Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Congress 2020

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cynical foul in open field - free from middle of 21.
    Cynical foul when a goal is on - penalty.

    At least try to make the punishment fit the crime. Putting someone off for 10 minutes is nonsense.


  • Options
    #63
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    Cynical foul in open field - free from middle of 21.
    Cynical foul when a goal is on - penalty.

    At least try to make the punishment fit the crime. Putting someone off for 10 minutes is nonsense.
    so a team down a player and you can have multiple sin bins occuring at a time is nonsense. How?
    Just because a foul is deemed cynical anywhere on field of play shouldnt mean you get an automatic score from a 21. Now that is nonsense.


  • Options
    #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    so a team down a player and you can have multiple sin bins occuring at a time is nonsense. How?
    Just because a foul is deemed cynical anywhere on field of play shouldnt mean you get an automatic score from a 21. Now that is nonsense.

    Grand, further out then. But a point is less of a punishment than ten minutes without a player, which is extreme.


  • Options
    #65
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    Grand, further out then. But a point is less of a punishment than ten minutes without a player, which is extreme.
    potentially being down a player for 10 minutes may stop teams committing some of the cynical fouls then wouldnt it?
    It would do a lot more than just giving teams a free score which a 21 yard free would do.


  • Options
    #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    potentially being down a player for 10 minutes may stop teams committing some of the cynical fouls then wouldnt it?
    It would do a lot more than just giving teams a free score which a 21 yard free would do.

    As we’ve seen in both codes nobody has a clue what a cynical foul, or even a foul, is any more.

    Ten minutes of being a man up if you run into someone in midfield and flail about on the ground for a while. Happy days.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    recyclebin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,506 ✭✭✭recyclebin


    In intercounty GAA you normally have 3 qualified refs on the field but two if them do very little except run up and down the sideline. Why can't they do like basketball and be proper refs. Would cut out a lot of the cynical fouling, off the ball stuff and diving.


  • Options
    #68
    Uncle Pierre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,485 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    Motion 19 passes.


    https://twitter.com/moseyb86/status/1233725768494198784?s=21

    Very suprised there hasn't been more discussion of this, whether the discussion be here or anywhere else. Particularly since a very similar motion was heavily defeated last year and there was lots of coverage of the issue then.


  • Options
    #69
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    As we’ve seen in both codes nobody has a clue what a cynical foul, or even a foul, is any more.

    Ten minutes of being a man up if you run into someone in midfield and flail about on the ground for a while. Happy days.
    you have come to what actually is issue and it's the rule book. That needs the overhaul first
    recyclebin wrote: »
    In intercounty GAA you normally have 3 qualified refs on the field but two if them do very little except run up and down the sideline. Why can't they do like basketball and be proper refs. Would cut out a lot of the cynical fouling, off the ball stuff and diving.
    give the linesman more powers then. Not just basketball but rugby which has assistant refs and not just linesmen. You have to give linesmen more powers to allow then call infringements. Same with umpires. Give them more powers to make calls


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Uncle Pierre wrote: »
    Very suprised there hasn't been more discussion of this, whether the discussion be here or anywhere else. Particularly since a very similar motion was heavily defeated last year and there was lots of coverage of the issue then.

    Because the wording of the above post is misleading.

    I read a longer version, possibly on GAA.ie and it says that the neutral venue will depend on their opponent and the CCC will decide the venue.
    So if it's someone like Mayo they'll play it in Croke Park since they'd be able to sell it out.

    So basically in short "We believe in fairness.. but only when we're not leaving money on the table".


  • Options
    #71
    Uncle Pierre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,485 ✭✭✭Uncle Pierre


    Actually looks like it might be a GAA solution to a GAA problem all right.

    The motion put before Congress and approved was:

    (19) That Rule 6.28 (A) (iii) - Inter-County Championships – All-Ireland Senior Football Championship -
    All-Ireland Quarter-Final Group Stage - Official Guide Part 1 (pages 97/98) be amended as follows:
    Phase 1
    Team 1 v Team 2 (neutral venue)
    Team 3 v Team 4 (neutral venue)
    Rest of Rule to remain unchanged.
    Ard Chomhairle

    Think the longer piece you’re referring to, that mentions Dublin v Mayo, might be this:
    https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/dublin-footballers-may-play-two-super-8s-games-outside-croke-park-39001745.html

    Anyway, seems it paves the way for the CCCC to rubberstamp the ludicrous notion that Croke Park is a “netural” venue for Dublin, as they could still fix the Phase 1 “neutral venue” round for there.

    Thinking more about it, the intention behind the change might actually be more to prevent other teams from having to go to Croke Park. For example, if Kerry were to play Galway or Mayo in Phase 1, the game could now be fixed for somewhere like Limerick instead of dragging them both to Dublin.

    By the way, turns out that the Donegal motion that was defeated last year was very different. It was: "Counties who qualify for the Football Inter County Quarter Final Group Stage shall not be permitted to nominate Croke Park as their Home Venue."

    That's very different. I've no problem with the Dubs nominating Croke Park as their home venue for their home game. The obvious issue though is how the same venue can then also be considered neutral for a different match, when even the Dubs themselves say they want to consider it their home venue.

    Anyway, I know this has all been teased out before so I don't mean to start another whole round-in-circles on the rights and wrongs of the Dubs having two Super 8s games in Croke Park. Was just curious why there wasn't more discussion about the motion being passed.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement