Kanwal Player suspended for a year

[RADINHO]

Bro this guy should be gone for a lot longer and danny should not be at all

 

[dibo]

Bro this guy should be gone for a lot longer and danny should not be at all

???

not at all?

you reckon whacking officials should be allowed?

 

[truesoccer]

One of my kids was a referee. I always remember what another referee who was also head CCF judiciary at the time told him and other referees. He told them to be careful of ther actions as a referee on the field. This person told him that, if his actions as a referee could be construed as provocative, the player could get a lot lighter sentence. Do not know what happened in this case but having seem the particular referee and his approach to players, may, and I only say may, have been the deciding factor in this case. On the other side of the equation have heard that the present Director of Judiciay prides himself in so little number of night he has to go out for hearings. Maybe he is saving himself another night out at an appeal.

 

[voice of reason]

One of my kids was a referee. I always remember what another referee who was also head CCF judiciary at the time told him and other referees. He told them to be careful of ther actions as a referee on the field. This person told him that, if his actions as a referee could be construed as provocative, the player could get a lot lighter sentence. Do not know what happened in this case but having seem the particular referee and his approach to players, may, and I only say may, have been the deciding factor in this case. On the other side of the equation have heard that the present Director of Judiciay prides himself in so little number of night he has to go out for hearings. Maybe he is saving himself another night out at an appeal.

truesoccer...you say in another thread that you always try to get your facts right...what a load of bullshit.  You're suggesting here that the referee brought this upon himself...how exactly? by giving a card?

you say you do not know what happened in this case.  my advice, in that case, is say nothing...

 

[BAD BULLZ]

"you say you do not know what happened in this case.  my advice, in that case, is say nothing..."


No body who has commented on this topic so far actually knows what happened in this case !! : :

I've been talking with a few of the grade players and although it's no excuse he may have had a reason to be upset with ref.....Somebody hit shane in the gut and the ref gave shane the yellow : that along with a few other smaller incidents in a match would really piss ya off in a hightension game.
Like i said no excuse but brainsnaps do happen and that could definetly trigger one.

There is always 2sides to the argument.

 

[voice of reason]

"you say you do not know what happened in this case.  my advice, in that case, is say nothing..."


No body who has commented on this topic so far actually knows what happened in this case !! : :

I've been talking with a few of the grade players and although it's no excuse he may have had a reason to be upset with ref.....Somebody hit shane in the gut and the ref gave shane the yellow : that along with a few other smaller incidents in a match would really piss ya off in a hightension game.
Like i said no excuse but brainsnaps do happen and that could definetly trigger one.

There is always 2sides to the argument.

Yes the two sides are:
Ref doing his job as he is expected to do (and would be severely criticised for not doing)
Player exhibiting thuggish behaviour that should not be tolerated in any part of society and definitely not on a football field.  End of story!

 

[dwight]

Correct voice of reason I didn't know that you can use the excuse of wrongly getting a yellow card for "common assualt" he will appear at Wyong court on May 28 let's see if that is a defence raised and accepted.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Unfortunately, it isn't the first time that CCF have shown significant leniency in the case of referee assaults or other serious incidents (both involving referees, and otherwise).

CCF have, in the past, completely swept such issues under the carpet and allowed players to get off scot free. 

 

[headcase]

Get some facts right capn.
1. The player wasn't charged with assaulting a referee in respect of the judiciary matter - he was charged with "threatening or intimidating a referee by word or action" - an offence which carries a minimum of TWELVE MATCHES - and he got TWELVE MONTHS plus a 5 year bond - far above the Football NSW recommended minimum.
2. Any matters that have been swept under the carpet have been done so because of the referees or clubs not submitting proper reports. If you look at the suspended players list from the CCF there are 8 Life suspensions and another 8 that are on suspensions or bonds from 5 to 10 years - not light sentences.
Would be very interested to hear your "swept under the carpet" allegations that you can prove that the referee sent a player off, reported the matter and  the judiciary allowed the players off without a hearing, obviously keeping it quiet from the CCF Board and the delegates.
Or could it be some times that independent judiciary hearings actually hear ALL of the evidence in a matter and sometimes find a player not guilty.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Sigh...get your own facts right, headcase.

Most people - including most on here - seem to think that the sentence is quite lenient.

1. What he was charged with is nothing more than an internal CCF matter - and may be questionable on its own.

2. Don't make statements on things you have no knowledge of - I've personally been involved in one assault, and two instances of being threatened - all were written with detailed and accurate reports that were reviewed by colleagues, and 2 resulted in the person getting off, and 1 was a rather light sentence (spectator and committee member banned from holding a committee position for 12 months).

In regards to the 2 other incidents, CCF's excuse on one was that it can't be proven (when FIFA guidelines stipulate that the referee's word is to be taken as fact - seriously, am I supposed to record my matches?), and another one (threat), CCF basically said 'we don't care, we're not doing anything about it'

There have also been several other incidents (not always involving referees; some are involving on-field incidents) where players have had drastic sentence reductions - often from sentences of a year or two, to a matter of months, or even a single week - simply for appealling (again, some of those appeals are against FIFA guidelines on appeals.  CCF, funnily enough, haven't bothered to include any appeal reasons in their regulations).  Some of these highly successful appeals consist of nothing more than the player turning up and saying 'I didn't do what the referee said I did'.  Believe me, it is not an issue of poor reporting, nor of players being incorrectly sent off.

By the fact that you decided to jump straight in for the defence, and with your first post, I'm going to assume you have some sort of involvement either with the player, the club, or CCF (or are close to somebody who does).

I was simply saying that if some people feel the sentence is rather lenient then they shouldn't be surprised as CCF have shown greater leniency in the past (as well as greater severity), as well as letting players off the hook (well, they can't escape the mandatory 1 week sentence for a red card, but they can eliminate additional punishments).

 

[marinermick]

Sigh...get your own facts right, headcase.

Most people - including most on here - seem to think that the sentence is quite lenient.

big assumption

i think most people on here don't know the facts of the case and were not present at the judiciary so cannot make an informed judgement on what is lenient and what is not

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Err, no.

Try reading the relevant threads - there seems to be more people saying the sentence was too lenient than those saying it was just right or too strict.

Assumption nothing; it was an observation from actually reading the posts.

 

[dwight]

" 1. The player wasn't charged with assaulting a referee in respect of the judiciary matter "
maybe he should have been then. ?
If he is found guilty in court and / or a conviction recorded I would think that this will certainly show that he should have faced more serious charges in front of the CCF.
The police will not charge a person with assault unless "the evidence" has a good prospect of getting a conviction.
Roll on May 28.

 

[marinermick]

Err, no.

Try reading the relevant threads - there seems to be more people saying the sentence was too lenient than those saying it was just right or too strict.

Assumption nothing; it was an observation from actually reading the posts.

err, no

4 or 5 posters is not "most of people of here" as you had stated given that there are 750 odd registered users and around a couple of hundred of these regular users of the forum

 

[luvsoccer]

Gus
Do not know how long you have been refereeing for or at what level.
I was a referee for almost 40 years before having to give it away for health reasons. I refereed from local level up to international standard. In all that time I copped some verbal abuse but never once was I assaulted or threatened. I am not unique in this regard as from my experience around 99.9% of referees never experience either.
You however state you have been subject to assault and threats on numerous occassions. My question is, why you?
As I speculated earlier in this thread maybe, and only maybe, the referee antagonised the situation and that was the reason for what has been considered by some as a lenient sentence.
Do not wish to hit below the belt but could the fact you seem to have so much trouble that the judiciary thought your problems could be in a similar vein.

 

[BAD BULLZ]

Gus
Do not know how long you have been refereeing for or at what level.
I was a referee for almost 40 years before having to give it away for health reasons. I refereed from local level up to international standard. In all that time I copped some verbal abuse but never once was I assaulted or threatened. I am not unique in this regard as from my experience around 99.9% of referees never experience either.
You however state you have been subject to assault and threats on numerous occassions. My question is, why you?
As I speculated earlier in this thread maybe, and only maybe, the referee antagonised the situation and that was the reason for what has been considered by some as a lenient sentence.
Do not wish to hit below the belt but could the fact you seem to have so much trouble that the judiciary thought your problems could be in a similar vein.

