Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

ballsymchugh · 22-05-2017 04:40PM

Vunderground wrote: »

Thank you

He doubts???
Feel another rant coming on

from the tone of Kevin Kilbane going on about it the other night, it seemed like he thought that's what Jimmy would do - get his badges and want a high(ish) profile job straight away.
I was saying i thought the chances of that happening would be extremely remote.

PeterTheNinth · 22-05-2017 05:18PM

elefant wrote: »

Your man clearly did intentionally mislead the investigation; of course he would've known it was himself in that video clip.

Yeah that would be my reading of it as well. That's what really annoyed me about Gilroy's coverage... "this guy is a teacher, he's in a responsible profession, and there it is printed on the paper that he is a liar"... I think they both need to come down off the cross.

monstermag · 22-05-2017 09:13PM

I taught the last two paper review segments have been a waste of time, I had a pain in my ear after yesterday's one, Cliona hog the microphone Foley did my head in, granted she knows her stuff, but ease the jets a bit, give someone else a chance. They all agreed the Aidan O"Shea story was a non story, yet they went on about it for the guts of 20 mins or should I say Cliona Foley went on about it. Surely there has to be a decent few articles in the paper's they could cover. Pity because I've always liked the paper review

solderon · 23-05-2017 07:44PM

elefant wrote: »

It's actually a bit frustrating comparing how easy a ride Brolly got compared to the grilling Liam Keane took. Very poor stuff from OTB.

Liam Keane and co. made a serious error themselves so he hadn't really a leg to stand on from the outset. The coverage was a PR exercise for both sides, after the fact, attempting to save face.

In the course of that interview on Sat, Liam himself said the second hearing should never have happened by the CHC's own regulations. Thus the guilty verdict and ban were completely out of order.

That point seemed to get past Ger, but he could have nailed Keane on that, and it'd be end of interview.

OldMrBrennan83 · 23-05-2017 07:45PM

This post has been deleted.

solderon · 23-05-2017 07:58PM

Well, the onus would be on the CHC to prove the offence. And to that end they failed to provide evidence. If they couldn't make a case, that was their problem.

Imo, it was a daft idea for him to go on air attempting to defend the mistake.

OldMrBrennan83 · 23-05-2017 07:59PM

This post has been deleted.

solderon · 23-05-2017 08:03PM

They'd have had to provide a witness of their own for that. The player was under no obligation to implicate himself.

Quintis · 23-05-2017 08:14PM

Trying to understand, they charged him for misleading, but he was in turn never actually re-charged with the striking offence?

Like me robbing a store, caught on grainy camera, denying it was me, charges being dropped for contradictory/lack of evidence, then clearer footage is found which implicates me and I am charged with lying the first time it wasn't me without actually being charged with robbing the store?

The 48 week charge was for a second crime in defence of the first crime without any action in the end against the first crime?

elefant · 23-05-2017 09:01PM

solderon wrote: »

In the course of that interview on Sat, Liam himself said the second hearing should never have happened by the CHC's own regulations. Thus the guilty verdict and ban were completely out of order.

I could be wrong, but it sounded too me like the appeal clarified that the rule in question should only be applied if evidence of misleading an investigation is shown during the 'misled trial' itself. So in future, they would be bound by this case law, but it wasn't clear beforehand.

elefant · 23-05-2017 09:04PM

Quintis wrote: »

Trying to understand, they charged him for misleading, but he was in turn never actually re-charged with the striking offence?

Like me robbing a store, caught on grainy camera, denying it was me, charges being dropped for contradictory/lack of evidence, then clearer footage is found which implicates me and I am charged with lying the first time it wasn't me without actually being charged with robbing the store?

The 48 week charge was for a second crime in defence of the first crime without any action in the end against the first crime?

Pretty much, except charges were dropped initially because of it's the players word against someone else's, they'll accept the player. He specifically said 'it wasn't me'. They never ruled on whether he actually struck the guy out not; I guess they decided not to pursue it further? No idea why...

