Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Dark side of the game.

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    davegrohl48
    Registered Users Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭davegrohl48


    keane2097 wrote: »
    It leaves the question open about whether Hughes should have received a red card for the McCann incident or not.

    In the last couple of seasons we've had the GAA sort of messing around with its rules with incidents like Connolly in 11, Keegan in 14. Kevin Keane is now appealing his red card.

    These were all players guilty of breaching the "strike or attempt to strike rule" which the GAA found various ways to get around.

    One school of thought would be to crack down further and change it to something like "raise hand aggressively against opponent" or similar so ruffling a guy's hair while involved in "an argument" would be covered as it's hard to draw the line otherwise.

    I'd go the other way personally and add something like "due regard will be given to mitigating circumstances" and set a panel to review incidents like these. Connolly would then possibly be let off because he was unfairly targeted, provoked, defended himself and the 'victim' dived.

    Keegan and Keane would get retrospective yellow/black cards for 'petulance' or similar rather than red cards for striking when there was no intent or possibility to do damage.

    Refs get way more scope to apply the rules with common sense in rugby to good effect. Someone panning out an opponent with a punch would get the line, Kevin Keane would never get anything in a million years and rightly so.

    Instead we get constant howling for "consistency" which can only come from rigid application of imperfect rules from the same people who later howl when these same rules are rigidly applied to their players.
    That is probably the way to go alright with common sense on a retrospective basis.
    How to solve all these boring pushing macho man contests that erupt so often in games? Third man in black card at all times?
    Some kind of rule if one player does not disengage then Black? So simple now to just haul someone to the ground to deliberately get them on a yellow. The double yellow is one of the biggest copouts.
    A team now has 6 subs at its disposal to be thinking about putting the three best opposition defenders on yellows.


  • Options
    #93
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    davegrohl48 wrote: »
    That is probably the way to go alright with common sense on a retrospective basis.
    How to solve all these boring pushing macho man contests that erupt so often in games? Third man in black card at all times?
    Some kind of rule if one player does not disengage then Black? So simple now to just haul someone to the ground to deliberately get them on a yellow. The double yellow is one of the biggest copouts.
    A team now has 6 subs at its disposal to be thinking about putting the three best opposition defenders on yellows.

    Black card = Sin Bin
    After every championship game a citing commission reviews any incidents and makes a quick decision on over turning wrong decisions and hitting players with bans for dangerous play or simulation.


    It's really that simple.


  • Options
    #94
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    davegrohl48 wrote: »
    That is probably the way to go alright with common sense on a retrospective basis.
    How to solve all these boring pushing macho man contests that erupt so often in games? Third man in black card at all times?
    Some kind of rule if one player does not disengage then Black? So simple now to just haul someone to the ground to deliberately get them on a yellow. The double yellow is one of the biggest copouts.
    A team now has 6 subs at its disposal to be thinking about putting the three best opposition defenders on yellows.

    Third man in punishment has potential I think.

    Agree with Jayop that a sin bin might emerge from the black card which isn't really doing the job properly.


  • Options
    #95
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Third man in punishment has potential I think.

    Agree with Jayop that a sin bin might emerge from the black card which isn't really doing the job properly.

    They can ban the third man tackle on Monday. No probs. :D


  • Options
    #96
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Article in the IT yesterday pointinf out how congress were giving out about diving in '53, and in '55 limited the number of subs to 3 because of diving.

    Malachy Clerkin also raises the point there's nothing being done about a Monaghan player blatantly diving in the same game as McCann's dive...


    The most blatant foul I can remember was in a camogie match about a fortnight after Sean Cavanagh hue and cry, where a defender made a diving rugby tackle to pull down a forward, who dropped the sliotar and it was eventually cleared. No free in, let alone a booking...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    davegrohl48
    Registered Users Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭davegrohl48


    Jayop wrote: »
    Black card = Sin Bin
    After every championship game a citing commission reviews any incidents and makes a quick decision on over turning wrong decisions and hitting players with bans for dangerous play or simulation.


    It's really that simple.
    The biggest problem with the black card is the lack of punishment suffered during the game. It is only by the 4th Black card you are down 1 player. I have yet to hear of the match where a team actually suffered a 4th Black card.
    They should have kept the substitutes at five and make the following simple changes:
    1. Second black card you cannot replace. (Stops stacking up black cards as a tactic)
    2. In the final ten minutes there is no substitution for black cards. (Stops time wasting as a tactic)
    3. A black card inside the penalty area is not replaceable (Stops most prevention of goals as a tactic)
    This would take away the still existing problem where it is worth it to take a black card, "the taking one for the team" tactic.


