Sideline bans, Dummy teams, & Hawkeye

Boom__Boom

Some interesting stuff from central council meeting

Central Council will bring a motion to Congress in February which will seek to require that a playing panel of 26 players be registered for all senior inter-county championship games by 9.00am on the Thursday before a game. With the exception of a replacement for a goalkeeper or sub-goalkeeper, no changes can be made to the registered list. The penalty for including a player not included on the registered list will be forfeiture of game. Teams will also be required to submit their starting team to the referee and to committee-in-charge at least 20 minutes before throw-in. The penalty for starting a player not on that list will also be loss of game.

Serious consequences for dummy teams - you'd have to imagine with these sort of consequences it will see the end of this stupidity by managers.

It was also confirmed that the Workgroup which was established to review the implementation of the ‘Calendar Year’ from 2016 will submit its proposals to January’s Central Council meeting.

CCCC now has the authority to withdraw sideline privileges from team officials who make derogatory comments in relation to a match official before a game or in interviews subsequent to a game. Previously, suspensions were the only penalty that could be proposed in these instances.

This one could potentially by massive fun, especially with some of the mouthy folk. I wonder how long it will be before someone comes out with the "i was misquoted" by a journalist defence

Hawkeye possibly to be expanded to Semple, Casement and PUC - I know there were meant to be serious costs associated with it in Croke Park but I'd imagine a lot of these were initial development costs to do with getting it up and running properly and that adding it to more locations shouldn't be as expensive.

http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/1/0311141234-central-council-meeting-11114/

Fireball07

The dummy teams one seems like a very harsh penalty. I'm no fan of them myself, and think there's no need for it, but forfeiture of the game seems over the top.


How about if a key player is touch-and-go to be ready for the game. So you include him in the 26. And then he fails a fitness test that morning... does that mean you have to play with a sub less?

Volvic12

Fireball07 wrote: »

The dummy teams one seems like a very harsh penalty. I'm no fan of them myself, and think there's no need for it, but forfeiture of the game seems over the top.


How about if a key player is touch-and-go to be ready for the game. So you include him in the 26. And then he fails a fitness test that morning... does that mean you have to play with a sub less?

Fair point and one I thought of myself BUT i suppose realistically 25 players should be more than enough to choose from considering you can only use 20/21 players anyway.

Boom__Boom

Fireball07 wrote: »

The dummy teams one seems like a very harsh penalty. I'm no fan of them myself, and think there's no need for it, but forfeiture of the game seems over the top.


How about if a key player is touch-and-go to be ready for the game. So you include him in the 26. And then he fails a fitness test that morning... does that mean you have to play with a sub less?

The thing is that it needs to be harsh otherwise it would have no effect.

Say if the fine was €5000 - then you would have some county boards from whom that would be a massive fine and others a drop in the ocean.

Can you suggest an alternative penalty that would stop managers doing this?

As Volvic has said you can only use a maximum of 21 players anyway (unless it goes to extra-time) so I really don't think it's that bad a rule, especially as regards touch and go players suffering from injury - If anything you'd think that this could probably be a positive in terms of player welfare as teams would be a bit less likely to name teams with lads with lots of injuries.

keane2097

Fireball07 wrote: »

The dummy teams one seems like a very harsh penalty. I'm no fan of them myself, and think there's no need for it, but forfeiture of the game seems over the top.


How about if a key player is touch-and-go to be ready for the game. So you include him in the 26. And then he fails a fitness test that morning... does that mean you have to play with a sub less?

I think it's pretty perfect. Cuts all nonsense out of it, you can't decide to take the punishment etc., you just can't do it.

Making a call on playing an injured player or not is something that has equal potential to effect every team so I don't think it's unfair. Still plenty room for plenty subs in the 25 if you want to take a chance with a guy.

zetecescort

are we heading for match programmes just listing the 26 players instead of the first 15 in position?

Clareman

Idiotic, overly bureaucratic, BS rules.

For the squad thing.
Does 9am matter for all matches at the weekend or just games on Sunday, in that case do Saturday games have to be in on Wednesday? If a match is on in the evening does it mean it gets a bit later. Also, what is the definition of submitted? Email sent or received? Letter sent or received? Phone call? I can see this only impacting on injured players who managers are hoping to be fit but mightn't be, in turn this could lead to players playing when they shouldn't.

