-
Join ccmfans.net
ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!
If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.
ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.
Free Patricio Perez
- Thread starter kevrenor
- Start date
bikinigirl
Well-Known Member
. i haven't voted because I can't even define what 'diving' is. i have been having the conversation with non-football workmates ... but can't actually say what makes a dive a dive
. kev, you're an informed man of the football world ... what is a dive?
. is simulation any form of exaggeration or only the worst form of exaggeration? if you go to ground even though you have been fouled (to whatever degree) is that diving/simulation? my extreme view would be that a dive only occurs when you have not actually been fouled
. i'm an idiot ... inform me, please
. kev, you're an informed man of the football world ... what is a dive?
. is simulation any form of exaggeration or only the worst form of exaggeration? if you go to ground even though you have been fouled (to whatever degree) is that diving/simulation? my extreme view would be that a dive only occurs when you have not actually been fouled
. i'm an idiot ... inform me, please
kevrenor
Well-Known Member
I did my refs ticket 30 years ago so I'm not quite as learned as current refs should be, so a look at the Laws of the Game are a starter:
http://ccmfans.net/b...ws-of-the-game/
In terms of simulation without getting technical there are a number of issues:
1. Getting touched is not always the answer - you could get touched but not in a way that is a foul, or you could get not touched but there was intent to foul.
2. The main issue with simulation is that it is unsporting behaviour under the laws - ie. you are trying to get a benefit eg. free-kick, penalty, player booked when no offence has occurred. A dive. Making the fall more theatrical is not in itself a dive if actual contact was made or you had to change direction to avoid the contact and lost balance.
That is why there is so much debate - there are two laws in play. In the case of Saturday night Breeze looks to have ruled that Reddy fouled Perez (either touched him in a way to impede him, or had intent to foul him).
He has been overuled by the MRP. This is quite against FIFA regulations ... the referee has made a ruling on what he saw, but he has been overuled (based on we believe video evidence). They have imposed a penalty on Perez not on the Law (only the ref can do that), but in terms of the MRP guidelines, along the lines of the law that Perez sought an advantage that he did not warrant.
That probably does not make it clear.
In my mind Reddy sought to foul him in the area as the ball was well past or on the video I've seen appears to have actually fouled him ... it was a penalty. Reddy should not have been red carded as it was not by then a clear goal scoring situation.
kevrenor
Well-Known Member
A-LEAGUE chief Lyall Gorman has launched a stern defence of the league's match review process after PFA boss Brendan Schwab had earlier claimed aspects of the system represented a 'denial of natural justice'.
While Gorman wouldn’t respond directly to claims by Schwab that the revamped MRP system, which sees the Disciplinary Committee impose sanction without a hearing, would not stand up in a court of law, he said the system was consistent and fair and was aimed at ridding the game of unwanted aspects such as simulation.
The PFA's grievance arose after Perth's Michael Baird and Central Coast's Patricio Perez were suspended for two matches for simulation during last weekend's A-League's matches.
Gorman said FFA was committed to stamping out simulation and that the two-match suspension was a considerable deterrent.
"The amendments that were brought in prior to last season which saw the introduction of a retrospective review process to determine and sanction simulation was supported by clubs with the overwhelming majority supporting the sanction being a two-match suspension," Gorman said in a statement.
"The MRP in effect sits in the shoes of the referee to detect incidents that have gone unnoticed and rectify on field incidents that require rectification. Simulation is one of these but only where it has been successful and brought serious disadvantage to the other team."
Gormon said acts of simulation, such as those Perez and Baird had been found guilty of, were an equivalent offence to a red card and that negated any need for an appeal.
"Consistency is important. At the end of the MRP process, a player found to have committed simulation is in the same position as a player found to have committed red card offences. There is no appeal on the finding of guilt to the Disciplinary Committee in any of these cases," he said.
