Black card

harpsman

I reckon its better than the status quo but has alot of drawbacks-
1) substitution chaos.
2) not punitive enough if its late in the game.
3) possibly too punitive on a player who makes a clumsy tackle in the first few minutes-possibly aided by a crafty forward doin the old "grab an arm" trick.

Personally Id rather see a straightforward 10 minute sin bin,particularly with the new timing system in place.

(sorry if theres another thread on this-only one I saw is more general congress motions discussion)

hardybuck

Thinking of how a team might exploit the rules, if I was to have a yellow card, and decided to pull down a player who was going through on goal, do I receive a black card and be replaced, or take the second yellow and get sent off!?

keane2097

I think the ten minute sin bin is far too harsh in a 70 minute game of football.

What I like about this rule is that it doesn't really punish teams very harshly unless they prove themselves to be concerted in their cynicism, while it punishes the individual who decides to be cynical the worst way possible, by stopping him playing anymore.

The way the rule is constructed means it will be pretty tough to get a black card for clumsiness or accidentally, this will hit the people it intends to the vast majority of the time.

hardybuck

keane2097 wrote: »

I think the ten minute sin bin is far too harsh in a 70 minute game of football.

What I like about this rule is that it doesn't really punish teams very harshly unless they prove themselves to be concerted in their cynicism, while it punishes the individual who decides to be cynical the worst way possible, by stopping him playing anymore.

The way the rule is constructed means it will be pretty tough to get a black card for clumsiness or accidentally, this will hit the people it intends to the vast majority of the time.

I have little faith in the ability of the officials to enforce the rule properly.

Straight away, think of the many occasions where a forward pulls the arm of a back, falls down and gets a free. Currently, the back normally gets a yellow for this, and is hugely frustrated. Now he'll get the line potentially.

We can all agree that the worst cases of cynical fouling should be purged from our game, but until we see a lot of players getting the line for normal enough fouls we won't understand the true impact of this rule.

keane2097

hardybuck wrote: »

I have little faith in the ability of the officials to enforce the rule properly.

Straight away, think of the many occasions where a forward pulls the arm of a back, falls down and gets a free. Currently, the back normally gets a yellow for this, and is hugely frustrated. Now he'll get the line potentially.

We can all agree that the worst cases of cynical fouling should be purged from our game, but until we see a lot of players getting the line for normal enough fouls we won't understand the true impact of this rule.

I don't think that happens all that often tbh. There's no doubt backs actually pull forwards to the ground orders of magnitude more often than a forward plays this trick to make it look like it, and currently the punishment is pretty tame - certainly worth taking in many, many situations.

munchkin_utd

heres the video which outlined to the congress delegates some concrete examples of what will be now punished with a black card
http://balls.ie/gaa/here-is-the-video-shown-to-at-the-gaa-congress-highlighting-the-need-for-the-black-card/

In soccer some of these cynical challenges would be a straight red card - i.e. bearing down on goal with only the keeper to beat and youre taken clean out of it, so a forced substitution isnt actually THAT harsh in comparison.

Hammer Archer

munchkin_utd wrote: »

heres the video which outlined to the congress delegates some concrete examples of what will be now punished with a black card
http://balls.ie/gaa/here-is-the-video-shown-to-at-the-gaa-congress-highlighting-the-need-for-the-black-card/

In soccer some of these cynical challenges would be a straight red card - i.e. bearing down on goal with only the keeper to beat and youre taken clean out of it, so a forced substitution isnt actually THAT harsh in comparison.

