Round 10 away to Smurfs

[KSK_47]

Just now, fensaddler said:

And JVS needs to tell him clearly, rather than making public excuses for him.  In the end he is endangering his team mates and undermining the potential success of the team.  The frustration is that he doesn't need to do it, he's already a brilliant player.  The footwork that preceded the dive was wonderful, and exactly what makes sexy football.

This.

He has already done this type of thing several times before so he should already be well aware that its not on. And its such a shame because he is a brilliant player but if you carry on like that people will remember the negative over the positive.

[bt50]

1 hour ago, KSK_47 said:

There is no rule against a noisy appeal in cricket.

 

For the record, there actually is. Excessive appealing can result in fines, bans. Very uncommon tho

[playmaker]

Just saw the replay again. Brandan was well within his right to react that way. Grant had no right to drag his hand across Brandan's face. For me it's a send off, and Sydney down to 8 men.

The treatment of Melbourne city players is unfair and bias, we need better refs. 

[KSK_47]

3 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Grant had no right to drag his hand across Brandan's face. For me it's a send off, and Sydney down to 8 men.

So you think North should have been given the free kick last week and our goal disallowed?

[jw1739]

6 hours ago, n i k o said:

JVS main point, which I agreed with, is a foul is committed and a player goes down theatrically. Now because of the Australian way this is deemed wrong in the eyes of Aussies and refs are not paying free kicks from them. The incident itself would have been given a foul in its own right. But JVS is saying that because of the response to the foul the refs are not paying these frees anymore.

I don't want play acting at every opportunity or simulation to that degree. But the point is a foul is committed and it should be paid. Now if a player goes down to easily then he can be reprimanded accordingly. But not paying free kicks because it's not the 'Aussie way' even though they are clear frees is wrong. 

Putting it into short form, theatrics means behaving in a way such as to draw attention to something, whereas simulation is imitation. Rolling over twice after you've been tripped is theatrics. Falling over when you haven't been touched is simulation.

IMO it's very simple - and probably needs to be done quickly - for FFA to address theatrics and simulation both directly to various players and to certain clubs.

For the record I don't "approve" of either simulation or excessive theatrics. Neither do I "approve" of the use of expletives in terrace chants and songs. But I'm sure we can find a balance in all these things - let's not make the game so bland that it's as boring as batshit.

[KSK_47]

12 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Putting it into short form, theatrics means behaving in a way such as to draw attention to something, whereas simulation is imitation. Rolling over twice after you've been tripped is theatrics. Falling over when you haven't been touched is simulation.

Attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury is simulation. Holding your face, rolling round like you have been injured when you are not is simulation. Theatrics is simulation

Obviously there is no clear cut answer but what Brandan did last night (like what North did against us) is simulation and should be punished

Edited December 10, 2016 by KSK_47

[bumpyknuckles]

38 minutes ago, bt50 said:

For the record, there actually is. Excessive appealing can result in fines, bans. Very uncommon tho

Is it true that if you don't appeal, then it won't be given out? Even if it's plum?

Gotta let the ref/ umps know type of thing.

[ecguymer]

6 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

Attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury is simulation. Holding your face, rolling round like you have been injured when you are not is simulation. Theatrics is simulation

Obviously there is no clear cut answer but what Brandan did last night (like what North did against us) is simulation and should be punished

Just out of interest, when a genuine offence occurs and the player fouled over-reacts; how is that attempting to deceive the referee? Yes they are feigning injury, but it is to draw the attention to a situation that happened that is in violation of the rules.

[playmaker]

11 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

(like what North did against us) is simulation and should be punished

It did get punished, he was rolling around instead of defending his team conceded a goal.

[bt50]

10 minutes ago, bumpyknuckles said:

Is it true that if you don't appeal, then it won't be given out? Even if it's plum?

Gotta let the ref/ umps know type of thing.

Not 100% but yeh i think so.

