-
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.
Merged Thread - Danny Vukovic Red Card (outcome page 42)
- Thread starter merrinator
- Start date
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
When Shields has a bad game, he is usually crap for 90 mins and equally poor to both sides.
Breeze on the other hand takes sides and favours one side or another.
He is of course, a complete c**t.
Breeze on the other hand takes sides and favours one side or another.
He is of course, a complete c**t.
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
Wombat said:
Who's DiCanio? ;-)
Realistically, can you take what happens overseas as a measure of 'consistency'?
Of course you can't - because that's assuming that overseas have got it right. And I think just about everybody involved in the game would argue that those sentences are hopelessly lenient.
So really, arguments comparing what happens here to some atrociously incompetent sentencing overseas are clutching at straws.
Greenpole - you've probably forgotten that Breeze screwing up the major semi was a mixed blessing - Gumps was supposed to get sent off for that penalty (not that it was - Holland took a dive - but once awarding it, he had to send Gumps off).
I think just about every club would argue that the referees hate them.
We've had a rough season - but we do benefit from refereeing errors - or from getting on the right side of a 50-50 decision as well.
Ok, so we've got 4 cases of assault this season.
1)Griffiths
2)Milligan
3)Petrovski (hit Shield's hand moments before Danny did)
4)Vukovic
So...
1)The Assistant referee didn't realise griffiths had tried to hit him (there was virtually no contact) and actually called Breeze over for what was said at the same time - Neither official was looking at griffiths at the time - so basically, none of the officials actually knew that Griffiths had struck out at the AR. FFA could've broken the rules - or they could've found some means of punishing griffiths, but chose not to. Basically, they weren't forced to take any action, so they didn't (actually, FFA didn't need to break the laws of the game - if the card was for the verbal dissent, then the violent conduct wasn't actually dealt with by the match official at the time, so they could've done something about it, but I think they're just too stupid to realise that).
2)Miligan poked Shield hard in the chest while abusing him in the 2nd Sydney minor semi. Shield did nothing (completely inconsistent - but I've addressed the refereeing problems in another thread. Shield, I feel, is the kind of referee who will do whatever it takes to look good to the inspector and therefore is a completely manufactured muppet, which I believe is why he shies away from the big decisions so much. Historically, elite football bodies have been a LOT harsher on officials who have made a tough call and gotten it wrong (or even gotten it right, but simply upset somebody doing so), than on officials who shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and pretend the incident never happened. Politics is a plague, and it directly affects what happens on the field, I believe. Again, the FFA could've (and should've) taken action - but because they weren't forced to (and after the first couple of rounds they did sort of stop citing players on video review, for the most part), so they didn't. They swept it under the carpet
3)Petrovski hit Shield's hand while arguing with him. IMO, any contact in this manner should result in a red card, and Petrovski should've been sent. You simply don't make contact with the officials in this fashion. Petrovski was probably lucky that Shield was stressed, and as such he probably didn't even think about it. The FFA cited him, but didn't take action - I wonder if that was to try and appease complaints of inconsistency with other decisions?
4)Mark sent Danny off for striking a match official. Under FFA policy, such an offence carries a minimum 12 months.
Like it or lump it, the FFA has no choice whatsoever. They cannot say 'well, it's only minor, so we'll just give him a month' because the policy doesn't allow it. If it's minor, he gets the minimum sentence. Anything worse, and he gets a longer sentence.
As it is, we're damn lucky that the FFA decided to bend their own policy and only give him an effective 9 months (I don't consider a suspended sentence to be part of a sentence).
As frustrated as I am about the inconsistency, I'm pretty damn stoked that he comes back 3 months early. However, my issue with the inconsistency isn't that Danny got suspended, it's that nobody else did. But hey, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
FFA screwed up - repeatedly. They had to pull the situation into line at some point, and events transpired forcing them to take a stand when Danny lost his cool.
With the lenient approach to dissent taken by referees, an assault was inevitable. It's a good thing for the league that it was a relatively minor one - and let's hope that this is going to give the men telling the officials what to do, a good kick up the arse and get them to tell the officials to start bloody applying the laws of the game and stop this increasing practice of dissent and abuse which is starting to plague the HAL (personally I can't stand players who throw the petulant temper tantrums - it looks pathetic, and it needs to be stamped out. Time wasted from players mobbing the ref frustrates the crowd, and even more so when cautions for such dissent are only issued sporadically).