Doesn't seem too bad alright.
With regards to the final offence in the video (deliberately colliding with another player), I would hope that this would apply to the attacking team as well. You would often see an attacker handpass to another and then deliberately take out a defender going to tackle the man in possession. It isn't clear to me whether this will also be a black card offence.

bruschi

I dont like it. Realistically, some of those cases shown were border line red cards. They are trying to avoid cyniism, well at the ned of the game, defender has a yellow card and pulls down an attacker. Under old rules, second yellow, red card, opposition has a man advantage. Now a player can sacrifice himself and the team has no punishment to it.

the other crap aspect to it is that late on, when cynicism is at its worst and teams time waste, it will now add even more time to what was already a badly handled aspect of the game. Player running through on a break, fouled, other player has to go through the motions of getting a card, the usual mouthing and defending to a ref, and then make a substitution, where the sub is in the stand in full tracksuit. The defending team then have another 60 seconds to get all player back behind the ball. and time added on will be miniscule as to how long it really took out of the game.

the rule changes make nothing of the advantage there still is to drag down a player on a break in order to waste time.

hardybuck

keane2097 wrote: »

I don't think that happens all that often tbh. There's no doubt backs actually pull forwards to the ground orders of magnitude more often than a forward plays this trick to make it look like it, and currently the punishment is pretty tame - certainly worth taking in many, many situations.

It happens a couple of times every game, and forwards will surely adapt their game further to try and gain an extra advantage. Can you imagine how annoyed you'd be if you're game is over 10 mins in for this kind of messing.

Use of threatening or abusive manner to an opponent or TEAM MATE!? This could potentially go haywire also. Way too much judgement required from the referee. Imagine if your team mate didn't pass you the ball (he could be your brother) and you tell him you'll give him a kick up the arse if he doesn't pass it to you next time. Punishment - Black Card!

I also don't think the referees will be able to tell the difference between many of the deliberate trips and body checking and genuine collisions which happen at full pace.

Pudders

Can you get a yellow card and a black card for the same offence?

And how do you differentiate between yellow card and balck card offences?

keane2097

bruschi wrote: »

the other crap aspect to it is that late on, when cynicism is at its worst and teams time waste, it will now add even more time to what was already a badly handled aspect of the game. Player running through on a break, fouled, other player has to go through the motions of getting a card, the usual mouthing and defending to a ref, and then make a substitution, where the sub is in the stand in full tracksuit. The defending team then have another 60 seconds to get all player back behind the ball. and time added on will be miniscule as to how long it really took out of the game.

the rule changes make nothing of the advantage there still is to drag down a player on a break in order to waste time.

The clock rule change makes this argument moot.

hardybuck

keane2097 wrote: »

The clock rule change makes this argument moot.

Have they outlined what type of stoppages the clock will stop for?

keane2097

hardybuck wrote: »

Have they outlined what type of stoppages the clock will stop for?

I haven't seen a list, I think it's safe enough to presume the ref giving cards to players will be one though.

Dick Turnip

Is the black card for intercounty games only or is it being introduced across the board??

Pudders

Dick Turnip wrote: »

Is the black card for intercounty games only or is it being introduced across the board??

Across the board but not until January 2014.

keane2097

Pudders wrote: »

Can you get a yellow card and a black card for the same offence?

And how do you differentiate between yellow card and balck card offences?

There are five things you can get a black card for, deliberate tripping, deliberately pulling down an opponent, blocking a player's run off the ball, sledging and abusing the ref.

Everything else stays as is pretty much.

Dick Turnip

Pudders wrote: »

Across the board but not until January 2014.

Cheers, knew it wasn't until 2014 but had it in my head it was only for intercounty games for some reason

hardybuck

Yeah as probably a final point on my opposition to this proposal, I'd have real concerns about how this has been introduced.

I think it has been sneaked in through Congress in a way. The sin bin had a trial period in the league, and was thrown out by Congress as it was a disaster. I think the same would have happened with the Black Card if introduced in similar fashion - there is no trial period.

Secondly, this could cause big problems at club level. Numbers are often very tight, referees aren't at the same level, players are at a lower level and will commit more fouls, particularly as a lot of club games are played on bad pitches in terrible weather.

munchkin_utd

bruschi wrote: »

I dont like it. Realistically, some of those cases shown were border line red cards.
<snip>.

a red card under which rule?

heres the official guide part2 with the GAA playing rules.
http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/publications/official_guides/Official_Guide_2012_Part2.pdf
Have a read and tell me what offences are "borderline red"

page 78 states in black and white that pulling down or tripping an opponent is a yellow card offence.
thats not borderline red.
Its clear yellow and nothing else.