For the team thing.
FFS, 20 minutes, so All Ireland Sunday someone is to be walking around with pieces of paper at 3.10 looking for committee members and interupting the ref's warm up. Who's going to decide who on the committee is to receive the teams and where they are to be met? Who's responsible for making sure the team is given/taken at the right place.

For the "interview" thing.
Who decides what is derogatory or not? If a manager is to call a ref a numpty or question why a free wasn't given are they both the same things? Also, what's decided to be an interview? If I meet a manager and what he thought of something and then put it up here, is that an interview?

All this is going to do is lead to teams looking for loop holes to stay in the championship, can't wait to see teams finding a spelling mistake or questioning the use of Irish or English on a team sheet. The system as it is is fine, they should stop trying to find work for themselves.

Clareman

zetecescort wrote: »

are we heading for match programmes just listing the 26 players instead of the first 15 in position?

I've a feeling they're trying to get a squad system going where everyone is given a number.

castletownman

I can see the logic of the squad lists at club level. The amount of local matches I've been to in Wexford club championship over the last few years where the team listed on the programme is entirely different from the one on the field of play is staggering. Would nearly need to Rosetta Stone to figure it out. At least a set squads list would be easier for clubs to adhere to for the duration of the year (players/mentors not having to worry about who corresponds with the programme etc.)

But I don't think it's as big an issue at inter-county level for it to be implemented across the board.

nice_guy80

Pity the rules re: referees weren't in force this year, Cody would have got a deserved punishment

glued

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Pity the rules re: referees weren't in force this year, Cody would have got a deserved punishment

Did he name a dummy team this year?

In the championship against Tipp last year he did. Although I don't see the purpose in it as everybody knew that Shefflin would play some part and Paul Murphy started despite not being named in the panel. I think there was 3-4 changes to the panel that day and all of them were known days before throw in.

Sad to see one of the great managers in sport getting caught up in silly little games like that.

nice_guy80

glued wrote: »

Did he name a dummy team this year?

In the championship against Tipp last year he did. Although I don't see the purpose in it as everybody knew that Shefflin would play some part and Paul Murphy started despite not being named in the panel. I think there was 3-4 changes to the panel that day and all of them were known days before throw in.

Sad to see one of the great managers in sport getting caught up in silly little games like that.

I was referring to the criticism of the referee

Dirty Dingus McGee

Do people apart from the media actually give a toss about dummy teams.To me it seems an almost completely media driven issue.

I'd be pretty sure that for every panel/team that is named there are a couple of 50/50 calls and why should the manager be forced to name his panel well before the match when he may not be sure which players he wants to include.

Just get rid of naming a team and announce a squad of 30 players and the team can be announced just before throw in.

Fr Tod Umptious

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Do people apart from the media actually give a toss about dummy teams.To me it seems an almost completely media driven issue.

I'd be pretty sure that for every panel/team that is named there are a couple of 50/50 calls and why should the manager be forced to name his panel well before the match when he may not be sure which players he wants to include.

Just get rid of naming a team and announce a squad of 30 players and the team can be announced just before throw in.

Totally agree with that.

On Terrace Talk (Best Sports Program, PPI Radio Awards 2014) the day after the All Ireland Wheeshie and co were giving out about McGuiness naming a dummy team prior to the final.
All members of the panel on the show agreed that is should be banned and was disrespectful to the fans going to the game.
I thought to myself, WTF, get over it, its only the naming of a team for God's sake.

ProudDUB

I think its a media driven thing. The newspapers and talk shows want to know who is playing in advance, so they know who to do their stories on. I couldn't care less personally.

I couldn't give two hoots if the team was named on game day, or several days before. 9 times out of 10, it will be just as you expected. The others times...who cares? These are all amateur athletes. If they are carrying a knock before a big game, they should be given as much times as possible to get over it. They aren't professionals who can put their feet up and dedicate every single moment of their day to rehabbing their injury. They have to go about their business and go back to work or college, just like everyone else, which could very well further strain the injury. It's not fair to tell those lads, that unless they are 100% confirmed as being good to go 3 1/2 days before the game, that they can't play in it.

