Gaa rules...destroying the game **Mod Warning, Post 59**

irishrebel83

Hi folks..im a big Gaa fan. But i cannot believe what our own officials are doing to the game. I am finding it more and more frustrating and soul destroying seeing how the Gaa (Football) are introducing all these rules and regulations and destroying the essence of the game.
1.The hand pass...its making a mockery of the game,normal legal hand passes being blown up, inconsistency of refs, and the stop start nature of play

2.the water bottle rule! telling amateur players that they have to run to the sideline to drink water and water carriers no longer allowed to run on the pitch!

3. Not letting supporters onto the croke park pitch for the final this year (hope who ever wins, make a point of running on)

These are amateur playing, giving up their lives for the game and this the thanks they get..while the officials who are implementing these rules are probably on a nice little earner from croke park. I really hope that this gets sorted out quickly or they will loose alot of the grass roots supporters and players who are getting more and more agitated by these silly interferences to the game we love.

Justin10

Hand Pass rule I never really found a problem with it. Ok a lot of players use a open palm but nothing major, and is now causing a bigger problem then before.

Water Bottles i agree with, have seen water boys doing stupid things when running on the pitch.

The running on the pitch, I never liked it. I used to love seeing the players on the pitch enjoying the occassion. Now there just hurdled down the tunnel and into the dressing rooms.

aidan24326

irishrebel83 wrote: »

1.The hand pass...its making a mockery of the game,normal legal hand passes being blown up, inconsistency of refs, and the stop start nature of play

This I agree with. It's a stupid rule and I don't know a single person who agrees with it.

2.the water bottle rule! telling amateur players that they have to run to the sideline to drink water and water carriers no longer allowed to run on the pitch!

Don't agree with you here. The water carrier has no place on the pitch, in no sport that I know of would that be allowed.

3. Not letting supporters onto the croke park pitch for the final this year (hope who ever wins, make a point of running on)

This is a tricky one. It's traditional for supporters to come onto the pitch after, and has given us memorable moments in the past (Joe Connolly's famous speech, the Armagh fans bursting onto the pitch in 2002) but I can see where the GAA are coming from, and to be fair there are insurance implications for them. Though I would have to say that the presentation for Galway's win in 2001 was lame, it wasn't the same at all having it in the middle of the pitch. If they want to have the presentation on the pitch they're seriously going to have to add some razzmatazz to it, like they do for the Heineken Cup final or the Champions Leaague final.

The constant meddling with the rules is becoming very annoying though. I don't know who's behind it, and I don't know what was wrong with the rules as they were.

rebel girl 15

irishrebel83 wrote: »

1.The hand pass...its making a mockery of the game,normal legal hand passes being blown up, inconsistency of refs, and the stop start nature of play

The inconsistency part is being worked on, there are going to be quite a few referees meetings over the next number of weeks - a lot of those passes were considered illegal because the hand holding the ball moved with the pass, which is technically a throw, be it with closed or open fist. The problem is that players were getting away with it all along and now that referees are cracking down on it, players and fans are getting annoyed.

irishrebel83 wrote: »

2.the water bottle rule! telling amateur players that they have to run to the sideline to drink water and water carriers no longer allowed to run on the pitch!

The water carriers should be allowed on during stoppages, but not during the game, bit of a silly one really

irishrebel83 wrote: »

3. Not letting supporters onto the croke park pitch for the final this year (hope who ever wins, make a point of running on)
.

its that sort of attitude that will get people killed. The GAA insurance has gone way up over the last number of years due to people being injured in the crush to get onto the pitch. I completely agree with this one, firstly it is safer for people who hopefully will have the sense not to try to get onto the pitch, and secondly for the players, the winning team can celebrate together on the pitch after their victory which has taken months of work, the losing team don't have to rush off the pitch so that they won't be caught in the stream of people coming down. They tried and failed last year to implement this, but I'm glad they will do it this year, any adult who tries to get onto the pitch next year shouldn't be left back in the stadium again. If they go down to the gates and cause a crush, someone could get seriously injured!

Also the fact that the crowd get onto the pitch cause damage to the grass, I forget exactly the details but if normally the pitch has to be dug up and replaced every 2 years, if the crowd are left on it, the pitch would have to be dug up every year - it halves the life span of the pitch. The money used for insurance and the pitch could be used somewhere else to develop the GAA.

keane2097

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The inconsistency part is being worked on, there are going to be quite a few referees meetings over the next number of weeks - a lot of those passes were considered illegal because the hand holding the ball moved with the pass, which is technically a throw, be it with closed or open fist. The problem is that players were getting away with it all along and now that referees are cracking down on it, players and fans are getting annoyed.

That was never a problem.

The "problem" is that people think there is too much handpassing in the game.

Fussier refereeing of the hand pass is not going to encourage foot passing at all IMO.

All it will achieve is, and we have seen this, even more stop-start messes of games than we have been subjected to in recent years. Teams will not transition to more foot passing simply because it is a far worse option than a hand pass in most circumstances.

Teams will probably "improve" their hand passing technique, but it is a pointless exercise, since better hand passing technique is not the desired outcome, more foot passing is.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The water carriers should be allowed on during stoppages, but not during the game, bit of a silly one really

Agreed.

Water carriers should be vetted somehow however.

The situation we had during a Kerry Armagh game a few years ago where you had a panel member acting as a waterboy and antagonising an opposition player is ludicrous.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

its that sort of attitude that will get people killed.

How many people have ever been killed celebrating on AI day in this manner?

How many have even been injured?

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The GAA insurance has gone way up over the last number of years due to people being injured in the crush to get onto the pitch.

"The GAA does not accept any liability for any injury caused to patrons entering the playing field for any reason whatsoever".

Solved.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I completely agree with this one, firstly it is safer for people who hopefully will have the sense not to try to get onto the pitch, and secondly for the players, the winning team can celebrate together on the pitch after their victory which has taken months of work, the losing team don't have to rush off the pitch so that they won't be caught in the stream of people coming down.

This assumes the players prefer it your way.

I have anecdotal evidence (i.e. conversations with a few intercounty players) that suggests the opposite.

The players I have spoken to have the same attitude as most fans - this is an awesome tradition that the vast majority of people enjoy and should be kept.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

If they go down to the gates and cause a crush, someone could get seriously injured!

There is only ever a crush when the gates are kept closed.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Also the fact that the crowd get onto the pitch cause damage to the grass, I forget exactly the details but if normally the pitch has to be dug up and replaced every 2 years, if the crowd are left on it, the pitch would have to be dug up every year - it halves the life span of the pitch. The money used for insurance and the pitch could be used somewhere else to develop the GAA.

I'd almost use the roll eyes guy for this argument, since it only needs two letters to invalidate it:

U2

rebel girl 15

keane2097 wrote: »

I'd almost use the roll eyes guy for this argument, since it only needs two letters to invalidate it:

U2

Eh no, the pitch was dug up before they played in Croke Park, and relaid in 44 hours - the reason this was okay was because the pitch would have had to be relaid after the championship anyway, or in early 2010

Bluetonic

keane2097 wrote: »

I have anecdotal evidence (i.e. conversations with a few intercounty players) that suggests the opposite.

