Kildare / Offaly '6 sub' saga

scargill

So it's going to drag on for another week. On Sunday I would have said that Offaly won the game fair and square. Let the result stand and maybe fine them for a minor breach. No point in Kildare appealing as it will look petty and would be bad sportsmanship.

But then I got thinking, the arguement that is being used by Offaly is that they only used 20 players. There were 5 full subtitutions and 1 temporary sub.

Kildare used 5 subs in the course of the game (Ryan was the last with about 20 minutes to go). With about 15 minutes to go McCormack got a bad shoulder injury (will be out for a while) so Kildare effectively finished with 14 men. Using Offaly's interpretation of the subs rule Kildare should've "blood substituted" McCormack with one of the players taken off earlier.
Now that would have made a huge difference to game surely ?

If Central Council rule in Offalys favour next week what is there to stop any team using a rotating panel of 20 players on and off the pitch ? Thats the problem they have - they are not just adjudicating for last Sunday's match, they are setting a precedent for the rest of the season.

Just so you know where I stand - Kildare were beaten by better team on the day. But I think the GAA are in a tight corner on this one and may be forced to disqualify Offaly, Kildare offer replay and game is replayed.

squire1

scargill wrote:

Kildare used 5 subs in the course of the game (Ryan was the last with about 20 minutes to go). With about 15 minutes to go McCormack got a bad shoulder injury (will be out for a while) so Kildare effectively finished with 14 men. Using Offaly's interpretation of the subs rule Kildare should've "blood substituted" McCormack with one of the players taken off earlier.
Now that would have made a huge difference to game surely ?

Just one problem with that scargill, It is the referee that decides if a player needs to be blood subbed, not the team management. A player must be bleeding or have blood in his kit in order to be blood subbed.

It was basically a technical/paperwork mistake and had no bearing on the game whatsoever. From speaking to a lot of Kildare fans there is a split between looking for a replay and letting the result stand. The tinking behind a replay is that if there were five minutes left in a game the players would fight tooth and nail to stay in the Leinster Championship, so the County Board should do the same now that the game has finished. However, Offaly won the game on the pitch without gaining any advantage from their mistake and as such the result is a fair one and should stand. As I understand it the County Board have requested a replay if Offaly are found guilty of any wrong doing.

This could drag on for a long time and disrupt not only the Leinster Championship but also the AI series. Best to make a decision quickly and get it over with. The rule book needs to be clarifed on this issue once and for all.

scargill

squire1 wrote:

Just one problem with that scargill, It is the referee that decides if a player needs to be blood subbed, not the team management. A player must be bleeding or have blood in his kit in order to be blood subbed.

Yes - thats true. Thats why I put "blood subsituted" in quotes !! In a desperate situation like that I'm sure some teams could 'engineer' a squirt of blood on a jersey !

And any time a player is being substituted - if there is any blood on him at all surely it would be better to draw attention to this to the referee and let the referee instruct that a blood substitue be used.

The rules on this are a bit too vague.

scargill

squire1 wrote:

However, Offaly won the game on the pitch without gaining any advantage from their mistake and as such the result is a fair one and should stand.

Agree with this too - but Kildare were disadvantaged because they stuck to the rules. I'm not suggesting that Kildare should cheat and make it look like McCormack was bleeding - but the way the rules stand it seems to encourage teams to do this?

And if Central Council rule in Offaly's favour we could see a lot more "blood substitutes" this summer.

squire1

Just had an image of the water carrier running onto the pitch with a bag of pigs blood up his sleeve ready to squirt any player not doing the business.:D If it comes to that we may just forget about the whole thing.

Waylander

The crux of the problem here is that the player subbed off for the blood sub did not replace the same player who replaced him when he went off. Essentially the only thing Offaly did wrong was administrative. They should have filled out slips for the ref taking off the blodd replacement, and then sent him back on for the second player. They shortcut this process by just putting the blood sub back on and removing a different player. I think the result should stand and a warning given to Offaly to do things correctly next time as there was no illegal players on the pitch.

cruiserweight

Waylander wrote:

The crux of the problem here is that the player subbed off for the blood sub did not replace the same player who replaced him when he went off. Essentially the only thing Offaly did wrong was administrative. They should have filled out slips for the ref taking off the blodd replacement, and then sent him back on for the second player. They shortcut this process by just putting the blood sub back on and removing a different player. I think the result should stand and a warning given to Offaly to do things correctly next time as there was no illegal players on the pitch.

