Suspensions

Deise Tom

Have any of the hurlers that were involved in dangerous incidents last weekend been suspended. I see Tomás Ó Sé has been. Should we not have the same rules for all. If you engange in dangerous play, and are suspended on TV pictures, surley the same should apply to all highlighted cases.

castie

How do you know they were highlighted? the CCCC may just have decided they werent that bad or in most cases the ref saw the incident and decided on action himself.

toiletduck

I think so. And I can definitely see why Kerry fans are feeling like there's a 'bias' against them after other footballing incidents over the weekend were let go.

keane2097

toiletduck wrote: »

I think so. And I can definitely see why Kerry fans are feeling like there's a 'bias' against them after other footballing incidents over the weekend were let go.

Look the thing is, there's no doubt that Tomás O'Sé and Galvin deserved their bans. I have yet to see (despite many various claims to the contrary) any Kerry people condoning either of their actions, or suggesting that they didn't deserve to be punished.

It is extremely galling however to see incidents like Tommy Walsh deliberately breaking his hurley off an opposition players body, and there being nothing about it.

The same for the Derek Kavenagh incident in the Munster Final.

Both of those incidents were at least as bad as the Galvin and O'Sé incidents, but it *looks like* the additional disciplinary measures are only being applied to one solitary county at the moment.

Tbh, I don't think there's any "conspiracy" or that anyone in high places in the GAA is out to get Kerry. I think the powers that be were just naiive in how they handled the Galvin incident in light of the Sunday Game coverage, and that was the catalyst for all the furore.

The O'Sé suspension along with the lack of action on some other high profile incidents has just added fuel to the fire.

dcr22B

What's even more galling is that fact that Galvin and O'Sé deserved their bans in the light of what they did, cast your minds back to 2008 when Collie Moran was trialled by TV for an inocuous challenge on Derek Heavin (I think) and only for him taking it to DRA, he would've missed that year's Leinster final.

The only solution is a stand alone citing commission!

toiletduck

Keane2097, I agree entirely. I didn't mean to imply that there is a conspiracy, was merely using the language of the article in the indo today.

While O'Sé can't be complaining (and isn't), I can definitely understand why he and others would feel a bit miffed in light of other instance like those you pointed out.

Deise Tom

toiletduck wrote: »

I think so. And I can definitely see why Kerry fans are feeling like there's a 'bias' against them after other footballing incidents over the weekend were let go.

LOL: I wonder what counties do those the sit on the committee that suspends players on what they see on the TV come from, and do they see it as a way of their county winning an All-Ireland if as many Kerry players as possible are suspended during the year. :D:D

Deise Tom

castie wrote: »

How do you know they were highlighted? the CCCC may just have decided they werent that bad or in most cases the ref saw the incident and decided on action himself.

They were highlighted, wasnt it shown over and over again on the TV and discussed on the radio. After this happened, those on the committee would have been seen to be without balls if they did not act and would be torn to pieces in the mainly Dublin media.

dcr22B

Deise Tom wrote: »

in the mainly Dublin media.

Mostly journalists from outside Dublin though.

Get that fact straight first Tom

castie

keane2097 wrote: »

Look the thing is, there's no doubt that Tomás O'Sé and Galvin deserved their bans. I have yet to see (despite many various claims to the contrary) any Kerry people condoning either of their actions, or suggesting that they didn't deserve to be punished.

It is extremely galling however to see incidents like Tommy Walsh deliberately breaking his hurley off an opposition players body, and there being nothing about it.

The same for the Derek Kavenagh incident in the Munster Final.

Both of those incidents were at least as bad as the Galvin and O'Sé incidents, but it *looks like* the additional disciplinary measures are only being applied to one solitary county at the moment.

Tbh, I don't think there's any "conspiracy" or that anyone in high places in the GAA is out to get Kerry. I think the powers that be were just naiive in how they handled the Galvin incident in light of the Sunday Game coverage, and that was the catalyst for all the furore.

The O'Sé suspension along with the lack of action on some other high profile incidents has just added fuel to the fire.

Look theres one thing people keep ignoring.
If the ref takes action in the game thats it!
Theres no lets have another look at this.

