White lighting wrote: » At no point does his finger go into Higgins eye. A headbutt or attempted headbutt regardless of what happened before hand has just been ignored.
mayo.mick wrote: »
manofwisdom wrote: » A image that proves Smith's fingers were under Keith's eye rather than in it?
The high horse brigade wrote: » So it wasn't even an attempted eye gouge, that's a whole different matter. His finger was only tenderly caressing under his eye.
RedDevil55 wrote: » Ah come on, that doesn't prove anything! What about Higgins knocking Smith to the ground with a headbut?
manofwisdom wrote: A image that proves Smith's fingers were under Keith's eye rather than in it?
charlie14 wrote: » A one match ban is probably the best that could be expected after Higgins reaction. Anything more and Higgins under the rules would have in all probability received a retrospective red card.
RedDevil55 wrote: » Why would that make a difference? Surely the 2 incidents are mutually exclusive. Call me biased, but I still don't see what Higgins did wrong even in slow motion. Players square up to each other all the time. If Smith didn't flop to the ground for no reason we wouldn't be talking about it.
irishgeo wrote: » Got away light consider the bans in rugby.
Martina1991 wrote: » Video of the incident shows Smiths fingers in his eye for a few seconds. He knew what he was at. I honestly dont see higgins' head recoil to direct a headbutt at him either.
charlie14 wrote: » Higgins reaction was retaliation so the two incidents can hardly be looked at as mutually exclusive. I have no axe to grind in this either way, but had I been refereeing and saw what was shown on the video clip, if the two incidents were mutually exclusive, I would have had no option other than issuing Higgins with a red card. The fact that the two incidents were not mutually exclusive in that the first lead to the second, and that Smith was given a one match ban on review, is why I believe that was the best that could have been expected. Anything more and there would have been a strong possibility of Higgins getting a retrospective red card for retaliation.
RedDevil55 wrote: » Retaliation makes it sound like Keith did something to warrant a red card. Even if it wasn't a full eye gouge, someone was raking at his face/eye area. A painful and extremely dangerous act. In that situation he shouldn't just sit still and wait for the referee to intervene. It would have been absolutely scandalous had Keith been punished retrospectively or at the time. The referee, CCCC, and every gaa pundit over the last few days seem to agree but what would we know!
charlie14 wrote: » There appears to be a lot of misconception as to what the actual rules are. There is no quid pro quo in the rules when it comes to a player being fouled regardless of the foul committed. If a player who has been fouled reacts, and in turn commits a foul then there is no get out of jail free card. There also seems to be some confusion as to what a foul is in relation to Higgins reaction where some are apparently off the belief that contact with the head has to be made before it is deemed a foul. Page 42 Referee Handbook. To strike, or attempt to strike with the head. Red card. At the time watching the incident I said here both were lucky not to see the line. Anything more than a one match ban for Smith then there was every possibility that under the rules Higgins would have received a retrospective red card.
RedDevil55 wrote: » I'm well aware of the rules around strikes or attempted strikes but still don't understand your last sentence. Either Keith deserved a red card or not. The powers that be obviously believe he did nothing wrong.
charlie14 wrote: » From what I saw, and I said it here, both fouls warranted red cards under the rules. The powers that be, imho, either do not understand the rules or under the circumstances decided to err on the side of common sense with a one match ban for Smith as an end to it. I tend to believe it was the latter.
RedDevil55 wrote: » I suppose that's a possibility. However I'd say the CCCC decided that Keith did nothing wrong and Smith made a complete meal out of the whole thing. Smith's ban was always going to be 1 game as that's what Philly got back in the day.
charlie14 wrote: » From what I saw, regardless of whether Higgins made contact or not he did make an attempt to strike with the head. Had he not, then I don`t believe Mc Mahon`s one game ban would have necessarily been looked on as the apt and standard punishment for the offence. Especially now with so much emphasis being given to fouls involving players heads. Imho, Smith has Higgins to thank for receiving only a one match ban.
BandMember wrote: » The whole incident can be summed up in four simple points: (1) Smith gouged Higgins in the eye. He left his hand, particularly his finger, in Higgins eye and then continued to push it in further as he moved his hand across his face. He knew well what he was doing. Then, in the hope of getting Higgins in trouble (and a red card), he made an even bigger disgrace of himself by taking a theatrical dive to the ground. The video evidence does not lie. (2) Because of the precedent set with Philly McMahon, Smith could only ever get a one match ban. Anything longer would have been appealed and, rightly or wrongly, he would have won. Again, based on the set precedent. The CCCC knew this and didn't want the opening weekend of the season to be marked by their first disciplinary case of the year. So, they had no choice but to issue a one match ban. (3) Higgins did not headbutt him. Did he square up to him? Yes. Understandably so. Anyone would after having their eye gouged like that. Did he headbutt him? No. Any attempt to even suggest so is laughable and coming from someone with a bias. Once again, the video evidence does not lie. (4) Anyone who refuses to accept (1) and (3) or is trying to make Higgins out to be the villian here, is either a Rossie or a Dub. Don't feed the trolls lads.... :rolleyes:
seligehgit wrote: » I'd agree that Keith retaliated by means of what could possibly be construed as an attempted head butt. TBH like others have said I don't know what on earth I'd have done in the circumstances. Donie Smith's actions were despicable.It is clear as day from the video that he moved his hand up to the vicinity of Keith's eye and it is only muddying the waters contesting the exact anatomical location his hand made contact with.It is a highly dangerous action.One's eye is such a sensitive external organ. Tenderly caressing under his eye is no lesser an offence as already mentioned.One has no business placing a hand anywhere near an eye. Such offences should carry a far harsher sanction like in rugby union and perhaps Keith's retaliation contributed to a lesser suspension. I'd hope the CCC were not relying on precedent when applying the sanction and would more than likely have issued a longer suspension than Philly McMahon's one game suspension if Keith had not retaliated.
Jaden wrote: » I don't think that anyone is saying that the initial foul didn't merit at least a one match ban. The rules of our game are not based on precedent being law. They can change. If it's decided that specific infractions require more severe punishments, then they can and will be updated. As for Higgins, if it can be determined from the footage that he attempted to strike Smith with a head butt (I personally think this determination to be tenuous at best), then that *automatically* follows that Donie should be cited for a second offence - simulation. It's not even easy to reach a consensus on what happened, when we have the benefit of hindsight, and slow mo replays. At the time of the incident, and given the conditions at the time, it's beyond the abilities of any mortal to do as well. Sure he didn't even book the correct player.
yop wrote: » What are the chances of the game been called off? With no sign of the snow/ice reducing over the weekend it going to be a hard trek up
glack wrote: » They only way it will be called off is if the pitch is frozen. I remember travelling to Galway in the snow last year! Cancelling games causes to many problems further into the league. I wonder what conditions are currently like in Omagh?