Well said

The team claims the opposition player clearly punched shane in the guts and was close to incident at the time shane got a yellow for this i would consider that being antagonized defintly not an excuse to grab the ref but a reason for being "upset"
No matter how stacked the evidence is there is still 2sides its not always so clear cut.

 

[headcase]

" 1. The player wasn't charged with assaulting a referee in respect of the judiciary matter "
maybe he should have been then. ?
If he is found guilty in court and / or a conviction recorded I would think that this will certainly show that he should have faced more serious charges in front of the CCF.
The police will not charge a person with assault unless "the evidence" has a good prospect of getting a conviction.
Roll on May 28.

The player faced the charge that he did because that is what the referee decided was appropriate, not the CCF or anyone else.

Sigh...get your own facts right, headcase.

Most people - including most on here - seem to think that the sentence is quite lenient.

1. What he was charged with is nothing more than an internal CCF matter - and may be questionable on its own.

2. Don't make statements on things you have no knowledge of - I've personally been involved in one assault, and two instances of being threatened - all were written with detailed and accurate reports that were reviewed by colleagues, and 2 resulted in the person getting off, and 1 was a rather light sentence (spectator and committee member banned from holding a committee position for 12 months).

In regards to the 2 other incidents, CCF's excuse on one was that it can't be proven (when FIFA guidelines stipulate that the referee's word is to be taken as fact - seriously, am I supposed to record my matches?), and another one (threat), CCF basically said 'we don't care, we're not doing anything about it'

There have also been several other incidents (not always involving referees; some are involving on-field incidents) where players have had drastic sentence reductions - often from sentences of a year or two, to a matter of months, or even a single week - simply for appealling (again, some of those appeals are against FIFA guidelines on appeals.  CCF, funnily enough, haven't bothered to include any appeal reasons in their regulations).  Some of these highly successful appeals consist of nothing more than the player turning up and saying 'I didn't do what the referee said I did'.  Believe me, it is not an issue of poor reporting, nor of players being incorrectly sent off.

By the fact that you decided to jump straight in for the defence, and with your first post, I'm going to assume you have some sort of involvement either with the player, the club, or CCF (or are close to somebody who does).

I was simply saying that if some people feel the sentence is rather lenient then they shouldn't be surprised as CCF have shown greater leniency in the past (as well as greater severity), as well as letting players off the hook (well, they can't escape the mandatory 1 week sentence for a red card, but they can eliminate additional punishments).

Again wrong. Most people in the football community are not saying it was lenient, most are saying similar to Eggy in that there was definietly no excuse to grab the referee (which cannot be condoned) but the referees actions more than likely inflamed the situation.
I also find it amazing how you can be involved in so many assaults, and none of them ever seem to get proven or even dealt with, despite being meticulously written up, reported and reviewed by your colleagues (I assume you mean fellow referees). Perhaps you should make these allegations public as it seems you are the victim of a major conspiracy. I wonder why the Referees Association haven't been more supportive of you in pushing these matters. I also wonder why none of the clubs involved in matches where these incidents have occurred haven't been more vocal as well.
I have to agree with luvsoccer in his assumption that maybe you also have contributed to these situations by  antagonising the situation.
I can probably believe this by your statement that "FIFA guidelines stipulate that the referee's word is to be taken as fact". If this is what you interpret the FIFA regulations as, and how you apply them to your refereeing then there is a major problem. There is no International Board decision which states this, the Laws of the Game (Law 5 - The Referee under the section Decisions of the Referee states that the "decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final". There is a big difference - the inability to comprehend that difference could be the basis of your problems you have experienced in the past.

 

[voice of reason]

Eggy, CCF as the prosecuting authority decide the charge after reading the report from the referee.  I find it funny that NSW Police can distill an assault charge from the evidence while CCF can only interpret it as threatening.  Maybe they need some informal legal advice.  They have done a disservice to football by minimising this.

luvsoccer,   If it is considered antagonistic to give a player a card, then referees might as well give up on the game..you're wild speculation on the performance of this referee at Kanwal is damaging and you should know better!

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Err, no.

Try reading the relevant threads - there seems to be more people saying the sentence was too lenient than those saying it was just right or too strict.

Assumption nothing; it was an observation from actually reading the posts.

err, no

4 or 5 posters is not "most of people of here" as you had stated given that there are 750 odd registered users and around a couple of hundred of these regular users of the forum

Sigh...I meant 'most people on this thread' - most people on the board haven't given an opinion.