If I was Danny, I'd want to try every damn thing I could to keep my Olympics spot - but personally, I think we should consider ourselves fortunate that he got the sentence he did - and the rest of my post explains why.
YES, the FFA have made unforgivable errors. Yes, heads should roll. YES, one referee has made several unforgivable errors and should be torn a new one.
However, in the entire circus of Season 3 officiating and judicial sentences, I hate to say it but Danny's sentence was the closest to correct they've come - and even that was lenient.
Too harsh for a hand slap? Maybe, but I daresay they didn't envision anything like that when they wrote the policy of 'assault on an official = minimum 12 months, no ifs or buts'.
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
I would be arguing the definition of "assault on an official"
Not that he didnt make contact, he clearly did ,but the intent.
Not that he didnt make contact, he clearly did ,but the intent.
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
The intent was to strike an official.
Besides, 'intent' is irrelevant in the laws, these days (well, except in 2 parts of the law).
'Striking' comes under 'violent conduct', even if it isn't particularly hard. The charge is 'violent conduct against a match official'.
The laws don't always allow themselves to be taken to strict dictionary definitions of the words used - otherwise they'd have to be written with the same wordiness as a legal document. There's the intent and spirit of the laws which matter just as much as what's literally said (sometimes more).
There's absolutely nothing to argue from that perspective.
Besides, 'intent' is irrelevant in the laws, these days (well, except in 2 parts of the law).
'Striking' comes under 'violent conduct', even if it isn't particularly hard. The charge is 'violent conduct against a match official'.
The laws don't always allow themselves to be taken to strict dictionary definitions of the words used - otherwise they'd have to be written with the same wordiness as a legal document. There's the intent and spirit of the laws which matter just as much as what's literally said (sometimes more).
There's absolutely nothing to argue from that perspective.
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
I think you might find that the FFA's "regulations" (thats what they are, not laws at all) dont over ride the common law or statutary legal definitions.
Even the "you agree to be bound by our rules" argument that the FFA will trot out cant be used if it denies a person natural justice.
A point that I am sure the CCM legal team will make v strongly.
Even the "you agree to be bound by our rules" argument that the FFA will trot out cant be used if it denies a person natural justice.
A point that I am sure the CCM legal team will make v strongly.
pjennings
Well-Known Member
Capn Gus argued the case well.
I don't think the next appeal will do anything for Danny's cause. However, when the FFA take it to FIFA things might change. FIFA's rules for the same offence is 6 months minimum. I wouldn't take it as a given that FIFA would ratify the ban world-wide. I suspect they will tell the FFA not to be so bloody stupid. Won't help Danny for the Olympics though.
I don't think the next appeal will do anything for Danny's cause. However, when the FFA take it to FIFA things might change. FIFA's rules for the same offence is 6 months minimum. I wouldn't take it as a given that FIFA would ratify the ban world-wide. I suspect they will tell the FFA not to be so bloody stupid. Won't help Danny for the Olympics though.
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
Greenpole - and exactly what common law is being overridden?
my mail from the media says FFA are very embarassed by the ruling on griiffiths in the light of Danny's punishment.
at the last hearing Danny pleaded guilty and FFA acknowledged his prior exemplary behaviour.
over 1600 people including Lawrie McKinna have signed a petition to support him.
Ben Buckley was handed a savedanny t-shirt on Total Football last thursday night by Andy Harper.
the ban challenge isn't going away but the incident has faded into oblivion..........the 89th emotion in the 89th minute signified that the the A-League had come of age - serious competition and dubious refereeing has left a budding olympian in a state of mental trauma(if you were at the olyroos v iraq game at BTS you either understand Danny's passion for the game or you haven't got a pulse) ....frank lowy you have created a monster but it shouldn't be at the expense of Danny Vukovic. Let's move on FFA.
the scales of justice are severely weighed against Danny right now, but let's hope at the next hearing sanity prevails.
SAVEDANNY.COM.AU
at the last hearing Danny pleaded guilty and FFA acknowledged his prior exemplary behaviour.
over 1600 people including Lawrie McKinna have signed a petition to support him.
Ben Buckley was handed a savedanny t-shirt on Total Football last thursday night by Andy Harper.
the ban challenge isn't going away but the incident has faded into oblivion..........the 89th emotion in the 89th minute signified that the the A-League had come of age - serious competition and dubious refereeing has left a budding olympian in a state of mental trauma(if you were at the olyroos v iraq game at BTS you either understand Danny's passion for the game or you haven't got a pulse) ....frank lowy you have created a monster but it shouldn't be at the expense of Danny Vukovic. Let's move on FFA.
the scales of justice are severely weighed against Danny right now, but let's hope at the next hearing sanity prevails.
