RD 4 Mariners V Sydney FC

[FFC Mariner]

Certainly looked like a celebration to me. He didn't run to the cove, but he was 'throwing shakas' and cheering with his new teammates from where I was sitting.

Think it was an E Gosford Rams sign he made

 

[dibo]

in every instance the victim here is the one blamed , metaphorically speaking .
of course the conjecture over the issue of the ref probably going to red card one of ours guys regardless .
won't be addressed by either party .

How is Fitzy a victim for committing a bookable offence whilst already on a card? Separate the incidents in your head for a moment - whether the first card was justified or not, the offence that led to the second card was just dumb and the card completely justified. In that incident Fitzy is a victim of his own mistake, nobody else's.

What did you want the ref to do there? Do the laws of the game get suspended because the referee made a mistake? Is it a free-for-all after that? The idea that not disagreeing with that particular decision is 'victim blaming' is simply bizarre.

 

[dibo]

Think it was an E Gosford Rams sign he made

Haven't played on the coast for 16 years so I wouldn't be able to pick that.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Well, I disagree on both your premises truebeliever. I fail to see how this is 'blaming the victim'. Blaming the victim would be cautioning the Sydney player who copped an arm to the head because he shouldn't have been standing where Fitzy was going to jump.

He's an adult with agency so responsible for his own decisions. I may be able to sympathise with his frustration, but as a professional sportsperson he (and really this extends to all players) should be able to implement mental strategies to keep his focus when suffering setbacks like the penalty. And just because the referee screwed up before, doesn't give him free reign to do whatever he likes. Think about it at grassroots - if you get pissed off by getting fouled, jump up and start pushing the opponent, you're the one who's going to get booked, regardless of whether the referee saw the foul (or even if it was). Sure, it can be taken into consideration, especially if it's only a borderline card, but if he crosses the line, he crosses the line and that's on him.

Don't really see your argument of 'the referee was always going to send one of ours off' - don't see that at all. If the players got on with the game there's no need for that.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

"he had the card out before fitzy hit the ground "
.

Why is that important?

 

[FFC Mariner]

I didnt see the 1st card for the alleged diving but he cant have too many complaints about the 2nd.

 

[true believer]

How is Fitzy a victim for committing a bookable offence whilst already on a card? Separate the incidents in your head for a moment - whether the first card was justified or not, the offence that led to the second card was just dumb and the card completely justified. In that incident Fitzy is a victim of his own mistake, nobody else's. .

both prior incidents were directly the refs abject failure . his lack of judgement is the sole cause of the trouble.
fitzy was hit with a red card and it's game changing nature without even raising an elbow.
this lack of judgement is the sole cause . fitzy remains the victim of a disgraceful decision .

What did you want the ref to do there? Do the laws of the game get suspended because the referee made a mistake? Is it a free-for-all after that? The idea that not disagreeing with that particular decision is 'victim blaming' is simply bizarre.

as I've said . the ref could have given a warning . called the captains in and given a general caution .
the guy wasn't man enough to do that .

 

[true believer]

Well, I disagree on both your premises truebeliever. I fail to see how this is 'blaming the victim'. Blaming the victim would be cautioning the Sydney player who copped an arm to the head because he shouldn't have been standing where Fitzy was going to jump.

He's an adult with agency so responsible for his own decisions. I may be able to sympathise with his frustration, but as a professional sportsperson he (and really this extends to all players) should be able to implement mental strategies to keep his focus when suffering setbacks like the penalty. And just because the referee screwed up before, doesn't give him free reign to do whatever he likes. Think about it at grassroots - if you get pissed off by getting fouled, jump up and start pushing the opponent, you're the one who's going to get booked, regardless of whether the referee saw the foul (or even if it was). Sure, it can be taken into consideration, especially if it's only a borderline card, but if he crosses the line, he crosses the line and that's on him.

Don't really see your argument of 'the referee was always going to send one of ours off' - don't see that at all. If the players got on with the game there's no need for that.

fitzy arm was next to his body .

 

[true believer]

Why is that important?

it showed intent , rather than judgement by the ref . why are you still supporting the refs incompetence over one of our own ?

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

it showed intent , rather than judgement by the ref . why are you still supporting the refs incompetence over one of our own ?

What? No it doesn't, not in the slightest. He had the card out after the foul, not before. Saying 'a fast decisions means he made the decision before the foul' make no sense whatsoever. Every referee will have made plenty of decisions where they've made the decision very, very quickly after the foul. Had the penalty whistle been blown before our player had hit the ground I don't think you'd be worried about the fast decision

If the referee took a few moments to show the card, then I daresay you'd be complaining he only showed the card because Sydney talked him into it!

As for the comments about 'refs incompetence

' (and I don't even understand the point you're trying to make on that entire sentence, unless I'm supposed to just complaing about every single decision on the principle that referees are all satan spawn and every decision against CCM is incorrect? I don't understand.....) ....you're kind of just saying randomly disconnected sentences here. The referee's decision here wasn't incorrect (arguably incorrect at worst, even the most one-eyed supporter would have to agree there's at least a possible case for a card. The incorrect penalty decision doesn't mean that Fitzy gets a free hit on one of their players or anything like that. It doesn't mean that every decision after that was incorrect. Yes, Fitzy lost his cool over the referee's decision and it does indicate how a bad call influences the match, but it was still Fitzy's decision.