Hammer Archer

So the team must be named at least 20 minutes before throw in? Has there been a provision made for a player that gets injured during the warmup?

Clareman

Hammer Archer wrote: »

So the team must be named at least 20 minutes before throw in? Has there been a provision made for a player that gets injured during the warmup?

That's in place already, the team have to use a sub to replace the injured player.

A few years ago Clare were playing Limerick in an All Ireland quarter final (I think) and Tony Considine was trying to play a fast 1 by saying that Gerry Quinn wouldn't be playing cause he was injured when he was warming up behind him. Clare had to use a sub to start Gerry and then had to use another sub when he had to come off cause he was injured.

Mountainlad

Clareman wrote: »

That's in place already, the team have to use a sub to replace the injured player.

A few years ago Clare were playing Limerick in an All Ireland quarter final (I think) and Tony Considine was trying to play a fast 1 by saying that Gerry Quinn wouldn't be playing cause he was injured when he was warming up behind him. Clare had to use a sub to start Gerry and then had to use another sub when he had to come off cause he was injured.

It makes me laugh that that happened to Considine

eigrod

ProudDUB wrote: »

I think its a media driven thing. The newspapers and talk shows want to know who is playing in advance, so they know who to do their stories on. I couldn't care less personally.

I agree with that. Never bothered me one iota at either a County or Club game. There are all sorts of reasons why a management team aren't in a position to finalise their team on a Wednesday or Thursday night before a game.

savannahkat

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I was referring to the criticism of the referee

Brian Cody told the truth.

BrianBoru00

Bring in punishment for criticising referees - Fair enough but then there should be a forum where the referees performance can be fairly analysed and criticised.
"Learn from mistakes" . If mistakes are not acknowledged then referees are not learning and consistency is not improving.


Loss of game for incorrect list - this is an absolute joke of a rule. I can guarantee that a game will be lost, then appealed - and the result will be to either replay the game or award as per the original score.
Do these flutes not discuss the possible scenarios?

To enforce - BRING IN TEAM TECHNICAL FOULS (as opposed "playing technical fouls" ).
If the correct list is not used - award a 45m free to the opposition. (and yes if both teams make the infringements - both will be penalised by seperate 45m frees.

And before someone says "It'll never work..." It works in other sport - what would be wrong with trying it out for next years league (the entire league, not until two high profile managers complain about it..). Other sports are consistently tweaking rules to combat "loopholes" etc. - I think the GAA should do likewise.


And while I'm on a rant - what I'd actually do :
Instigate 4 or 5 inter club tournaments throughout January/February/ March with these new rules - THEN if succesful introduce them at county level.
e.g. a tournament involving 6 teams from North Sligo / North Leitrim / South Donegal / West Fermanagh played over 5 consecutive Tuesday evenings in Sligo IT. another in AIT / or someother floodlit venues.
Provide a meal after the games to players from both teams and receive feedback on what s working / not working. Provide training tops or kit to club s as a thank you / incentive.

The Lost Sheep

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Bring in punishment for criticising referees - Fair enough but then there should be a forum where the referees performance can be fairly analysed and criticised.
"Learn from mistakes" . If mistakes are not acknowledged then referees are not learning and consistency is not improving.

Loss of game for incorrect list - this is an absolute joke of a rule. I can guarantee that a game will be lost, then appealed - and the result will be to either replay the game or award as per the original score.
Do these flutes not discuss the possible scenarios?

To enforce - BRING IN TEAM TECHNICAL FOULS (as opposed "playing technical fouls" ).
If the correct list is not used - award a 45m free to the opposition. (and yes if both teams make the infringements - both will be penalised by seperate 45m frees.

And before someone says "It'll never work..." It works in other sport - what would be wrong with trying it out for next years league (the entire league, not until two high profile managers complain about it..). Other sports are consistently tweaking rules to combat "loopholes" etc. - I think the GAA should do likewise.

And while I'm on a rant - what I'd actually do :
Instigate 4 or 5 inter club tournaments throughout January/February/ March with these new rules - THEN if succesful introduce them at county level.
e.g. a tournament involving 6 teams from North Sligo / North Leitrim / South Donegal / West Fermanagh played over 5 consecutive Tuesday evenings in Sligo IT. another in AIT / or someother floodlit venues.
Provide a meal after the games to players from both teams and receive feedback on what s working / not working. Provide training tops or kit to club s as a thank you / incentive.

