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

The_Kew_Tour · 15-08-2017 01:44PM

Waterford can't have any complaints now. They have got away with it big time. But cant blame Waterford either. Pity this is going be the talking point leading into the game as we have a fascinating final in store.

danganabu · 15-08-2017 01:47PM

Hitchens wrote: »

5.19 To behave in any way which is dangerous to an
opponent, including to deliberately pull on or
take hold of a faceguard or any other part of an
opponent’s helmet.

However where the offending payer is Hurler of The Year or playing in an All Ireland Semi Final no action shall be taken

New proposal that will be presented to congress next year, seems fine to me. Might have to include a 5.19a that stipulates it can only be invoked if the trained really really hard.

elefant · 15-08-2017 02:13PM

The comparisons between the Tuohy and Austin Gleeson incidents are disingenuous in the extreme. Is anybody apart from Waterford fans, who might be naturally clouded in their judgment over this, seriously claiming to think the intention of interfering with the helmet is as blatantly obvious in both of those instances?

I'm sure just about every GAA fan in the country would love to see Gleeson vs. Canning battle it out in an All-Ireland final, but using Tuohy's clearing as some kind of defence of Gleeson is absolutely facile. Gleeson was lying on top of a player with the ball out of play, and tore his helmet off by the face guard. It's as stone-wall a red card as you could imagine.

danganabu · 15-08-2017 02:42PM

elefant wrote: »

The comparisons between the Tuohy and Austin Gleeson incidents are disingenuous in the extreme. Is anybody apart from Waterford fans, who might be naturally clouded in their judgment over this, seriously claiming to think the intention of interfering with the helmet is as blatantly obvious in both of those instances?

I'm sure just about every GAA fan in the country would love to see Gleeson vs. Canning battle it out in an All-Ireland final, but using Tuohy's clearing as some kind of defence of Gleeson is absolutely facile. Gleeson was lying on top of a player with the ball out of play, and tore his helmet off by the face guard. It's as stone-wall a red card as you could imagine.

Agreed, but to be fair you can also see where Waterfrod fans are coming from, if it was a Tipp player involved I would absolutely be referencing the Tuohy case, however faint the resemblence may be.

I said · 15-08-2017 03:24PM

Has the ccc come out and said no case to answer or is this lazy journalism.
Until a statement is released by HQ wild speculation by the Irish examiner is hearsay.
Touhy case was dealt with till the Wednesday after much the same here I reckon.
Just cause someone told that fella in the pub who knows the other fellas aunt means SFA.

danganabu · 15-08-2017 03:45PM

I said wrote: »

Has the ccc come out and said no case to answer or is this lazy journalism.
Until a statement is released by HQ wild speculation by the Irish examiner is hearsay.
Touhy case was dealt with till the Wednesday after much the same here I reckon.
Just cause someone told that fella in the pub who knows the other fellas aunt means SFA.

Examiner are usually fairly on the mark though, you can be sure a decision has already been made unofficially.

AGC · 15-08-2017 03:52PM

I said wrote: »

Has the ccc come out and said no case to answer or is this lazy journalism.
Until a statement is released by HQ wild speculation by the Irish examiner is hearsay.
Touhy case was dealt with till the Wednesday after much the same here I reckon.
Just cause someone told that fella in the pub who knows the other fellas aunt means SFA.

It also doesn't stop us disagreeing with people who think he should be allowed play because he's a good lad!!!

I said · 15-08-2017 04:06PM

danganabu wrote: »

Examiner are usually fairly on the mark though, you can be sure a decision has already been made unofficially.

The 42.i also carried that examiner story but appears to be backtracking re:certain sources

Mantis Toboggan · 15-08-2017 06:22PM

Cleared!

The_Kew_Tour · 15-08-2017 06:38PM

Wrong call, but not surprised. Gives Waterford a chance now

C__MC · 15-08-2017 06:39PM

Sums up the hierarchy in the GAA

May as well rip up rule book

You couldn't make it up!

No player is bigger then the rules

jr86 · 15-08-2017 06:46PM

At least it didn't turn into a 2015 connolly farce of a situation

Now bring on the hurling

threeball · 15-08-2017 06:48PM

C__MC wrote: »

Sums up the hierarchy in the GAA

May as well rip up rule book

You couldn't make it up!

There are no real rules just approximations.
4 steps. Meh, maybe 6 or 7
Touch ball on ground. Meh, it was rolling
Blatant red first minute. Meh too early
Half passed yellow 20 mins in. Meh give him a black.
Tear a lads helmet off his head in the league. Hung, drawn and quartered.
Same offence semi final. Meh I saw nathin boss

ShamoBuc · 15-08-2017 06:49PM

Wrong decision in Both the short and long term.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-08-2017 06:55PM

I'm laughing at some on the Common Sense has Prevailed quotes I see on here in GAA thread.

If Common Sense had Prevailed he would miss the final.

jelutong · 15-08-2017 07:01PM

Of the 3 most recent helmet incidents Tadgh De Burcas was the least dangerous in my opinion. Enough said.

namloc1980 · 15-08-2017 07:03PM

Ludicrous. The GAA disciplinary system is farcical. Incidents go on for weeks on end, numerous appeals and then there's always the potential for High Court injunctions. Madness. Gleeson getting away with dangerous play is just another in a long line of disciplinary failures by the GAA.

dastardly00 · 15-08-2017 07:03PM

I can forsee a cluster fcuk in the AI final where a player interferes with the helmet of another player and gets sent off

Diabhal Beag · 15-08-2017 07:03PM

Watch those cowboys buckle and rescind Conor Gleeson's ban now upon appeal.