I remember reading somewhere (but I may be mistaken) that Offaly consulted with the officials during the game about the subs!If the officials on the day gave the all clear then I can see a situation similar to when a player gets a yellow card but is later found to have committed a more serious foul!Because the referee has given out a punishment, the player cannot be punnished again!

Anyway this is what Martin Breheny has to say! He rang 5 officials, 3 said Offaly were entitled to do what they did and 2 said they were not!

WHY is it that something as simple and practical as allowing a sub to replace a player who needs to have a cut treated has ended up in such a bloody mess?

It's laughable to the point of embarrassment that such a basic regulation continues to cause problems at both club and county level.

It should be simplicity itself. A player leaves the field for treatment, is replaced for the duration and returns when the doctor has completed his work.

Instead, it has become clogged by complicated wording that's open to various interpretations. And that's the root of the problem.

Yesterday, I rang five senior GAA officials whose detailed knowledge of rules and regulations would be streets ahead of ordinary membership.

Their views on the Offaly sub controversy underlined exactly why it has turned into such a mess. Three were adamant that Offaly were right, while two were insistent that they had broken the rules. Confused? Me too.

That's why it's necessary to go back to basics and re-draft the 'blood sub' regulation.

It's vital that there's no ambiguity, no loopholes and definitely no room for various interpretations of the rule.

It's quite common to see rugby players leave the pitch for treatment and return when they have been patched up.

There are no controversies, no complications and no late night meetings as various committees attempt to establish if X was a 'blood sub' or a real sub.

It should be equally easy to apply the same criteria to hurling and football, yet it's not happening.

Complicated

It's another example of how complicated GAA regulations really are. But then they have to be complex because the letter of the law always takes precedent over the spirit of the regulation.

Hence the need last year to establish the Disputes Resolution Authority which was added to the GAA's procedural system, but had to be created so as to stop the growing flood of cases that were heading for the Courts.

The DRA has done a splendid job, but the fact that it was necessary to establish it in the first place underlines the sense of anarchy that applies when aggrieved parties don't like particular decisions.

The reality is that this latest 'blood sub' controversy is deeply embarrassing for the GAA.

Here's an organisation that can build one of the finest stadiums in the world, run a network of clubs in every town and parish in the country, yet it can't agree on something as simple as how to deal with a situation where a player needs treatment for a cut during a game.

The lines between 'blood subs' and real subs have become blurred sufficiently often over the past few years to make it necessary for the GAA to now go back to the drafting stage.

It's pointless having regulations that clearly aren't understood by the vast majority of the membership.

According to the rules of control in the Official Guide (Part 2) temporary substitutes may be used where a player has to leave the field for treatment of a blood injury, and the following acts shall not count as permanent substitutions:

(1) The use of the temporary substitute for a player instructed to leave the field under the Rule.

(2) The return to the field of play of the injured (blood) player as a direct replacement for the temporary substitute.

(3) The return to the field of play of the injured (blood) player as a replacement for any other player if the temporary substitute has previously been sent off or substituted.

The fact that even rule experts disagree over the Offaly case proves how daft the situation has become.

The Leinster Council were last night unable to make a definitive judgement on the matter, opting instead to seek interpretation from a higher authority, in this case Central Council.

But will it end there? If either side disagree with the Central Council ruling, will they press on towards the DRA?

Where will it all end? And all because Offaly's Pascal Kellaghan needed treatment for an injury.

mchurl

Hopefully a quick decision will be reached on this so it doesnt greatly disrupt the Championship.

IMO the result should stand, Offaly didnt gain any real advantage from what they done and as has already been said, it was an administive error.