SAVEDANNY.COM.AU
P
Pete
Guest
bradley said:
D'Arcy's situation is about alleged 'off field' misbehaviour, whilst Danny's was an incident contravening the rules of the game he was playing.
If D'Arcy had been disqualified from starting in an event and hit an official arguing the decision then we'd be about level par...
My own bet is there have been plenty of p**heads and people having all sorts of dramas 'off field' before, who have gone to the Olympics, but if you get suspended from the sport you play there's little the AOC can do about it no matter how good you are - or well qualified.
Vuko Bids To Keep Flame Flickering
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/73558,vuko-bids-to-keep-flame-flickering.aspx
Jon Ritson
Apr 9 2008 11:38
DANNY Vukovic will be desperately hoping its a case of third time lucky as the Central Coast Mariners seek to overturn his Beijing ban tomorrow night.
The FFAs independent appeals committee will meet in Sydney to assess whether the goalkeepers lengthy suspension should stand, be reduced or overturned.
This is the last route open under the governing bodys appeals procedure but thats not to say this will be the end of the matter.
Vukovic earned a 15 month ban after striking the hand of referee Mark Shield in last seasons A-League grand final with a subsequent appeal failing to put any real dent in the punishment imposed.
As it stands, the Olyroos keeper will be out of domestic action until the end of November but if the appeals process fails then he will also be ruled out of the Beijing Olympics.
Both the goalkeeper and his club have accepted his actions were unacceptable and that some punishment is inevitable but the Gosford outfit do not think it is fair his Olympic flame should be extinguished.
Mariners executive chairman Lyall Gorman has said that the club will not put timescales or limitations on pursuing what they feel is just and worthy.
A trip to the Court of Arbitration for Sport has not been ruled out if the Mariners do not feel justice has been done.
Similar overseas incidents involving referees and players have seen much lighter suspensions handed out by football associations.
Gorman told au.fourfourtwo.com recently: What we believe we have here are valid grounds for appeal and we feel very strongly about pursuing this.
Im not ruling anything out at this point. We will go into this next appeal having sought yet another (legal) opinion and as I said, we think we have valid grounds for continuing this (fight).
Mariners coach Lawrie McKinna has admitted the goalkeeping situation is high on the clubs agenda with back up keeper Matt Trott currently injured. His only other custodian is Qantas Under 20 youngster Andrew Redmayne.
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/73558,vuko-bids-to-keep-flame-flickering.aspx
Jon Ritson
Apr 9 2008 11:38
DANNY Vukovic will be desperately hoping its a case of third time lucky as the Central Coast Mariners seek to overturn his Beijing ban tomorrow night.
The FFAs independent appeals committee will meet in Sydney to assess whether the goalkeepers lengthy suspension should stand, be reduced or overturned.
This is the last route open under the governing bodys appeals procedure but thats not to say this will be the end of the matter.
Vukovic earned a 15 month ban after striking the hand of referee Mark Shield in last seasons A-League grand final with a subsequent appeal failing to put any real dent in the punishment imposed.
As it stands, the Olyroos keeper will be out of domestic action until the end of November but if the appeals process fails then he will also be ruled out of the Beijing Olympics.
Both the goalkeeper and his club have accepted his actions were unacceptable and that some punishment is inevitable but the Gosford outfit do not think it is fair his Olympic flame should be extinguished.
Mariners executive chairman Lyall Gorman has said that the club will not put timescales or limitations on pursuing what they feel is just and worthy.
A trip to the Court of Arbitration for Sport has not been ruled out if the Mariners do not feel justice has been done.
Similar overseas incidents involving referees and players have seen much lighter suspensions handed out by football associations.
Gorman told au.fourfourtwo.com recently: What we believe we have here are valid grounds for appeal and we feel very strongly about pursuing this.
Im not ruling anything out at this point. We will go into this next appeal having sought yet another (legal) opinion and as I said, we think we have valid grounds for continuing this (fight).
Mariners coach Lawrie McKinna has admitted the goalkeeping situation is high on the clubs agenda with back up keeper Matt Trott currently injured. His only other custodian is Qantas Under 20 youngster Andrew Redmayne.
Teddy Bear
Well-Known Member
Could one possibility be that he starts his suspension after the olympics which would rule him out for version 4?