The players I have spoken to have the same attitude as most fans - this is an awesome tradition that the vast majority of people enjoy and should be kept.

A few players is hardly anything on which to base a decision on. It's hardly any great research.

The people who have to manage spectator safety and manage the upkeep of the pitch should decided. They would be presumed to know best. Of course some would like to be surrounded like kings during great moments of achievement, unfortunately as a group GAA spectators seem to be getting less and less civilised and the losing team need to be considered under these circumstances too. We've already seen at all levels spectators run onto the pitch and attack officials or players. Is that what we want to risk after a highly emotive all Ireland final?

keane2097 wrote: »

There is only ever a crush when the gates are kept closed.

That's incorrect. People also get crushed trying to get out through the open gates when the final whistle is blown, I've seen it happen numerous times.

thirdmantackle

how many people have died in pitch invasions across the whole of the GAA.
give me the latest shocking figures?

yes some stupid people get injured going onto the pitch. they also get injured climbing down the steps of croke park to leave the stadium. and i've seen a few people slip on liquids and injure themselves. doesn't mean they are going to ban all liquids in the stadium

An Citeog

Bluetonic wrote: »

A few players is hardly anything on which to base a decision on. It's hardly any great research.

A few players is a fairly representative sample if they're from Kerry, Tyrone or Kilkenny and keane2097 is from Kerry!:pac:

Bluetonic

thirdmantackle wrote: »

how many people have died in pitch invasions across the whole of the GAA.
give me the latest shocking figures?

Nobody has ever died in a fire at the GAA stadium either but that doesn't mean we should neglect to fit fire extinguishers.

Do you agree the pitch is damaged by thousand of people walking on it? (yes/no answer required)

RGS

The GAA have a serious problem with claims arising from the pitch invasions and i agree its time we got serious about safety in our stadia.

Do we need a death for people to get the message.


The enforcing of the proper handpass is the right way to go. Players having being throwing the ball for many years. The number of frees blown for incorrect handpasses is around 3 a game--thats not a significant number.

rebel girl 15

thirdmantackle wrote: »

how many people have died in pitch invasions across the whole of the GAA.
give me the latest shocking figures?

yes some stupid people get injured going onto the pitch. they also get injured climbing down the steps of croke park to leave the stadium. and i've seen a few people slip on liquids and injure themselves. doesn't mean they are going to ban all liquids in the stadium

Thats what they said before Hillsborough.

Keane2097, quite a few players have spoken about preferring to have the fans in the stand at the end of the game and celebrate with their team rather than have alcohol filled idiots coming up acting the maggot with them. I'd prefer to see the presentation on the pitch - if other sports can do it, then why can't the GAA? I'd respect the players who want to celebrate with the men that they worked with since January to win the title, than with people who couldn't name the corner back of the team

thirdmantackle

if fans knew that they would be allowed onto the pitch 5 minutes after the final whistle would there be the huge rush to the gates?? I doubt it. Most fans are sensible

5 minutes would give stewards and gardai time to set up a rigid barrier around the presentation area in front of the Hogan Stand to give players some room and comfort

then let everyone onto the pitch in a controlled manner

Lex Luthor

does anyone know if the new rules state that 45's have to be taken from the ground rather than from the hand?

keane2097

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Thats what they said before Hillsborough.

Hillsborough is an incredibly dissimilar situation in almost every way.

Even bringing it up is either disingenuous or wildly misinformed.

If you're interested in the circumstances surrounding the Hillborough disaster there was an interesting thread which discussed it in the Soccer Forum a couple of weeks ago.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055894618

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Keane2097, quite a few players have spoken about preferring to have the fans in the stand at the end of the game and celebrate with their team rather than have alcohol filled idiots coming up acting the maggot with them.

Again, my experience suggests otherwise, but I'm sure both views are represented in the player pool.

Alcohol filled idiots are undesirable in most circumstances. I suggest banning alcohol being sold in Croke Park and banning drunkards from entering the grounds as more targeted measures to curb this than blanket banning everyone - civilised people along with drunktards - from persuing their desired form of celebration.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I'd prefer to see the presentation on the pitch - if other sports can do it, then why can't the GAA?

There's no reason they can't. This is not the same thing as "Why shouldn't the GAA".

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I'd respect the players who want to celebrate with the men that they worked with since January to win the title, than with people who couldn't name the corner back of the team

This is a bit annoying.

You seem to be crudely generalising people who like to enter the pitch after the AIF as fair-weather, drunken, uninformed oafs with no interest or knowledge about the game.

I assume you're the connoisseur GAA expert sitting in the stand after the game with a hanky over your nose despairing for the behavior of the peasants down on the pitch?

keane2097

Bluetonic wrote: »

Nobody has ever died in a fire at the GAA stadium either but that doesn't mean we should neglect to fit fire extinguishers.

This is a very flawed comparison.

We have pitch invasions every single year and, to date, noone has been seriously injured or killed. We have never had a fire in the ground but can assume that people would be killed or injured if such an occasion arose.

You may as well say "nobody has ever been mauled by a tiger in Croke Park but that doesn't mean we should neglect to employ tiger handlers".

Obv we need to fit fire extinguishers because we know a fire in Croke Park would be a catastrophe.

We have experience extending over decades to prove that the post-AI pitch invasion is never a catastrophe.

Bluetonic wrote: »

Do you agree the pitch is damaged by thousand of people walking on it? (yes/no answer required)

It probably is. We are, however, talking about the last two matches of the year. If the vast swathes of people whose money, through ticket purchases and other forms of patronage, largely financed the development of the stadium decide that some of their money can happily go towards relaying the pitch more often to facilitate their happiest moment of the year then I think they're well entitled to it.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Eh no, the pitch was dug up before they played in Croke Park, and relaid in 44 hours - the reason this was okay was because the pitch would have had to be relaid after the championship anyway, or in early 2010

As above.

Bluetonic wrote: »

A few players is hardly anything on which to base a decision on. It's hardly any great research.

My point was in response to an argument that players would prefer spectators to be kept off the pitch. My experience, from talking to players who have been involved in the last six football AIFs in a row, suggest that this is not the case.

Bluetonic wrote: »

unfortunately as a group GAA spectators seem to be getting less and less civilised and the losing team need to be considered under these circumstances too. We've already seen at all levels spectators run onto the pitch and attack officials or players. Is that what we want to risk after a highly emotive all Ireland final?

This is a lolbad argument since it doesn't argue against post AI celebrations on the pitch, it simply argues that thugs should be arrested, prosecuted and banned for life from entering GAA facilities.

You do not ban things because a few cretins among the multitudes of ordinary people can't behave themselves. If you did we'd all be dead because life in general would have been banned long ago.

