Congress Motions

nice_guy80 · 27-02-2015 5:59pm

I think the Black card is working in football.
What games have you been watching?

OldMrBrennan83 · 27-02-2015 6:01pm

This post has been deleted.

Boom__Boom · 27-02-2015 6:57pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Completely might be pushing it a bit far...... Given Cratloe's success in hurling, then their goal is hardly to destroy the game.

I'd love to know how Cratloe came up with the proposed new dimensions. Wonder if they actually played any games with the proposed new balls to see how things went.

If I had to guess I'd say it was a frustrated corner-forward sick of watching the ball fly over his head as wingbacks/cornerbacks/midfielders hit wides was behind the motion.

Boom__Boom · 27-02-2015 7:00pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I think the Black card is working in football.
What games have you been watching?

Some people seem to think because refs sometimes get black card decisions wrong and/or because the black card hasn't made everything perfect that qualifies as not working.

Others look it at and ask has it made things better or worse and see it has made things better and view that as a good thing/working.

rockonollie · 27-02-2015 7:22pm

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Completely might be pushing it a bit far...... Given Cratloe's success in hurling, then their goal is hardly to destroy the game.

I'd love to know how Cratloe came up with the proposed new dimensions. Wonder if they actually played any games with the proposed new balls to see how things went.

If I had to guess I'd say it was a frustrated corner-forward sick of watching the ball fly over his head as wingbacks/cornerbacks/midfielders hit wides was behind the motion.

It's over half an inch in the difference in diameter......if distance is the issue, then core density is what needs to change. If you change the size of the ball, it effects catching, striking, blocking.....much more than just the distance it travels

citykat · 27-02-2015 8:42pm

adrian522 wrote: »

I don't think there is any need for a black card in hurling and I don't think that motion will pass. I don't get the idea that because there is a rule in one sport it should automatically be applied to another. They are different sports overall.

I wouldn't be as confident that this wont pass purely on numbers. It requires a two thirds majority. That equates to approx. the number of counties outside of the Div 1A &1B league which wouldn't be regarded as hurling strongholds and are therefore predisposed more towards football. The motions themselves basically read to delete the reference 'in football'. This tells me that the main driver of this is parity between two sports and nothing else.

citykat · 27-02-2015 8:51pm

Boom__Boom wrote: »

I'd love to know how Cratloe came up with the proposed new dimensions. Wonder if they actually played any games with the proposed new balls to see how things went.

Presume any trials carried out will form part of the submission to Congress? Whenever though the distance sliotars travel is brought up in discussion, the first suggestion is generally to make the ball bigger/heavier without any regard to the impact this change might have.

QUOTE=Boom__Boom;94474460]

If I had to guess I'd say it was a frustrated corner-forward sick of watching the ball fly over his head as wingbacks/cornerbacks/midfielders hit wides was behind the motion.[/QUOTE]

If that is the case all I'd say is be careful what you wish for. That corner forward is now going to have a bigger/heavier ball booming down on top of them...

randd1 · 27-02-2015 9:34pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I think the Black card is working in football.
What games have you been watching?

Look, there's no doubt that the black card is a good idea for football. But the problem is that there's no definitive interpretation of it, and it varies from referee, province and time of the year as to what constitutes a black card. Basically, there's little consistency to it, so for me it's not working.

Now if it's not consistently applied to the sport that it's been designed for, how can it then be applied to a completely different sport successfully?

In my view it can't, it was designed in a haste as a reaction to two incidents of cynical play by two Tyrone players in two games, and the reaction in the media, and was hastily brought into football without first establishing a definitive understanding of the rule, which is why there's such an inconsistency in its application by the refs, it's just too vague a rule.

For my money, if they're going to bring the rule into hurling based on it being in football, then make sure it's foolproof in football first, otherwise it's just bringing in a rule just to have it in both codes.

Or they could do the obvious thing and not bring in a rule based on a completely different sport. Bringing in the black card into hurling to cut down cynicism because it's in football is akin to having helmets in football on the grounds of player safety because they're in hurling.

rockonollie · 27-02-2015 9:40pm

randd1 wrote: »

But the problem is that there's no definitive interpretation of it

Unfortunately that's a ref issue, not a rule issue......the rule is actually quite well defined, but the referees have been severely lacking in enforcement.