All red card offences come with a 4 to 48 week ban and are listed in the pages before, with the lowest category being hitting another player for example, so being a little cynical (but not dangerous) with a trip or obstruction is obviously not quite a serious offence as this which is why up till now it was only a yellow.

vcshqkf9rpzgoe

This video explains the black card: www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QBhikkHoNcg

keane2097

hardybuck wrote: »

Yeah as probably a final point on my opposition to this proposal, I'd have real concerns about how this has been introduced.

I think it has been sneaked in through Congress in a way. The sin bin had a trial period in the league, and was thrown out by Congress as it was a disaster. I think the same would have happened with the Black Card if introduced in similar fashion - there is no trial period.

Secondly, this could cause big problems at club level. Numbers are often very tight, referees aren't at the same level, players are at a lower level and will commit more fouls, particularly as a lot of club games are played on bad pitches in terrible weather.

Crikey, whatever it was saying it was sneaked in is laughable. This is probably the most high profile and debated rule change motion in the history of the game, certainly the most talked about since the decision to open up Croke Park.

I think it's pretty off the wall to suggest that any delegate involved in the black card vote was anything less than fully aware of what they were doing.

hardybuck

keane2097 wrote: »

Crikey, whatever it was saying it was sneaked in is laughable. This is probably the most high profile and debated rule change motion in the history of the game, certainly the most talked about since the decision to open up Croke Park.

I think it's pretty off the wall to suggest that any delegate involved in the black card vote was anything less than fully aware of what they were doing.

Sneaked in, in the sense that an awful lot of talking has taken place, but nobody knows what it'll look like. They must have realised that if had gone through the same trial process as the Sin Bin, it would have been kicked out of Congress.

Croke Park was opened on a very conditional basis, for a specific period of time. Ironically the ruling was relaxed in this Congress.

munchkin_utd

hardybuck wrote: »

Sneaked in, in the sense that an awful lot of talking has taken place, but nobody knows what it'll look like. They must have realised that if had gone through the same trial process as the Sin Bin, it would have been kicked out of Congress.

Croke Park was opened on a very conditional basis, for a specific period of time. Ironically the ruling was relaxed in this Congress.

The frustrating thing about the rule changes in general is that it doesnt matter if theres a trial or not as any random club can propose something totally different that may be well argued at congress and then adopted over something that is working sucessfully as a trial in the leagues.

This happened with the handpass a couple of years back if I remember rightly.

In general the playing rule changes need to be removed from the order of business at the congress, or at least restructure them so that a limited time trial can be put in place by central council and then only trialled and successful rules changes can be put to the floor for permanent adoption.
Coming to think of it, that'd be a grand motion for congress next year so it would !!

keane2097

Just confirmed that, as I suspected, yellow card + black card = red card, so no conflict where a player can "sacrifice himself" and be replaced when already on a yellow.

bruschi

keane2097 wrote: »

The clock rule change makes this argument moot.

no, you picked only the one point I made about timekeeping, which as you say, should be rectified. but what about the cynicism of stopping a play while advancing which allows the opposition to re organise and get back into defence? and is this black card only for senior intercounty where there will be a clock?

hopefully the advantage rule may take this out too, in that if a player is hauled down, he can get up and play on, as long as the ref doesnt stop up play.

munchkin_utd wrote: »

a red card under which rule?

heres the official guide part2 with the GAA playing rules.
http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/publications/official_guides/Official_Guide_2012_Part2.pdf
Have a read and tell me what offences are "borderline red"

page 78 states in black and white that pulling down or tripping an opponent is a yellow card offence.
thats not borderline red.
Its clear yellow and nothing else.

All red card offences come with a 4 to 48 week ban and are listed in the pages before, with the lowest category being hitting another player for example, so being a little cynical (but not dangerous) with a trip or obstruction is obviously not quite a serious offence as this which is why up till now it was only a yellow.