[Tommykins]

10 minutes ago, bumpyknuckles said:

Is it true that if you don't appeal, then it won't be given out? Even if it's plum?

Gotta let the ref/ umps know type of thing.

Strangely, yes.

[KSK_47]

1 minute ago, ecguymer said:

Just out of interest, when a genuine offence occurs and the player fouled over-reacts; how is that attempting to deceive the referee? Yes they are feigning injury, but it is to draw the attention to a situation that happened that is in violation of the rules.

Its to make it look worse than it really is in an attempt to sway the refs opinion on the player that made the tackle. 

Surely you know the answer to that

[playmaker]

3 minutes ago, ecguymer said:

Just out of interest, when a genuine offence occurs and the player fouled over-reacts; how is that attempting to deceive the referee? Yes they are feigning injury, but it is to draw the attention to a situation that happened that is in violation of the rules.

Exactly this

 

 

[KSK_47]

1 minute ago, playmaker said:

It did get punished, he was rolling around instead of defending his team conceded a goal.

But by saying brandan was in his rights to act the way he did because of minimal contact with his face surely you feel north was within his rights too and should have been given a free kick and play on was the wrong call?

13 minutes ago, bumpyknuckles said:

Is it true that if you don't appeal, then it won't be given out? Even if it's plum?

Gotta let the ref/ umps know type of thing.

Penalties for excessive appealing so you are allowed to appeal but you cant get in the unpires face etc

[ecguymer]

3 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

Its to make it look worse than it really is in an attempt to sway the refs opinion on the player that made the tackle. 

Surely you know the answer to that

....so...you're saying that making sure that the ref knows that an incident happened is trying to deceive him/her?

[playmaker]

6 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

Its to make it look worse than it really is in an attempt to sway the refs opinion on the player that made the tackle. 

Surely you know the answer to that

Your logic is flawed. This type of over reactions occur in every sport.

We need better refs in our game. We need the quality of refs to equal the quality of players because at the moment there is too much of a gap.

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by playmaker

[KSK_47]

6 minutes ago, ecguymer said:

....so...you're saying that making sure that the ref knows that an incident happened is trying to deceive him/her?

Ok. This is the last time i will say this. Going to ground and faking an injury are two different things. Going to ground is fine. Faking an injury is not

5 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Your logic is flawed. This type of over reactions occur in every sport.

We need better refs in our game. We need the quality of refs to equal the quality of players because at the moment there is too much of a gap.

 

My logic is flawed? If you fake injuries you should be punished as its against the rules. I dont really see the flaw but ok.

Edited December 10, 2016 by KSK_47

[ecguymer]

16 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

Ok. This is the last time i will say this. Going to ground and faking an injury are two different things. Going to ground is fine. Faking an injury is not

 

....I think I missed you making that point earlier, and it does help explain what you're saying better; I'm still not fully understanding your stance and interpretation, but I suspect that mostly comes from my own lack of experience, and I'm happy to just leave the issue alone

[Jovan]

Just to make a point in regards to faking injury. 

In many many occasions the impact injuries actually are legit. It's just that after a few minutes the pain goes. That doesn't lesen the initial injury or makes the injured a faker. What rankles everyone is the overacting. 

So what coaches need to try and bring in is avoid the hand on face displays the no more than 2 rolls and above all the wriggling in pain actions.

But what is lost in this entire discussion is the prick that did the butcher should be penalized. 

No one is saying squat on how Franjic was injured and had to leave the field. 

[KSK_47]

Just now, ecguymer said:

....I think I missed you making that point earlier, and it does help explain what you're saying better; I'm still not fully understanding your stance and interpretation, but I suspect that mostly comes from my own lack of experience, and I'm happy to just leave the issue alone

What i am saying is if a player is genuinely fouled then they are within their rights to bring it to the refs attention (usually by going to ground or verbally). But if a player starts play acting as though the incident was far worse than it really was (like brandan and norths comical overreaction to minimal contact made to the face) then they should be booked for simulation.