Are referee's not continuously assessed by other officials so as they receive appropriate feedback on their refereeing? That is an appropriate forum for referees to receive feedback etc on how they referee games, specific aspects of their game that need improvement.

Mountainlad

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Bring in punishment for criticising referees - Fair enough but then there should be a forum where the referees performance can be fairly analysed and criticised.
"Learn from mistakes" . If mistakes are not acknowledged then referees are not learning and consistency is not improving.

That's why the referees are have a review committee. Just because their discussions aren't broadcast or printed does not mean they don't happen and have merit.

The Sunday Game will also continue to analyze the decisions (fairly, one would hope) and there will be plenty of discussion. But a manager bringing a refs reputation into disrepute or making allegations against them doing their best to referee the game in the best interests of both teams will be punished. And also it is to counteract managers saying anything about a ref before a game, though undoubtedly they could be asked questions about that. The trick is not to answer them.

Clareman

I wonder what would happen if 1 of the pundits on the Sunday game trains a local team has a go at a refs performance, does that mean that they would get a sideline ban?

Here is an example of a sideline ban in Clare recently, you may remember the row between Anthony Daly and the opposition management, below is the guy who got a sideline ban. This picture is the guy giving his pep talk to the team

Mountainlad

One problem I'd have with it is when it's enforced. Say if your team loses and is knocked out of the all ireland, and you have a cut at the ref, does that mean you are suspended for the first game of the Waterford Crystal?

Doubt that would be an effective prohibitive measure.

zetecescort

Mountainlad wrote: »

One problem I'd have with it is when it's enforced. Say if your team loses and is knocked out of the all ireland, and you have a cut at the ref, does that mean you are suspended for the first game of the Waterford Crystal?

Doubt that would be an effective prohibitive measure.

Make it like the player bans. get banned for criticising the ref after a championship game, serve the ban in your next championship game(s) whether it's next year or not.

savannahkat

Not been allowed to voice your opinion on the performance of a referee is wrong. The refs take on the job knowing full well what comes with the territory and not being able to publicly criticize a poor performance is outlandish and will lead to poorer and not better refereeing. The standard of refereeing has gone down noticeably in the recent past and a lot of the reason is the ongoing set of regularly imposed and ever more draconian penalties being imposed on any one who does publicly criticize them. If the quality of refereeing was going up those who want to and impose these rules might have a point but the reality is that the standard is at rock bottom at present and was never worse. No one wants to deal with the truth of it. It is easier to attack those who are unhappy with it and pretend there is noting wrong in the wonderful closed world of the referee.

The Lost Sheep

savannahkat wrote: »

Not been allowed to voice your opinion on the performance of a referee is wrong. The refs take on the job knowing full well what comes with the territory and not being able to publicly criticize a poor performance is outlandish and will lead to poorer and not better refereeing. The standard of refereeing has gone down noticeably in the recent past and a lot of the reason is the ongoing set of regularly imposed and ever more draconian penalties being imposed on any one who does publicly criticize them. If the quality of refereeing was going up those who want to and impose these rules might have a point but the reality is that the standard is at rock bottom at present and was never worse. No one wants to deal with the truth of it. It is easier to attack those who are unhappy with it and pretend there is noting wrong in the wonderful closed world of the referee.

Analysis of how a referee does is fine but the trial by media isn't needed. If a coach or anyone involved in a county management team has an issue with how a referee deals with certain aspects should they not contact the referees association/board. If there isn't a body to represent referees then surely there should be one created
Public criticism doesn't do anyone any good.

BrianBoru00

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Are referee's not continuously assessed by other officials so as they receive appropriate feedback on their refereeing? That is an appropriate forum for referees to receive feedback etc on how they referee games, specific aspects of their game that need improvement.

The problem is that this is a secretive body and it doesn't seem to be working. No major changes in the way games are refereed.

My point is that theres no point in changing rules if the implementation of rules is not first sorted out. By analysing and having two way discussion betweb referees & managers / players standards can be improved and a more consistent approach can be arrived at.

nice_guy80

Clareman wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if 1 of the pundits on the Sunday game trains a local team has a go at a refs performance, does that mean that they would get a sideline ban?