The "tackle" with the Galway Sligo game was borderline red IMO. He launched at the player and made a head high tackle. I said borderline red, not that they were definite reds, but if he had been shown a red, I dont think many would have much arguments against it.

keane2097 wrote: »

Just confirmed that, as I suspected, yellow card + black card = red card, so no conflict where a player can "sacrifice himself" and be replaced when already on a yellow.

thats something at least, just wish they had made a better explanation of the rules. Listening to Eugene Magee talking about it and him saying players wont do this because they would be embarrassed to get a black card and they'd look a right eejit doesnt lend itself to a good argument for the rule.

corny

What if a team uses all their subs and someone is black carded? Who comes on to replace a player?

The video on the first page really does demonstrate just how blatant the fouling was. Some of the tackles wouldn't look out of place in Thomond Park or the RDS!

I have one worry about this and thats you know players will adapt but still look for the edge. They won't make it so obvious but they'll give the referee a decision to make and thats where the inconsistency will creep in. The refs are going to make a balls of implementing this.

Squareball2010

corny wrote: »

What if a team uses all their subs and someone is black carded? Who comes on to replace a player?

The video on the first page really does demonstrate just how blatant the fouling was. Some of the tackles wouldn't look out of place in Thomond Park or the RDS!

I have one worry about this and thats you know players will adapt but still look for the edge. They won't make it so obvious but they'll give the referee a decision to make and thats where the inconsistency will creep in. The refs are going to make a balls of implementing this.

The rule states this - 'Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4 Rules of Specification' upon a player receiving a black card for cynical behaviour. The rule changes will also amend said rule 2.4 as follows:
(A) Amend Section (i) to read:
“The maximum number of substitutions permitted during the Playing of
Normal Time shall be –
In Football – Six

Thus, should a player receive a black card after his team has used its permitted 6 substitutes then he will have to leave the field of play without being replaced. This is the exact same thing as a player being injured in the dying minutes of the game with their 5 subs already used up. You're a man down tough luck!

It's interesting to hear you say that referees are going to make a balls of this ; on what basis can you make such an accusation (albeit predicted)? The problem with football was/is the cynical fouling that is going on regularly in county/club matches that is ruining the game as a spectacle and wrongly rewarding teams for engaging in such cynical and negative tactics as seen clearly in that video you refer to shown at Congress in support of the black card.
Needless to say referees were implementing the rules as they stood in their current form to the best of their ability by punishing such fouls with YCs. The problem lay in the rules not going far enough to punish such cynicism and teams exploiting this fact and being incentivised by the fact 40 players can receive a YC in a game and not one receive the ultimate punishment of being red carded, hindering a team guilty of cynical play. The problem didn't not lie in referees 'making a balls' of such instances and not properly punishing them. Their hands were and are currently tied in that regard until Jan 2014 that is when referees can finally DO something about such deliberate fouls by issuing a black card and properly punishing cynical play from players and teams.

Naturally a referee will make mistakes just like a player or a coach will on the field. Everyone is human and human error and mistakes are a given - part and parcel of the whole thing! There will be black cards given in error for accidental fouls as opposed to deliberate ones or a forward making a meal out of a body collide or a drag down etc. But what does that change? Nothing....one need only look back to the Club Finals a few weeks ago to see these kind of mistakes being made at the highest level by referees with the current rules and card punishments in place - the first red card in the hurling was NOT a red card offence.

In fact in hurling last year these mistakes went the other way with Pat McEnaney stating there were 2 straight reds in the championship when in fact there could and should have been 8.

These aren't referees making a balls of the current rules (which implies on a constant basis), these are them making mistakes and human errors in their judgement calls.

There is a difference....

(Sorry rant over but you won't see too many standing up for referees! :rolleyes: )

Nash Bridges

keane2097 wrote: »

There are five things you can get a black card for, deliberate tripping, deliberately pulling down an opponent, blocking a player's run off the ball, sledging and abusing the ref.

Everything else stays as is pretty much.