"The only appeals that can be made to the Disciplinary Committee for red card matters relate to the question of sanction. This is because there is an open-ended range for most red card offences and sanctions will vary based on the degree of seriousness of the offence.
"The sanction is intended to act as a significant deterrent to players."
-----
My response was: "They are human Lyle, they can get it wrong and did ... that is why appeal and natural justice is needed.Go back to the drawing board and don't hide behind the cowed acquiescence of the clubs. If you didn't object on behalf of CCM at the time, you should have"
While Gorman wouldn’t respond directly to claims by Schwab that the revamped MRP system, which sees the Disciplinary Committee impose sanction without a hearing, would not stand up in a court of law, he said the system was consistent and fair and was aimed at ridding the game of unwanted aspects such as simulation.
The PFA's grievance arose after Perth's Michael Baird and Central Coast's Patricio Perez were suspended for two matches for simulation during last weekend's A-League's matches.
Gorman said FFA was committed to stamping out simulation and that the two-match suspension was a considerable deterrent.
"The amendments that were brought in prior to last season which saw the introduction of a retrospective review process to determine and sanction simulation was supported by clubs with the overwhelming majority supporting the sanction being a two-match suspension," Gorman said in a statement.
"The MRP in effect sits in the shoes of the referee to detect incidents that have gone unnoticed and rectify on field incidents that require rectification. Simulation is one of these but only where it has been successful and brought serious disadvantage to the other team."
Gormon said acts of simulation, such as those Perez and Baird had been found guilty of, were an equivalent offence to a red card and that negated any need for an appeal.
"Consistency is important. At the end of the MRP process, a player found to have committed simulation is in the same position as a player found to have committed red card offences. There is no appeal on the finding of guilt to the Disciplinary Committee in any of these cases," he said.
"The only appeals that can be made to the Disciplinary Committee for red card matters relate to the question of sanction. This is because there is an open-ended range for most red card offences and sanctions will vary based on the degree of seriousness of the offence.
"The sanction is intended to act as a significant deterrent to players."
-----
My response was: "They are human Lyle, they can get it wrong and did ... that is why appeal and natural justice is needed.Go back to the drawing board and don't hide behind the cowed acquiescence of the clubs. If you didn't object on behalf of CCM at the time, you should have"
northernspirit
Well-Known Member
im trying to take off my yellow tinged glasses for this one
personally, i think diving has no place in football - in fact id be happy to see an automatic red to stamp it out in cases where its blatantly obvious
as for the perez case, first things first - at the very least he MUST be entitled to an appeal process, why should the FFA be judge, jury and executioner - it isnt transparent and it does nothing to dispell moanings of bias towards certain clubs etc. So there must be a proper tribunal process whereby the club can bring a legal representative to either accept or dispute the charge.
I do believe Perez got contact, not saying that because of my love of the mariners - but i also believe he milked it and over played it to make it look 10x worse which is his undoing.
IF it can be proven there was no contact then yes a ban is in order, but there is no way that video can be considered conclusive and if there is doubt the player cannot be banned - the most dissapointing aspect of this is that i think its gonna stop some of the punters turning up on friday night, as without Perez we look very ordinary.
personally, i think diving has no place in football - in fact id be happy to see an automatic red to stamp it out in cases where its blatantly obvious
as for the perez case, first things first - at the very least he MUST be entitled to an appeal process, why should the FFA be judge, jury and executioner - it isnt transparent and it does nothing to dispell moanings of bias towards certain clubs etc. So there must be a proper tribunal process whereby the club can bring a legal representative to either accept or dispute the charge.
I do believe Perez got contact, not saying that because of my love of the mariners - but i also believe he milked it and over played it to make it look 10x worse which is his undoing.
IF it can be proven there was no contact then yes a ban is in order, but there is no way that video can be considered conclusive and if there is doubt the player cannot be banned - the most dissapointing aspect of this is that i think its gonna stop some of the punters turning up on friday night, as without Perez we look very ordinary.
kevrenor
Well-Known Member
I hope the club arrange a proper welcome to him from the club and fans ... introduced to home game and parade around the ground etc.