I just get annoyed by fans double standards. If another team does it its the worst thing imaginable, but if our players do it, its part of the game and the country needs to change its culture. We complain about the inconsistency of refs (and the refs are far from good enough but thats a different discussion) but the fans are just as inconsistent when it comes to how we feel about simulation (depending on if they play for us or not)

[KSK_47]

2 minutes ago, Jovan said:

Just to make a point in regards to faking injury. 

In many many occasions the impact injuries actually are legit. It's just that after a few minutes the pain goes. That doesn't lesen the initial injury or makes the injured a faker. What rankles everyone is the overacting. 

So what coaches need to try and bring in is avoid the hand on face displays the no more than 2 rolls and above all the wriggling in pain actions.

But what is lost in this entire discussion is the prick that did the butcher should be penalized. 

No one is saying squat on how Franjic was injured and had to leave the field. 

Exactly. So if our players are constantly simulating injuries and the coach is defending it you get a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. Not that its necessarily ok but we all knew it would happen. Refs are not robots and if they see a team with a history of pretending they're injured there will always be a seed of doubt when a player goes down injured. 

Again- not saying the refs are anywhere near good enough but simulation should not be excused or tolerated at all. By anyone

[playmaker]

2 hours ago, KSK_47 said:

Exactly. So if our players are constantly simulating injuries and the coach is defending it you get a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. Not that its necessarily ok but we all knew it would happen. Refs are not robots and if they see a team with a history of pretending they're injured there will always be a seed of doubt when a player goes down injured. 

Again- not saying the refs are anywhere near good enough but simulation should not be excused or tolerated at all. By anyone

The refs are shit. That's why this is happening. Tell u what, run full steam and get someone to clip your heel and see how many rolls you do and how long you stay on the ground. The media are just idiots when it comes to football culture. Enough ranting for me. There should have been at least 2 reds and no penalty, and ref incompetence should be headline news not this made up shit.

Edited December 10, 2016 by playmaker

[n i k o]

6 hours ago, KSK_47 said:

Its not the going to ground hat most people have an issue with. Its the holding the face when you get a tap on the ankle and rolling down the pitch for 10 meters (simulation) that most people dont like

Ok so there's two sides to the argument....

1) The foul itself. Is it a foul or isn't it.

2) The response to the foul. Does the response match the type of foul made.

Scenario 1: What should happen is in the event of a foul a free kick should be given. If any extra 'theatrics' are used that a referee deems beyond acceptable then the ref must talk to the player and put him on warning. If it happens an X amount of times the referee can then issue a yellow card.

Scenario 2: If there is no foul yet a player uses theatrics then the referee is within his right to either warn the player or issue a yellow card immediately should he wish to. 

 

The problem is KSK is that scenario 1 is playing out quite often yet the foul isn't being given. The referee is letting play go ahead and then more often than not waving the player on. So the referee is failed to do the right thing to both players. As explained above he should give the free kick and then go through whatever protocol with the player that has used the theatrics. 

And just for the record why is it now all of a sudden that Bruni is being labeled all sorts of things, from a flop to a diver. For 15 months there was no mention of this yet all of a sudden he's all these things. Has he decided all of a sudden to go to ground easier. I doubt it. What I notice happenning is the league as a whole, non collectively, has decided to play more physically with him. Despite this extra physicality Bruno isn't getting any protection from the refs. It's absolutely farcical what is going on on the the refereeing side of things at the moment. 

[KSK_47]

18 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Ok so there's two sides to the argument....

1) The foul itself. Is it a foul or isn't it.

2) The response to the foul. Does the response match the type of foul made.

Scenario 1: What should happen is in the event of a foul a free kick should be given. If any extra 'theatrics' are used that a referee deems beyond acceptable then the ref must talk to the player and put him on warning. If it happens an X amount of times the referee can then issue a yellow card.