Fireball07 · 27-02-2015 9:45pm

I would have absolutely no problem with a black card for players pulling down players deliberately in hurling. There is loads of cynical play in hurling... plenty of teams who are in the lead are happy to pull players back and pull down any opposition players about 30 metres from goal. Black cards may stop them doing that.

nice_guy80 · 27-02-2015 10:52pm

Some of the top hurling teams could be seeing a lot of black cards

Dirty Dingus McGee · 28-02-2015 12:06am

If people are arguing against the black card because it may not be consistently applied then why are you not arguing against Yellow cards ,red cards, awarding of frees and basically having rules in the game at all because these thing are not applied consistently either (as referee's are human) but people don't see them as being bad for the game.

citykat · 28-02-2015 1:16am

The following are the definitions of cynical behaviour (which can result in a black card) as set out in the official guide.

To deliberately pull down an opponent.

Won't say this doesn't happen in hurling but it generally only happens when a player has lost his hurl (It's very hard to pull someone down with one arm) and is desperate.

To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm,leg or foot.

Don't think tripping is a major issue in hurling.

To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away for for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.

This is clearly written for gaelic where there are more offloads and players running support to the player in possession.

To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.

To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.

Hurling is not afflicted by cynical play/behaviour in the same way that gaelic potentially is, going by the definitions outlined above. Introducing a black card will have no beneficial effect on play in hurling. Therefore what's the point?

OldMrBrennan83 · 28-02-2015 2:40am

This post has been deleted.

nice_guy80 · 28-02-2015 11:30am

Black card in hurling defeated

Looks like the big hurling counties got their way

Boom__Boom · 28-02-2015 11:54am

Congress rejecting almost everything

Only Motion 3, 8 & 9 passed, while 13 which has to do with concussion subs has been deferred for further study

Up as far as motion 18 (which was rejected) now

The rejection of the black card was no 71% yes 29%

Change in the sliotar was rejcected 91% to 9%.

Twill be fun to see how long it is before the situation which is black card worthy comes up.

Live updates
http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/match-day-tracker/2802150834-live-gaa-annual-congress

CrabRevolution · 28-02-2015 1:38pm

There should be some sort of screening system so that ridiculous proposals like increasing the sliotar size or allowing a sub for 2 yellows don't even make it as far as congress to waste time getting rejected by comically large margins.

Problem is how do you define ridiculous, and who gets to decide what is chosen. Good chance it would be some committee from the GAA higher ups who could easily delete proposals they dont agree with. Suppose the current system is just the least worst option.

rockonollie · 28-02-2015 1:52pm

so we have 1-on-1 penalties........as fitzhenry put it......if you cant put the ball out of the reach of a single player on the goal, you shouldn't be playing hurling

Brian017 · 28-02-2015 2:00pm

So no hooter. Shame. Would've been good for the games

DDC1990 · 28-02-2015 2:49pm

Brian017 wrote: »

So no hooter. Shame. Would've been good for the games

Crazy. Didn't even give it a year. Would have lost loads of money for replays though and money talks.

83% voted in favour of removing it which is crazy.

nice_guy80 · 28-02-2015 4:27pm

delegates usually do what they are told by the top table

namloc1980 · 28-02-2015 5:43pm

Motion to allow Central Council authority to approve the use of Croke Park and all county grounds for non GAA sports rejected. Doesn't bode well for RWC 2023 bid.

GAAman · 28-02-2015 5:45pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

Motion to allow Central Council authority to approve the use of Croke Park and all county grounds for non GAA sports rejected. Doesn't bode well for RWC 2023 bid.

Doesn't effect it.

Motion 62 removed to speed up congress.............. :pac:

BPKS · 28-02-2015 6:30pm

MINOR REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTIONS (Motions 50-54)

Motion 50: The following five motions are all from the Minor Review Committee. The first (50) proposes that the age of eligibility to play senior club football and hurling be raised from over 16 to over 17, and for inter-county from over 16 to over 18. At U21 level, it proposes that club players be over 16 and that inter-county players be over 18. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 51: Proposes that a player on an inter-county minor panel shall not play in adult club league competitions/challenge games until his inter-county activity for the year is concluded. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 52: This motion proposes the removal of the All-Ireland Minor Championship quarter-finals, and would provide for the four provincial minor champions to proceed directly to the All-Ireland semi-finals. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 53: This motion relates to the dates when provincial minor championships should commence. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 54: This motion gives second level schools 'first call' on players involved with a county minor or U21 panel until such time that their competitive involvement with their school team is concluded. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 50 is passed - when does this come into effect? In an era when we have lost a whole generation of lads in their 20's this will cause difficulties for rural clubs. You will see a lot of "Junior B" teams reduced to 11 or 13 a side in many counties.