I understan what is being said about the blood sub rule, and this reall needs to be cleared up and clarified. Teams can abuse this rule if they want, and something needs to be done. In fact i think a mojor overhaul of the GAA rulebook is needed, to tighten things up. They are too many contentious issue's for us to be talking about:D

squire1

STATEMENT ISSUED ON BEHALF OF KILDARE COUNTY BOARD BY CHAIRMAN SYL MERRINS

Following a special meeting of Kildare County Board, Tuesday, May 30, the
view of the clubs in the county were conveyed to the executive after a
lengthy and passionate debate on matters surrounding the Leinster SFC
quarter-final last Sunday. It was the unanimous view of all present that
Offaly had broken Rule 113 (b).

Contrary to the impression given in some quarters, it was clarified that
Kildare were invited to attend Monday night’s meeting convened by Leinster
Council’s GAC who sought their views. Kildare accepted this invitation after
careful consideration.

Delegates were taken aback at Leinster Council’s decision not to give a
judgement on the breach of rule, opting instead to seek an interpretation
from Central Council. When it comes to this particular rule, Kildare knows
only too well the penalties that apply for not abiding to the letter of the
law – however inadvertently the case may be. This point was strongly
repeated by many delegates during the course of the county board meeting.

One of the key talking-points last night was how ridiculous the situation
would become in games across the country at all levels, were you to adopt
the approach that a temporary sub could remain on the field while the player
that he replaced returns to the fray. Does it mean that you could apply this
‘principle’ with every single one of your team and replace all 15 players?

Every option available was discussed and debated with great intensity and
following a vote on the matter, Kildare County Board has decided to await
the outcome of Central Council’s deliberations and Leinster Council’s
ruling. We are confident that the rules of the Association will be upheld
for the longterm benefit and integrity of all those involved in the game.

It would be a pity if that judgement were to be otherwise, and that Kildare
would be obliged to pursue the ultimate course of action – something which
was whole-heartedly approved at the meeting.

Kildare have seen their teams pay a heavy price on the whole substitution
question in the past – like the league game against Sligo in 2002 and the
county hurlers v Westmeath in 2004. And of course, there was also the
celebrated case of Na Fianna using six subs against Sarsfields (Kildare
champions in 2001) and having to forfeit the game, but in a sporting
gesture, Sarsfields offered a re-fixture to their opponents – much to the
benefit of the game as a whole. Fair play must always be a priority, which
is why the clubs of Kildare are adamant that the proper application of the
rules – in all cases - should be the order of the day.

cruiserweight

hmmm

THE OFFICIAL who dealt with the substitutions in last Sunday's Offaly/Kildare clash has hit back at the suggestion that he might have had a vested interest in mis-directing Offaly on the issue of their subs.

Pierce Freaney, one of the most respected figures in refereeing circles, was one of two officials working at the sideline table for last Sunday's Leinster SFC quarter-final between Offaly and Kildare.

Offaly claim that both himself and stand-by linesman Gary McCormack gave them the go-ahead to use their final substitute, a decision that has subsequently endangered their victory as questions were raised over their use of a blood sub. The fact that Freaney is a long-time Kildare resident had raised eyebrows in some quarters but he laughed aloud yesterday when asked if he could have been biased and said such an accusation could never be levelled at him.

"I have done every match at Croke Park since this system of sideline officials was introduced and to do this job I absolutely could not be biased," Freaney said.

"I don't think that anyone could substantiate that accusation and I'd be very disappointed if anyone even tried to make it," he added.

He pointed out that he is a Kilkenny native and ex-player but takes an objective view of all matches at Croke Park, no matter what county is involved.

"I'd say if you asked every county in the country you would not find anyone who could accuse me of bias," he said. In any case, the genial official said that the position he fulfills - technically known as "assistant to the stand-by linesman" - does not carry any power.

"No one could 'set up' a county, if that is what is being suggested," Freaney said. "This matter (making substitutions) is the county's own call and their responsibility, not the official's."

He would not comment on what transpired on the sideline last Sunday, saying that the GAA are currently dealing with the issue which has been referred to Central Council next Saturday.

Christy Hand, the liaison officer for the Offaly team, handled substitutions on their behalf and while the term 'fourth official' is often used it is a misnomer in intercounty GAA because two men sit at the officials' table.