Scenario 2: If there is no foul yet a player uses theatrics then the referee is within his right to either warn the player or issue a yellow card immediately should he wish to. 

 

The problem is KSK is that scenario 1 is playing out quite often yet the foul isn't being given. The referee is letting play go ahead and then more often than not waving the player on. So the referee is failed to do the right thing to both players. As explained above he should give the free kick and then go through whatever protocol with the player that has used the theatrics. 

And just for the record why is it now all of a sudden that Bruni is being labeled all sorts of things, from a flop to a diver. For 15 months there was no mention of this yet all of a sudden he's all these things. Has he decided all of a sudden to go to ground easier. I doubt it. What I notice happenning is the league as a whole, non collectively, has decided to play more physically with him. Despite this extra physicality Bruno isn't getting any protection from the refs. It's absolutely farcical what is going on on the the refereeing side of things at the moment. 

So i have been talking about this all day and am a bit drunk now and getting sick of repeating myself.

I completely agree with everything you have said. I am talking specifically about brandans antics last night. Nothing to do with bruno. As far as i see it brandan was initially fouled and it was given. Then after that incident he had his face slughtly touched and he faked injury and should have been booked for that.

JVS (or anyone else) defending that simulation totally unacceptable. And hiding behind the excuse that it happens overseas is garbage.

I wont say any more because i cant be bothered going over the same things again and agian

 

1 hour ago, playmaker said:

The refs are shit. That's why this is happening. Tell u what, run full steam and get someone to clip your heel and see how many rolls you do and how long you stay on the ground. The media are just idiots when it comes to football culture. Enough ranting for me. There should have been at least 2 reds and no penalty, and ref incompetence should be headline news not this made up shit.

I am not talking about having your ankle clipped while running full steam. I am talking about brandan faking an injury after he had his face slightly touched. I seriously dont understand how you can think your arguments make sense at all.

Edited December 10, 2016 by KSK_47

[playmaker]

The issue is that the refs are being influenced by the media bullshit. 

When the player is in possession of the ball he is entitled to protect his space with body positioning and or maneuvering. The defender can not hold or pull, or contact the player with his feet if behind the player. The defenders job is to maneuver himself in such a way as to get advantage of the space and then take possession. Just watch Jakobsen.

What they are doing on Bruno is against the rules 9 times out of 10.

The refs are shit.

[KSK_47]

5 minutes ago, playmaker said:

The issue is that the refs are being influenced by the media bullshit. 

When the player is in possession of the ball he is entitled to protect his space with body positioning and or maneuvering. The defender can not hold or pull, or contact the player with his feet if behind the player. The defenders job is to maneuver himself in such a way as to get advantage of the space and then take possession. Just watch Jakobsen.

What they are doing on Bruno is against the rules 9 times out of 10.

The refs are shit.

I agree the spill over consequences of players like brandan carrying on are not acceptable. Bruno is getting a raw deal because of this. I totally agree.

But thats not what i was talking about at all. I was talking about brandans simulation and jvs (along with lots of people on here) defending these antics because it happens overseas. 

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by KSK_47

[playmaker]

5 minutes ago, KSK_47 said:

I agree the spill over consequences of players like brandan carrying on are not acceptable. Bruno is getting a raw deal because of this. I totally agree.

But thats not what i was talking about at all. I was talking about brandans simulation and jvs (along with lots of people on here) defending these antics because it happens overseas. 

 

Love it.

Edited December 10, 2016 by playmaker

[KSK_47]

3 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Love it.

Lol. That's brilliant. But sadly a bit true

[jw1739]

44 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Ok so there's two sides to the argument....

1) The foul itself. Is it a foul or isn't it.

2) The response to the foul. Does the response match the type of foul made.

Scenario 1: What should happen is in the event of a foul a free kick should be given. If any extra 'theatrics' are used that a referee deems beyond acceptable then the ref must talk to the player and put him on warning. If it happens an X amount of times the referee can then issue a yellow card.