Also a few banners wouldn't go astray. I like 'Free Perez!'
northernspirit
Well-Known Member
not sure his english is that up to scratch yet - im holding out a slight hope that the PFA legal action threat may see his 2 match ban overturned
Not holding my breath waiting for this ruling to be overturned.... what sort of reaction would that have??? Surely they'll stick to their guns and see this rough patch out.
I feel the two issues here are,
1: Should Perez have been suspended for "simulation"??
If he could be proven 100% guilty with video footage by the MRP, then yes I totally agree he should, but from all the footage I've seen, it is NOT 100% clear. So on that evidence alone how can they convict and suspend??
2: Should the MRP have an appeal/hearing process??
This is the MAJOR issue here and the only problem I see with this whole scenario... there is no way for CCM or Perez to state their case!! PFA should take legal action now to allow future issues like this to receive a fair and unbiased outcome.
I have no problem with Perez or any other player being sanctioned and suspended by the MRP for "simulation" if found 100% guilty. But at the very least, an independant tribunal/hearing is a MUST for a player/club to be able to defend themselves.. end of!!
I feel the two issues here are,
1: Should Perez have been suspended for "simulation"??
If he could be proven 100% guilty with video footage by the MRP, then yes I totally agree he should, but from all the footage I've seen, it is NOT 100% clear. So on that evidence alone how can they convict and suspend??
2: Should the MRP have an appeal/hearing process??
This is the MAJOR issue here and the only problem I see with this whole scenario... there is no way for CCM or Perez to state their case!! PFA should take legal action now to allow future issues like this to receive a fair and unbiased outcome.
I have no problem with Perez or any other player being sanctioned and suspended by the MRP for "simulation" if found 100% guilty. But at the very least, an independant tribunal/hearing is a MUST for a player/club to be able to defend themselves.. end of!!
No, the refs decision should stand.
Based only on the absolute absence of reasonable contrary evidence. All video of the incident is ambiguous at best, neither proving or disproving the awarded foul.
I feel the MRP decision is a very cheap and nasty public relations reaction to the words and language used by fox staff and players following the game and by the press in the following days, wrapped in a facade of moral indignation and paternal protection.
The MRP policy of not permitting a hearing to allow defense of the charge and appeal of the findings, is old world style refusal of natural justice and deserves to be ridiculed for the pathetic big brother attempt it is.
I'd go as far as the encourage every press journo in the country that's interested enough, be they aleague supporters or otherwise, to laugh at the FFA, call them out on their stubborn refusal to move on from the 19th century, scorn their recalcitrance in doing things different for difference sake and shame them on their absolute lack of transparency and accountability.
The FFA are a law unto themselves and won't be altered by whisting Dixie.
Based only on the absolute absence of reasonable contrary evidence. All video of the incident is ambiguous at best, neither proving or disproving the awarded foul.
I feel the MRP decision is a very cheap and nasty public relations reaction to the words and language used by fox staff and players following the game and by the press in the following days, wrapped in a facade of moral indignation and paternal protection.
The MRP policy of not permitting a hearing to allow defense of the charge and appeal of the findings, is old world style refusal of natural justice and deserves to be ridiculed for the pathetic big brother attempt it is.
I'd go as far as the encourage every press journo in the country that's interested enough, be they aleague supporters or otherwise, to laugh at the FFA, call them out on their stubborn refusal to move on from the 19th century, scorn their recalcitrance in doing things different for difference sake and shame them on their absolute lack of transparency and accountability.
The FFA are a law unto themselves and won't be altered by whisting Dixie.
kevrenor
Well-Known Member
Fox Sports through The Club tonight got rightly stuck into them.
