All Ireland SHC Final (formerly SHC thread) - READ MOD NOTE POST #1

mickmackey1

Powerhouse wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Plenty of issues have been revisited over the years because referees didn't see them at the time. It has never been a problem for referees to accept this. I have no idea why Owens would not be protecting himself by doing this. Only an absolute cretin would not accept that the referee has to make a split-second judgement, sometimes on something he has not seen (as opposed to the viewers who see twenty reviews of the event) with no access to replays. Knowing and accepting this, why would revisiting an issue damage the referee?

Instead it could be argued that Owens potentially damaged himself by saying he was aware of it and took no action, as it runs the risk of pissing off people who might appoint referees. By saying he didn't see it, he simply would have acknowledged that he is human, and the CCCC takes the rap from disgruntled supporters when the player misses the final. From that point of view his stance is courageous.

You seem to be saying that Owens was both courageous and stupid. Make your mind up.

munsterlegend

djPSB wrote: »

CCCC not happy with Owens decision on incident.

Not surprising. Something's not right somewhere.

Well it makes the system a joke. Unless a person is in cloud cuckoo land or from Waterford Gleeson should have walked during the game or not be playing in the final. Owens is being made look a complete idiot by his own actions.

Anyway that's sport. These things balance up usually or maybe it's meant to be Waterford year. Now if mayo could also win the football it would be some double from the 50's.

danganabu

Powerhouse wrote: »

Get a life FFS! The opposing player got up and played on and was fine immediately afterwards. Whatever the rights and wrongs of rule implementation wanting a player to miss the final is fairly sad. There are worse things than a young fella playing in an All Ireland final.

Exactly you tell them Powerhouse, rules eh whats that all about

keeponhurling

Does this mean that Owens should be disciplined by the Referees' committee?
He seems to have effectively admitted that he saw a clear red card offence, and ignored it.
So either he is incompetent, or he is making up the rules as he goes along. Either way it doesn't look good for him.

danganabu

keeponhurling wrote: »

Does this mean that Owens should be disciplined by the Referees' committee?
He seems to have effectively admitted that he saw a clear red card offence, and ignored it.
So either he is incompetent, or he is making up the rules as he goes along. Either way it doesn't look good for him.

I have said it on a number of threads that this entire episode has been farcical but if he is removed from the inter-county referees panel next year then that is the cherry on the cake.

Powerhouse

mickmackey1 wrote: »

You seem to be saying that Owens was both courageous and stupid. Make your mind up.

I can find the word "courageous" in there but not the word "stupid".

Powerhouse

danganabu wrote: »

Exactly you tell them Powerhouse, rules eh whats that all about

Good point. I'm sure you weren't worried when Tipperary scored their first goal in last year's final despite Cathal Barrett touching the ball on the ground in the action just before it and Kilkenny being denied a free in. Rules are for pedants. Tis true for you.

ForestFire

I don't think anyone from Waterford is really arguing that Austin has been nothing but lucky to avoid suspension in this instance, and the rules need to change or be applied differently in future.

But we are making the points on the inconstancy in the rule, Tadgh should not have been suspended, Touhy should be suspended, and Austin should be suspended.

Its not Waterford's fault now that the rules and procedures are being followed by the GAA and he is clear to play...

As I said earlier maybe the Ref/Linesman saw the incident at the time, but how clearly we don't know. They though at the time (Without Replays, Different angles, slowmos) that is was not deliberate. There are not allowed change there view based on the video evidence, they are only allowed say if the saw the incident or not and dealt with it at the time.

So why the witch hunt for Austin and nothing about Touhy (Except for Eddie still notes it below).
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/hurling/do-we-have-to-wait-for-someones-ear-to-be-ripped-off-eddie-brennan-slams-gaas-disciplinary-process-36037984.html

They are both cleared and both free to play.....

Powerhouse

Larbre34 wrote: »

The CCCC must be allowed to have full discretion over reviewing incidents.

The CCCC has full discretion to review the incident where Marc Ellis kicked Jamie Barron. Are they doing so? Is anyone here exercised over that? :rolleyes:

Powerhouse

ForestFire wrote: »

But we are making the points on the inconstancy in the rule, Tadgh should not have been suspended, Touhy should be suspended, and Austin should be suspended.

So why the witch hunt for Austin and nothing about Touhy (Except for Eddie still notes it below).
[ur

A good call on all three. But people aren't really interested in consistency in rules. Just wait until such an issue visits their own county.............