I was thinking they should of asked for say, an extended suspended sentence, but a decreased initial ban. Could this be possible? So say he get's a 12 month suspension with 9 months of htat being suspended. So if he re-offended he cops that 9 months, plus whatever the ew charge may entail.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/a-league/waiting-game-for-keeper-vukovic/2008/04/10/1207420595913.html
Central Coast and Olyroos goalkeeper Danny Vukovic will have to wait until next week to discover whether his appeal against a nine-month ban for manhandling referee Mark Shield will be successful.
Vukovic, who committed the offence in the A-League grand final loss to Newcastle, tonight fronted a Football Federation Australia independent appeals committee for his second appeal against the ban.
The 23-year-old goalkeeper was initially banned for 15 months but had the six-month suspended part of his sentence reduced at his first appeal.
If the nine-month ban stands, Vukovic will be ruled out of the Olympics in August.
The appeals committee of three headed by John Sackar QC, sat for just over four hours tonight in Sydney.
They have reserved their decision until next week.
Vukovic, who was represented by former federal attorney general Bob Ellicott QC, didn't talk to the media tonight.
Mariners officials expect a decision to be handed down around the middle to end of next week.
While the Mariners had previously suggested they could apply to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) if this appeal is unsuccessful, Gorman tonight suggested they would not continue the process.
Asked how Vukovic was feeling at the end of tonight's proceedings, Mariners executive chairman Lyall Gorman said "frustrated".
"But also having said that he's just sitting there saying he's had a very fair hearing tonight.
"He's looking forward to this being over one way or the other.
"I think this will be the end of the line for us either way and we're just looking forward to that and I know Danny's looking forward to that so that he can move on with his life."
Gorman said he was very concerned about player welfare and didn't want him to be under the pressure of media questioning and potentially prejudice the committee's considerations over the next few days.
"Danny has done it very hard over the last couple of months with this incident hanging over his head, so we are as keen as anyone to get it wrapped up," Gorman said.
"We expect the decision no later than the end of next week, hopefully the middle of the week, will be handed down by the tribunal.
"We believe we've had a very fair hearing tonight and there's no reason for us to feel either over optimistic or pessimistic.
"We just await the result so we can put this one behind us one way or the other."
AAP
-------------------------------------
i hope they reduce the sentence, we'll find out nxt week anyways - fingers crossed.
Central Coast and Olyroos goalkeeper Danny Vukovic will have to wait until next week to discover whether his appeal against a nine-month ban for manhandling referee Mark Shield will be successful.
Vukovic, who committed the offence in the A-League grand final loss to Newcastle, tonight fronted a Football Federation Australia independent appeals committee for his second appeal against the ban.
The 23-year-old goalkeeper was initially banned for 15 months but had the six-month suspended part of his sentence reduced at his first appeal.
If the nine-month ban stands, Vukovic will be ruled out of the Olympics in August.
The appeals committee of three headed by John Sackar QC, sat for just over four hours tonight in Sydney.
They have reserved their decision until next week.
Vukovic, who was represented by former federal attorney general Bob Ellicott QC, didn't talk to the media tonight.
Mariners officials expect a decision to be handed down around the middle to end of next week.
While the Mariners had previously suggested they could apply to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) if this appeal is unsuccessful, Gorman tonight suggested they would not continue the process.
Asked how Vukovic was feeling at the end of tonight's proceedings, Mariners executive chairman Lyall Gorman said "frustrated".
"But also having said that he's just sitting there saying he's had a very fair hearing tonight.
"He's looking forward to this being over one way or the other.
"I think this will be the end of the line for us either way and we're just looking forward to that and I know Danny's looking forward to that so that he can move on with his life."
Gorman said he was very concerned about player welfare and didn't want him to be under the pressure of media questioning and potentially prejudice the committee's considerations over the next few days.
"Danny has done it very hard over the last couple of months with this incident hanging over his head, so we are as keen as anyone to get it wrapped up," Gorman said.
"We expect the decision no later than the end of next week, hopefully the middle of the week, will be handed down by the tribunal.
"We believe we've had a very fair hearing tonight and there's no reason for us to feel either over optimistic or pessimistic.
"We just await the result so we can put this one behind us one way or the other."
AAP
-------------------------------------
i hope they reduce the sentence, we'll find out nxt week anyways - fingers crossed.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 30
- Guests online
- 426
- Total visitors
- 456