I've done what I can: http://www.back-of-the-net.com/
Obi Dan Kenobi
New Member
The banner should say: "Pérez debe ser liberado" which is Spanish for Perez Must Be Freed... at least then He'll know we support him.
The PFA won't do anything, and the FFA won't back down... it's so archaic that the Perez and the Mariners, or any player for that matter, cannot defend themselves, but some backroom, faceless buracrates can play judge and juror unapposed.
The pre-emptive strike was called way back then that a situation like this would blow up in their faces.....
How they havn't seen this coming once they played that card and suspended someone in this manner without recourse..... A-League is a laughing stock!!
Would love to see FIFA step in and over rule.... proving the total ineptitude of some at FFA!!
Forum Phoenix
Well-Known Member
EL Patricio is going to become our greatest ever player and lead us on a total Fooooootbul reveluuutionnnnn!!!!
Actually think we should give perez a nick that reflects this all...
Argentinian/spanish for maligned master or some such...
Actually think we should give perez a nick that reflects this all...
Argentinian/spanish for maligned master or some such...
Wombat
Well-Known Member
I think the bottom line is FFA just make it up as they go along. FIFA should step in for the sake of the game in this country and explain that they (FFA) can't just wing it and make up their own rules for the World Game.
Whats next....5pts for a win because we want to make the game more attacking.
The FFA have made a massive rod for their own back with this crazy ruling. I spoke to a Victory member yesterday and he agreed that no way would they have come to that decision had a Melbourne or Sydney player have been in the same situation.
No wonder we have substandard Refs and Linesmen when the clowns running the show are completely incompetant.
What the hell is Breeze suppossed to make of that....he struggles at the best of times and now when he actually gets a penalty decision correct he is told he got it wrong. (The Red card was typical Breeze over-reaction).
Whats next....5pts for a win because we want to make the game more attacking.
The FFA have made a massive rod for their own back with this crazy ruling. I spoke to a Victory member yesterday and he agreed that no way would they have come to that decision had a Melbourne or Sydney player have been in the same situation.
No wonder we have substandard Refs and Linesmen when the clowns running the show are completely incompetant.
What the hell is Breeze suppossed to make of that....he struggles at the best of times and now when he actually gets a penalty decision correct he is told he got it wrong. (The Red card was typical Breeze over-reaction).
I wouldn't be suprised to see that FIFA has given the A League the directive of carrying out this campaign against "simulation" and using video evidence after the fact.
With the A League not being as high brow as the rest of Europe, we could be the guinea pig for trialing possible new rules for the rest of the world.
With the A League not being as high brow as the rest of Europe, we could be the guinea pig for trialing possible new rules for the rest of the world.
pjennings
Well-Known Member
PATRICIO EL AMO CALUMNIADO
MagpieMariner
Well-Known Member
I think using video after the fact is not the issue here. After all, the other "football" codes do exactly that. The issue is not the suspension either.
The issue is that the player & club don't have the right to be heard - a clear denial of natural justice. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet my left testicle (it's the one that doesn't work) that this ruling would be thrown out if it ever went to court.
Let's face it, as others have said, if this happened before a final, or before the deciding match of the home-and-away premiership for those who don't accept finals, you can guarantee a court appearance. The other codes have had court injunctions to prevent the judiciary even considering the matter before a final (the case of the Swans' Dunkley before the 1996 AFL Grand Final is one example).
The lawyers among us could tell if this sort of thing could actually trigger a defamation of character action. It wouldn't surprise me if the answer was "yes".
We are trying to win the souls of the followers of the other codes, and this type of kangaroo court will go a long way to making sure we fail.
The issue is that the player & club don't have the right to be heard - a clear denial of natural justice. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet my left testicle (it's the one that doesn't work) that this ruling would be thrown out if it ever went to court.
Let's face it, as others have said, if this happened before a final, or before the deciding match of the home-and-away premiership for those who don't accept finals, you can guarantee a court appearance. The other codes have had court injunctions to prevent the judiciary even considering the matter before a final (the case of the Swans' Dunkley before the 1996 AFL Grand Final is one example).
