Last Stop wrote: » Why would he not let the medical staff deal with the player? He didn’t approach the player directly after the incident as you are implying. He consulted with his linesman first, then went over and checked on Barrett as he was receiving treatment and only then spoke to Richie. Regardless of how serious the injury was, what was he going to do about it by checking with the player surrounded by physios? Unless he’s a doctor he should stay away until he’s dealt with the incident at hand. Seeing how serious the injury is no doubt has an influence on the decision and it really shouldn’t have. If it’s a red card incident, it’s a red card incident regardless of whether the player gets injured or not. Did Kirwin check with Tommy Walsh in 09? No! While it is very difficult to argue with the final decision, the theatrics of Barrett and the way the referee dealt with the incident leave a lot to be desired. He should have had a quick chat with his linesman, called Richie over and sent him off. Instead he chatted to his linesman, chatted to Barrett, chatted to Richie and then sent him off. Feck it I’m surprised he didn’t consult with me while he was at it!
Seadin wrote: » It was clear as daylight if you cared to take off the black and amber googles.
Hawkeye9212 wrote: » He did let the medical staff deal with the player. This happens all the time. The referee handled the situation well. I can't believe people are criticising him for consulting with his linesman. Nothing wrong with having a chat with Hogan as well.
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » Cody never, ever acknowledges players as they are coming off the field, whether subbed or carded. Mentioning it in the context of the incident yesterday is just an attempt to have a go at Cody. Black and amber goggles indeed. You can check my posts from the last day or so to get a feel for the tenor of my response to the match, Tipp's victory, and the sending off if you like.
lufties wrote: » Well, personally I know many who cant stand varadkar. Seeing his gormless face after such a win would make me look the other way. Just a natural reaction when you see someone you have no respect for.
mountgomery burns wrote: » What he said was correct, they bet them all. And only lost once, Limerick lost 3 times. Can't argue with that over the course of a season.
Joe_ Public wrote: » The implication, by several posters, that the referee approaches the grounded Barrett to elicit his opinion on whether he'd been struck in the face might not be the biggest load of horlicks i've seen posted over the past 24 or so hours, but it's not far off. The first duty of the officials is to player welfare and any referee, seeing a player stricken on the ground, regardless of how it might have occurred, will first seek to establish whether urgent medical attention is required before taking further action. The idea that Owens actually required Barrett's input to decide Hogan's fate? Words honestly fail me, but that's where we are with this thread i dare say.
opinionated3 wrote: » With all due respect if he was that concerned about Barrett why didn't he check on him first? Either way IMO it was a soft red card. Especially when pundits are lining to to congratulate Owens for applying the law, and cleere for not applying the same red card rule in the semi. Which way do you want it lads..... Rules applied or not?
Shane_ef wrote: » Separate, Investigate, Officiate. So separate any parties needed, injured players will always be attended to by there medical staff and even without an official they will go about what is needed. Investigate if needed, in this case the condition of the player and views of other officials. Officiate, so confer with other officials and make a ruling. I was thought that years ago
Last Stop wrote: » But he didn’t follow that procedure is the point. There was no separation needed. Fine He spoke to the linesman. Fine He went over to see where Barrett was being treated. Didn’t check the condition of the player which with all the talk of concussion these days was also wrong. He then went back to the linesman. And then he officiated.
Last Stop wrote: » To clarify the rules;Category III Infractions 5.16 To strike or to attempt to strike an opponent with arm, elbow, hand or knee. 5.17 To strike or attempt to strike an opponent with a hurley, with minimal force
RULE 5 - AGGRESSIVE FOULS Deliberate or Accidental Fouls: In the following components of this Rule on Aggressive Fouls, there are references made to specific infractions being penalised by Caution or Ordering Off – signalled by Cards of a stated colour. A Card shall be issued only where the Infraction is deemed by the Referee to have been deliberate and not accidental
Shane_ef wrote: » But that's investigating then Officiating by making a ruling? I get people can see issue with consulting with the linesman twice but with such a huge impact, if he only gave a yellow and only talked to the linesman Once, people would be up in arms over it too, saying the linesman had a better view etc etc.. It's a Red all day, and it's not the Refs fault it's a red, it's the players for putting him in the position.. the other incident is completely separate and should in no way be used to justify the card being a yellow, If the issue is with why the other wasn't a red then talk about that, but Richies was a Red
murphk wrote: » funnily enough you forgot the preceding bit which qualifies it
Category I Infractions 5.5 To make “a pull” with the hurley from behind and around the body of an opponent that is not consistent with an attempt to play the ball. 5.6 To use the hurley in a careless manner. PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS – (i) Caution offender; order off for second cautionable foul. (ii) Free puck from where foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
bruschi wrote: » also funnily enough, whilst also leaving out the intentional, he left out the preceding aggressive foul section
Last Stop wrote: » Funnily enough he didn’t even caution Barrett so has failed to apply 2 rules regardless of interpretation
RULE 5 - AGGRESSIVE FOULS Deliberate or Accidental Fouls: In the following components of this Rule on Aggressive Fouls, there are references made to specific infractions being penalised by Caution or Ordering Off – signalled by Cards of a stated colour. A Card shall be issued only where the Infraction is deemed by the Referee to have been deliberate and not accidental [\quote]
bruschi wrote: » 2 rules? But again, you're missing the entire disclaimer at the start of the section RULE 5 - AGGRESSIVE FOULS Deliberate or Accidental Fouls: In the following components of this Rule on Aggressive Fouls, there are references made to specific infractions being penalised by Caution or Ordering Off – signalled by Cards of a stated colour. A Card shall be issued only where the Infraction is deemed by the Referee to have been deliberate and not accidental [\quote] Hitting someone across the head is not deliberate? He intended to get the ball but didn’t and got the man instead.
farmerval wrote: » One of the funny consequences of the new system could easily be a team winning the All-Ireland having lost three games in the championship. Kilkenny could have won yesterday having lost to Galway and Wexford. Conceivably a team could lose two in the round robin, lose a provincial final and still win the All-Ireland. Tipp this year beat, Cork, Clare, Limerick, Waterford, Laois, wexford and Kilkenny as well as losing to Limerick. It's a lot of games and at the end the team that won the most games won out.
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » Deleted: poster i was replying to deleted his post
Stacksofwacks wrote: » Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » Deleted: poster i was replying to deleted his post Sorry about that I get a bit paranoid about the tone of my posts so I often delete them..but i do think it should be munster champions vs Leinster champions in AI final. It cheapens the provincials when runner up goes onto win AI. Also you will have teams going all out to win the provincials. Anyway they get 4 chances as it is so why give them another back door. thats not a sleight on Tipp btw they won the games that mattered and are deserving champs
corner back 2 wrote: » Lots on here saying Kilkenny are whingeing too much about the red card and possibly they are right. But I think it is a natural reaction immediately after an All Ireland final. Yet despite what some think we are not the saltiest off them all. I opened Twitter this morning and there was Shane Dowling still whingeing about a line ball that shouldn't even be theirs in the first place. Cian Lynch was at it the day before the All Ireland too. Calling for VAR because one decision went against you and still at it 2 weeks later. I think it's time to park the red card thing now as no one is going to change their position at this stage. Time for Limerick to do the same and maybe just one person in the media to acknowledge that it wasn't a Limerick ball in the first place. Has anyone seen how VAR is working in soccer. Do we really want all those stoppages in GAA.