Bluetonic wrote: »

That's incorrect. People also get crushed trying to get out through the open gates when the final whistle is blown, I've seen it happen numerous times.

I concede that I made that point rather flippantly.

The reality is that people currently get crushed by and large because a crush is what it takes to get the groundstaff to allow people onto the pitch. If, as another poster suggested, supporters could be sure they would be permitted onto the field five minutes after the whistle was blown I have very little doubt that that timeframe would be respected to allow the stewards to facilitate supporters' safe entry onto the pitch.

RGS wrote: »

The GAA have a serious problem with claims arising from the pitch invasions and i agree its time we got serious about safety in our stadia.

Do you have a link that quantifies the alleged claims arising from pitch invasions?

Googling "GAA insurance claims Croke Park" and "gaa insurance claims pitch invasion" yields no information about these supposedly abundant claims.

Again, I suggest that a simple disclaimer on all tickets, at all entries to the ground etc stating that the GAA will except no liability of any sort for people entering the playing surface would solve this problem.

RGS wrote: »

Do we need a death for people to get the message.

I contend that if we haven't had a death in the last hundred years we're unlikely to get one at any point.

Lex Luthor

keane2097 wrote: »

I contend that if we haven't had a death in the last hundred years we're unlikely to get one at any point.

what a ridiculous comment..!!!

rebel girl 15

keane2097 wrote: »

It probably is. We are, however, talking about the last two matches of the year. If the vast swathes of people whose money, through ticket purchases and other forms of patronage, largely financed the development of the stadium decide that some of their money can happily go towards relaying the pitch more often to facilitate their happiest moment of the year then I think they're well entitled to it.

Aren't you forgetting something, actually two things??

rebel girl 15

keane2097 wrote: »

Hillsborough is an incredibly dissimilar situation in almost every way.

You seem to be crudely generalising people who like to enter the pitch after the AIF as fair-weather, drunken, uninformed oafs with no interest or knowledge about the game.

I assume you're the connoisseur GAA expert sitting in the stand after the game with a hanky over your nose despairing for the behavior of the peasants down on the pitch?

You're having a laugh - but then again whats to be expected? I'm not generalising people, but there is a fair amount of people at every AI final that fit the bill you so eloquently described above.

You didn't look too hard for those claims

However, there is a lifespan for everything and McKenna says that the Croke Park surface will have to be replaced at the end of 2010 at cost of around €1m.

It would be possible to prolong its life if the GAA could stop the regular pitch invasions which produce a double-jeopardy situation.

Apart from the damage to the pitch, the invasions are also a serious health hazard.

"Our experts have worked out that each pitch invasion has the same impact on the surface as around eight games. That's how damaging it is. It shortens the lifespan of the pitch which means we have to replace it more often which is costly," said McKenna.

The claims element is of even more concern for the GAA. It is not uncommon for people who injure themselves (or claim to have done so) while dashing onto the pitch to lodge a claim and while cases are vigorously challenged, it has cost the GAA almost €600,000 in settlement and legal costs over the past three years. It is a trend which can't be allowed to continue, according to McKenna, who cites Australia as an example of where it is an offence for people to come onto the pitch after a match.

"We saw it in the recent International Rules games where people were arrested and fined for coming onto the pitch in Perth and Melbourne. It may be part of the GAA tradition to dash onto Croke Park to celebrate a victory but it's not only dangerous, it's also very costly both in terms of insurance claims and damage to the pitch. We certainly haven't given up on coming up with a system to prevent it.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/peter-mckenna-park-ranger-1565663.html

It was all grand while the GAA had the income from rugby and soccer, but because it does not have that income any more, it is too costly. My figure above was incorrect, a pitch invasion is the same as 8 games being played back to back. I've read quite a few different articles about the hard work that goes into the pitch. But then again the ordinary fan wouldn't know that.

So a pitch invasion at the end of the hurling and football finals is 16 games, nearly a season of games there. €1 million that could be well used elsewhere in coaching and development. And I wonder who'll be back on here complaining if the GAA have to raise ticket prices even further to pay for the pitch?? Hmm. What about the insurance costs to the venue? I wonder who'll be asked to pay for the huge increase in costs??

I think they'll need to go down along the line of prosecuting anyone that goes onto the pitch, because putting up a sign saying that the GAA don't accept any liability is not an option. By ignoring the directions of stewards and the Gardai, people are putting themselves in danger - and you'll always have some idiots who think that they'll get on the pitch no matter what that cause the problem. And you even state it yourself, that it needs a crush for stewards to allow people onto the pitch. Thats the attitude that puts people in danger, sure we'll go down and crush around the gates and they'll open them.

Just because there hasn't been a death yet, does not mean there won't be - thats what they were saying before Hillsborough, its grand because no one has died yet, but look what happened. Its a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt, and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

keane2097

Lex Luthor wrote: »

what a ridiculous comment..!!!

Well how long are you willing to wait before you'll concede that it's beginning to look unlikely?

Another 50 years? 100? 1000?

If it has yet to happen I think you have to concede it's extremely unlikely tbh.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Aren't you forgetting something, actually two things??

I presume so.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

You're having a laugh - but then again whats to be expected?

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I'm not generalising people, but there is a fair amount of people at every AI final that fit the bill you so eloquently described above.

You most certainly generalised in several posts on this thread. If you wish to withdraw it then that's fine, but suggesting you didn't do it is patently false.

Nevertheless - to address the thrust of the point - I again wholely reject banning everybody from anything because a small % of people can't behave themselves while doing it.

You can avoid the situation you described by banning the drink as well. I don't agree with that either.

It's simple - don't ban the activities (drinking, celebrating on the pitch) ban the creeps (abusive drunks).

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

You didn't look too hard for those claims

Admittedly. I have a job.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

It was all grand while the GAA had the income from rugby and soccer, but because it does not have that income any more, it is too costly. My figure above was incorrect, a pitch invasion is the same as 8 games being played back to back. I've read quite a few different articles about the hard work that goes into the pitch. But then again the ordinary fan wouldn't know that.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

So a pitch invasion at the end of the hurling and football finals is 16 games, nearly a season of games there. €1 million that could be well used elsewhere in coaching and development.

Where did you get the €1 million figure from? Seems like a lovely round number...

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

And I wonder who'll be back on here complaining if the GAA have to raise ticket prices even further to pay for the pitch?? Hmm. What about the insurance costs to the venue? I wonder who'll be asked to pay for the huge increase in costs??

Your patronising tone here is unneccessary and irritating tbh. Can we leave it out in future??????? Hmm?????

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I think they'll need to go down along the line of prosecuting anyone that goes onto the pitch, because putting up a sign saying that the GAA don't accept any liability is not an option.

Why is that? Are there legalities that invalidate this?

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Just because there hasn't been a death yet, does not mean there won't be - thats what they were saying before Hillsborough, its grand because no one has died yet, but look what happened. Its a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt, and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Hillsborough is an extremely delicate, emotive subject.

