The FFA's decision to ban Danny Tiatto sets a very dangerous precedent in the game here in Australia.
The Federation found the Roar midfielder guilty of serious foul play after a hefty challenge on Adelaide defender Richie Alagich went unpunished during the Queensland vs Adelaide game on the weekend.
But by handing out a two game ban what the FFA is basically saying is that if a referee misses a decision in the game, they have the power to be the Monday morning referee and hand out punishments if it doesn't fit in with their vision of the game.
Now there's no defending Tiatto's "tackle". As Roar CEO Lawrence Oudendyk said himself, the Roar has never stated that the challenge on Alagich was anything other than "crude".
However the point that should not be ignored in all of this is that although the referee did not see the event - which under the laws of the game would make it a reviewable incident - the assistant referee did and decided that no action should be taken against Tiatto.
As the assistant referee is an extension of the referee in instances of the ref being unsighted (Laws 5 & 6 in the FIFA Laws of the Game), that should have been the end of the matter.
The assistant's flag stayed down and Tiatto gets a get out of jail card. I seem to remember enough officious b*stards in black telling me their decision is final, so why has that suddenly changed?
But it seems as though the FFA want to extend their careful control of how the game is managed to activities on the pitch as well.
The last thing we need is an AFL/NRL scenario where results and final positions in the league are being decided by a panel of experts sitting around discussing the rights and wrongs of a tackle that took place half a week ago.
Imagine a scenario where in the penultimate round of the season Juninho kicks out at a defender who'd been giving him some rough treatment during the game but the referee doesn't see it. Sydney's next opponents need a win to go through to the finals so an eagle-eyed team official tips off the FFA (and more likely the press) about the incident in an attempt to get the Brazilian banned and enhance their chances of getting into the finals. Granted it's very Machiavellian but when a finals spot is at stake I wouldn't put it past any of the eight teams...
At the very least, this "trial by suit" is not going to reflect well on referees. With a string of players being hauled up in front of a panel each week, isn't it only going to serve to show how much the refs are missing in the game?
Now I'm all favour of video evidence being used for stamping, punching and other incidents of serious foul play but pulling people up for tackles that are made on split-second decisions in the heat of the moment just isn't on. That's part of the game.
As an annoying ref once told me, "Let's just play the game, fella".
-----------------
The thing that really shits me about the whole thing is the consistency of the tribunal's punishment.
Let's say that Tiatto's terrible tackle is the benchmark, to which a player will receive a two game ban, one suspended.
Sydney FC's Terry McFlynn, who stamped on Nick Mrdja's (ample) arse, gets a two game suspended sentence, when there was no less intent in his actions, if a little less horror factor. For a similar stamping incident last season, Queensland keeper Liam Reddy received a game ban and a warning.
And is anyone else perplexed that Dean Heffernan doesn't get cited for his blatant raised arm body check on Mark Milligan in the same game? One rule for a Socceroo call-up, another for others...
The Federation found the Roar midfielder guilty of serious foul play after a hefty challenge on Adelaide defender Richie Alagich went unpunished during the Queensland vs Adelaide game on the weekend.
But by handing out a two game ban what the FFA is basically saying is that if a referee misses a decision in the game, they have the power to be the Monday morning referee and hand out punishments if it doesn't fit in with their vision of the game.
Now there's no defending Tiatto's "tackle". As Roar CEO Lawrence Oudendyk said himself, the Roar has never stated that the challenge on Alagich was anything other than "crude".
However the point that should not be ignored in all of this is that although the referee did not see the event - which under the laws of the game would make it a reviewable incident - the assistant referee did and decided that no action should be taken against Tiatto.
As the assistant referee is an extension of the referee in instances of the ref being unsighted (Laws 5 & 6 in the FIFA Laws of the Game), that should have been the end of the matter.
The assistant's flag stayed down and Tiatto gets a get out of jail card. I seem to remember enough officious b*stards in black telling me their decision is final, so why has that suddenly changed?
But it seems as though the FFA want to extend their careful control of how the game is managed to activities on the pitch as well.
The last thing we need is an AFL/NRL scenario where results and final positions in the league are being decided by a panel of experts sitting around discussing the rights and wrongs of a tackle that took place half a week ago.
Imagine a scenario where in the penultimate round of the season Juninho kicks out at a defender who'd been giving him some rough treatment during the game but the referee doesn't see it. Sydney's next opponents need a win to go through to the finals so an eagle-eyed team official tips off the FFA (and more likely the press) about the incident in an attempt to get the Brazilian banned and enhance their chances of getting into the finals. Granted it's very Machiavellian but when a finals spot is at stake I wouldn't put it past any of the eight teams...
At the very least, this "trial by suit" is not going to reflect well on referees. With a string of players being hauled up in front of a panel each week, isn't it only going to serve to show how much the refs are missing in the game?
Now I'm all favour of video evidence being used for stamping, punching and other incidents of serious foul play but pulling people up for tackles that are made on split-second decisions in the heat of the moment just isn't on. That's part of the game.
As an annoying ref once told me, "Let's just play the game, fella".
-----------------
The thing that really shits me about the whole thing is the consistency of the tribunal's punishment.
Let's say that Tiatto's terrible tackle is the benchmark, to which a player will receive a two game ban, one suspended.
Sydney FC's Terry McFlynn, who stamped on Nick Mrdja's (ample) arse, gets a two game suspended sentence, when there was no less intent in his actions, if a little less horror factor. For a similar stamping incident last season, Queensland keeper Liam Reddy received a game ban and a warning.
And is anyone else perplexed that Dean Heffernan doesn't get cited for his blatant raised arm body check on Mark Milligan in the same game? One rule for a Socceroo call-up, another for others...
