And it appears that we probably should have taken what we got initially on the chin and shut up, because while we've got our point back for the draw - and Carl Recchia gets a South goal - we've now been deducted six points instead. Which is a fair result the way I see it. Some of the persons banned for life have had those bans reduced significantly, which I suppose is fair enough. But hopefully, finally, this is the end of all this kind of behaviour, and more importantly the incessant justifications of the so called 'exuberance', both from those who are responsible for it, and those who condone it. That the FFV didn't condone the St Albans and Frankston Pines brawl last year, and that we do not have any sort of special immunity when we stuff up, shows that finally, maybe this sport is getting serious about not condoning what isn't condoned in other sports. That the playing arena, and the fence around it, hold a meaningful place in the football environment. That there is a reason why everyone who is not absolutely essential to the performance of a match are asked to be outside this barrier.
Why the security guards weren't in front of Clarendon Corner, as they usually are, and whether that is the club's fault, I do not know. It matters little now I think, because it doesn't excuse what happened. So, there's goes fourth spot at the halfway mark of the season. There goes a great opportunity for the double chance, instead being brought back into the mire with a tough battle just to get a finals position. So, are we all happy now? I, too, would have much rather stuck the boot into the FFV, because it is so easy to do (fun as well). But not this time.
For the full details of the tribunal appeal hearing itself, head to this link.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
3 comments:
A few notes on comments.
We've had a lot of fun over the years with my freewheeling comments policy, but all good things must come to an end. Therefore I will no longer be approving comments that contain personal abuse of any sort.
Still, if your post doesn't get approved straight away, it's probably because I haven't seen it yet.
As usual, publication of a comment does not mean endorsement of its content.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Why the security guards weren't in front of Clarendon Corner, as they usually are, and whether that is the club's fault, I do not know."
ReplyDeleteBecause from the 85th minute and onwards they are required to prepare to escort the officials off the park. Therefore, in the 91st minute they were already at the players race to escort them off at the end of the game.
Would be interesting to have a chronological list of incidents since we returned to the State League.
ReplyDeletePreston 2005
Heidelberg 2010
Melbourne Victory 2016
Bentleigh 2016
Melbourne Knights in 2015 at home perhaps?
Other games I have missed
And perhaps an analysis of how the authorities have dealt with these issues. Especially in light of your endorsement of the penalties dished out in this 2010 incident. In hindsight, do you think this proved to be a watershed moment? Or perhaps, the demotion of Preston was more than coincidental in the reduction (or at least less less unsavoury?) of problems?
Way too many incidents of varying seriousness to list right now. 2007 alone we had a fight at CC when someone displayed a stolen MV banner in round 1; an incident at Richmond with the same banner; the Victory and Knights and Gate 1 incidents at the Victory friendly.
DeleteAt Hume the year Horsey scored his hundredth South goal there was a pitch invasion and a rolling maul (two separate incidents.)
And I could go on. The biggest conditionals are night games + away games + Greek teams + close proximity to pitch + big event. Put that together with a bit of liquor, you have a recipe for stupidity.