefore over rule as a clear mis handling? why was Roy done by one and Muscat by the other?

Because Roy was penalised for the action where Muscat wasn't - during the game... Don't think they can overrule the MRP, but even if they could, it probably wouldn't be a look that they're keen on... Essentially saying "the guys we use to review the stuff that was missed, missed something"

Dunno though...

 

[rbakersmith]

The club's lodged an appeal against the suspension:

The Central Coast Mariners have lodged an appeal to challenge the eight-match suspension imposed upon Roy O’Donovan by the FFA Disciplinary & Ethics Committee.
When assessed against penalties imposed for similar incidents, the penalty is manifestly excessive and reflects a clear disconnection between the Hyundai A-League and other leagues (both domestically & internationally).

It also highlights the disparity between penalties imposed when matters go to the Match Review Panel rather than the Disciplinary & Ethics Committee, indicating the need for a system that operates with consistency and fairness to Clubs and players.

The Club will make no further comment until the appeal is heard.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Can't they therefore over rule as a clear mis handling? why was Roy done by one and Muscat by the other?

Doubt it. Like it or not, the elbow is actually pretty consistent with previous suspensions. I remember somebody threw a forceful, violent elbow right back into somebody's nose, opening it up, and only copping 3 weeks. Obviously, all suspensions for this are inadequate....

 

[dibo]

The club's second point is a good one - it might not get us an outcome here but might force a change.

 

[rbakersmith]

No luck

The Football Federation Australia (FFA) independent Appeal Committee consisting of Malcolm Holmes QC (Chair), Arthur Koumoukelis and Deborah Healey convened to hear an appeal by Roy O’Donovan (the Player) in relation to a decision made by the FFA independent Disciplinary Committee.

The independent Appeal Committee dismissed the Appeal. The Player will therefore continue to serve the sanction determined by the FFA Disciplinary Committee, being an eight (8) match suspension.

 

[Rowdy]

That sucks !

, then 8 it is.