No way he wouldn't have recognised himself in the video I saw online.

elefant · 23-05-2017 09:05PM

solderon wrote: »

They'd have had to provide a witness of their own for that. The player was under no obligation to implicate himself.

They had an email from the player's own county board saying it was him.

OldMrBrennan83 · 23-05-2017 09:08PM

This post has been deleted.

PeterTheNinth · 23-05-2017 09:12PM

Kenny Cunningham was guilty of expressing views that were not consistent with the liberal views of the entire OTB cast, but don't worry they pulled him in line before 7.30pm

Jayesdiem · 23-05-2017 09:16PM

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Kenny Cunningham was guilty of expressing views that were not consistent with the liberal views of the entire OTB cast, but don't worry they pulled him in line before 7.30pm

Elaborate?

c montgomery · 23-05-2017 09:25PM

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Elaborate?

He said anyone who leaves the UK to fight for isis should not be allowed back into the uk.

Joe and co disagreed and would rather welcome them back for fear of seeming right winged.

Jayesdiem · 23-05-2017 09:30PM

c montgomery wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Elaborate?

He said anyone who leaves the UK to fight for isis should not be allowed back into the uk.

Joe and co disagreed and would rather welcome them back for fear of seeming right winged.

No surprise there. I'm no Trump supporter but those two snowflakes really are one end of the spectrum.

Pete Moss · 23-05-2017 09:59PM

Thoroughly enjoyed tonight's show. Had some painting to do, so it was great entertainment in the background from start to finish.

The piece on Saipan was excellent. I'd never heard any ex-players talk about it for quite some time. To me, Kenny seemed genuinely cut-up talking about it, like a Vietnam flashback!
Then the texts coming in from listeners about the uproar and fallout between friends, family and coworkers over Saipan brought back some memories. I almost forgot how big of a talking point that incident was and how divided people were on the incident.

solderon · 23-05-2017 10:00PM

elefant wrote: »

They had an email from the player's own county board saying it was him.

And still the offence was not proven.

How would that happen if the CHC presented a sufficient case?

And how did the second hearing come about when it directly contravenes the rules and regulations?

edit:
Had another listen. It seems the CHC got the video from the CCC after the first hearing. Now, the 48 week ban rule can only be applied at the hearing in which any false evidence is given (owing to a ruling by the CAC).

So, for the player to play the course 'as it lay', one valid strategy was to do exactly what happened at the first hearing and come out in the clear. All legally sound.

What happened after with the second hearing should never have been due to that CAC ruling.

From about 10:15 here:
http://offtheball.newstalk.com/player/podcasts/-/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/192709/1/cp_2/

styron · 23-05-2017 10:47PM

c montgomery wrote: »

He said anyone who leaves the UK to fight for isis should not be allowed back into the uk.

Joe and co disagreed and would rather welcome them back for fear of seeming right winged.

Interesting, censored out of the first half hour podcast and (currently) only parts 2 & 3 on the 'Listen Back' page. Kind of understandable in the immediate aftermath of the attack but still a surprise.

c montgomery · 23-05-2017 10:55PM

styron wrote: »

Interesting, censored out of the first half hour podcast and (currently) only parts 2 & 3 on the 'Listen Back' page. Kind of understandable in the immediate aftermath of the attack but still a surprise.

Wow, thats incredibly ott.

Kenny expressed an opinion most would agree with. Shows how pathetic OTB presenters are that they can't tolerate an alternative view.

elefant · 24-05-2017 05:49AM

solderon wrote: »

And still the offence was not proven.

How would that happen if the CHC presented a sufficient case?

And how did the second hearing come about when it directly contravenes the rules and regulations?

edit:
Had another listen. It seems the CHC got the video from the CCC after the first hearing. Now, the 48 week ban rule can only be applied at the hearing in which any false evidence is given (owing to a ruling by the CAC).