Why the witch-hunt for Austin? FFS did you not see the goal he got? We can't have that! He's far too high-profile. Tuohy is a corner-back none of us would facially recognise and matters far less to people. It's the same reason people get so worked up every time Diarmaid Connolly breaks wind.

danganabu

Powerhouse wrote: »

Good point. I'm sure you weren't worried when Tipperary scored their first goal in last year's final despite Cathal Barrett touching the ball on the ground in the action just before it and Kilkenny being denied a free in. Rules are for pedants. Tis true for you.

Excellent counter Strawman, sorry I mean Powerhouse

Powerhouse

danganabu wrote: »

Excellent counter Strawman, sorry I mean Powerhouse

It was a good enough counter for you not to be able to contradict.

TheRiverman

Powerhouse wrote: »

Get a life FFS! The opposing player got up and played on and was fine immediately afterwards. Whatever the rights and wrongs of rule implementation wanting a player to miss the final is fairly sad. There are worse things than a young fella playing in an All Ireland final.

Missing the point?

Powerhouse

TheRiverman wrote: »

Missing the point?

No, just making my own point - that whatever arguments are made about rules (and let's face it people are extraordinarily hypocritical on these matters - it never applies to their own team) it is unedifying to see a witch-hunt of a particular player.

djPSB

Larbre34 wrote: »

They are in a right mess now to be sure, the referees stance has meant the specific rule around the incident has been voided and now CCCC cant take it further because of what....the rules!

The CCCC must be allowed to have full discretion over reviewing incidents. Referees will always protect themselves, I mean Owens was never going to say "actually lads, I watched it on the Sunday game and he shouldve been gone..."

Gleeson will play the final and he shouldnt be...

Tbh I actually couldn't give a bolleeex about Gleeson playing or not playing.

It's the inconsistency and incompetency of the system that bugs me.

Owens should never be allowed to ref again after those comments.

Utopia Parkway

Powerhouse wrote: »

No, just making my own point - that whatever arguments are made about rules (and let's face it people are extraordinarily hypocritical on these matters - it never applies to their own team) it is unedifying to see a witch-hunt of a particular player.

Look he's absolutely blessed not to be missing an All-Ireland final and he would have nobody to blame but himself if he had. Especially given his previous. Indulging in whataboutery probably does nobody any good especially Austin Gleeson. There will be more of those type of incidents unless he curbs his petulant streak. Hopefully this is something he learns from at the very least.

Ultimately though the GAA is the loser here as their disciplinary procedures have again proved to be a jokeshop and not fit for purpose.

djPSB

keeponhurling wrote: »

Does this mean that Owens should be disciplined by the Referees' committee?
He seems to have effectively admitted that he saw a clear red card offence, and ignored it.
So either he is incompetent, or he is making up the rules as he goes along. Either way it doesn't look good for him.

He saw the offence, ignored it. And is still happy that he made the correct decision. Only the rules and recent judgements suggest otherwise.

puzl

This is getting beyond annoying at this point. Can we please all just shut the **** up with the hurler on the ditch criticism of players, officials and the gaa. A loud minority of keyboard warriors are denying these forums of any opportunity at discussion, banter and excitement.

danganabu

puzl wrote: »

This is getting beyond annoying at this point. Can we please all just shut the **** up with the hurler on the ditch criticism of players, officials and the gaa. A loud minority of keyboard warriors are denying these forums of any opportunity at discussion, banter and excitement.

It's the biggest talking point in the GAA at the moment whether you like it or not, this is a discussion board not a fanboy site so why anyone wanting to discuss it is automatically labelled a ''keyboard warrior'' seems bizarre.

Utopia Parkway

puzl wrote: »

This is getting beyond annoying at this point. Can we please all just shut the **** up with the hurler on the ditch criticism of players, officials and the gaa. A loud minority of keyboard warriors are denying these forums of any opportunity at discussion, banter and excitement.

This is a bit odd. Don't be on a discussion forum having a discussion? Dare I say it's doing exactly what it's designed for unless I'm missing something?

Powerhouse

djPSB wrote: »

He saw the offence, ignored it. And is still happy that he made the correct decision. Only the rules and recent judgements suggest otherwise.

But you make it seem as if there's only one possible narrative here. The rules do not (necessarily) suggest he did not make the correct decision. The rule states that it must be deliberate and the referee is entitled to take a view on that if he wants. He could decide (and he has to do so instantaneously as distinct from poring over slow-motion replays) that the player's hand was caught in the helmet and brought off the helmet in the act of pulling his hand away. The rule does not contradict his right to do this. It is at the end of the day a judgement call.

As for "recent judgements"...............well Tuohy was found to have no case to answer even though he pulled the helmet off another player's head in the middle of tussle for the ball. That recent judgement doesn't exactly damn James Owens, rather it sets a strong precedent.