Nettle Soup · 15-08-2017 07:04PM

As a Galway man, I am glad Austin Gleeson is playing the final and I am glad they sorted it out very quickly. We can enjoy the build up to the final now and what a fantastic final it will be.
However the GAA do need to sort out their disciplinary process and rules - as an organisation, they look ridiculous and very amateur much too often.

fieldcow · 15-08-2017 07:05PM

elefant wrote: »

The comparisons between the Tuohy and Austin Gleeson incidents are disingenuous in the extreme. Is anybody apart from Waterford fans, who might be naturally clouded in their judgment over this, seriously claiming to think the intention of interfering with the helmet is as blatantly obvious in both of those instances?

I'm sure just about every GAA fan in the country would love to see Gleeson vs. Canning battle it out in an All-Ireland final, but using Tuohy's clearing as some kind of defence of Gleeson is absolutely facile. Gleeson was lying on top of a player with the ball out of play, and tore his helmet off by the face guard. It's as stone-wall a red card as you could imagine.

The intention or severity of each incident is a moot point. Gleeson was cleared for the same reason as Tuohy; both referees indicated in their respective reports that they dealt with each incident at the time. The CCCC does not have the power to retrospectively apply punishment once a referee has made a decision.

The referee and linesman had a clear view of Sunday's incident and were happy with how they dealt with it. It's easy to be wise after the fact with multiple slow-motion replays from various angles.

namloc1980 · 15-08-2017 07:06PM

fieldcow wrote: »

The intention or severity of each incident is a moot point. Gleeson was cleared for the same reason as Tuohy; both referees indicated in their respective reports that they dealt with each incident at the time. The CCCC does not have the power to retroactively apply punishment once a referee has made a decision.

The referee and linesman had a clear view of Sunday's incident and were happy with how they dealt with it. It's easy to be wise after the fact with multiple slow-motion replays from various angles.

More likely they were told to indicate they were happy with how they handled it.

Anonymou · 15-08-2017 07:08PM

fieldcow wrote: »

The intention or severity of each incident is a moot point. Gleeson was cleared for the same reason as Tuohy; both referees indicated in their respective reports that they dealt with each incident at the time. The CCCC does not have the power to retroactively apply punishment once a referee has made a decision.

The referee and linesman had a clear view of Sunday's incident and were happy with how they dealt with it. It's easy to be wise after the fact with multiple slow-motion replays from various angles.

So the ref and linesman are saying they don't know the rules essentially?

marco_polo · 15-08-2017 07:13PM

Great for Gleeson personally but I can't see how the GAA can realistically sanction anyone for the offense next year with a straight face. But then again consistancy not exactly their forte so who knows.

mickmackmcgoo · 15-08-2017 07:16PM

Anonymou wrote:

So the ref and linesman are saying they don't know the rules essentially?

But they make a split decision at the time on what they saw . They can't retrospectively referee a match and look back at an incident. You would have to go down the rugby route of a TMO and big screens etc and the gaa will never do that. No doubt it looks bad on replays etc As a Waterford I'm delighted he got off obviously but he was lucky

threeball · 15-08-2017 07:19PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Great for Gleeson personally but I can't see how the GAA can realistically sanction anyone for the offense next year with a straight face. But then again consistancy not exactly their forte so who knows.

They won't give a sh1te. There could be a lad banned after the final for a lesser offence because that won't affect the bottom line.
Next time the ref won't include it in his "report" and some poor dipstick will be fair game for the calamities and cockups committee.

fieldcow · 15-08-2017 07:20PM

Anonymou wrote: »

So the ref and linesman are saying they don't know the rules essentially?

More likely that they saw the incident in real time and thought nothing of it.

Had the referee and his officials been looking elsewhere at the time, or otherwise missed the incident, Gleeson would be banned, just as Stephen Bennett was for his faceguard pull on Cahalane earlier in the Championship.

Canyon86 · 15-08-2017 07:23PM

They bottled it,

I'm sure it would have been a different outcome had it been a lesser known Waterford player.

Poor example to show to kids also

marco_polo · 15-08-2017 07:29PM

threeball wrote: »

They won't give a sh1te. There could be a lad banned after the final for a lesser offence because that won't affect the bottom line.
Next time the ref won't include it in his "report" and some poor dipstick will be fair game for the calamities and cockups committee.

I love to read the account in the report of how he dealt with what was is supposed to be a straight red card offense.

Needs a complete overhaul between lads getting away with murder who are subsequently untouchable because the ref dealt with something, and others getting crucified for very little because a ref didn't. There is far too much red tape and loopholes and far too little consistency in the whole process.

namloc1980 · 15-08-2017 07:30PM

fieldcow wrote: »

More likely that they saw the incident in real time and thought nothing of it.

Had the referee and his officials been looking elsewhere at the time, or otherwise missed the incident, Gleeson would be banned, just as Stephen Bennett was for his faceguard pull on Cahalane earlier in the Championship.

They thought nothing of one player ripping the helmet off another. That just confirms they don't know the rules.

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

Comments