The lawyers among us could tell if this sort of thing could actually trigger a defamation of character action. It wouldn't surprise me if the answer was "yes".
We are trying to win the souls of the followers of the other codes, and this type of kangaroo court will go a long way to making sure we fail.
pjennings
Well-Known Member
I think everyone wants to see simulation stamped out. Whether or not Patricio dived or not is not the problem. The problem is the process is flawed and needs to be fixed.
Let's assume that the process will not get looked at properly until the end of the year. What then do you do in the interim period. Let the MRP go through a two-step process.
1) On the balance of probability has there been simulation, yes or no.
If no end of story.
If yes apply a 2 match ban
2) Can we definitively prove simulation, yes or no.
If no - ban is suspended and will be included if/when the player is subsequently banned for simulation.
If yes - ban stays
Simple and effective
Let's assume that the process will not get looked at properly until the end of the year. What then do you do in the interim period. Let the MRP go through a two-step process.
1) On the balance of probability has there been simulation, yes or no.
If no end of story.
If yes apply a 2 match ban
2) Can we definitively prove simulation, yes or no.
If no - ban is suspended and will be included if/when the player is subsequently banned for simulation.
If yes - ban stays
Simple and effective
Looks like something could be happening.
This was in the SMH today.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Football Federation Australia's judicial process has had an absolute shocker in making an example of Patricio Perez in the quest to stamp out simulation. An admirable quest, for sure. But natural justice must be observed. In this case, it's been flagrantly ignored.
No wonder the player is distraught enough to be contemplating tearing up his contract and heading home to Argentina. No wonder Central Coast Mariners are hopping mad. No wonder they've briefed their briefs to investigate the possibility of an injunction. Hopefully, by later today, common sense prevails and the FFA commute the two-match ban into a suspended sentence. If not, the case will head to the courts.
The Mariners are not troublemakers. For five years they've obediently toed the party line. But this is too much. They're angry and disillusioned, and you can't blame them. In just 35 minutes last weekend, Perez showed he could become the best import the A-League has seen. It was an extraordinary debut. The Mariners have back-to-back home games before they spend most of the next seven weeks on the road. If Perez is forced to sit out those two games, he'll basically be a stranger in Gosford until late November. Perez is rolled-gold box office, but as it stands it's going to be other clubs who'll be making the money. The Mariners have every right to protect their investment.
They have that right because in every other sense the rights of the player have been abused. Simulation is a blight on the game and the FFA's drive to stamp it out is commendable. But you have to be sure before you brand a player a cheat. Very sure.
In this case, there's no way the match-review panel could be sure. Where is the replay proving that Sydney FC keeper Liam Reddy didn't clip the ankle of Perez? Fact is, that proof simply doesn't exist. Innocent until proven guilty? Not likely. The panel made its ruling without conclusive video evidence, without notifying Perez he had a case to answer, without asking Reddy whether there was contact, and without any reference to referee Matthew Breeze's report. Breeze had a clear view of the incident and clearly had his reasons for his ruling a penalty. Breeze is no rookie - he's the A-League's most experienced referee. Whether he got it right or wrong, it's incredible - and insulting - to think the panel felt his views weren't worth considering.
Instead, the panel has made a big call on a gut instinct, all the while knowing there are no avenues for appeal - at least through the football system. Perez, of course, isn't the only player to be named and shamed. Perth Glory striker Michael Baird has also been banned on the same charge, but you don't need a pair of glasses to see the difference between the two incidents. In that context, the evidence is clear. Beyond reasonable doubt - that's how it has to be. But when there are shades of grey, it's incumbent on the panel to be cautious. Not careless.
