corofin gaa

red bull

forfcksake wrote: »

The flags were NOT crossed, dunno what game you were at

Oh yes they were. where were you?

Duckworth_Luas

He more or less tries to take the head off the defender!

ShamoBuc

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

He more or less tries to take the head off the defender!

The way I see that video is number 18 is the only one who ACTUALLY goes for the ball!!
The defender doesn't even jump for it - looks like he is waiting for the keeper to claim it, while the keeper falls over himself and knocks the defender to the ground!

h2005

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

He more or less tries to take the head off the defender!

The defender makes no effort to play the ball

Duckworth_Luas

h2005 wrote: »

The defender makes no effort to play the ball

Hard to do when he has to support the full weight of the Corofin player. Are you seriously trying to claim that this is not a foul?

ShamoBuc

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Hard to do when he has to support the full weight of the Corofin player. Are you seriously trying to claim that this is not a foul?

The defender was not going for the ball! Plain and simple. He was never going to get off the ground - he was clearly waiting for the keeper.
Number 18 jumped for the ball, had eyes on the ball all the way through, made contact with it. Not his fault the defender didn't go for it.
In actual fact, the defender rather weakly throws out his right arm to try to block the forward - the forward did as he was supposed to- the keeper and the defender didn't.

bruschi

ShamoBuc wrote: »

The defender was not going for the ball! Plain and simple. He was never going to get off the ground - he was clearly waiting for the keeper.
Number 18 jumped for the ball, had eyes on the ball all the way through, made contact with it. Not his fault the defender didn't go for it.
In actual fact, the defender rather weakly throws out his right arm to try to block the forward - the forward did as he was supposed to- the keeper and the defender didn't.

there is a double movement on the attaker there, its like an aussie rules mark. he goes up, and when he makes contact with the defender, he gets an extra leverage and slightly goes up again, and gets a hold of his position because he is on top of the defender. look at it again, and tell me he would still be at the height he connected with the ball if he didnt have the defender under him to lean on. he jumped early, and was still up in the air for a long time. just beacuse the defender isnt going for it doesnt mean you can jump on him to get an advantage.

ShamoBuc

bruschi wrote: »

there is a double movement on the attaker there, its like an aussie rules mark. he goes up, and when he makes contact with the defender, he gets an extra leverage and slightly goes up again, and gets a hold of his position because he is on top of the defender. look at it again, and tell me he would still be at the height he connected with the ball if he didnt have the defender under him to lean on. he jumped early, and was still up in the air for a long time. just beacuse the defender isnt going for it doesnt mean you can jump on him to get an advantage.

I honestly don't think that there is. He goes up and starts to come back down - I can't see the double movement you talk about. Also it's worth pointing out that the clip is in slow motion - and I still can't see where he goes up, makes contact with the defender and then goes up even more.

theoneeyedman

forfcksake wrote: »

fair play for ever wrote: »

Will have to watch the video again in relation to no 18 fouling or not but do know two things that I saw with my own eyes
(a) the umpire nearest the corofin player nodded accross to his other umpire to put up the green flag
(b)the flags were crossed disallowing the goal
.

The flags were NOT crossed, dunno what game you were at

Oh yes they were.......
It's a week on and still the bickering about the disallowed 'goal 'continues. Get a life lads, take he beating on the chin, and move on.

nice_guy80

the attacher jumped from inside the square.

square ball

ShamoBuc

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the attacher jumped from inside the square.

square ball

The Bold bit does not prove the underlined bit.

The ball came across the length of the square before he came into the square i.e. it was in the square before he ever jumped - no square ball.

MfMan

bruschi wrote: »

there is a double movement on the attaker there, its like an aussie rules mark. he goes up, and when he makes contact with the defender, he gets an extra leverage and slightly goes up again, and gets a hold of his position because he is on top of the defender. look at it again, and tell me he would still be at the height he connected with the ball if he didnt have the defender under him to lean on. he jumped early, and was still up in the air for a long time. just beacuse the defender isnt going for it doesnt mean you can jump on him to get an advantage.

he does and his hole! he had his eyes on the ball the whole time and would want another set on top of his head to see where the defender was, much less go leaning on him, even with the latter leaning in under him. Legitimate goal as far as I can ascertain.

bruschi

MfMan wrote: »

he does and his hole! he had his eyes on the ball the whole time and would want another set on top of his head to see where the defender was, much less go leaning on him, even with the latter leaning in under him. Legitimate goal as far as I can ascertain.

so you think that if a player looks at a ball, then he isnt able to lean on a defender because he isnt looking at him?

are you really saying he doesnt lean on the defender?

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

fair play for ever wrote: »

My view is that he did connect with the Bridgets player but after he connected with the ball ,therefore no free??? Right or wrong?

nobody here can tell if you are right or wrong, that pic proves nothing in my opinion because its after the ball was hit.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I like this one better...