Motion 51 is passed - again big problems for a rural club. For example your county minor, born in January, cant play senior level until he is over 19 years of age. Just as well it wasnt around in Pele's time!

Motion 52 is rejected - why did they want minor quarter finals scrapped in the first place?

Motion 53 is accepted and Motion 54 is rejected - so schools have more influence on these young players now than their clubs, who they started playing with maybe 12 years before do!

CrabRevolution · 28-02-2015 6:44pm

BPKS wrote: »

MINOR REVIEW COMMITTEE MOTIONS (Motions 50-54)

Motion 50: The following five motions are all from the Minor Review Committee. The first (50) proposes that the age of eligibility to play senior club football and hurling be raised from over 16 to over 17, and for inter-county from over 16 to over 18. At U21 level, it proposes that club players be over 16 and that inter-county players be over 18. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 51: Proposes that a player on an inter-county minor panel shall not play in adult club league competitions/challenge games until his inter-county activity for the year is concluded. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 52: This motion proposes the removal of the All-Ireland Minor Championship quarter-finals, and would provide for the four provincial minor champions to proceed directly to the All-Ireland semi-finals. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 53: This motion relates to the dates when provincial minor championships should commence. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 54: This motion gives second level schools 'first call' on players involved with a county minor or U21 panel until such time that their competitive involvement with their school team is concluded. (Minor Review Committee).

Motion 50 is passed - when does this come into effect? In an era when we have lost a whole generation of lads in their 20's this will cause difficulties for rural clubs. You will see a lot of "Junior B" teams reduced to 11 or 13 a side in many counties.

Motion 51 is passed - again big problems for a rural club. For example your county minor, born in January, cant play senior level until he is over 19 years of age. Just as well it wasnt around in Pele's time!

Motion 52 is rejected - why did they want minor quarter finals scrapped in the first place?

Motion 53 is accepted and Motion 54 is rejected - so schools have more influence on these young players now than their clubs, who they started playing with maybe 12 years before do!

Motion 51 clearly states it only applies to league and challenge matches, plus it only applies as long as his county are still involved in minor, which is only 8 counties after June. He could be playing senior in may after his 18th birthday, depending on how his county minor team goes.

Though it brings about a strange system for hurling. The All Ireland minor B/C in hurling doesn't even start until august, you can hardly ban them from playing until then. I would imagine that yet again these competitions were an afterthought which the rule just wont be applied to.

nice_guy80 · 28-02-2015 7:47pm

So our adult club team has just lost 6 17 year olds for 2015??

citykat · 28-02-2015 8:35pm

CrabRevolution wrote: »

There should be some sort of screening system so that ridiculous proposals like increasing the sliotar size or allowing a sub for 2 yellows don't even make it as far as congress to waste time getting rejected by comically large margins.

Problem is how do you define ridiculous, and who gets to decide what is chosen. Good chance it would be some committee from the GAA higher ups who could easily delete proposals they dont agree with. Suppose the current system is just the least worst option.

Echoes of communist China there. Might be an unwieldy system but at least it's democratic...

citykat · 28-02-2015 8:38pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Black card in hurling defeated

Looks like the big hurling counties got their way

The facts wouldn't bear out that statement: no 71% yes 29%. This would have required a lot of football counties to vote against to get such a 'no' vote.

citykat · 28-02-2015 8:42pm

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Twill be fun to see how long it is before the situation which is black card worthy comes up.

There could be one next week and none for the rest of the season. What does that say? Be more rational to look at the volume of such incidents over the season. I'd be surprised if there's any pining for the black card during the year.

davegrohl48 · 28-02-2015 8:59pm

A club has problems that need addressing if is reliant on minors to tog senior teams. Should a minor face Aidan OShea on the same pitch or Kieran Donaghy?

Congress Motions

Comments