When the GAA introduced a substitutes' board and blood subs five years ago, they quickly decided that one person could not handle it alone.

The assistant is usually the referee's administrator of that province and Freaney has acted as 'assistant' in Croke Park for every game since the system was introduced in 2001.

His responsibilities include operating the microphoned communication between the officials and announcing the substitutes and Freaney's voice would be very familiar to GAA fans.

He was the referee's adminstrator in Leinster for many years but has now moved onto a key position on the National Referees Committee with special responsibility for 'recruitment and training'.

Offaly told Leinster Council that both McCormack and Freaney gave them the go-ahead to make the final substitution.

"We double-checked with the table to see if we were okay to put on our last sub and asked how many (subs) we had used and they indicated, with their hands, that we had used four and were OK," an Offaly source told the Irish Independent yesterday.

In previous cases this argument has not held any water because the responsibility for making the correct number of substitutions ultimately lies with the team itself.

However, Leinster Council's 9-man Games Administration Committee (GAC) could not agree how to interpret the blood sub rule on Monday night.

In reality the issue will be decided by the 13-man Management Committee on Friday night.

They are already believed to be seeking legal advice on it and will look for Central Council to ratify their decision next day.

The Rooster

The Kildare County board must be a bunch of idiots!

One of the key talking-points last night was how ridiculous the situation would become in games across the country at all levels, were you to adopt the approach that a temporary sub could remain on the field while the player that he replaced returns to the fray. Does it mean that you could apply this ‘principle’ with every single one of your team and replace all 15 players?

No it doesnt mean that, you plonkers.
When the injured player returns to the field and he replaces someone other than the temp sub, then it counts as one substitution (not none and not two). So in theory you could do this up to 5 times. 15 times? No stupid.

Offaly did this once, and it counted as one substitution.
Earlier they had taken the bloodied player off as requested by the ref. This does not count as a substitution.
They made 4 other substitutions.
Total = 5 substitutions.

No issue, in my opinion. I find it incomprehensbile that somebody with some brains hasnt sorted this out yet.

cruiserweight

Well I hope Offaly are awarded the game, mainly because I do not believe that it had an outcome on the result! But also according to todays Indo there is a possibility that Wexford vs Offaly Leinster SHC semi-final may be moved to form a double header with Leinster SFC semi-final! This makes sense as there will be a larger crowd for the semi-final, otherwise Croker may be quite empty!

If the Central Council decides that rules haven't been broken, the Leinster Council will proceed with fixing the Offaly-Wexford semi-final and will explore the possibility of placing it on a double header with the hurling semi-final between the counties at Croke Park on June 17.

Wexford and Offaly are due to meet on June 10 at Nowlan Park, but with the Robbie Williams concert scheduled for the Saturday night, Croke Park is not available on that date.

Leinster Council chairman Liam O'Neill said they were already looking at the possibility of putting the two matches on together in Croke Park.

But if the Central Council decides that there are irregularities about the way they went about their business then this case has the potential to drag on.

squire1

The Rooster wrote:

The Kildare County board must be a bunch of idiots!


No it doesnt mean that, you plonkers.
When the injured player returns to the field and he replaces someone other than the temp sub, then it counts as one substitution (not none and not two). So in theory you could do this up to 5 times. 15 times? No stupid.

I thought this was a strange statement myself. I think what they mean is that you can have 15 blood substitutions, which, in fact, you can. I think the reasoning is that some blood substitutions could be "manufactured" in order to effect a tactical substitution. The point is that a blood sub should become a full sub if the injured player does not return or does return but does not replace the temp sub. That is the point that is in question here and is not addressed in the rule book. A very shakey argument, if you ask me.

scargill

The Rooster wrote:

The Kildare County board must be a bunch of idiots!


No it doesnt mean that, you plonkers.
When the injured player returns to the field and he replaces someone other than the temp sub, then it counts as one substitution (not none and not two). So in theory you could do this up to 5 times. 15 times? No stupid.