All the examples in the video are very obvious examples of foul play but I think that blocking a player's run off the ball will be extremely difficult to referee. After a player passes the ball he can run at the defender and claim a free/get that player taken off. The refs eyes are likely to follow the ball, when he hears a shout and looks back he will see both players in a heap.

I'm generally in favour of the black card for the other 4 issues but think the obstruction one is too ambiguous and could spoil a game if it happened early in a match.

bruschi

Nash Bridges wrote: »

All the examples in the video are very obvious examples of foul play but I think that blocking a player's run off the ball will be extremely difficult to referee. After a player passes the ball he can run at the defender and claim a free/get that player taken off. The refs eyes are likely to follow the ball, when he hears a shout and looks back he will see both players in a heap.

I'm generally in favour of the black card for the other 4 issues but think the obstruction one is too ambiguous and could spoil a game if it happened early in a match.

if a ref doesnt see a foul, he can not take any action on it. as bad as that sounds, its the way it is

conversely, like what happened in Wexford last week, when Heslin dived, holding his face, and the linesman didnt see it nor the ref, but he got a red card which was then over turned on video evidence, you can only give what you actually see, not what you think may have happened when your back was turned.

In any case, linesman may see it, and an umpire should definitely see it.

Squareball2010

Nash Bridges wrote: »

All the examples in the video are very obvious examples of foul play but I think that blocking a player's run off the ball will be extremely difficult to referee. After a player passes the ball he can run at the defender and claim a free/get that player taken off. The refs eyes are likely to follow the ball, when he hears a shout and looks back he will see both players in a heap.

I'm generally in favour of the black card for the other 4 issues but think the obstruction one is too ambiguous and could spoil a game if it happened early in a match.

That's a fair observation about the deliberately body colliding foul warranting a black card - it will be the most difficult one to referee I believe also and especially as you say with forwards looking to try get a man black carded for cases when the body colliding might even be done by him! As you say more than likely a ref's eyes will be following the ball and when he looks back will see two players in a heap but if that happens its easy he can't give anything or assume the back took out the forward! If you don't see something you can't give a foul not to mind a black card for what you believe must have happened!

Interesting times lie ahead lads....the big question is what now warrants a yellow card and will this be enough of a measure to prevent or cut down on cynical play. Correct me if i'm wrong but it seems to me a player can still pull the jersey off a fella when hes running through on goal to stop him up....and this would escape the scope of the black card as you didnt pull down the opponent as the rule says! Would this only then be a yellow card for a very cynical act? And if this is the case is not a matter of backs now just tugging the jersey to cynically stop a forward as opposed to the rugby tackles we saw before. This is a little anomalie the GAA might want to sort out if this is the case!

Nash Bridges

I suppose that this will lead to an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Referees will either turn a blind eye or else give frees without the black card. It would take a very brave (or crazy) ref to send off a Michael Murphy, or Bernard Brogan or Graham Canty in the first half of an All Ireland Final for an obstruction type incident.

Interesting times ahead indeed!

munchkin_utd

munchkin_utd wrote: »

<snip>
In general the playing rule changes need to be removed from the order of business at the congress, or at least restructure them so that a limited time trial can be put in place by central council and then only trialled and successful rules changes can be put to the floor for permanent adoption.
Coming to think of it, that'd be a grand motion for congress next year so it would !!

interesting to see that relating to the black card debacle, the Irish Times is also questioning whether the GAA Congress is the right forum for deciding on rule changes.

GAA congress not fit for purpose
Success of black card reform shouldn’t disguise serious shortcomings in decision making process<snip>

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaa-congress-not-fit-for-purpose-1.1339610

DDC1990

Nash Bridges wrote: »

I suppose that this will lead to an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Referees will either turn a blind eye or else give frees without the black card. It would take a very brave (or crazy) ref to send off a Michael Murphy, or Bernard Brogan or Graham Canty in the first half of an All Ireland Final for an obstruction type incident.

Interesting times ahead indeed!

The fear of being sent to the line in such a big game should keep these players in check.