  • Options
    #98
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Article in the IT yesterday pointinf out how congress were giving out about diving in '53, and in '55 limited the number of subs to 3 because of diving.

    Malachy Clerkin also raises the point there's nothing being done about a Monaghan player blatantly diving in the same game as McCann's dive...


    The most blatant foul I can remember was in a camogie match about a fortnight after Sean Cavanagh hue and cry, where a defender made a diving rugby tackle to pull down a forward, who dropped the sliotar and it was eventually cleared. No free in, let alone a booking...

    That was an excellent article but I didn't share it here because I'm told I'm paranoid already.. The foul in the hurling at the weekend was worse than anything I've seen in football recently. Here's an excellent piece of analysis in the Examiner about just how dangerous that was and just what the reaction was to it.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/john-fogarty/hurling-the-loser-when-apologists-rule-348840.html
    davegrohl48 wrote: »
    The biggest problem with the black card is the lack of punishment suffered during the game. It is only by the 4th Black card you are down 1 player. I have yet to hear of the match where a team actually suffered a 4th Black card.
    They should have kept the substitutes at five and make the following simple changes:
    1. Second black card you cannot replace. (Stops stacking up black cards as a tactic)
    2. In the final ten minutes there is no substitution for black cards. (Stops time wasting as a tactic)
    3. A black card inside the penalty area is not replaceable (Stops most prevention of goals as a tactic)
    This would take away the still existing problem where it is worth it to take a black card, "the taking one for the team" tactic.


    Everything you say makes sense. However it's just too complicated. 10 minute sin bin is just so much easier.


  • Options
    #99
    davegrohl48
    Registered Users Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭davegrohl48


    Jayop wrote: »
    That was an excellent article but I didn't share it here because I'm told I'm paranoid already.. The foul in the hurling at the weekend was worse than anything I've seen in football recently. Here's an excellent piece of analysis in the Examiner about just how dangerous that was and just what the reaction was to it.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/john-fogarty/hurling-the-loser-when-apologists-rule-348840.html



    Everything you say makes sense. However it's just too complicated. 10 minute sin bin is just so much easier.
    Yes that was a bad foul in the hurling, the perpretrator well aware could hurt someone hauling them down like that.
    The sin bin I think was trialled in the league once and scrapped? I might have that wrong.
    One issue with the sin bin, you haul down a player who was going through on goal. It is the second such occasion, preventing two goal chances and now that player is injured after being hauled down. 10 minutes in the sin bin seems inadequate punishment?
    Also the perpretrating team is well capable of slowing the game down while they are down to 14 men. Refs have a tendency to go easy on a team then when they are down to 14. Down to 14 but the ref is now allowing them be over zealous in their tackling.
    How would you handle the time keeping aspect of it at levels other than inter county? For the last 10 min rule I think Refs can check their watch to know when 10 mins are up and signal that with a simple gesture at the next stoppage in play holding up their watch hand and touching the black card to it. Clearly indicates we are into the last 10 minutes of play and hence the black card is not substitutable.


  • Options
    #100
    Jippo
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭Jippo


    davegrohl48 wrote: »
    The biggest problem with the black card is the lack of punishment suffered during the game. It is only by the 4th Black card you are down 1 player. I have yet to hear of the match where a team actually suffered a 4th Black card.
    They should have kept the substitutes at five and make the following simple changes:
    1. Second black card you cannot replace. (Stops stacking up black cards as a tactic)
    2. In the final ten minutes there is no substitution for black cards. (Stops time wasting as a tactic)
    3. A black card inside the penalty area is not replaceable (Stops most prevention of goals as a tactic)
    This would take away the still existing problem where it is worth it to take a black card, "the taking one for the team" tactic.

    I like two and three. I would consider changing the first to third black card.


  • Options
    #101
    davegrohl48
    Registered Users Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭davegrohl48


    Jippo wrote: »
    I like two and three. I would consider changing the first to third black card.
    Yes maybe 3rd black card would be enough to be not substitutable.
    Of course this is not even mentioning the slowing down of frees. As numerous people have posted, Aussie Rules solved that over night. If you slow down a free bring the ball to the 45. Tough cheese, don't slow down frees or else suffer the punishment. If inside the 45 the 13 yards is the distance. Whichever gets player closest to goal. If at 50, brought forward 13 etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    TCDStudent1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,018 ✭✭✭TCDStudent1


    So disappointed with today's match. Two great attacking teams who feel they have to be cynical & negative to win. Just go out and play the way you want. Back yourself to be better than the opposition, rather than trying to win by diving, pulling players back etc.