Galvin and O Se were not punished during the game.
So they got done afterwards.
Kavangh got booked.
Walsh got a ticking I think for it.
So nothing can come afterwards

The only way Kerry have been unlucky (lucky in my mind) is that the refs didnt see the incidents and in that case Galvin and O Se should have walked there and then in the games meaning Kerry would of been with 14 men.

castie

Deise Tom wrote: »

They were highlighted, wasnt it shown over and over again on the TV and discussed on the radio. After this happened, those on the committee would have been seen to be without balls if they did not act and would be torn to pieces in the mainly Dublin media.

So you really dont know if they were even hightlighted by the committee

dcr22B

Castie, you're wrong there in that once the ref deals with it, that's the end of the story.

Collie Moran was booked for the challenge in that Westmeath match back in 2008 but the referee Padraig Hughes from Armagh (a relatively inexperienced ref at the time in intercounty circles and still not flavour of the month with the Dubs due to his piss poor performance in our match against Meath last month) was redirected by the CCCC to look again at said incident and upgraded Moran to a red card.

castie

dcr22B wrote: »

Castie, you're wrong there in that once the ref deals with it, that's the end of the story.

Collie Moran was booked for the challenge in that Westmeath match back in 2008 but the referee Padraig Hughes from Armagh (a relatively inexperienced ref at the time in intercounty circles and still not flavour of the month with the Dubs due to his piss poor performance in our match against Meath last month) was redirected by the CCCC to look again at said incident and upgraded Moran to a red card.

I still think by GAA rules that the original ref must agree to it no?

A referee changing his mind is quite rare too.

keane2097

castie wrote: »

Look theres one thing people keep ignoring.
If the ref takes action in the game thats it!
Theres no lets have another look at this.

Galvin and O Se were not punished during the game.
So they got done afterwards.
Kavangh got booked.
Walsh got a ticking I think for it.
So nothing can come afterwards

I'm completely disinterested in what the beurocratic bullshít reason is for why this is the way things are.

The fact is, the variance in the punishments handed out for four incidents that are all around the same level of "bad" is wildly unjust.

We can hide behind the structures of an extremely flawed rule book if we want, but that won't change the injustice a whit.

antoobrien

castie wrote: »

I still think by GAA rules that the original ref must agree to it no?

A referee changing his mind is quite rare too.

There have been at least one case from each in hurling this year.
Dickie Murphy was asked to review a decision in a league match, he wouldn't (he's not on the referees panel now, go figure).
In the MHC Cork v Tipp, the ref (Barry Kelly I think) was asked to review a booking, which on hindsight he upgraded to red (I think it was O'Meara caught someone with an elbow).

My experience is that most refs will change their minds because their afraid of not getting big (or in Dickies case any) matches.

Deise Tom

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm completely disinterested in what the beurocratic bullshít reason is for why this is the way things are.

The fact is, the variance in the punishments handed out for four incidents that are all around the same level of "bad" is wildly unjust.

We can hide behind the structures of an extremely flawed rule book if we want, but that won't change the injustice a whit.

I would say that the incidents in the hurling games were far more serious than the Tomás Ó Sé one. That is not saying that what Ó Sé did is ok. Far from it.

Dragging a player by a helmet or trying to pull it off another players head, could do lots of damage to a persons neck or head. You will get over a broken hand, leg, jaw, tooth etc, while they could be serious injuries, compared to a possible broken neck, they are minor.

sam34

and what about the cavan player who actually pushed a ref after being sent off two weeks ago??

paul galvin hit a notebook and called the linesman a boll**ks and he got 6 months for that (admittedly reduced after appeal), but there has been no mention of any suspension for the cavan player

consistency my hole

Browney7

This is actually getting ridiculous.

How O'Hara isn't been done for what he did I'll never know. I actually have a bit of sympathy for Kerry now. Jokeshop to be honest

Deise Tom

Browney7 wrote: »

This is actually getting ridiculous.