Scenario 2: If there is no foul yet a player uses theatrics then the referee is within his right to either warn the player or issue a yellow card immediately should he wish to. 

...

I would have thought that this is perfectly possible and is a simple matter of FFA reminding/instructing its referees accordingly. IMO the best referees do use oral warnings a couple of times before starting to flash the card. 

[HeartOfCity]

5 hours ago, KSK_47 said:

So you think North should have been given the free kick last week and our goal disallowed?

There is clearly 2 actions there. Brandan should have got a yellow for that dive and grant should have got a yellow or red for his clear contact to Brandan's face of which he looked to drag him backwards by his face. Bottom line for me is that we need refs with balls to stamp it out, that way no dive will take place in fear of getting carded and nobody is going to drag anybody by the face out of frustration. If JVS hasnt talked to Brandan i would be surprised, great player and i think more could be gained if he doesnt go down looking for fouls.

[KSK_47]

1 minute ago, HeartOfCity said:

There is clearly 2 actions there. Brandan should have got a yellow for that dive and grant should have got a yellow or red for his clear contact to Brandan's face of which he looked to drag him backwards by his face. Bottom line for me is that we need refs with balls to stamp it out, that way no dive will take place in fear of getting carded and nobody is going to drag anybody by the face out of frustration. If JVS hasnt talked to Brandan i would be surprised, great player and i think more could be gained if he doesnt go down looking for fouls.

Nobody dragged anybody by the face. He touched his face slightly.

But yes. IMO even if it is a retrospective punishment players should know if they dive, stimulate, (whatever) they will cop it.

Judging by the presser JVS has not spoken to Brandan about it but man if he cut out the acting he would be one hell of a player

[belaguttman]

2 hours ago, playmaker said:

The issue is that the refs are being influenced by the media bullshit. 

When the player is in possession of the ball he is entitled to protect his space with body positioning and or maneuvering. The defender can not hold or pull, or contact the player with his feet if behind the player. The defenders job is to maneuver himself in such a way as to get advantage of the space and then take possession. Just watch Jakobsen.

What they are doing on Bruno is against the rules 9 times out of 10.

The refs are shit.

The reason we have the media bullshit is the repeated simulation. Stop the simulation and the media bullshit dies down

[kingofhearts]

I can't believe after the bullshit performance everyone is upset about diving.

Does anyone want to talk about how we left Fitzgerald on the bench the whole game? Or how we conceded a penatly (whether it was there or not) even though we had an extra on the pitch?

It's clear we're not going to agree on what constitutes a dive/simulation/acting ext. Can we please have some analysis of the game without talking about simulation lol? 

[jw1739]

18 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

I can't believe after the bullshit performance everyone is upset about diving.

Does anyone want to talk about how we left Fitzgerald on the bench the whole game? Or how we conceded a penatly (whether it was there or not) even though we had an extra on the pitch?

It's clear we're not going to agree on what constitutes a dive/simulation/acting ext. Can we please have some analysis of the game without talking about simulation lol? 

Agree. Think it's far more important that the main issue we have is that we can't close out a match when we should. Against both Wanderers and Sydney we've failed to do that, and it's cost us four points. Contrast other teams - for example Victory tonight. Theatrics/simulation/whatever is a disciplinary matter, fairly easily fixed IMO. It's much more important that we try to fix our porous defence, get our midfield transition speeded up, stop the backwards and sideways passing, improve our dead-ball plays, and get our forward line playing with the fluency of last season. 

[n i k o]

4 hours ago, KSK_47 said:

So i have been talking about this all day and am a bit drunk now and getting sick of repeating myself.

I completely agree with everything you have said. I am talking specifically about brandans antics last night. Nothing to do with bruno. As far as i see it brandan was initially fouled and it was given. Then after that incident he had his face slughtly touched and he faked injury and should have been booked for that.