If Offaly's interpretation of the rules are accepted then in theory this is exactly what could happen. OK, it would involve having to 'manufacture' blood injuries - so in practice it wouldn't happen. If it was so straight forward then why didn't the Leinster Council make a decision on Monday ?!

caks1999

I, seemingly alone, think that the least Kildare should be offered is a replay. As a Derry man (still delighted from Sunday ), the rules are there in black and white. No short-cuts, no other way around it - the man subbed was the wrong one. If the GAA do not 'make an example' of Offaly, it makes a mockery of the rules.

What's to stop another side going out next Sunday and doing the same thing on purpose, there would then be calls for them to be kicked out or the rules changed. So why not do it now? It is not the GAA's fault that the county sides do not know the rules, let them feel the punishment. Otherwise the whole thing could become farcical, a sort of 'he started it' campaign where one side is treated differently from another for breaking the same rule.

Waylander

Caks that is why I suggested a warning should be given to Offaly. But I agree with Rooster, I think the Kildare board are being idiotic here. They are basically considering disrupting the entire Leinster and All Ireland Championships, beacuse the blood sub did not come to the sideline and immediately run back on to replace another player.

squire1

Waylander, before condeming the Kildare County Board, you might consider why they are doing this. It went to a meeting of the club delegates last night and the overall feeling was that it was a matter of principal.

When Kildare were deducted two points after beating Sligo fair and square on the pitch over what was in effect a paperwork error, it was assumed that common sense would prevail and no action would be taken. Kildare were effectively relegated from Div 1 over this and felt very hard done by.

When Cork/Tipp had a similar incident, common sense did prevail and no action was taken. This was taken very badly in Kildare at the time and as such you can understand why they feel they way they do in this matter.

I feel that Kildare County Board are making a stand on behalf of all County Boards and hopefully some resolution will be made as a result regarding the blood substitution rule which has been known to be very vague for a number of years now and yet nothing has been done to prevent situations like this arising over and over again.

Waylander

I understand that Squire and I do see why they have a problem but I do not think threatening the Championship as a whole will win them any support, but it will make allot of people go against them. They are disputing a technichality which led to no illegal players being on the pitch, Offaly had consulted with a couple of officials when they carried out the substitutions and were told all was in order. This is a problem with the GAA officials more then anything else.

scargill

Waylander wrote:

but I do not think threatening the Championship as a whole will win them any support

Who broke the rules ? It was Offaly! Kildare are just pointing out that it was broken.

The only reason there will be a threat of delay to the Championship is if Central Council can't come to a decision.

Kildare didn't break any rules. Offaly probably did break a rule.

Kildare footballers broke the rule two years ago and were punished. The Kildare hurlers broke it last year and were punished.

The Rooster

scargill wrote:

On Sunday I would have said that Offaly won the game fair and square. Let the result stand and maybe fine them for a minor breach. No point in Kildare appealing as it will look petty and would be bad sportsmanship.

Exactly

scargill wrote:

If Central Council rule in Offalys favour next week what is there to stop any team using a rotating panel of 20 players on and off the pitch ? Thats the problem they have - they are not just adjudicating for last Sunday's match, they are setting a precedent for the rest of the season.

The decision to be made with Offaly has zero relevance to the above.

There is nothing to stop any team rotatating a panel of 20 players on and off the pitch - but only if players have blood injuries and the ref orders them to be taken off to have the damage repaired. This will remain to be the case no matter what decision is reached regarding Offaly. Its the whole point of the blood sub rule to allow bloodied players leave the field without a disadvantage accruing. Perhaps it should be extended to all injuries, not just blood ones, so we wouldnt get situations like Kildare got themselves into when they had to play out the last few minutes of the match with only 14 men because of injuries.

But there will be no new precedent set by Central Council when the Offaly decision is made.

squire1

.

squire1

I posted this already but it didn't come up so apolagies if it comes up twice.

Just bear in mind that at this stage Kildare Conty Board have not lodged any objection or filed any complaint. This process was initiated by the Leinster Council and Kildare were invited to comment at The Leinster Council Meeting along with Offaly.

Kildare have mearly stated that they expect the rules to be applied evenly throughout all the counties. Thay have not asked for this situation to arise but have made it clear that if it is not dealt with according to the rule book then they will object on a matter of principal. I feel on this point they will in fact have the support of a lot of the samller counties who seem to be regularly pushed aside by the GAA.