How O'Hara isn't been done for what he did I'll never know. I actually have a bit of sympathy for Kerry now. Jokeshop to be honest

Goes to show that those that thing the committee have something against Kerry are right.

rebel girl 15

dcr22B wrote: »

What's even more galling is that fact that Galvin and O'Sé deserved their bans in the light of what they did, cast your minds back to 2008 when Collie Moran was trialled by TV for an inocuous challenge on Derek Heavin (I think) and only for him taking it to DRA, he would've missed that year's Leinster final.

The only solution is a stand alone citing commission!

Any member of the GAA can notify the CCCC about incidents at a game that they think will not be contained in the referees report

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

How O'Hara isn't been done for what he did I'll never know. I actually have a bit of sympathy for Kerry now. Jokeshop to be honest

What O'Hara did was disgusting he deserves at least the summer off, Its probably even worse than O'Shea.

How its being ignored is beyond me.

Limerick_Lass

This years championship will go down in history for the inconsistency of decisions regarding incidents like this!

Gr8Shark

What really annoys me is the GAA are so quick to act with footage when it relates to tackles, fouls etc.. but when it comes to disputed scores all of a sudden the same cameras are a no go. IMO if the ref, linesmen, umpires and 4th official have not seen an incident or have seen it and believe action does not need to be taken then that should be the end of it. I mean if the ref was assisted right you should have 7 other sets of eyes watching out for such incidents. Quick shout in the earpiece from umpire( All 8 should be rigged up) to ref, tell him what he has seen and let the ref take action

castie

Gr8Shark wrote: »

What really annoys me is the GAA are so quick to act with footage when it relates to tackles, fouls etc.. but when it comes to disputed scores all of a sudden the same cameras are a no go. IMO if the ref, linesmen, umpires and 4th official have not seen an incident or have seen it and believe action does not need to be taken then that should be the end of it. I mean if the ref was assisted right you should have 7 other sets of eyes watching out for such incidents. Quick shout in the earpiece from umpire( All 8 should be rigged up) to ref, tell him what he has seen and let the ref take action

I do agree its a bit old fashioned for the ref to have to run over and chat to them. Really should be rigged with mics and get with the times.

Dermotsull13

castie wrote: »

Look theres one thing people keep ignoring.
If the ref takes action in the game thats it!
Theres no lets have another look at this.

Galvin and O Se were not punished during the game.
So they got done afterwards.
Kavangh got booked.
Walsh got a ticking I think for it.
So nothing can come afterwards

The only way Kerry have been unlucky (lucky in my mind) is that the refs didnt see the incidents and in that case Galvin and O Se should have walked there and then in the games meaning Kerry would of been with 14 men.

Brian O Meara was given a yellow card against Cork in the Hurling quarter against Cork this year. It was later upgraded to a red card so this notion that if it is dealt with on the pitch then it cant be looked at again is completely wrong.This needs to be pointed out because some posters have it in their heads that if the ref books or ticks a player on the pitch then he is exonerated and thats a straight up lie.

JimsAlterEgo

keane2097 wrote: »

It is extremely galling however to see incidents like Tommy Walsh deliberately breaking his hurley off an opposition players body, and there being nothing about it.

He was booked for it, the consensus with most people seems to be ill timed but not deliberate.

keane2097

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

He was booked for it, the consensus with most people seems to be ill timed but not deliberate.

The footage I've seen seems to show the sliotar was way out of his reach when he swung for it.

Looked pretty deliberate to me.

Anyway, IMO there should be no difference between reckless and deliberate, since you can never no for sure whether or not somebody did something on purpose, but you can assess whether it was reckless without needing to make guesses about what went on in their heads.

castie

Dermotsull13 wrote: »

Brian O Meara was given a yellow card against Cork in the Hurling quarter against Cork this year. It was later upgraded to a red card so this notion that if it is dealt with on the pitch then it cant be looked at again is completely wrong.This needs to be pointed out because some posters have it in their heads that if the ref books or ticks a player on the pitch then he is exonerated and thats a straight up lie.

Read the thread and someone already has.

The ref must also agree to look at it again.

castie

keane2097 wrote: »

The footage I've seen seems to show the sliotar was way out of his reach when he swung for it.

Looked pretty deliberate to me.