JVS (or anyone else) defending that simulation totally unacceptable. And hiding behind the excuse that it happens overseas is garbage.

I wont say any more because i cant be bothered going over the same things again and agian

 

I am not talking about having your ankle clipped while running full steam. I am talking about brandan faking an injury after he had his face slightly touched. I seriously dont understand how you can think your arguments make sense at all.

Yes agree with you regarding that particular incident. 

Edit: The Bruno rant wasn't directed at you. Just my opinion of the matter. 

Edited December 10, 2016 by n i k o

[rass]

BTW what an awesome goal from Brandan, world class strike. As too was the Colazo free kick.

To Bobo and Simon: can't wait to see you back in Melbourne you dirty c***s...

Can't believe all the crap on here about diving. Just some bitter bambi bullshit now the sulk Sydney media and fans have  jumped on that some of us on here have fallen hook, line and sinker for.

It happens and always will. Swings and roundabouts. Deal with it.

 

[HeartOfCity]

Its the main issue for me. Great goal but wont be remembered for it. Stop diving/simulating/theatrics and just play the ball. Cant believe the uproar! If it was another player from another team this forum would be all over it. STOP DIVING!!!!!!!!!!

[NewConvert]

Unfortunately due to work commitments I did not get to see the game. With respect to simulation/refereeing quality, why doesn't the match review panel do anything? If a simulation is successful then obviously the ref has been conned and shouldn't the MRP then suspend the player and if a a goal is scored from the simulation the goal be disallowed and the new result stand?

In my view if the FFA had any interest in reducing simulation/thuggery on the field then the MRP is the first place to begin with. Additionally, the MRP can then pass on the findings to the refereeing training staff (I am assuming that the refs get trained but it is difficult to tell from the sidelines) to modify their training methods.

An alternative viewpoint that I read many years ago was that the reason why FIFA permits simulation is because it is a method of generating clickbait. This forum is an example of that because passionate people debate the topic during the week and the following week and so on.

[jw1739]

49 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Unfortunately due to work commitments I did not get to see the game. With respect to simulation/refereeing quality, why doesn't the match review panel do anything? If a simulation is successful then obviously the ref has been conned and shouldn't the MRP then suspend the player and if a a goal is scored from the simulation the goal be disallowed and the new result stand?

In my view if the FFA had any interest in reducing simulation/thuggery on the field then the MRP is the first place to begin with. Additionally, the MRP can then pass on the findings to the refereeing training staff (I am assuming that the refs get trained but it is difficult to tell from the sidelines) to modify their training methods.

An alternative viewpoint that I read many years ago was that the reason why FIFA permits simulation is because it is a method of generating clickbait. This forum is an example of that because passionate people debate the topic during the week and the following week and so on.

I raised this point earlier. IMO the MRP already has the power to retrospectively suspend/fine/reprimand a player for simulation etc. (However, it does not have the power to alter the result of a match.) Further, FFA has the powers to do everything you suggest (and more). It already issues fines (most recent IIRC was Popovic) and addressed the Fornaroli f-bomb incident with a reprimand.

[mattyh001]

9 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I raised this point earlier. IMO the MRP already has the power to retrospectively suspend/fine/reprimand a player for simulation etc. (However, it does not have the power to alter the result of a match.) Further, FFA has the powers to do everything you suggest (and more). It already issues fines (most recent IIRC was Popovic) and addressed the Fornaroli f-bomb incident with a reprimand.

That they do with one exception; when a player gets a yellow (which NewConvert may or may not have been getting at).

If our sport wants to get serious about all this shite, they need only to make a small change to say all yellow cards by a ref are reviewed (similar to red cards).

Most yellow cards won't require further action the yellow will have been justified and covered by the accumulated yellows rule in terms of suspension.

After all, it's not the refs job to deal in multi game suspensions for actions by players against the interest of the game (is thuggery, simulation)