Waylander

I dont think they will Squire. Offaly asked the officials on hand, who are there to advise in this kind of situation, if they could do their substitution in this way. The fact that this official is a longterm resident of Kildare is a bit of a joke, as I think he should have had nothing to do with a match involving Kildare. However, I do not think he deliberately misled the Offaly management. But I do not really see how Offaly can be held to blame, this is entirely on the shoulders of the official who gave them the all clear.

scargill

Waylander wrote:

this is entirely on the shoulders of the official who gave them the all clear

No, this is not the case - the ultimate responsibility lies with the Offaly management.

scargill

Having thought about it Rooster - I agree with you. The decision about Offaly won't set any precedent about subs/blood subs.

nollaig

Perhaps it should be extended to all injuries, not just blood ones, so we wouldnt get situations like Kildare got themselves into when they had to play out the last few minutes of the match with only 14 men because of injuries.

At the moment there is far too much scope allowing teams to abuse the blood rule. By extending it to other injuries, then it would just get to the point of faking injuries.

I agree with the blood rule. But there should be a 10 or 15 minute limit, if it goes beyond the limit, then it should be recognised as an official sub. The 4th official should have responsibility for the no. of subs. He does little else anyways.

My view on the Offaly game is that Offaly broke the rules. But I dont think that if they hadnt made their last sub, they would not have won. Therefore, I dont think it would be fair on them to lose the game or to replay.

Fine the county board, tidy up the rules and get on with the championship.

Waylander

scargill wrote:

No, this is not the case - the ultimate responsibility lies with the Offaly management.

If there is an official there to advise on these matters I think he has got to take the blame if he gets it wrong.

Culchie

Waylander wrote:

If there is an official there to advise on these matters I think he has got to take the blame if he gets it wrong.

Has the official collaborated Offaly's stance?

If he did, I agree, they asked an official for guidance, they received it (like a golfer asking for a ruling) Offaly should be allowed to keep the game.

If he doesn't collaborate the story, again as per a golfer, they broke the rules, Kildare should get the game.

The Rooster

nollaig wrote:

My view on the Offaly game is that Offaly broke the rules. But I dont think that if they hadnt made their last sub, they would not have won. Therefore, I dont think it would be fair on them to lose the game or to replay.

Fine the county board, tidy up the rules and get on with the championship.

Every interchange Offaly made would have been perfectly legal if they had the proper paperwork done. No advantage was sought or gained. It seems the documentation problem may have occured when they "bloody player" came on for the "other player" rather than the "temp sub". There should have been two dockets prepared:
1. bloody player for temp sub
2. temp sub for other player

instead they may have short-cutted the documentaiton (with approval from the officials) to "bloody player for other player". The result is the same, the intention was the same, the substance is the same. To lose a game over this would be ludicrous.

Waylander

The official was asked if his advice was biased due to the fact he was a long term resident of Kildare by a member of the press, he simply laughed and said something to the effect of dont be ridiculous. While I do not think his info was biased, it is clearly an acceptance that he did give that advice.

Culchie

Waylander wrote:

The official was asked if his advice was biased due to the fact he was a long term resident of Kildare by a member of the press, he simply laughed and said something to the effect of dont be ridiculous. While I do not think his info was biased, it is clearly an acceptance that he did give that advice.

Well if that's the case, Offaly should keep the game, absolutely 100%

He is an Official..... players, managers, selectors etc....can't be expected to go around asking officials their place of birth.

scargill

is there some sort of inference here that the official 'set up' Offaly by telling them 'go on you're grand - send him on !!'

ah lads - c'mon !!

Culchie

scargill wrote:

is there some sort of inference here that the official 'set up' Offaly by telling them 'go on you're grand - send him on !!'

ah lads - c'mon !!

No, but he is the official.

Officials are there to advise, guide and implement rules.