  • Options
    #103
    JeffKenna
    Registered Users Posts: 4,535 ✭✭✭JeffKenna


    davegrohl48 wrote: »
    Yes that was a bad foul in the hurling, the perpretrator well aware could hurt someone hauling them down like that.
    The sin bin I think was trialled in the league once and scrapped? I might have that wrong.
    One issue with the sin bin, you haul down a player who was going through on goal. It is the second such occasion, preventing two goal chances and now that player is injured after being hauled down. 10 minutes in the sin bin seems inadequate punishment?
    Also the perpretrating team is well capable of slowing the game down while they are down to 14 men. Refs have a tendency to go easy on a team then when they are down to 14. Down to 14 but the ref is now allowing them be over zealous in their tackling.
    How would you handle the time keeping aspect of it at levels other than inter county? For the last 10 min rule I think Refs can check their watch to know when 10 mins are up and signal that with a simple gesture at the next stoppage in play holding up their watch hand and touching the black card to it. Clearly indicates we are into the last 10 minutes of play and hence the black card is not substitutable.

    Why not just bring in a 10 minute sinbin for a black card?


  • Options
    #104
    washman3
    Registered Users Posts: 3,646 ✭✭✭washman3


    TCDStudent1 wrote: »
    So disappointed with today's match. Two great attacking teams who feel they have to be cynical & negative to win. Just go out and play the way you want. Back yourself to be better than the opposition, rather than trying to win by diving, pulling players back etc.

    Totally agree. A game best forgotten.
    As a neutral in fairness, I did think that Dublin set out for an offensive game but got dragged into the cynical muck we have never witnessed from them in years.


  • Options
    #105
    TCDStudent1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,018 ✭✭✭TCDStudent1


    washman3 wrote: »
    Totally agree. A game best forgotten.
    As a neutral in fairness, I did think that Dublin set out for an offensive game but got dragged into the cynical muck we have never witnessed from them in years.


    It didn't even make sense for them to be cynical as O'Connor was pointing every chance they gave him!


  • Options
    #106
    washman3
    Registered Users Posts: 3,646 ✭✭✭washman3


    TCDStudent1 wrote: »
    It didn't even make sense for them to be cynical as O'Connor was pointing every chance they gave him!

    2 or 3 of them were of the very soft variety. I would bet they will put huge focus on this during the coming week though.


  • Options
    #107
    TCDStudent1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,018 ✭✭✭TCDStudent1


    I do wonder if the McCann ban had stood, would McMahon have dived for the O'Sé incident?


  • Options
    #108
    Jippo
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭Jippo


    washman3 wrote: »
    2 or 3 of them were of the very soft variety. I would bet they will put huge focus on this during the coming week though.

    Even if three were soft (I saw one soft one alright with Keegan going to ground easily enough), there were still six frees conceded in scoring range.

    Dublin's ill-discipline cost them this match.


  • Options
    #109
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,145 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    Jippo wrote: »
    Even if three were soft (I saw one soft one alright with Keegan going to ground easily enough), there were still six frees conceded in scoring range.

    Dublin's ill-discipline cost them this match.

    A couple of frees were at a difficult range, and dissent caused them to brought in closer. That was pure indiscipline.


  • Options
    #110
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    It was probably the dirtiest game of the year but there's been very little said about it. A few articles but not a lot. Pulling, dragging, headbutts, punches, wrestling all going on. Shocking stuff from the purists.


  • Options
    #111
    TCDStudent1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,018 ✭✭✭TCDStudent1


    Jayop wrote: »
    It was probably the dirtiest game of the year but there's been very little said about it. A few articles but not a lot. Pulling, dragging, headbutts, punches, wrestling all going on. Shocking stuff from the purists.

    There was a huge amount said about it - just read the threads on here!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    TCDStudent1 wrote: »
    There was a huge amount said about it - just read the threads on here!

    I'm flicking through them now. Like I said I was away for a while so wasn't on here during the last two weeks much.

    There seems like there was a certain amount posted about it in here but nothing like the criticism I'd have expected from such a game. If it was two different coloured strips it would have been much different.


  • Options
    #113
    Grudaire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    Jayop wrote:
    There seems like there was a certain amount posted about it in here but nothing like the criticism I'd have expected from such a game. If it was two different coloured strips it would have been much different.

    I think you (and McStay) are slightly biased?! :)


  • Options
    #114
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Grudaire wrote: »
    I think you (and McStay) are slightly biased?! :)

    Aren't we all? I think that's the nature of sport.


  • Options
    #115
    Ceist_Beag
    Registered Users Posts: 2,848 ✭✭✭Ceist_Beag


    Jayop wrote: »
    I'm flicking through them now. Like I said I was away for a while so wasn't on here during the last two weeks much.