The Perez ruling smacks of populism. After all, he's South American and they're all divers, aren't they? No they're not. Perez did go down easily - too easily for my liking. But he insists there was contact and nobody can prove there wasn't. Now he's being accused of lying without being given the chance to defend himself. Where's the fair go here?
Hopefully, the FFA will see the light. Hopefully, there will be an acknowledgement that the panel acted in haste. If Perez gets his sentence suspended, everyone wins. The punishment will fit the crime. The FFA will have made its point. Perez will be on notice that simulation isn't accepted in the A-League, and it's better to stay on your feet. And, best of all, Mariners fans will still get to enjoy watching their prized recruit. It's not because he's a good player that Perez deserves a second chance. It's because he might, just might, be an innocent one.
This was in the SMH today.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Football Federation Australia's judicial process has had an absolute shocker in making an example of Patricio Perez in the quest to stamp out simulation. An admirable quest, for sure. But natural justice must be observed. In this case, it's been flagrantly ignored.
No wonder the player is distraught enough to be contemplating tearing up his contract and heading home to Argentina. No wonder Central Coast Mariners are hopping mad. No wonder they've briefed their briefs to investigate the possibility of an injunction. Hopefully, by later today, common sense prevails and the FFA commute the two-match ban into a suspended sentence. If not, the case will head to the courts.
The Mariners are not troublemakers. For five years they've obediently toed the party line. But this is too much. They're angry and disillusioned, and you can't blame them. In just 35 minutes last weekend, Perez showed he could become the best import the A-League has seen. It was an extraordinary debut. The Mariners have back-to-back home games before they spend most of the next seven weeks on the road. If Perez is forced to sit out those two games, he'll basically be a stranger in Gosford until late November. Perez is rolled-gold box office, but as it stands it's going to be other clubs who'll be making the money. The Mariners have every right to protect their investment.
They have that right because in every other sense the rights of the player have been abused. Simulation is a blight on the game and the FFA's drive to stamp it out is commendable. But you have to be sure before you brand a player a cheat. Very sure.
In this case, there's no way the match-review panel could be sure. Where is the replay proving that Sydney FC keeper Liam Reddy didn't clip the ankle of Perez? Fact is, that proof simply doesn't exist. Innocent until proven guilty? Not likely. The panel made its ruling without conclusive video evidence, without notifying Perez he had a case to answer, without asking Reddy whether there was contact, and without any reference to referee Matthew Breeze's report. Breeze had a clear view of the incident and clearly had his reasons for his ruling a penalty. Breeze is no rookie - he's the A-League's most experienced referee. Whether he got it right or wrong, it's incredible - and insulting - to think the panel felt his views weren't worth considering.
Instead, the panel has made a big call on a gut instinct, all the while knowing there are no avenues for appeal - at least through the football system. Perez, of course, isn't the only player to be named and shamed. Perth Glory striker Michael Baird has also been banned on the same charge, but you don't need a pair of glasses to see the difference between the two incidents. In that context, the evidence is clear. Beyond reasonable doubt - that's how it has to be. But when there are shades of grey, it's incumbent on the panel to be cautious. Not careless.
The Perez ruling smacks of populism. After all, he's South American and they're all divers, aren't they? No they're not. Perez did go down easily - too easily for my liking. But he insists there was contact and nobody can prove there wasn't. Now he's being accused of lying without being given the chance to defend himself. Where's the fair go here?
Hopefully, the FFA will see the light. Hopefully, there will be an acknowledgement that the panel acted in haste. If Perez gets his sentence suspended, everyone wins. The punishment will fit the crime. The FFA will have made its point. Perez will be on notice that simulation isn't accepted in the A-League, and it's better to stay on your feet. And, best of all, Mariners fans will still get to enjoy watching their prized recruit. It's not because he's a good player that Perez deserves a second chance. It's because he might, just might, be an innocent one.
midfielder
Well-Known Member
Even Les is on our side...
Online statistics
- Members online
- 30
- Guests online
- 395
- Total visitors
- 425