Anyway, IMO there should be no difference between reckless and deliberate, since you can never no for sure whether or not somebody did something on purpose, but you can assess whether it was reckless without needing to make guesses about what went on in their heads.

In my opinion Intent should be the major factor when handing out bans.
As accidents can happen and fair enough its a red on the day either way.
But a guy who accidently makes contact with an elbow and then a guy who shows intent and does the same. Both getting the same punishment doesnt seem just to me.

antoobrien

keane2097 wrote: »

It is extremely galling however to see incidents like Tommy Walsh deliberately breaking his hurley off an opposition players body, and there being nothing about it.

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

He was booked for it, the consensus with most people seems to be ill timed but not deliberate.

keane2097 wrote: »

The footage I've seen seems to show the sliotar was way out of his reach when he swung for it.

Looked pretty deliberate to me.

Anyway, IMO there should be no difference between reckless and deliberate, since you can never no for sure whether or not somebody did something on purpose, but you can assess whether it was reckless without needing to make guesses about what went on in their heads.

Please don't start this again, the LHC final thread has been taken up by this all week. Common sense does not live there and that's where this thread will fo too.

keane2097 i agree with you it was both rash & dangerous and it should have been red.

JimsAlterEgo whether or not it was ill timed is irrelevant, the rule is quite clear:

5.3 To strike an opponent with a hurley, either with force or causing injury

- he struck the player with the hurl with force. It doesn't make allowance for malice or premeditation the punishment is a red card.

Deise Tom

castie wrote: »

Read the thread and someone already has.

The ref must also agree to look at it again.

If he says no, he wont have many visits round the country for the rest of the year.

castie

Deise Tom wrote: »

If he says no, he wont have many visits round the country for the rest of the year.

We know of one ref who refused and isnt on the panel.
Conclusions are being drawn from this.
The CCCC are not going to come out and say "X Referee has upheld the original punishment" as it would be a PR nightmare for alot of incidents where the majority of people were demanding a higher sanction.

JimsAlterEgo

antoobrien wrote: »

JimsAlterEgo whether or not it was ill timed is irrelevant, the rule is quite clear: - he struck the player with the hurl with force. It doesn't make allowance for malice or premeditation the punishment is a red card.

players get hit in every match by hurleys . If you gave a red for for every player hit accidentally with a hurley it would be a farce

keane2097

castie wrote: »

In my opinion Intent should be the major factor when handing out bans.
As accidents can happen and fair enough its a red on the day either way.
But a guy who accidently makes contact with an elbow and then a guy who shows intent and does the same. Both getting the same punishment doesnt seem just to me.

That's stupid imo.

You can never assess intent in "grey area" cases. It's just not possible.

Even if you could, something that's recklessly dangerous to another player should be actively discouraged regardless of malicious intent IMO.

castie

keane2097 wrote: »

That's stupid imo.

You can never assess intent in "grey area" cases. It's just not possible.

Even if you could, something that's recklessly dangerous to another player should be actively discouraged regardless of malicious intent IMO.

I didnt say it should be the only factor.
Its done in Rugby so why not GAA?

gally74

Let's get something clear, rugby pro players with a pro system ,
Gaa amateur players getting critiqued and singled out by PAID rte commentators , unfair!

rebel girl 15

Gr8Shark wrote: »

What really annoys me is the GAA are so quick to act with footage when it relates to tackles, fouls etc.. but when it comes to disputed scores all of a sudden the same cameras are a no go. IMO if the ref, linesmen, umpires and 4th official have not seen an incident or have seen it and believe action does not need to be taken then that should be the end of it. I mean if the ref was assisted right you should have 7 other sets of eyes watching out for such incidents. Quick shout in the earpiece from umpire( All 8 should be rigged up) to ref, tell him what he has seen and let the ref take action

Ehm, they are rigged up, referee, two linesman and an umpire on each goal, but only a ref and/or the umpire can award the scores

Deise Tom

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

only a ref and/or the umpire can award the scores

Only the ref can award a score. He can over rule the umpires, but the umpires cannot over rule the ref. The umpires can wave a green or white flag all they like but unless the ref marks it in his book it does not matter.