These cards are to be given for deliberate acts of foul play, there is a simple way of avoiding being sent off.

Don't rugby tackle a player if he's gone past you.

Don't hit a man in the chest if he is a support runner.

Don't ankle tap or foot trip a player.

Simple. This is a drastic measure, but the fact that the cynical tactics have become a mainstay of the game has forced the Gaa's hand.

Get rid of the cynical culture that is developing, and then put a less extreme rule in place once this rule has done its job.

hardy buck salmon

I think that I'd have to agree with Armagh footballer Ciaran McKeever when he said that there are drawbacks to the black card.

I can see how these cards will help to reduce off-the-ball-fouling, deliberate tripping etc. But the basic problem surely is that nobody knows really, what a tackle is. I think that the congress should address this issue and come up with a clear, concise definition of the tackle in Gaelic Football.

zetecescort

I thought the tackle was either a shoulder to shoulder charge or an attempt to knock the ball out of your opponents hand with an open hand. kids are not being taught to shadow a player and wait for a chance to disposess their opponent. the ball has to be hopped or soloed and its just down to waiting for the chance.

I know its not cynical as such but I can't stand this standing around a player, hands in the air with the defenders making no attempt to play the ball and a free given for overcarrying

hardy buck salmon

I know what you mean about a group of 2 or 3 defenders standing over a player with the ball. But I still think that the tackle is not as clear as it should be; we see something that not being blown up for, and then 30 seconds later the whistle is blown for the very same thing further down the field.

Dirty Dingus McGee

zetecescort wrote: »

I thought the tackle was either a shoulder to shoulder charge or an attempt to knock the ball out of your opponents hand with an open hand. kids are not being taught to shadow a player and wait for a chance to disposess their opponent. the ball has to be hopped or soloed and its just down to waiting for the chance.

I know its not cynical as such but I can't stand this standing around a player, hands in the air with the defenders making no attempt to play the ball and a free given for overcarrying

Correct.Tackling in gaelic football is a skill and it needs to be coached better there is no issue with the tackle there is an issue with players not wanting to obey the rules of the game

Squareball2010

hardy buck salmon wrote: »

I think that I'd have to agree with Armagh footballer Ciaran McKeever when he said that there are drawbacks to the black card.

I can see how these cards will help to reduce off-the-ball-fouling, deliberate tripping etc. But the basic problem surely is that nobody knows really, what a tackle is. I think that the congress should address this issue and come up with a clear, concise definition of the tackle in Gaelic Football.

Absolutely spot on Hardy Buck with the basic problem being people struggle to come to grips with the concept of the tackle and what actually is it (at least fairly according to the rules)? And you're right a clear and concise definition is needed to aid everyones understanding and thats in fact what the FRC and Congress passed. Here is how the new definition stands:-

A tackle in football is now defined as, 'a skill by which a player may dispossess an opponent or frustrate his objective within the rules of fair play. The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player.

'The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden.

'The only deliberate physical contact can be a fair charge, i.e. shoulder-to-shoulder with at least one foot on the ground. More than one player can tackle the player in possession'.

The key bugbear for supporters, coaches and players alike is of course the interpretation of this rule by referees - what one may consider to be a perfectly executed tackle, another ref may decide its a foul. Even within a game as someone else pointed out - similiar instances are often dealt differently when it comes to tackling!

It's sorting out these inconsistencies and educating players from grassroots up as to what the tackle actually is and how to fairly execute it is what the GAA need to do next...we have our definition, lets now use and apply it!

Dirty Dingus McGee

The tackle is and has always been a tackle on the ball its just it has been badly coached and badly refereed for so long, the tackle in Gaelic Football is all about shadowing your man biding you time and then seizing the oppurtunity to cleanly disposses you opponent, if players and coaches tried to tackle properly intead of whinging about the tackle the game would be far better off

Squidgy Black

Has the notion of getting one for 'repeated technical fouling' been dropped then?