If Offaly sought advice on the matter, and followed the ruling .... end of story.

squire1

The official ye are taking about was the "assistant to the fourth official". He has no power, he is basically there to collect the paperwork. He was asked his opinion on the number of subs and gave it. It is exactly the same as the manager asking a person in the stand how many subs he used. It has been stated by the GAA previously that the onus is completely on the team officials to keep track of the number of subs they use. This issue will not be considered by the central council.

Again it's down to bad rules and bad planning by the GAA. The fourth official should be made keep track of subs used and not allow illegal subsitutions happen. However this is not currently the case and if Offaly are found to be in breech of the rules then they can only blame themselves.

Culchie

squire1 wrote:

The official ye are taking about was the "assistant to the fourth official". He has no power, he is basically there to collect the paperwork. He was asked his opinion on the number of subs and gave it. It is exactly the same as the manager asking a person in the stand how many subs he used. It has been stated by the GAA previously that the onus is completely on the team officials to keep track of the number of subs they use. This issue will not be considered by the central council.

Again it's down to bad rules and bad planning by the GAA. The fourth official should be made keep track of subs used and not allow illegal subsitutions happen. However this is not currently the case and if Offaly are found to be in breech of the rules then they can only blame themselves.

Well again, as I have said, if he was a recognised official, then the matter is simple. Offaly keep the game.

If, as you suggest, he was simply standing on the sideline, had no official authority, and gave his advice, then the matter is simple, like you say, same as asking a spectator ...Kildare should be given the game.


My understanding that the 4th official was one of the two 'officials' who gave their advice, if that is so, Offaly should keep the game.

squire1

Just to repeat

"It has been stated by the GAA previously that the onus is completely on the team officials to keep track of the number of subs they use."

Waylander

That is them passing the buck, as if Offaly are not to blame it is one of their representatives.

No Scargill I am not saying that ifficials advice was biased at all, I am just saying that when asked he did not deny that he had advised on the situation. As there was no illegal players on the pitch, and as rooster says the only problem was in the administrative completion of the referees slips, I do not think Kildare have a leg to stand on in this.

Culchie

squire1 wrote:

Just to repeat

"It has been stated by the GAA previously that the onus is completely on the team officials to keep track of the number of subs they use."

Then why bother having officials then?

Again, I draw reference to a referee in golf, or snooker.

If their opinion is sought and it is given, then that is the end of the matter.

If the player acts on their own steam, and is later deemed to be incorrect, they suffer whatever penalties are in place, be it 4 points, or disqualification from the tournament.

squire1

There is no doubt that the GAA could learn from other sports. I'm just stating the rules as they currently stand. In any sport, if you break the rules there is a sanction. Should this not be the case for the GAA?

Culchie

squire1 wrote:

There is no doubt that the GAA could learn from other sports. I'm just stating the rules as they currently stand. In any sport, if you break the rules there is a sanction. Should this not be the case for the GAA?

Of course, but if they asked the officials for a ruling (afterall, that's why they are there) then the ruling given must be binding.

scargill

Waylander wrote:

As there was no illegal players on the pitch

Well in Kildare's opinion (and the letter of the law) the last sub was illegal.

Waylander wrote:

and as rooster says the only problem was in the administrative completion of the referees slips, I do not think Kildare have a leg to stand on in this.

I can't remember exactly (but hopefully someone here will) - were Kildare hurlers not punished for not filling in a slip of paper for a sub 'as Gaeilge' ?

The spirit of the rules weren't broken - but the rules were ! Its going to be interesting on Saturday !

SonOfPerdition

scargill wrote:

No, this is not the case - the ultimate responsibility lies with the Offaly management.

Incorrect sir . .the ultimate responsibiltiy lies with those who drafted the rules.

EDIT: you might be intereested in reading this article.

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=sport-qqqm=GAA-qqqa=sport-qqqid=4774-qqqx=1.asp

Culchie

scargill wrote:

Well in Kildare's opinion (and the letter of the law) the last sub was illegal.



I can't remember exactly (but hopefully someone here will) - were Kildare hurlers not punished for not filling in a slip of paper for a sub 'as Gaeilge' ?

The spirit of the rules weren't broken - but the rules were ! Its going to be interesting on Saturday !

I do see where you're coming from, but it's retrospective.

It's like looking at an action replay after an off-side goal has been allowed.