Here is an example of a sideline ban in Clare recently, you may remember the row between Anthony Daly and the opposition management, below is the guy who got a sideline ban. This picture is the guy giving his pep talk to the team

that's genius

Mountainlad

savannahkat wrote: »

Not been allowed to voice your opinion on the performance of a referee is wrong. The refs take on the job knowing full well what comes with the territory and not being able to publicly criticize a poor performance is outlandish and will lead to poorer and not better refereeing. The standard of refereeing has gone down noticeably in the recent past and a lot of the reason is the ongoing set of regularly imposed and ever more draconian penalties being imposed on any one who does publicly criticize them. If the quality of refereeing was going up those who want to and impose these rules might have a point but the reality is that the standard is at rock bottom at present and was never worse. No one wants to deal with the truth of it. It is easier to attack those who are unhappy with it and pretend there is noting wrong in the wonderful closed world of the referee.

It would actually be easier to attack referees than defend them, which is what most people on the terrace/public forums like this do.

The rule put in place doesn't stop managers from commenting entirely on their decisions. If they are asked "What did you think of that a decision?" and they said "Well, I think he got that one wrong" and left it at that then I don't see their being grounds for a suspension.

The suspension would be in relation to derogatory comments, and the rule is already in place. The only thing they have changed is the type of suspension received.

And you are wrong to say the bit in bold. Whatever about Brian Cody, but I remember it being caught by the pitch side microphone last year in the all-ireland quarter between Clare and Galway of Fitzgerald calling the linesman a 'boll*cks'.

That's not acceptable, and isn't punished enough. And finally, for what it's worth, I don't remember thinking that too many refs spoiled games this year. Wouldn't be a big fan of Johnny Ryan, but that's about it really.

savannahkat

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Analysis of how a referee does is fine but the trial by media isn't needed. If a coach or anyone involved in a county management team has an issue with how a referee deals with certain aspects should they not contact the referees association/board. If there isn't a body to represent referees then surely there should be one created
Public criticism doesn't do anyone any good.

Analysis you say is fine but what if that analysis includes well founded criticism. With these new proposed rules it will get you banned. As long as there is no public forum to express a well founded criticism referees can continue to hide and the standards will plummet even further if such is possible. It is the standard of refereeing that is at fault not those who express their unhappiness with it. If there is a hole in the bucket you don't replace the handle.

The Lost Sheep

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

The problem is that this is a secretive body and it doesn't seem to be working. No major changes in the way games are refereed.

My point is that theres no point in changing rules if the implementation of rules is not first sorted out. By analysing and having two way discussion betweb referees & managers / players standards can be improved and a more consistent approach can be arrived at.

No issue with it being a secretive body. Yes how games are refereed has to be changed or adapted but the culture of how referees are treated overall has to change

savannahkat wrote: »

Analysis you say is fine but what if that analysis includes well founded criticism. With these new proposed rules it will get you banned. As long as there is no public forum to express a well founded criticism referees can continue to hide and the standards will plummet even further if such is possible. It is the standard of refereeing that is at fault not those who express their unhappiness with it. If there is a hole in the bucket you don't replace the handle.

That's fine and if done privately criticism within reason should be allowed but talking to media who'll lap it up isn't way forward

savannahkat

The whole point is that refereeing standards have dropped alarmingly in the recent past. This whole topic is way off base and chasing the wrong hare. The real problem in the game of hurling is the dreadful standard of refereeing and no amount of changing the rules to punish those who publicly say so is not the solution to the problem. The players, the managers, the coaches are all subject to public scrutiny and punishment, so too should the referees. To say you must only voice a criticism in private where maybe a handful of people are involved and most of those with a hidden agenda of their own is doing the general hurling follower and supporter an injustice. The supporters pay the GAA bills after all, and should be just as much informed about how referees are appointed, sanctioned if appropriate and generally allowed a view if not an input into the whole hidden and secret world of the referee.

zetecescort

yes, refs performances should be questioned in public but this new sanction is to clamp down on the language used by managers

Clareman

Coaches aren't going to give interviews now, there's going to be more and more cases like the Armagh setup where there was a media ban.

zetecescort

They will all be talking in riddles like Davy Fitzgerald

Mountainlad

Clareman wrote: »

Coaches aren't going to give interviews now, there's going to be more and more cases like the Armagh setup where there was a media ban.