You are using it completely out of context in a very dissimilar situation.

I think you should leave it out tbh.

Lex Luthor

keane2097 wrote: »

Well how long are you willing to wait before you'll concede that it's beginning to look unlikely?

Another 50 years? 100? 1000?

If it has yet to happen I think you have to concede it's extremely unlikely tbh.

The only reason to it beginning to look unlikely is because the GAA are putting measures in to prevent them. Not because you seem to think because it has never happened, that it won't. Thats like saying before April this year that a volcano in Iceland has never caused air space around Europe to be closed for days so its highly unlikely that it would ever happen.

You roll the dice, you take the risk...;)


Lets hope you live and never see it happen but to wager odds on someone not being crushed at a pitch invasion is ridiculous. Especially when you consider all the kids that are able to get on there aswell.

keane2097

Lex Luthor wrote: »

The only reason to it beginning to look unlikely is because the GAA are putting measures in to prevent them. Not because you seem to think because it has never happened, that it won't. Thats like saying before April this year that a volcano in Iceland has never caused air space around Europe to be closed for days so its highly unlikely that it would ever happen.

It's like that alright. That doesn't exactly prove your argument though.

Dolores Macnamara was extremely unlikely to win 118 million euro in the lottery.

The fact that she happened to doesn't change the fact that she was almost vanishingly unlikely to.

Someone will eventually die, if you repeat the scenario over and over, doing absolutely everything the mind can possibly conceive of.

You can't ban everything on this basis, so you live with tiny risks in certain circumstances.

I contend that the fact that nobody has ever died this way in Croke Park over a matter of hundreds of iterations suggests that the chances of it ever happening are very small indeed.

Sure, if we repeat the exercise an infinite number of times a non-zero number of people will be injured or killed, but this can be said of every activity it is possible to partake in.

Lex Luthor

keane2097 wrote: »

It's like that alright. That doesn't exactly prove your argument though.

Dolores Macnamara was extremely unlikely to win 118 million euro in the lottery.

The fact that she happened to doesn't change the fact that she was almost vanishingly unlikely to.

Someone will eventually die, if you repeat the scenario over and over, doing absolutely everything the mind can possibly conceive of.

You can't ban everything on this basis, so you live with tiny risks in certain circumstances.

I contend that the fact that nobody has ever died this way in Croke Park over a matter of hundreds of iterations suggests that the chances of it ever happening are very small indeed.

Sure, if we repeat the exercise an infinite number of times a non-zero number of people will be injured or killed, but this can be said of every activity it is possible to partake in.

so if you take the risk out of it by stopping pitch invasions, the chances of somebody being crushed on the pitch now goes to zero.
your thinking there is always the possibility

rebel girl 15

keane2097 wrote: »

Where did you get the €1 million figure from? Seems like a lovely round number...

Your patronising tone here is unneccessary and irritating tbh. Can we leave it out in future??????? Hmm?????

First line of the piece I quoted, if you had read my full post including the quoted part, then you would have seen where I got the figure.

Irritating, oh so sorry :rolleyes: My patronising tone was is reply to your patronising tone in the post above it. The two things you are missing are the camogie All Ireland final and the ladies football AI final, but then again most GAA men miss them, so I forgive you for that.

As regarding the sign about the GAA not accepting liability, do you honestly think that people will take heed of it? Do you think that a simple sign will stop people from trying to claim if they get injured running onto the pitch? It won't, and it'll cost the GAA money to fight those claims. I honestly can't believe your attitude, that just because it hasn't happened it won't happen. Its a typical bloody Irish attitude, sure it won't happen to us. It is not true. I don't want to see a tragedy at Croke Park just because people want to get onto the pitch and will do anything to do so. The more times it happens that there is a crush for people to get out onto the pitch, the more chance there is of something happening. By cutting it out completely, the risk is gone completely

The damage of the surface in Croke Park is ridiculous, I want the best playing surface as possible for the players who have worked for months to get there. Since you are so friendly with intercounty players, how about you ask them about the Croke Park pitch and see what the difference is between five years ago and last year. I know the answer, but I'm wondering if it will be the same as those intercounty players you talk to.

keane2097

Lex Luthor wrote: »

so if you take the risk out of it by stopping pitch invasions, the chances of somebody being crushed on the pitch now goes to zero.
your thinking there is always the possibility

There was a Leitrim player killed paying football a couple of weeks ago.

Do you suggest we take the risk out of that as well? Ban football?

rebel girl 15

keane2097 wrote: »

There was a Leitrim player killed playing football a couple of weeks ago.

Do you suggest we take the risk out of that as well? Ban football?

Thats completely unrelated to the topic of allowing people onto the pitch

Bluetonic

keane2097 wrote: »

There was a Leitrim player killed paying football a couple of weeks ago.

Do you suggest we take the risk out of that as well? Ban football?

Thats an lolbad argument son.

keane2097

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

First line of the piece I quoted, if you had read my full post including the quoted part, then you would have seen where I got the figure.

I see it now, apologies - I scanned back and could only see the 600k figure.

That piece doesn't actually attribute 1m worth of damage to pitch invasions, but I accept that they do cause significant damage to the pitch, probably nowhere near the 1m mark though.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Irritating, oh so sorry :rolleyes: My patronising tone was is reply to your patronising tone in the post above it.

I didn't intend to be patronising although I did take issue with your negative portrayal of supporters entering the pitch after games as drunken louts with more interest in deriding losing players than celebrating their win.

The roll-eyes smiley is awesome by the way - way to have an adult conversation.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The two things you are missing are the camogie All Ireland final and the ladies football AI final, but then again most GAA men miss them, so I forgive you for that.

Considering that Ladies Football and Camogie aren't even GAA sports I should think the forgiveness is unneccessary.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

As regarding the sign about the GAA not accepting liability, do you honestly think that people will take heed of it?

Completely irrelevant.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Do you think that a simple sign will stop people from trying to claim if they get injured running onto the pitch?

No, probably not.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

It won't, and it'll cost the GAA money to fight those claims.

Counter-sue for costs. Simples.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I honestly can't believe your attitude, that just because it hasn't happened it won't happen.

This is the very basis of statistical mathematics, actuarial studies, insurance, stock markets etc.

You can't simply ignore mathematical probabiliies because they don't suit your argument.

All the evidence, i.e. hundreds of iterations on fans running onto the pitch after games, suggests that this is a largely safe practice.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Its a typical bloody Irish attitude, sure it won't happen to us. It is not true.

My attitude has nothing to do with my nationality. You don't even know my nationality.

Your argument is diminished by that statement imo, my attitude is grounded purely in observable statistics and associated probabilities.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I don't want to see a tragedy at Croke Park just because people want to get onto the pitch and will do anything to do so. The more times it happens that there is a crush for people to get out onto the pitch, the more chance there is of something happening. By cutting it out completely, the risk is gone completely

Again, this is a terrible argument because it can be applied to anything.