Offside is against the 'law' or the 'rules'.
The linesman said it was onside.... hard luck.


The official in this case said it was OK for Offaly to make another sub .... matter should be closed.


Anyways, like everything else in this great country of ours, some sort of fudge solution will come of this, such as, let me guess, a replay .... not that the Leinster Council would want that :rolleyes:

squire1

As far as I know, a replay is no longer and option as Kildare have not lodged a complaint. The only sanctions now available if they are found guilty of any infringement are for Offaly to be fined (which is the most likely outcome) or for Offaly to be expelled from the competition (too harsh) which would leave Wexford having a bye into the Leinster Final. Kildare will go to the qualifiers either way.

hawker

The GAA have a set of rules that all participating teams must adhere to. Offaly on this occasion did not adhere to the rules so they must suffer the same consequences as Kildare did when they lost the points to Sligo in the league a few years ago. I don't care if it was a clerical error and it had no bearing on the game. Kildare were down to 14 players for 10/12 mins and adhered to the rules by not sending on a blood sub for their injured player.

BTW the Kildare Co Board have not lodged an objection because there is nothing to object to as no decision has been made by the Central Council yet.

SonOfPerdition

hawker wrote:

The GAA have a set of rules that all participating teams must adhere to. Offaly on this occasion did not adhere to the rules so they must suffer the same consequences as Kildare did when they lost the points to Sligo in the league a few years ago..

You are incorrect, even if Offaly were found in breach of the rules (and it appears the central council is going to rule in offaly's favour according to today's examiner) , things have changed and the punishment is no longer an automatic forfeit of the game . .the leinster council now has other options.

I don't care if it was a clerical error and it had no bearing on the game

:rolleyes:

scargill

SonOfPerdition wrote:

Incorrect sir . .the ultimate responsibiltiy lies with those who drafted the rules.

I read the article - it didn't do much to sway me either way - just more grey areas!

“Just on a strict interpretation of the rule, it strikes me that Offaly are in the clear.

“I don’t think there should be (a replay). There might be, but I don’t think there should be.”

Aaron Shearer - barrister and former Na Fianna player

scargill

SonOfPerdition wrote:

You are incorrect, even if Offaly were found in breach of the rules (and it appears the central council is going to rule in offaly's favour according to today's examiner) , things have changed and the punishment is no longer an automatic forfeit of the game . .the leinster council now has other options.

True, but the Examiner article also drew attention to the fact that the rules were changed 'mid-competition' which just proves how inept those that draw up the rules are!

squire1

hawker wrote:

BTW the Kildare Co Board have not lodged an objection because there is nothing to object to as no decision has been made by the Central Council yet.

They are fully entitled to object to the result of the game.

hawker

SonOfPerdition wrote:

You are incorrect, even if Offaly were found in breach of the rules (and it appears the central council is going to rule in offaly's favour according to today's examiner) , things have changed and the punishment is no longer an automatic forfeit of the game . .the leinster council now has other options.




:rolleyes:

Probably worded that wrongly. I should have said that 'they have to suffer the consequences as Kildare did a few years ago'.

Culchie

hawker wrote:

The GAA have a set of rules that all participating teams must adhere to. Offaly on this occasion did not adhere to the rules

Says who? they asked the officials the rules, they received advice, they followed that advice

hawker wrote:

so they must suffer the same consequences as Kildare did when they lost the points to Sligo in the league a few years ago.

Completely different matter, Kildare simply did not follow administrative procedure. If they had asked officials what procedure to follow and were told something different, that would be another story (see golfer/referee examples above)

hawker wrote:

I don't care if it was a clerical error and it had no bearing on the game.

Personal opinion doesn't come into this

hawker wrote:

Kildare were down to 14 players for 10/12 mins and adhered to the rules by not sending on a blood sub for their injured player.

So? They are the rules, they should follow them. Offaly asked the officials for rule clarification, and followed the advice.

hawker wrote:

BTW the Kildare Co Board have not lodged an objection because there is nothing to object to as no decision has been made by the Central Council yet

What can they object to anyway ? ... that Offaly shouldn't have listened to what the officials told them?