Mayo GAA Discussion - Part 3

mayo.mick · 30-01-2019 06:32PM

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.

RedDevil55 · 30-01-2019 06:37PM

mayo.mick wrote: »

Ah come on, that doesn't prove anything!

What about Higgins knocking Smith to the ground with a headbut?

manofwisdom · 30-01-2019 07:11PM

mayo.mick wrote: »

A image that proves Smith's fingers were under Keith's eye rather than in it?

The high horse brigade · 30-01-2019 07:18PM

manofwisdom wrote: »

A image that proves Smith's fingers were under Keith's eye rather than in it?

So it wasn't even an attempted eye gouge, that's a whole different matter. His finger was only tenderly caressing under his eye.

irishgeo · 30-01-2019 08:30PM

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.

may he thought keith had some dirt on his eye.:rolleyes:

charlie14 · 30-01-2019 08:44PM

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.

mayo.mick · 30-01-2019 08:53PM

RedDevil55 wrote: »

Ah come on, that doesn't prove anything!

What about Higgins knocking Smith to the ground with a headbut?

https://twitter.com/Mike_Quirke/status/1089251244818997248

Martina1991 · 30-01-2019 09:07PM

manofwisdom wrote:

A image that proves Smith's fingers were under Keith's eye rather than in it?

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.

RedDevil55 · 30-01-2019 09:13PM

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.

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.

charlie14 · 30-01-2019 09:43PM

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.

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.

PARlance · 30-01-2019 11:02PM

irishgeo wrote: »

Got away light consider the bans in rugby.

Very lightly. An irresponsible precedent now firmly in place by the CCCC. We'll have to wait until some damage is done before proper action is taken.

manofwisdom · 30-01-2019 11:33PM

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.

Unless you have a zoomed in version of that incident i can't agree or disagree. All i know is the CCCC studied the incident and have made their decision.

RedDevil55 · 31-01-2019 12:04AM

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.

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 · 31-01-2019 12:57AM

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!

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 · 31-01-2019 01:12AM

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.

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 · 31-01-2019 01:21AM

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.

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 · 31-01-2019 01:36AM

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.

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 · 31-01-2019 01:50AM

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.

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 · 31-01-2019 02:08AM

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:

RedDevil55 · 31-01-2019 02:11AM

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.

The only reason Smith got the ban is because Keith reacted and made a big deal of it. Similar to Donaghy letting everyone know what McMahon did.

There have been other possible cases in the last few years where no ban was given. Simply because the players played on and made nothing of it.

I don't see the CCCC clamping down on head related challenges recently. The reality is that they only look into the cases that are causing a sh1t storm on Twitter, The Sunday Game etc.

It's not right but that's how it seems.

charlie14 · 31-01-2019 02:29AM

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:

If that is somehow directed at me, I am neither a Dub or a Rossie. Different province than either in fact. Nor am I a troll. In fact I am first name terms with a number of late 80`s early 90`s senior Mayo ex county players.
Very good friends with one in fact whose wedding I attended as did he and his wife ours.

As to your (1) I am not contesting your view of the incident. On your (3) as you say the vidoe does not lie, and as a neutral in this, and an ex referee, to me Higgins did make an attempt to headbutt, which is a red card offence.

seligehgit · 31-01-2019 02:30AM

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.

NabyLadistheman · 31-01-2019 10:34AM

This shows what an absolute balls they made of the Philly McMahon incident originally. A one game ban. Back to congress for a new rule regarding gouging I would say

PARlance · 31-01-2019 11:34AM

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.

I would look at it a slightly different way. I think below was the train of thought behind CCCC decision.

Precedent was set with Philly, so Smith gets a one game in line with that. Rossies would be up in arms if not.
Higgins' action may have been in line for a one match ban but I doubt they even considered it as there would have been a sh1tstorm if he got the same ban as Smith.

Personally I think the right call would have been Smith out for a few months and Higgins a one game ban... a harsh penalty for Higgins, but he did react (even though I don't think I would class what he did as being a head-butt).

Jaden · 31-01-2019 12:50PM

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.

flasher0030 · 01-02-2019 11:15AM

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.

Is simulation an actual offence in the GAA world

yop · 01-02-2019 11:55AM

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 · 01-02-2019 01:09PM

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

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?

Gael85 · 01-02-2019 01:21PM

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?

I think its a joke cramming the league in worse time of year weather wise. Is it 7 games in 9 weeks with league final the week after last round of games? Not many counties are going to play club championship in April during club month when the following round of championship games won't be played for possibly 3/4 months later.

Coillte_Bhoy · 01-02-2019 03:07PM

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

Id say there is little chance, the forecast isnt actually too bad, dry and sunny tomorrow afternoon for anyone heading up, Sunday morning promised fairly dry too.

Mayo GAA Discussion - Part 3

Comments