Let's ban smoking, drinking, driving cars, playing contact sports, eating fast food, elective surgery etc etc etc.

You can't sanitize the world.

In every facet of life there is some, non-zero, chance that you might not live to see tomorrow. That's just living, and it's ridiculous to suggest it as a reason for banning anything.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

The damage of the surface in Croke Park is ridiculous, I want the best playing surface as possible for the players who have worked for months to get there.

I agree with you.

If you're talking about the Ladies games a solution could be to put them on earlier or later in the year.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Since you are so friendly with intercounty players, how about you ask them about the Croke Park pitch and see what the difference is between five years ago and last year. I know the answer, but I'm wondering if it will be the same as those intercounty players you talk to.

I didn't say I was friendly with anyone, and your sarcasm is just lame. I happen to know a handful of players and happen to have had this discussion with one or two of them.

I thought it might be relevant so I posted it. Mea culpa!

keane2097

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Thats completely unrelated to the topic of allowing people onto the pitch

Bluetonic wrote: »

Thats an lolbad argument son.

It's actually exactly the same as the argument you two make for banning pitch invasions.

To clarify:

Pitch invasion Football carries a small, but non-zero risk of serious injury or death while participating. This is undesirable. The solution is to ban people from partaking in pitch invasions playing football.

An Citeog

While you're all free to argue your respective points, there are one or two posts on the border of what's acceptable.

Personal insults and cheap point-scoring add nothing to this thread or the forum in general, so tone it down and we wont have any problems.

rebel girl 15

keane2097 wrote: »

I see it now, apologies - I scanned back and could only see the 600k figure.

That piece doesn't actually attribute 1m worth of damage to pitch invasions, but I accept that they do cause significant damage to the pitch, probably nowhere near the 1m mark though. 8 games worth of damage per invasion is huge damage imo, it costs 1m to replace the entire pitch

I didn't intend to be patronising although I did take issue with your negative portrayal of supporters entering the pitch after games as drunken louts with more interest in deriding losing players than celebrating their win.

The roll-eyes smiley is awesome by the way - way to have an adult conversation. Just :rolleyes:

Considering that Ladies Football and Camogie aren't even GAA sports I should think the forgiveness is unneccessary. The finals are played in Croke Park, and each association have to pay to hire the stadium for the day. The ladies games come under a general gaelic sports umbrella but not the GAA.

Completely irrelevant. No its not, its a serious question - whats the point of putting the sign up and people not taking heed of it? Sure whats the point in putting it up so?


Counter-sue for costs. Simples. It'll cost money defend the claim, and if they lose what happens?


This is the very basis of statistical mathematics, actuarial studies, insurance, stock markets etc.

You can't simply ignore mathematical probabiliies because they don't suit your argument. Mathematical probabilities, interesting you mentioned insurance, the more times fans run in, the higher the chance is that someone will get hurt badly, the more likely the chance that anyone will get hurt, more chance of them sueing the GAA. What are the insurance going to see? Yerra sure it hasn't happened before or the chance of something happening

All the evidence, i.e. hundreds of iterations on fans running onto the pitch after games, suggests that this is a largely safe practice. No it doesn't, it means we've gotten away with it so far, there have been quite a number of injuries already

My attitude has nothing to do with my nationality. You don't even know my nationality. Did I mention your nationality? Read back through my post. I said it was a typical Irish attitude, where did I say you are Irish? I don't care what nationality you are! I didn't say that your attitude is.., I said that this sure it won't happen to me attitude is typically Irish.

Your argument is diminished by that statement imo, my attitude is grounded purely in observable statistics and associated probabilities. Explain, because its not. Your argument states that because we've done it, and nothing has happened, then if we keep doing it nothing will happen. What is the probability of that? Every time is a risk, and thats what the insurance companies look at

Let's ban smoking, drinking, driving cars, playing contact sports, eating fast food, elective surgery etc etc etc.

You can't sanitize the world. Where did I say I wanted to do that?

In every facet of life there is some, non-zero, chance that you might not live to see tomorrow. That's just living, and it's ridiculous to suggest it as a reason for banning anything. this is one thing that can be done to make the place safer.


If you're talking about the Ladies games a solution could be to put them on earlier or later in the year. Not a f**king chance in hell will that happen or can happen. They won't be able to fit them into the mens schedule of matches in Croke Park, because they won't be played anywhere else!

I didn't say I was friendly with anyone, and your sarcasm is just lame. I happen to know a handful of players and happen to have had this discussion with one or two of them. that was a serious question, I want to know from their perspective, it wasn't meant as sarcasm, it was a genuine question, you'd want to check that auld sarcasm detector

I'm just too lazy to multi quote

rebel girl 15

keane2097 wrote: »

It's actually exactly the same as the argument you two make for banning pitch invasions.

To clarify:

Pitch invasion Football carries a small, but non-zero risk of serious injury or death while participating. This is undesirable. The solution is to ban people from partaking in pitch invasions playing football.

Do you actually know what happened to that player? Risk of injury from pitch invasion and the risk of injury from playing football are miles apart

Bluetonic

keane2097 wrote: »

Pitch invasion Football carries a small, but non-zero risk of serious injury or death while participating. This is undesirable. The solution is to ban people from partaking in pitch invasions playing football.

It's hard to have a discussion when you have a mindset like your displaying to be honest.

keane2097

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Do you actually know what happened to that player? Risk of injury from pitch invasion and the risk of injury from playing football are miles apart

Bluetonic wrote: »

It's hard to have a discussion when you have a mindset like your displaying to be honest.

Explain the difference in the reasoning of the two arguments please.

I contend that you can't because there is absolutely no difference in the logic.

Now I will say that I should not have used that particular example because it's a little bit insensitive. I hope I haven't caused anyone upset with it.

I'll restate the argument just so we can get off the tragic death of the player.

Pitch invasion Soccer Smoking Air Travel carries a small, but non-zero risk of serious injury or death while participating. This is undesirable. The solution is to ban people from partaking in pitch invasions playing Soccer Smoking travelling in airplanes.

rebel girl 15

Bluetonic wrote: »

It's hard to have a discussion when you have a mindset like your displaying to be honest.

Head and brick wall come to mind

keane2097 wrote: »

Explain the difference in the reasoning of the two arguments please.

I contend that you can't because there is absolutely no difference in the logic.

Now I will say that I should not have used that particular example because it's a little bit insensitive. I hope I haven't caused anyone upset with it.

I'll restate the argument just so we can get off the tragic death of the player.

Pitch invasion Soccer Smoking Air Travel carries a small, but non-zero risk of serious injury or death while participating. This is undesirable. The solution is to ban people from partaking in pitch invasions playing Soccer Smoking travelling in airplanes.

Your argument is becoming more and more irrelevant, what does smoking have to do with a pitch invasion?

Pitch invasion carries a much bigger risk of serious injury or death than air travel. Pitch invasion is governed by emotion with rational thinking sometimes going out the window - and no, I'm not harping on about those drunks in the audience again, but the raw emotion of seeing your county victorious. Since I've heard you are from Kerry (open to correction) so you know what I'm talking about.