Personally, I think it tends to be quite patronising to assume adults - especially professionals - aren't responsible for their actions, although that's more to do with football culture in general I think.

fitzy arm was next to his body .

Well, yes, I never claimed otherwise. What's your point?

 

[dibo]

I'm done TB. You're talking nonsense.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

both prior incidents were directly the refs abject failure . his lack of judgement is the sole cause of the trouble.
fitzy was hit with a red card and it's game changing nature without even raising an elbow.
this lack of judgement is the sole cause . fitzy remains the victim of a disgraceful decision .



as I've said . the ref could have given a warning . called the captains in and given a general caution .
the guy wasn't man enough to do that .

How often do you see that being done in the HAL? I really can't remember it ever happening - the game would have to be getting pretty nasty for that to happen. There were a few frustrated challenges, but it wasn't blowing up badly. Sure, Fitzy tucked his elbow in - if the elbow was out it would have been a straight red and he'd be spending a month out, not a week. The challenge was still very late, and that alone is sufficient for a yellow. Having a word with him would be arguably justified if it was a borderline yellow, but if it's a clear yellow then there's no choice. I'm undecided but that's probably my bias - most on here seem to agree it was a clear yellow, so no room for warning there. Regardless of what was done before, Fitzy is wholly and solely responsible for that challenge.

Incidentally, aside from the Penalty, what's the other prior incident you're complaining about? His first card? If so, I didn't really see it, but I don't think any of the players seemed too bothered by it so that suggests it was probably right.

 

[true believer]

Blaming the victim would be cautioning the Sydney player who copped an arm to the head (gus)

fitzy arm was next to his body . (tb)

Well, yes, I never claimed otherwise. What's your point?

you tell me .

 

[true believer]

How often do you see that being done in the HAL
I really can't remember it ever happening - the game would have to be getting pretty nasty for that to happen.

your kidding aren't you .

There were a few frustrated challenges, but it wasn't blowing up badly. Sure, Fitzy tucked his elbow in - if the elbow was out it would have been a straight red and he'd be spending a month out, not a week. The challenge was still very late, and that alone is sufficient for a yellow. Having a word with him would be arguably justified if it was a borderline yellow, but if it's a clear yellow then there's no choice. I'm undecided but that's probably my bias - most on here seem to agree it was a clear yellow, so no room for warning there. Regardless of what was done before, Fitzy is wholly and solely responsible for that challenge. .

still gets back to the root cause of the problem , incompetence

Incidentally, aside from the Penalty, what's the other prior incident you're complaining about? His first card? If so, I didn't really see it, but I don't think any of the players seemed too bothered by it so that suggests it was probably right.

that was probably due to shock . the team had already worked out how pathetic the ref was

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Blaming the victim would be cautioning the Sydney player who copped an arm to the head (gus)

fitzy arm was next to his body . (tb)

Yes. The arm was next to his body, but the arm still got him in the head. If it wasn't the arm it probably would have been his hip. Having your arm next to your body doesn't preclude that arm from contacting somebody's body.....That was the part of Fitzy's body that lead. Could have been any other part of the body. You're trying to make a pointless semantic argument.

you tell me .

Now you're just being childish, you're better than this tb. I'm not going to waste my time further with that sort of response.

 

[true believer]

I'm done TB. You're talking nonsense.

you have a right to your opinion . i won't engage personal criticism of how you've arrived at it .

 

[true believer]

Now you're just being childish, you're better than this tb. I'm not going to waste my time further with that sort of response.

you clearly said his arm caught the Sydney player in the head .
sorry if you consider it childish to repeat , what you said .

cheers

 

[FFC Mariner]

He jumped at an angle into the player - if the referee deemed it dangerous, its a yellow

 

[Forum Phoenix]

Refs second yellow was fine. So Gus is right. But had the ref lost control through poor decisions? And did that help provoke Fitzy's ill judgement? Yeah I think that's what I saw happening on the field.

As Dibo and Gus said TB, Fitzy still bares responsibility for his lack of control/poor judgement - provocation does not make you guiltless. But I think you're right in that the refs job is also to keep things under control and in the right competitive spirit, not just call fouls and blow whistles for goals. That guy was a buffoon, and it wouldn't have surprised me remotely if someone else dove in and got a straight red. You see it all the time. (The player should still be sent TB) but the ref should be held accountable also. It is a reflection of poor refereeing - but I think Gus would accept that.

 

[pjennings]

Refs second yellow was fine. So Gus is right. But had the ref lost control through poor decisions? And did that help provoke Fitzy's ill judgement? Yeah I think that's what I saw happening on the field.

As Dibo and Gus said TB, Fitzy still bares responsibility for his lack of control/poor judgement - provocation does not make you guiltless. But I think you're right in that the refs job is also to keep things under control and in the right competitive spirit, not just call fouls and blow whistles for goals. That guy was a buffoon, and it wouldn't have surprised me remotely if someone else dove in and got a straight red. You see it all the time. (The player should still be sent TB) but the ref should be held accountable also. It is a reflection of poor refereeing - but I think Gus would accept that.

It was obvious when Fitzy argued after the first yellow and pointed at the penalty spot that he was upset. That was the time the referee needed to control the game. He missed the opportunity and really had no choice but to card fitzy for the second yellow.