So, for the player to play the course 'as it lay', one valid strategy was to do exactly what happened at the first hearing and come out in the clear. All legally sound.

What happened after with the second hearing should never have been due to that CAC ruling.

From about 10:15 here:
http://offtheball.newstalk.com/player/podcasts/-/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/192709/1/cp_2/

They're not in charge of proving an offence. They just look at the evidence presented, and they didn't even bother watching the video in that hearing because Fitzpatrick lied and said it categorically was not him. They automatically side with the player's oral testimony if there's a conflict over identity he said.

From my understanding, the situation wouldn't happen again now due to the latest appeals ruling, but up until they made that CAC decision it was not clear that evidence of misleading a hearing had to be shown within the misleading hearing itself, so the CHC were completely within their rights in the way they acted.

Fair enough if you think lying is a valid strategy, but for OTB to be so jovial to one side of the story and so hostile to the other without any consideration of objectivity is very poor form imo.

elefant · 24-05-2017 05:50AM

c montgomery wrote: »

Wow, thats incredibly ott.

Kenny expressed an opinion most would agree with. Shows how pathetic OTB presenters are that they can't tolerate an alternative view.

That's awful if true. Even if every listener disagreed they shouldn't be editing out 'undesirable' content.

PeterTheNinth · 24-05-2017 06:11AM

c montgomery wrote: »

Kenny expressed an opinion most would agree with. Shows how pathetic OTB presenters are that they can't tolerate an alternative view.

I normally don't like Kenny Cunningham, but I found a new bit of respect for him last night. Interesting to hear about his own family and that he now thinks twice about using the tube, or about heading in to their favourite place in London.

Ol' Donie · 24-05-2017 07:52AM

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

I normally don't like Kenny Cunningham, but I found a new bit of respect for him last night. Interesting to hear about his own family and that he now thinks twice about using the tube, or about heading in to their favourite place in London.

I became a bit fan of his on the RTE highlights show for the Euros (or was it World Cup? Jesus, that's worrying). Showed a lot of personality I hadn't seen from him before.

Oh, and all those games for Ireland. I guess.

PeterTheNinth · 24-05-2017 08:08AM

Ol' Donie wrote: »

I became a bit fan of his on the RTE highlights show for the Euros (or was it World Cup? Jesus, that's worrying). Showed a lot of personality I hadn't seen from him before. Oh, and all those games for Ireland. I guess.

A lot easier to hear him and to understand him when he's in the studio as well, Donie. That was a big difference. He was much more involved because he was actually there.

PeterTheNinth · 24-05-2017 08:42AM

Seems to me that Kilbane was a lot less vocal on about John Terry on Football Focus. Garth Crooks was saying that it was absolutely ridiculous, but Kilbane certainly wasnt rowing in behind him in the same way that he did on Irish radio.

Dots1982 · 24-05-2017 09:37AM

c montgomery wrote: »

Wow, thats incredibly ott.

Kenny expressed an opinion most would agree with. Shows how pathetic OTB presenters are that they can't tolerate an alternative view.

is that the reason it was edited? be worth asking on twitter.

PeterTheNinth · 24-05-2017 09:40AM

Dots1982 wrote: »

is that the reason it was edited? be worth asking on twitter.

You're joking, it was edited? I'll have a listen back, but that is really sinister if they are now editing out opinions that don't "fit". There was nothing hugely upsetting about anything that Kenny said. He basically said that if you make the decision to leave the UK and go and fight in the middle east, then you should not be allowed back in.

Dots1982 · 24-05-2017 09:55AM

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

You're joking, it was edited? I'll have a listen back, but that is really sinister if they are now editing out opinions that don't "fit". There was nothing hugely upsetting about anything that Kenny said. He basically said that if you make the decision to leave the UK and go and fight in the middle east, then you should not be allowed back in.

could be just that it was nothing to do with football

Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Comments