Soccer - less risk than pitch invasion, no crushing anyway with it being 11 v 11. Personal insurance - no problem with the risk involved in it

Smoking - dangerous to do, thats why each box carries two big health warnings, but people do it anyway. Personal insurance premium is increased hugely because of it

Flying - apparently you have more chance of being kicked by a donkey than dying in a plane crash, don't know how true that is. But all risk is minimised by having top standard aircraft. Insurance costs come down with excellent aircraft

Pitch invasion is not as small a risk as you have made it out to be - they are completely different contexts and therefore cannot be compared as easily as you think they can. The insurance costs for Croke Park will keep going up if it keeps happening because it is a matter of time before something happens. And that is something that you can relate to all your contexts above.

Spiritoftheseventies

irishrebel83 wrote: »

Hi folks..im a big Gaa fan. But i cannot believe what our own officials are doing to the game. I am finding it more and more frustrating and soul destroying seeing how the Gaa (Football) are introducing all these rules and regulations and destroying the essence of the game.
1.The hand pass...its making a mockery of the game,normal legal hand passes being blown up, inconsistency of refs, and the stop start nature of play

2.the water bottle rule! telling amateur players that they have to run to the sideline to drink water and water carriers no longer allowed to run on the pitch!

3. Not letting supporters onto the croke park pitch for the final this year (hope who ever wins, make a point of running on)

These are amateur playing, giving up their lives for the game and this the thanks they get..while the officials who are implementing these rules are probably on a nice little earner from croke park. I really hope that this gets sorted out quickly or they will loose alot of the grass roots supporters and players who are getting more and more agitated by these silly interferences to the game we love.

Isnt the third rule more down to health and safety and pitch maintainence. Not sure exactly if pitch incursions comes under GAA rules as such.

keane2097

8 games worth of damage per invasion is huge damage imo, it costs 1m to replace the entire pitch

According to the Croke park website there are approximately 90 games a year played there.

It's up for discussion as to how big an impact these pitch invasions really have, and you can be sure that the GAA will err on the side of exaggeration since it suit their "Keep people off the pitch" line.

There is no question that it damages the pitch somewhat, I'd just question how much it does so.

I certainly baulk at having that 1m figure thrown around this discussion because it tends to give the impression that this is the amount that pitch invasions cost the GAA every year in damage to the playing surface.

This is wildly inaccurate.

The finals are played in Croke Park, and each association have to pay to hire the stadium for the day. The ladies games come under a general gaelic sports umbrella but not the GAA.

I know. I just pointed that out since you laid into me for "forgetting" those two games and made a further slur on "GAA men" in general for forgetting them as a generality as well.

No its not, its a serious question - whats the point of putting the sign up and people not taking heed of it? Sure whats the point in putting it up so? It'll cost money defend the claim, and if they lose what happens?

Whether or not people read any such disclaimer is completely irrelevant provided it is plain for people to see in the ground, on their tickets etc.

The purpose of such a disclaimer is to absolve the GAA from financial liability from claims arising from patrons entering the playing surface.

To the best of my knowledge, the GAA can't be successfully sued by people entering the pitch in contravention of orders not to do so when such a disclaimer is part of the "contract" involved when entering the ground.

If somebody with a legal background wants to contradict me on this please do because I'll admit to having no legal background.

Mathematical probabilities, interesting you mentioned insurance, the more times fans run in, the higher the chance is that someone will get hurt badly, the more likely the chance that anyone will get hurt, more chance of them sueing the GAA. What are the insurance going to see? Yerra sure it hasn't happened before or the chance of something happening

I do, however, have a background in mathematics, statistics and probabilities.

I can assure you that I am talking about this from a position of relative expertise so please don't patronise me by throwing in your "yerra's" around the place and trying to pass it off like I'm speaking with some redneck anecdotal shíte.

You are correct in your statement that "the more times fans run in, the higher the chance is that someone will get hurt badly".

This is not a condemnation of people running onto the pitch in Croke Park specifically, however, as it applies to every possible human activity as I've previously stated.

Moreover, we have very strong evidence to suggest the risk associated with this activity is minimal - i.e. hundreds of iterations of the activity without significant injury to anyone partaking in it.

This cannot be dismissed simply because it is inconvenient to your argument.

There is non-zero possibilty that someone will die entering the pitch at Croke Park this year, however, if that were to happen as an isolated incident without another death for the same amount of time as we've gone without one up to now (for simplicity let's call it 100 years) then we will have had one death from this activity in 400 iterations (two instances for the two AIFs each year for 200 years).

Considering the number of people involved in each instance you are talking about a vanishingly small risk (from a quick calculation something in the region of 0.000000125:1 against - the calculation, whilst undoubtedly somewhat flawed nevertheless gives an indication of the type of risk we are dealing with).

It is absurd to suggest banning an activity with this tiny a risk factor on safety grounds in my opinion, and I would suggest in the opinion of anyone with even a passing interest in probability and statistics.

No it doesn't, it means we've gotten away with it so far, there have been quite a number of injuries already

As above.

Do you have a link to any articles talking about the injuries suffered by people at Croke Park?

Explain, because its not. Your argument states that because we've done it, and nothing has happened, then if we keep doing it nothing will happen. What is the probability of that? Every time is a risk, and thats what the insurance companies look at

I refuse to get into a discussion of how insurance companies operate tbh.

You're wrong though.

Where did I say I wanted to do that?

It's a question of degree though, i.e. if you decide to ban this on safety grounds how can you justify not banning demonstrably castly more dangerous activities?

Who decides what's too dangerous to do and what's ok?

You can't make these type of decisions for people.

this is one thing that can be done to make the place safer.

Again, it's a question of whether or not it's justifiable. I don't think it is.

Not a f**king chance in hell will that happen or can happen. They won't be able to fit them into the mens schedule of matches in Croke Park, because they won't be played anywhere else!

You know better about this than I do. I agree it would be a shame if the pitch was sub-par on these two days.

that was a serious question, I want to know from their perspective, it wasn't meant as sarcasm, it was a genuine question, you'd want to check that auld sarcasm detector

Meh - I'm unlikely to be talking to anyone in the near future besides my cousin, who is involved with the senior panel for the first time this year.

keane2097

I've somewhat dealt with the below stuff in my last post.

The statement that Air Travel is safer than pitch invasions is so utterly and unimaginably retarded that I will withdraw from the thread from now, since I don't think it will be possible to reason with you.

I hope that was a typo tbh.

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Head and brick wall come to mind

Your argument is becoming more and more irrelevant, what does smoking have to do with a pitch invasion?

Pitch invasion carries a much bigger risk of serious injury or death than air travel. Pitch invasion is governed by emotion with rational thinking sometimes going out the window - and no, I'm not harping on about those drunks in the audience again, but the raw emotion of seeing your county victorious. Since I've heard you are from Kerry (open to correction) so you know what I'm talking about.