    There seems like there was a certain amount posted about it in here but nothing like the criticism I'd have expected from such a game. If it was two different coloured strips it would have been much different.

    There has been a huge amount of coverage of the negative aspects of the match. The media have been pretty consistent in their response to this match in comparison to their response to the Tyrone/Monaghan one Jayop, I think you might be a bit off in suggesting there is any difference here because of the teams involved.


  • Options
    #116
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Ceist_Beag wrote: »
    There has been a huge amount of coverage of the negative aspects of the match. The media have been pretty consistent in their response to this match in comparison to their response to the Tyrone/Monaghan one Jayop, I think you might be a bit off in suggesting there is any difference here because of the teams involved.

    It wouldn't be the first time I was off about something!!


  • Options
    #117
    LeoB
    Registered Users Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭LeoB


    Jayop wrote: »
    It was probably the dirtiest game of the year but there's been very little said about it. A few articles but not a lot. Pulling, dragging, headbutts, punches, wrestling all going on. Shocking stuff from the purists.

    Rumours of head butts ok but I believe it was proved otherwise. Not a very dirty game but very negative. 2 good footballing sides trying to cancel each other out.

    Unfortunately Joe McQuillan got no support from the 6 officials who were there to help him it appears they dozed off just after the throw in but one woke up to nail Connolly.


  • Options
    #118
    wackokid
    Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭wackokid


    LeoB wrote: »
    Rumours of head butts ok but I believe it was proved otherwise. Not a very dirty game but very negative. 2 good footballing sides trying to cancel each other out.

    Unfortunately Joe McQuillan got no support from the 6 officials who were there to help him it appears they dozed off just after the throw in but one woke up to nail Connolly.

    Well Leo the four umpires couldn't help him unless he asked them. Small picked it off the ground to clear Cluxo's bothún with an umpire less than a few feet away looking directly down at him. Under GAA rules he couldn't open his mouth and he didn't. What an efficient outfit is our GAAAAAAAAAAA. ??
    Hard to imagine a group of adults drawing up rules for a ball game within which is such a bizarre proscription on drawing a refs attention to a serious foul.
    Could only happen in Ireland.


  • Options
    #119
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    wackokid wrote: »
    Well Leo the four umpires couldn't help him unless he asked them. Small picked it off the ground to clear Cluxo's bothún with an umpire less than a few feet away looking directly down at him. Under GAA rules he couldn't open his mouth and he didn't. What an efficient outfit is our GAAAAAAAAAAA. ??
    Hard to imagine a group of adults drawing up rules for a ball game within which is such a bizarre proscription on drawing a refs attention to a serious foul.
    Could only happen in Ireland.

    But sure it was the same for the push on Cluxton for the Fermanagh game.
    Totally wrong, but on the other posters comment about the linesman waking up at full time - i totally agree, countless Dublin lads and Mayo lads could have gotten black cards for taking out the man who laid the ball off. But linesman saw nothing at all.

    I doubt he even saw what happened for the red card incident and was more of Connolly punch mayo lad, red for Connolly and then ref gave yellow to Mayo as he obv was up to no good (it's what ref's do - the fail to find out where something happened or who started it and just hand out yellows, It was more a black card offence than yellow)


  • Options
    #120
    Grudaire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    wackokid wrote:
    Well Leo the four umpires couldn't help him unless he asked them.

    Correct! But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant :)
    Small picked it off the ground to clear Cluxo's bothún with an umpire less than a few feet away looking directly down at him.

    The ball was bouncing from what I saw on the day and on the Sunday Game.
    Do you have a clip that shows otherwise?
    If not it's a bit unfair to make up stuff to bash McQuillan with!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    wackokid
    Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭wackokid


    Grudaire wrote: »
    Correct! But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant :)



    The ball was bouncing from what I saw on the day and on the Sunday Game.
    Do you have a clip that shows otherwise?
    If not it's a bit unfair to make up stuff to bash McQuillan with!

    Well now Aodhán this ain't no rant.
    All fact, and I am bashing the rules not McQuillan. Try to pull your head out of the sand.
    I don't have the ability to post clips of play here but I am 100% sure that Mr Small picked the ball off the turf illegally having watched it many times on SKY+ replays, in real time and slow mo.
    Did you spot McManamon's double hop in real time, or McLoughlin's third man tackle in the play leading up to the Mayo penalty.
    That game was almost impossible to ref as the game itself has such a proliferation of silly rules that most people don't even know what they are now, including the refs and linesmen.
    But sure it keeps us talking eh?


Advertisement