For what it's worth I think both players are guilty of the offence but I accept the referee's right to make the call.

C__MC

Powerhouse wrote: »

He certainly has changed his mind on player safety since he stuck a hurley into Seamus Hickey's face through the helmet. Old players retire but hypocrisy goes on forever.

Did he also not grab ollie canninhs helmet

Deise Vu

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

This is a bit odd. Don't be on a discussion forum having a discussion? Dare I say it's doing exactly what it's designed for unless I'm missing something?

This has been the discussion:

Various begrudgers: Waterford might have won but they won't have Gleeson in the final. Definite deliberate interference with Meade's helmet. Has to be banned. Ha Ha!

Waterford Response: But Adrian Tuohy did the exact same thing and he got away with it?

Begrudgers: It wasn't the same Tuohy was reaching back behind him with his hand up in Bonner's face. As you do. In Pilates classes. The ref saw it at the time and said to play on. Therefore it was dealt with and the CCCP can't intervene.

Refs Report on Gleeson: I saw the incident and didn't think it warranted a red. I just saw Gleeson getting up looking away and the helmet falling off. I don't have 360 degree vision, nor slow mo replay in my head. Sorry.

Begrudgers: Bu...but....but.... what about the childer! Repeat and rinse, repeat and rinse.

Waterford fans: WTF???

Powerhouse

puzl wrote: »

This is getting beyond annoying at this point. Can we please all just shut the **** up with the hurler on the ditch criticism of players, officials and the gaa. A loud minority of keyboard warriors are denying these forums of any opportunity at discussion, banter and excitement.

Without exception anyone who has to resort to a cartoon/photograph/Father Ted reference to make a point is at nothing.

danganabu

Deise Vu wrote: »

This has been the discussion:

Various begrudgers: Waterford might have won but they won't have Gleeson in the final. Definite deliberate interference with Meade's helmet. Has to be banned. Ha Ha!

Waterford Response: But Adrian Tuohy did the exact same thing and he got away with it?

Begrudgers: It wasn't the same Tuohy was reaching back behind him with his hand up in Bonner's face. As you do. In Pilates classes. The ref saw it at the time and said to play on. Therefore it was dealt with and the CCCP can't intervene.

Refs Report on Gleeson: I saw the incident and didn't think it warranted a red. I just saw Gleeson getting up looking away and the helmet falling off. I don't have 360 degree vision, nor slow mo replay in my head. Sorry.

Begrudgers: Bu...but....but.... what about the childer! Repeat and rinse, repeat and rinse.

Waterford fans: WTF???

Begrudging what exactly? I hate to point out the obvious but Waterford haven't actually won anything to begrudge, this chip on the shoulder playing the victim lark is whats growing tiresome.

The hilarious thing being that if you back far enough in the Waterford thread, and you don't have to go back too far, all the negative talk and all the ''witch hunting'' was been done by Waterford people. Where are all the anti McGrath lads gone now???

danganabu

C__MC wrote: »

Did he also not grab ollie canninhs helmet

He did indeed 7 years ago, before it became a red card offence though.

ForestFire

danganabu wrote: »

The hilarious thing being that if you back far enough in the Waterford thread, and you don't have to go back too far, all the negative talk and all the ''witch hunting'' was been done by Waterford people. Where are all the anti McGrath lads gone now???

Seriously, What has this got to do with the helmet/discipline incidents??

Are we not allowed to discuss different topics independently from each other?

For the record I have never said anything about Mcgrath and believe all managers performance should be reviewed at the end of the season (not on boards mind you) on performance vs goals vs ambitions. (Except of course if your Cody when you do your own review, and rightly so;))

danganabu

ForestFire wrote: »

Seriously, What has this got to do with the helmet/discipline incidents??

Are we not allowed to discuss different topics independently from each other?

For the record I have never said anything about Mcgrath and believe all managers performance should be reviewed at the end of the season (not on boards mind you) on performance vs goals vs ambitions. (Except of course if your Cody when you do your own review, and rightly so;))

It has nothing to do with the helmet issue, this is the Liam McCarthy thread :rolleyes:

Yes we are all allowed to discuss different topics, which is why I pointed out the hypocrisy of those claiming that anyone not from Waterford that was discussing the Gleeson incident was a 'wum'

I never claimed you said anything negative about McGrath, are you denying a sizeable portion of Waterford people did though??

Bluemallon

djPSB wrote: »

He saw the offence, ignored it. And is still happy that he made the correct decision. Only the rules and recent judgements suggest otherwise.

So ye are switching the witchhunt from Aussie to Owens now what a sad bunch. Look your so called trad hurl counties will be back in an all ireland final someday again so dont ruin the party.

skytl

E