unfair suspension?

mrgaa1

A question to all - this incident is real - I'm looking for thoughts / help / etc....

In a club hurling championship match the referee blew to throw the ball in as it was going nowhere and getting dangerous. One of the opposition team (Team 1) hit the ball away - the referee asked for the ball back and a member of the other team (team 2) hit the ball back to the referee from the ground and the sliotar hit the referee in the stomach. ( It has to be said at this stage that the strike back was hit hard - you could call it a sweet strike). The distance of the strike was approx. 15 metres. The referee took a step back - some players were laughing at the ref being hit with the ball - the ref called the player from team 2 over and gave him a red card. When the referee got the ball he threw it in - the two players swung for it - the ball moved a short distance and a player from team 1 went to kick the ball - missed it and kicked a player from team 2. The player from team 1 was red carded.

The player from team 2 has been given 48 weeks for assaulting the referee ( Category 5) - the player from team 1 was given 4 weeks ( category 2).

The appeal is happening shortly - as there are no rules that have been broken ( none notified yet ) - what do you think the line of attack should be - if at all.
I would understand if the player from team 2 had taken his hurl and battered the ref - or punched the ref - or gave serious verbals etc... No-one could believe he was red-carded - the suspension is worse.
Advice, thoughts etc....

kmart6

Appeal it....that is all!

blackbelt

MMMM I'd be interested to know what county this game was played in etc.Was the attendance at the game high?Maybe some by-standers could vouch for the the first incident if it seemed to be accidental.The referee must have deemed it to be intentional.You might want to fill us in on how the game was going before this.Were there players shouting at the referee?

As for the second incident,the kick.I can imagine that this incident would be more understandable in how it was dealt with by the referee.Maybe he saw it as an attempt to kick the player or indeed "engage in a form of rough play" which should only carry a yellow card.An intentional kick is a red without doubt.

Appeal it at the central disciplinary committee down in the county board.I'm sure they will at least reduce the suspension by quite a bit.

mrgaa1

The attendance was quite poor. The match was only on about 10 minutes or so and was being played in a good hard sporting manner. As far as I know there were very few neutrals at it. The state of play at the time was that the referee thought it best to throw the ball in - ball going nowhere. the game was competitive - like all games - so the sending off was a shock to all. At best a yellow card was the thought of the day.

Its an unusual case as most incidents are quite easy to understand - punch, kick, verbals etc...

hanton12

the ref was 15 metres away, yet instead of picking the sliothar up and either throwing it back, or tapping it back, he drove it hard off the ground and it hit him? If the ref wasnt there where would the sliothar have ended up? Stupid thing to do, and I'd question a players intelligence when they would do something like that. 48 weeks is harsh tho, but a long suspension is right. Cant just drive a ball back at a referee.

homerjay2005

if it was quite hard and from 15 yards, then maybe there is some intent there. i think 6 months will be the new suspension from the appeal,but it sounds like a momentary bout of madness from the player. you cant do things like this and get away with it.

mrgaa1

all fair points but if the ball was asked back by the referee and he hit it back towards where the referee was - there were 7 people in and around the referee so the ball could have hit anyone. To say it was hit hard is debatable but the "intent" would be hitting the ball back to where the play was to take re-commence. The ball could have hit anyone standing in that area - the fact that it hit the referee was accidental. Harsh sentence absolutely - to me "dangerous play" would have been harsh but more acceptable. A Category III 12 weeks would be more suitable - but IMO the ref should have yellow carded him only.
In relation to throwing the ball back - that could be construed more of "intent" than hitting back with the hurl.

hanton12

You sound like you are trying to make excuses for what happened now. Its either one thing or another.

mrgaa1 wrote: »

hit the ball back to the referee from the ground and the sliotar hit the referee in the stomach. ( It has to be said at this stage that the strike back was hit hard .

mrgaa1 wrote: »

To say it was hit hard is debatable

so what is it? You ask for opinions on what you wrote, but if you cant even say what happened how can you take other views on board.

mrgaa1 wrote: »

all fair points but if the ball was asked back by the referee and he hit it back towards where the referee was - there were 7 people in and around the referee so the ball could have hit anyone. To say it was hit hard is debatable but the "intent" would be hitting the ball back to where the play was to take re-commence. The ball could have hit anyone standing in that area - the fact that it hit the referee was accidental. Harsh sentence absolutely - to me "dangerous play" would have been harsh but more acceptable. A Category III 12 weeks would be more suitable - but IMO the ref should have yellow carded him only.
In relation to throwing the ball back - that could be construed more of "intent" than hitting back with the hurl.

Again, you're making weak excuses now. Why would throwing a ball back to a ref have more intent? It happens countless times in every game. Ball goes dead, ref asks for it, player throws it to him. They dont fire it at him trying to hit him.

And, if you say there was about 7 players around the ref, then that would probably mean some of the players were closer to the guy who hit the ball back. Its dangerous play. The play is dead, players arent expecting someone to lash a ball at them. Hits happen in games, and players take knocks, but when the ball is dead, you dont drive it into a crowd when the ref looks for it back. Its dangerous play if nothing else. And how could it have been accidental to hit the ref if he was hitting it to the ref?

This is another symptom of all thats wrong in GAA. Players do wrong things and get red cards, and the first thing every player bar a couple do is to try appeal it and get off on some technicality. By the sounds of this one, the player sounds like he did something rashly and stupidly. It doesnt excuse the fact he drove a ball back at a referee who was standing close to him.

mrgaa1

i am looking at this from all angles. Certainly if the guy took his hurl and hit the ref, punched him etc... there is no argument - be a man and take the punishment. But when its accidental, no intent and when others could have been hit with the sliotar then "assault" is very strong. When the result of the hearing is known I'll post it

Nalced_irl

To be honest, asking us wont get you too far. Id say you had to have seen the incident, like did he wind up to hit it hard or did he go to hit it with medium pace but got a great connection, how did he react after hitting the ref, did he seem shocked/happy. Did he have any scuffles/disagreements before it happened that may have wound him up. I cant see any player with half a brain doing it purposely so id say it may well have been accidental but without actually seeing it, i dont think anyone can say.

mrgaa1

An update - red card was rescinded after a vigorous defence of the player and witness's were used.

blackbelt

mrgaa1 wrote: »

An update - red card was rescinded after a vigorous defence of the player and witness's were used.

just as i thought it would.im not totally familiar with the central disciplinary committee procedures but usually it helps to have backup.sensible thing would have been if the player handed the ball back.from reading the scenario,it is still hard to understand if there was intent or not but his behaviour was dangerous and the referee got hurt and humiliated so i guess some sort of suspension was well deserved even if only to use as an example.