It's basically looking like a red card without a suspension at the moment.
Could prove troublesome at club level for teams fielding the bare 15, but then again a lot of those challenges in the video would've warranted a red.

hardy buck salmon

Squareball2010 wrote: »

A clear and concise definition is needed to aid everyones understanding and thats in fact what the FRC and Congress passed.

You woudn't by any chance know when this was passed?
Sorry, you know how it is (trying to settle a debate at home).

Squareball2010

hardy buck salmon wrote: »

You woudn't by any chance know when this was passed?
Sorry, you know how it is (trying to settle a debate at home).

It was only passed at this years congress a few weeks ago in Derry. See:- http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/green-light-for-frc-proposals-redefines-tackle-in-gaa-588930.html

And I agree with one of the last few posters...the problem is the tackle is being poorly coached all the way up so much so I believe some players wouldn't even be able to tell you how to tackle properly for e.g. some players believe using a clenched fist to dispossess an opponent with the ball is a fair tackle when in fact it is a foul as per rule 5.28 'to use the fist on or around the body of an opponent for the purpose of dispossessing him of the ball'.

It's not so much poorly defined, its merely poorly executed!

keane2097

I don't see how the tackle being coached poorly is related to any of the black card offences tbh. The tackle being undefined is a separate issue to tactical fouling.

Connorzee

Declan Mullan of Derry was the first player to be shown the black card last night against Louth in the O'Fiaich Cup. Future quiz question i would say!

Stinicker

Tyrone will probably start their subs first otherwise most of their team will go-off under it. I can't wait to see that cheat Sean Cavanagh get his first black card and be sent to the line. This new system is great and will really undermine the absolute negativity of cynicism we see from Ulster teams primarily from Mickey Harte's Tyrone team where the ethos is to foul as much as possible and draw the free.

megadodge

keane2097 wrote: »

There are five things you can get a black card for, deliberate tripping, deliberately pulling down an opponent, blocking a player's run off the ball, sledging and abusing the ref.

Everything else stays as is pretty much.

What's the bets that forwards catching a defender's hand (as he's legitimately trying to disposses) and pulling him down on top of him in order to generate a soft free and hopefully get him carded will NOT get black carded. It's every bit as cynical as vica versa, yet I've no doubts it will go unpunished.

The cheating that involves faking injury in order to try to get an opponent sent off is also highly cynical but has not been addressed. I appreciate it's a difficult area but football is nearly as bad as soccer at this stage and something needs to be done about it.

Thanks very much

I like black cards.

bruschi

Stinicker wrote: »

Tyrone will probably start their subs first otherwise most of their team will go-off under it. I can't wait to see that cheat Sean Cavanagh get his first black card and be sent to the line. This new system is great and will really undermine the absolute negativity of cynicism we see from Ulster teams primarily from Mickey Harte's Tyrone team where the ethos is to foul as much as possible and draw the free.

you're hardly conforming to the sour Kerry supporting Tyrone hating brigade anyway :rolleyes:

slingerz

has its benefits but in club matches in the league or whatever you could see numbers reduced to 10 a side in the early part

i reckon they'll be an initial over refereeing on it and then common sense will eventually come into play

keane2097

megadodge wrote: »

What's the bets that forwards catching a defender's hand (as he's legitimately trying to disposses) and pulling him down on top of him in order to generate a soft free and hopefully get him carded will NOT get black carded. It's every bit as cynical as vica versa, yet I've no doubts it will go unpunished.

The cheating that involves faking injury in order to try to get an opponent sent off is also highly cynical but has not been addressed. I appreciate it's a difficult area but football is nearly as bad as soccer at this stage and something needs to be done about it.

Who knows?

At least the rules are getting there anyway even if the refs are **** and the players are all cheats.

Fireball07

slingerz wrote: »

has its benefits but in club matches in the league or whatever you could see numbers reduced to 10 a side in the early part

i reckon they'll be an initial over refereeing on it and then common sense will eventually come into play

I was thinking that too... I like it as an idea, but hopefully it won't be used ridiculously. Although maybe a few early ones in the league to key players will knock some sense into them.