Great pic, thats enough for me!

h2005 wrote: »

The defender makes no effort to play the ball

doesnt matter

iwsf

ok to put and end to this i suggest ........... to have a replay

Utopia Parkway

h2005 wrote: »

The defender makes no effort to play the ball

Looks like the defender was either leaving the ball for his keeper or trying to leave the ball go wide and tried to block off the forward's path. Forward had his eyes on the ball the whole time and went up and got it. Don't think the defender had any intention of going up for the ball at all. Maybe the keeper had shouted for it? Either way it's not soccer. One fella went up for the ball. The other didn't want to. No free there IMO.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Either way it's not soccer. One fella went up for the ball. The other didn't want to. No free there IMO.

the attacker gained and advandage by leaning on the defender. thats a free out. doesnt matter if the defender was going for the ball or not, its still a push in the back. same as in soccer!


anyway, im going to try and not look at this thread again. We are over analysing the goal incident!

h2005

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Hard to do when he has to support the full weight of the Corofin player. Are you seriously trying to claim that this is not a foul?

Yes I am saying the defender wasn`t fouled

blowitupref

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

He more or less tries to take the head off the defender!

9 times out of ten a ref will give a free out for a challenge like that however i still don't know if that ref gave a free out or a square ball?

ShamoBuc

blowitupref wrote: »

9 times out of ten a ref will give a free out for a challenge like that however i still don't know if that ref gave a free out or a square ball?

Well, the ref didn't give a free for a square ball, he didn't give a free for a foul, he waved play on and ........... the ball went wide = no controversy....if only!

theoneeyedman

iwsf wrote: »

ok to put and end to this i suggest ........... to have a replay

Jesus wept .....Nooooooo!!!! 2 more weeks of this!!!
Where would it be played :somewhere in Switzerland (neutral venue of course) with 20 foot high walls (in case any spectators want to get on the pitch) and will take about 3 weeks to complete as every tackle and shot at goal will have to be dissected by a committee comprising of Rte, the imf, tg4 and boards.ie contributors

patmac

Ok neutral here even though I live in Roscommon (Westmeath man) . I watched the match and thought the refereree favoured Brigid's, as well as the disallowed goal he gave a lot of 50/50 calls in favour of the home team.
Now this referee was in charge of the Connacht Intermediate Semi-final and I thought he was a breath of fresh air compared to the local referees and made no controversial decisions whatsover and everyone seemed happy with him and maybe because of this display he got the Senior Final gig.
But I believe he has never refereed a Mayo Senior Final, so his inexperience and nerves obvious got to him and maybe the Connacht council should shoulder some of the blame.

fair play for ever

patmac wrote: »

Ok neutral here even though I live in Roscommon (Westmeath man) . I watched the match and thought the refereree favoured Brigid's, as well as the disallowed goal he gave a lot of 50/50 calls in favour of the home team.
Now this referee was in charge of the Connacht Intermediate Semi-final and I thought he was a breath of fresh air compared to the local referees and made no controversial decisions whatsover and everyone seemed happy with him and maybe because of this display he got the Senior Final gig. Agreed but talking to a Senior member of the executive in Pearses he compared the intensity in that game like a junior game compared to the Corofin/Bridgets game(his words not mine and no disrespect intended as fall into the junior caterogy myself)
But I believe he has never refereed a Mayo Senior Final, so his inexperience and nerves obvious got to him and maybe the Connacht council should shoulder some of the blame.

Agreed again.It also shows a little nieviety on Connacht Council behalf as some of Bridgets supporters in jest made the comments to Corofin supporters how they looked after him well two weeks prior.

Syferus

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Well, the ref didn't give a free for a square ball, he didn't give a free for a foul, he waved play on and ........... the ball went wide = no controversy....if only!

I think people get too caught up in the semantics in situations like these, it's as likely as anything that the referee saw both the foul and the square ball and was set on not allowing the goal to stand. Whatever the official call is an issue for statisticians and nothing more once the goal is disallowed.

Anyways, Brigids kick off the All-Ireland championship this weekend. Hopefully easier passage this time. :pac:

Gophur

That goal was rightfully disallowed. The forward's left arm was pushing down on the defender.

In any event, there was more than sufficient time and opportunity subsequently for Corofin to win the game.

dartsfan

So punishment was a 5000 euro fine and a suspension for 2 players.

I'd say there would be a few legal "issues" should this fine ever be challenged e.g. how can Corofin GAA club be responsible for actions of potential non-members

Syferus

dartsfan wrote: »

So punishment was a 5000 euro fine and a suspension for 2 players.

I'd say there would be a few legal "issues" should this fine ever be challenged e.g. how can Corofin GAA club be responsible for actions of potential non-members

?

This comes up in many sports, clubs are sanctioned for the actions of their fans, be they fee-paying members or pure yobs. They're liable.

dartsfan

Syferus wrote: »

?

This comes up in many sports, clubs are sanctioned for the actions of their fans, be they fee-paying members or pure yobs. They're liable.

It may happen but I'm not convinced it's legally sound. Connacht Council should be held accountable too for appointing an incompetent referee and inadequate stewarding.

fair play for ever

dartsfan wrote: »

It may happen but I'm not convinced it's legally sound. .

In Hogan Stand and todays papers they are appealing.Does that mean they feel the same way???

homerjay2005

dartsfan wrote: »

Connacht Council should be held accountable too for appointing an incompetent referee and inadequate stewarding.

ah for f*ck sake....i hope the club is made to pay every cent of that fine, the attitude of some of the people supporting the club is disgusting.