I doubt it. Hardly anything has actually changed here. If anything, it's less severe to slag off a ref now then it was in the middle of the championship.

Bit of an over-reaction to what is a good decision.

Clareman

If the IRB followed the same rules as the GAA are trying to bring in Ireland would have forfeited the match yesterday as Chris Henry came down with a virus and had to be replaced in the squad.

reap-a-rat

In relation to the expansion of Hawkeye, what's the reason that an Ulster stadium and two Munster stadiums would get it, but no Connacht stadium? That seems a little unfair on one province. Though it would still be great to get it outside of Croke Park.

Clareman

reap-a-rat wrote: »

In relation to the expansion of Hawkeye, what's the reason that an Ulster stadium and two Munster stadiums would get it, but no Connacht stadium? That seems a little unfair on one province. Though it would still be great to get it outside of Croke Park.

Ahh, you're nothing thinking with your GAA hat on.

The GAA was caught out this year with a football replay that had to be played outside of Croke Park, they can't come out and say that only certain grounds can hold big matches, BUT by installing Hawk Eye in certain grounds they automatically have grounds that can hold big matches and people can't complain about the travelling because they are the only grounds with Hawk Eye so there isn't a choice.

Mountainlad

Very anti GAA this morning Clareman. I would assume the reason being that Thurles, Pairc Ui Chaimh and Casements park (when done up) will be the most modern stadiums in the Country after Croker. They've already trialled a large screen at Semple (though not convinced by it myself) and I imagine theyll be inbuilt in the other two.

As for the team sheets, if that happens the player wouldn't be replaced. Isn't it only 23 for match day squads in Rugby? So you've 3 extra subs in hurling or football and less specialized positions. Not comparing like with like.

Clareman

Mountainlad wrote: »

Very anti GAA this morning Clareman.

Probably am, not like me

Mountainlad wrote: »

I would assume the reason being that Thurles, Pairc Ui Chaimh and Casements park (when done up) will be the most modern stadiums in the Country after Croker. They've already trialled a large screen at Semple (though not convinced by it myself) and I imagine theyll be inbuilt in the other two.

I would say that Casement and PUC are being included as they are being done up at the moment anyway so there'll be no hassle with planning or anything like that in case something needs to be put up. Thurles is being done for hurling.
It would cost ~€500,000 to install Hawk Eye at all venues (source), I would have thought that this cost could be easily paid for by a Croke Park event. Be under no illusions, the GAA are very unhappy about the whole Kerry & Mayo thing last summer, between Mayo complaining, the guy on the pitch and the invasion at the end it was a nightmare for the GAA, they need to have a way to only have matches in "approved" venues, the easiest way to do this would be to only have Hawk Eye in their approved venues.

Mountainlad wrote: »

As for the team sheets, if that happens the player wouldn't be replaced. Isn't it only 23 for match day squads in Rugby? So you've 3 extra subs in hurling or football and less specialized positions. Not comparing like with like.

Rugby is only 23 alright, also a LOT LOT LOT more restrictive in relation to the types of subs you can have, you have to have a prop & a hooker, probably cover for your 9 & 10 also, so that's 4 of your 7 gone straight away. But what happens if 2 guys come down with a virus before a match? Down to 24 players straight away. They are just trying to make things complicated for no reason.

Mountainlad

Clareman wrote: »

Rugby is only 23 alright, also a LOT LOT LOT more restrictive in relation to the types of subs you can have, you have to have a prop & a hooker, probably cover for your 9 & 10 also, so that's 4 of your 7 gone straight away. But what happens if 2 guys come down with a virus before a match? Down to 24 players straight away. They are just trying to make things complicated for no reason.

You could be right there. To be honest though 9 subs should be well enough to cover your team, the reality is if players don't make your first 26 your not likely to bring them on I would assume.

Don't think it was urgently required this rule change but I don't see it as a massive point of contention.

I have no problem with managers having a go with refs but what I'd like to see an end to is managers saying that there were some issues with the ref but then add that 'I'm not going to get into that' even when pressed on the matter. If you bring it up you have to follow through on it, otherwise stay quiet.