Soccer - less risk than pitch invasion, no crushing anyway with it being 11 v 11. Personal insurance - no problem with the risk involved in it

Smoking - dangerous to do, thats why each box carries two big health warnings, but people do it anyway. Personal insurance premium is increased hugely because of it

Flying - apparently you have more chance of being kicked by a donkey than dying in a plane crash, don't know how true that is. But all risk is minimised by having top standard aircraft. Insurance costs come down with excellent aircraft

Pitch invasion is not as small a risk as you have made it out to be - they are completely different contexts and therefore cannot be compared as easily as you think they can. The insurance costs for Croke Park will keep going up if it keeps happening because it is a matter of time before something happens. And that is something that you can relate to all your contexts above.

blue4ever

get over it

1.The hand pass...its making a mockery of the game,normal legal hand passes being blown up, inconsistency of refs, and the stop start nature of play

It's a new rule - learn it and put them into practice - if you KNOW the old pass is illegal - why keep doing it and then whine.

2.the water bottle rule! telling amateur players that they have to run to the sideline to drink water and water carriers no longer allowed to run on the pitch!

it was so abused - look at the Dubs V Kerry game last year when the Kerry 'water boys' were like fcuking carrier pigeons with new instructions

3. Not letting supporters onto the croke park pitch for the final this year (hope who ever wins, make a point of running on)

You stump for the repairs for a pitch worth 1.5 million after 20,000 people came across it.

really, cop on

megadodge

Firstly let me preface any point I make by saying I am bloody furious reading the panic-inducing, fear-ridden, lie-strewn claptrap being put forward here by Rebel Girl 15. I don't expect her to use facts to counteract my argument as she hasn't bothered to use them so far. So...

1. Do you (Rebel Girl 15) actually know what caused the 90+ deaths in that awful tragedy in Hillsborough? I am certain you don't because if you did you wouldn't have used it as an example!

I'll tell you.

A huge number of people had gathered OUTSIDE the stadium as the match was starting and eventually broke through/were let in. They proceeded to enter a stand which was already full to capacity. They kept piling in, not realising there was no more room. Those at the front of the stand were subsequently crushed against the barriers BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT GET ONTO THE PITCH. IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO ESCAPE ONTO THE PITCH THEY WOULD NOT HAVE DIED.

Obviously this completely counteracts the point you are trying to make.

2. Could you actually quote (names, amounts awarded, match attended) ANY of these mysterious claims that are costing the GAA so much every year? Nobody else has ever been able to in this oft-repeated argument. Do you really think the media would not report such a story?

3. Your lunatic quote of

Pitch invasion carries a much bigger risk of serious injury or death than air travel

is just shocking, especially in light of the tragedy in India in the last few days.

How many people killed there ?
As opposed to the ZERO people killed in GAA pitch invasions for over 100 years.
The same 100 years in which 1000's of people have died in plane tragedies.

4. Can you explain to me how people in steep, crowded concrete embankments with narrow walkways are SAFER than on a big, wide, flat field of grass?

5. Bearing in mind that virtually everyone invading a very solid pitch (I've been on it) is wearing flat soled shoes with no spikes, cogs or blades, how are they really going to damage the pitch anymore than the actual players who are actually running, starting, stopping, twisting and turning while wearing football boots?

6. You quoted Peter McKenna earlier. Now I am being as nice as possible here when I say due to first hand experience I have had with this man in the whole escapade where he tried to single-handedly shut down the Croke Park Handball complex - if I was inside and he told me the sun was splitting the stones outside, I would immediately reach for my raincoat !! I hope you get the jist.

If there has been a rise in insurance costs for Croke Park it's just in keeping with the rise in insurance for everything. Those greedy, corrupt, crimminals that run insurance companies (I always referred to themselves and bankers as being legalised crimminals and have been proven correct in 50% of the case so far) will always come up with new ways of justifying premium increases and I suspect that's where the reference to pitch invasions as 'dangerous' has come from.

I don't expect you to answer any of the above questions with FACTS, but it would be nice if you tried.

rebel girl 15

I went having a look for a few incidents related to pitch invasions and found this article
http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/invasions001/

Some man had to be extracted from the crowd as he suffered from asphyxiation and needed a defibrillator to bring him around. Thats as close as it can get to death.

Keane2097, no matter the tiny risk of it, it won't happen that the pitch invasions will be allowed this year. The incident from last year above could become worse. He was lucky someone got to him and was able to treat him, or else it could have been a death. And the GAA does not want it to happen

However, if the worst-case scenario arises and someone gets seriously hurt or even loses their life, then Mr. Alan Milton, head of communications for the GAA, has confirmed that the situation will most likely be taken out of the GAA's hands by Health and Safety authorities.

They could enact extreme measures like imposing legislation, similar to that used in the AFL, where pitch invaders are hit with a $5000 fine and a ten year ban. No-one wants the situation to devolve to that.

Mr Milton was keen to stress that the GAA realise that an overnight solution is not possible and their plans could take some time before reaching fruition, but is happy that the first steps have been taken: “It is difficult to change the habit of a life-time but what we are doing is getting the process started.”

The GAA's Games Presentation Committee Chairman Jarlath Burns has previously expressed concerns that it may take tragedy before people react to the dangers: “We have been told we will never change this 'tradition'. But we will. After someone gets crushed to death, or a player sustains a broken jaw, or someone falls from the Hogan Upper Deck, we'll change it.”

Health and Safety authorities could enforce permanent fencing around the edge of the pitch, and what would happen to the lowest rows of seats? Their view of the game is impeded. Even if the GAA brought in something like allowing the fans on after five or ten minutes like you suggested, they wouldn't be able to enact it if it is in response to a death on the pitch. Thats the way it should go, but I don't see it happening. Its €20,000 euro a pop to repair the pitch per invasion according to that report

Bluetonic

megadodge wrote: »

5. Bearing in mind that virtually everyone invading a very solid pitch (I've been on it) is wearing flat soled shoes with no spikes, cogs or blades, how are they really going to damage the pitch anymore than the actual players who are actually running, starting, stopping, twisting and turning while wearing football boots?

20,000+ people in slippers are going to do significantly more damage than 33 people in football boots.

I wouldn't have thought it's that hard to understand why.

Can you really not see how 600+ times the amount of people than have been playing on the pitch can do more damage? Especially when they are concentrated on the one spot for a significant period.

keane2097

Bluetonic wrote: »

20,000+ people in slippers are going to do significantly more damage than 33 people in football boots.

I wouldn't have thought it's that hard to understand why.

Can you really not see how 600+ times the amount of people than have been playing on the pitch can do more damage? Especially when they are concentrated on the one spot for a significant period.

I would agree that it probably does some damage.

However, I don't thinkit's probably as bad as reported.

Also, this line from the article rebel_girl_15 linked to made me lol after the 1 million euro stuff being bandied about earlier:

The actual damage to the pitch and the cost to repair it is estimated at €20,000 every time it is invaded.