" 1. The player wasn't charged with assaulting a referee in respect of the judiciary matter "
maybe he should have been then. ?
If he is found guilty in court and / or a conviction recorded I would think that this will certainly show that he should have faced more serious charges in front of the CCF.
The police will not charge a person with assault unless "the evidence" has a good prospect of getting a conviction.
Roll on May 28.

The player faced the charge that he did because that is what the referee decided was appropriate, not the CCF or anyone else.

The send-off codes have changed this year to reflect the variety of incidents against referees.
Still, whether or not it fits into their sentence isn't entirely relevant as to whether or not the sentence is lenient.

I can probably believe this by your statement that "FIFA guidelines stipulate that the referee's word is to be taken as fact". If this is what you interpret the FIFA regulations as, and how you apply them to your refereeing then there is a major problem. There is no International Board decision which states this, the Laws of the Game (Law 5 - The Referee under the section Decisions of the Referee states that the "decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final". There is a big difference - the inability to comprehend that difference could be the basis of your problems you have experienced in the past.

Sigh, here you're showing your lack of information, and a willingness to take quotes out of context.

I am well aware of what Law 5 says - that quote simply refers to the fact that a football association can't change the number of goals, or the colour of a card, etc.  The bit I said about the referee's word being fact is specifically in reference to judicial matters - and while you won't find that information in the LOTG, you will find it in the FIFA regulations. 

I also made sure to specifically refer to FIFA, because for whatever reason CCF's regs (at least the ones that they're willing to share) are quite sparse in terms of judicial matters.

I think it's somewhat disturbing that you, Eggy and luvsoccer are attempting to justify referee assaults by suggesting that the referees have antagonise players.  Whether or not the referee has doesn't justify assault.  But then again, I've always been more of a lover than a fighter ;-)

Seriously though, the player being upset can't possibly be a justification - because you could put every single instance of abuse, assault or threat down to the player being upset.  Because obviously, for each one, the player is upset over something, true?

FWIW my incidents didn't involve any antagonisation by any stretch of the imagination (one incident involved a caution from several yards away, one involved a person I didn't have anything to do with prior, and another involved a threat at a club several weeks after a match - antagonisation certainly wasn't a factor) - neither have any other similar incidents that I've witnessed.

3 serious incidents of this nature isn't an overly unusual number for any official to have experienced.  Some go a long time with no incidents, some don't - more often than not the referee has done nothing to contribute to the incident (such as a spectator threatening to slit the throat of an AR simply for calling an offside).  Offhand I can think of, maybe 10-20 referees who have suffered assault, threats or high level abuse (getting right in the referee's face and screaming abuse, for instance) in this association, and maybe another 5-10 in other areas. 

If luvsoccer believes that in his time, 1 in 1000 officials suffered threats or abuse then good for him, but it seems to be a different era now.
Often it's nothing more than luck - an idiot is hanging around, and it happens to be your game when he's had a bad week and had a few to drink.  Sometimes it's the nature of the match you referee (Margins Cup and Kanga Cup are both notorious for serious incidents involving officials, though the latter has calmed down due to some changes with the main protagonist clubs), things like that.  I would think that even the physical build of a person - heck, even their haircut - could all have some influence on how people react towards you.  I'm not exactly built like a brick shithouse
Voice of reason has shown, well, a voice of reason with his last paragraph.

 

[BAD BULLZ]

I am NOT trying to justify assaults at all. I am trying to justify the decision to "only" suspend him for a yr factors like being antagonised are not an excuse but by looking at evidence might count towards the punishment being a "Lenient" 1yr sentance as opposed to a more severe punishment he might recieve if he just randomly grabbed the offical and threatened him.


"Eggy, CCF as the prosecuting authority decide the charge after reading the report from the referee.  I find it funny that NSW Police can distill an assault charge from the evidence while CCF can only interpret it as threatening.  Maybe they need some informal legal advice.  They have done a disservice to football by minimising this."


It doesn't matter whether the police charge him with assault or not the ccf has looked at there evidence and come up with a punishment for breaking the rules of a football match.If the police investigate and find an assault they will find a suitable punishment for breaking the law in genral.