EDIT:

I would have thought there were far more important points than the one about damage to the pitch in megadodge's post. I'm surprised you took that point in isolation without addressing any of the rest.

Bluetonic

keane2097 wrote: »

The statement that Air Travel is safer than pitch invasions is so utterly and unimaginably retarded that I will withdraw from the thread from now, since I don't think it will be possible to reason with you.

I think thats uncalled for to be honest. There are was to disagree with someone without being so rude.

Anyhow back on topic, do you (keane2097) have a bone to pick with the GAA over more than these new rules? You seem to have a bit of a negative view of the them.

I also think this thread could be a good discussion if everyone took a deep breath (myself included).

Bluetonic

keane2097 wrote: »

I would have thought there were far more important points than the one about damage to the pitch in megadodge's post. I'm surprised you took that point in isolation without addressing any of the rest.

I don't have strong feelings on any of the other points and I'm not going to make the mistake of shooting off the hip about them.

keane2097

Bluetonic wrote: »

I think thats uncalled for to be honest. There are was to disagree with someone without being so rude.

I stand by that statement 100% tbh.

My mind boggles that anyone could make such an absurd assertion.

Bluetonic wrote: »

Anyhow back on topic, do you (keane2097) have a bone to pick with the GAA over more than these new rules? You seem to have a bit of a negative view of the them.

Can you quote the posts that give you the impression that I have a negative view of the GAA?

Bluetonic

keane2097 wrote: »

I stand by that statement 100% tbh.

My mind boggles that anyone could make such an absurd assertion.

It was uncalled for in that language.

keane2097 wrote: »

Can you quote the posts that give you the impression that I have a negative view of the GAA?

No I can't. It's a general feeling from reading your posts and the impression that you do not believe what they say about the damage to their pitch. This indicates you have a negative view of what they say, therefore to me a negative view of the association.

rebel girl 15

megadodge wrote: »

1. Do you actually know what caused the 90+ deaths in that awful tragedy in Hillsborough? I am certain you don't because if you did you wouldn't have used it as an example!

I'll tell you.

A huge number of people had gathered OUTSIDE the stadium as the match was starting and eventually broke through/were let in. They proceeded to enter a stand which was already full to capacity. They kept piling in, not realising there was no more room. Those at the front of the stand were subsequently crushed against the barriers BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT GET ONTO THE PITCH. IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO ESCAPE ONTO THE PITCH THEY WOULD NOT HAVE DIED.

Obviously this completely counteracts the point you are trying to make. I did know but thanks for the reminder. Don't see how it counteracts my point, a crush in the front of the stand killed the people, who were not left out onto the pitch. If they were left out, then there would not have been those deaths. But the actual incident is not the argument. My point about it is that it took deaths for things to change and following the Taylor (I think) report, things changed - I don't want a death to be the cause of change in the leaving on of people onto the pitch. That was the point I was trying (and obviously failed) to get across

2. Could you actually quote (names, amounts awarded, match attended) ANY of these mysterious claims that are costing the GAA so much every year? Nobody else has ever been able to in this oft-repeated argument. Do you really think the media would not report such a story?
It was stated that it costs €600,000 for the GAA to settle claims, where do you expect me to get that information from? I don't have access to court documents, maybe if you email Croke Park they might be able to help you with that since you seem to want that information. It was reported about the €600,000 in claims, pretty sure I linked to a story somewhere

3. Your lunatic quote of
is just shocking, especially in light of the tragedy in India in the last few days.

How many people killed there ?
As opposed to the ZERO people killed in GAA pitch invasions for over 100 years.
The same 100 years in which 1000's of people have died in plane tragedies. Ouch, I'm a retarded lunatic now. Okay, that comment was probably made a little in red mist more than anything else so I take it back. But a couple of questions, how many pitch invasions - roughly 200. How many planes fly each day? I'd imagine it is in the hundreds. Multiply that by 52 weeks, by 100 years. I've read that you chance of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 10.5 million, thats a fact that has been calculated out.

4. Can you explain to me how people in steep, crowded concrete embankments with narrow walkways are SAFER than on a big, wide, flat field of grass? Why are they in the walkways?? Shouldn't they be sitting in their seats watching the presentation on the pitch? Of course they are not safer in the walkways but they shouldn't be there.

5. Bearing in mind that virtually everyone invading a very solid pitch (I've been on it) is wearing flat soled shoes with no spikes, cogs or blades, how are they really going to damage the pitch anymore than the actual players who are actually running, starting, stopping, twisting and turning while wearing football boots? You have no knowledge of the damage that standing in one place for 20 minutes can do, multiply that by 20,000 pairs of feet. Do you see the players standing in one position for that long? studs actually help aerate the soil, flat shoes like the ones above push right down onto the grass. The damage of 30 players running around a field compared to 20,000 standing on it. Simple experiment that will illustrate my point, and I'm serious - do you have a patch of grass outside your house or wherever you are now - go out and walk on it, and see how the grass bounces back, now try standing there for ten minutes and see that the grass does not bounce back anyway as fast as it did. edit - just to say I've been on the pitch there as well

6. You quoted Peter McKenna earlier. Now I am being as nice as possible here when I say due to first hand experience I have had with this man in the whole escapade where he tried to single-handedly shut down the Croke Park Handball complex - if I was inside and he told me the sun was splitting the stones outside, I would immediately reach for my raincoat !! I hope you get the jist. You calling him a liar basically??

If there has been a rise in insurance costs for Croke Park it's just in keeping with the rise in insurance for everything. Those greedy, corrupt, crimminals that run insurance companies (I always referred to themselves and bankers as being legalised crimminals and have been proven correct in 50% of the case so far) will always come up with new ways of justifying premium increases and I suspect that's where the reference to pitch invasions as 'dangerous' has come from. Are you saying that pitch invasions are not dangerous?? Fair enough there is a rise in insurance costs in general, but if more and more claims are being made, then the insurance premium will sky rocket, and the GAA don't have the €13.5 million income from soccer and rugby any more

Too lazy to multi quote again

Pride Fighter

Its good to see some good debate on the various rules and the topic of pitch invasions.

However, could you's please do this in a calmer manner and use less colourful language.

Thanks:)

Lex Luthor

keane2097 wrote: »

There was a Leitrim player killed paying football a couple of weeks ago.

Do you suggest we take the risk out of that as well? Ban football?

Whats that got to do with banning pitch invasions?:rolleyes:

If the GAA want to ban pitch invasions because they feel there is a health risk to players or the general public, then they have every right to enforce it. How can it spoil the game if they do?

rebel girl 15

Lex Luthor wrote: »

Whats that got to do with banning pitch invasions?:rolleyes:

If the GAA want to ban pitch invasions because they feel there is a health risk to players or the general public, then they have every right to enforce it. How can it spoil the game if they do?

And if there is a death, the whole matter will be taken out of the GAA's hands, and into the Health and Safety Authority