Diarmuid Connolly

Dyr · 28-05-2014 12:49PM

tbh if we came from a smaller county the guards would probably never have lifted him in the first place

"oh jaysus, tis diarmuid..shake and go home lads, dere'll be no more said about"

MayoAreMagic · 28-05-2014 12:54PM

Bambi
tbh if we came from a smaller county the guards would probably never have lifted him in the first place
"oh jaysus, tis diarmuid..shake and go home lads, dere'll be no more said about"

Obviously you missed the litany of examples of guys going to court from outside Dublin offered on the last page...

seligehgit · 28-05-2014 12:56PM

Feeling that Diarmuid Connolly got quite a lenient sentence/questionable punishment for an unprovoked violent assault should'nt be misconstrued as an anti Dublin rant.Does seem a tad strange for somebody convicted of such an offence to be put doing community service with children
He is a wonderful footballer and hopefully will put his talents to good use with the next generation and get a handle on his anger management issues.

nice_guy80 · 28-05-2014 01:03PM

I don't think ANYBODY should get a lenient sentence just because they are willing to pay money to charity.
It shouldn't even be part of the consideration by a judge

In that case, lots of people would buy their way out of a more serious sentence.

Dyr · 28-05-2014 01:10PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Bambi
tbh if we came from a smaller county the guards would probably never have lifted him in the first place
"oh jaysus, tis diarmuid..shake and go home lads, dere'll be no more said about"

Obviously you missed the litany of examples of guys going to court from outside Dublin offered on the last page...

obviously you missed the word "probably"

keane2097 · 28-05-2014 01:14PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I don't think ANYBODY should get a lenient sentence just because they are willing to pay money to charity.
It shouldn't even be part of the consideration by a judge

In that case, lots of people would buy their way out of a more serious sentence.

There's a moral problem with that certainly where poor people go to jail while rich people can pay up but it's probably not for this forum.

freddiek · 28-05-2014 01:15PM

seligehgit wrote: »

Feeling that Diarmuid Connolly got quite a lenient sentence/questionable punishment for an unprovoked violent assault should'nt be misconstrued as an anti Dublin rant.Does seem a tad strange for somebody convicted of such an offence to be put doing community service with children
He is a wonderful footballer and hopefully will put his talents to good use with the next generation and get a handle on his anger management issues.

some of these Dub posters have very thin skins.

Woodround · 28-05-2014 01:36PM

Godge wrote: »

And breaking someone's jaw ala James McCartan warrants a lesser sentence without community service? Need a bit of perspective here.

Where did I see it did or didn't?

I just pointed out that the crime that was committed was far from a 'minor offence'. Whether it was Connolly, McCartan or anyone else is irrelevant.

You are the one that needs perspective as you are the one who described an unprovoked attack causing serious injury as a minor offence.

ArielAtom · 28-05-2014 02:32PM

I am in agreement that it looks like a lenient sentence, however, he was tried and convicted in a court of law. I think that ends it. There is no defending his assault, he did not try to himself, he admitted guilt much like to other players mentioned.

There are some Dublin supporters trying to hard to defend him and some with what seems like witch hunt to have him hung drawn and quartered.

ProudDUB · 28-05-2014 03:05PM

Do we have any legal experts in the house?

What would usually be considered a "normal" sentence for someone in DC's position. If you plead guilty, you do what the court told you to do re paying compensation, you had no previous convictions for anything and you have kept your nose clean since the incident....what sentence could the average Joe, in the same position, expect to get?

Would a custodial sentence be the norm for someone on their first conviction? I find that hard to believe, when we seem to have God knows how many people with dozens of convictions to their name, wandering the streets scot free.

It is very easy to say that he got off lightly because he is an inter county footballer, but if community service is the norm for situations like these, then he just got the same treatment as every one else. I am not saying he did, I am just asking the question, as to what the "norm" would be in situations like these.

corny · 28-05-2014 09:45PM

Not sure what the merits of his sentence have to with GAA but hopefully events have thought him a lessen. Won't affect his game.

Hammer Archer · 28-05-2014 10:20PM

corny wrote: »

Not sure what the merits of his sentence have to with GAA but hopefully events have thought him a lessen. Won't affect his game.

I do think this has helped him become a better player. In 2012 and before, he was a liability to Dublin if you look at his red cards against Wexford and Donegal and his antics against Kildare in the O'Byrne Cup, he couldn't be trusted and opposition players knew he would react if they wound him up. He seems to have gotten rid of this aspect of his game and become a better player because of it (unfortunately).

RoscommonTom · 28-05-2014 10:41PM

A pure black guard, only in Ireland would a fella get off with this sort of carry on,

Lucas Castroman · 28-05-2014 11:46PM

STB wrote: »

He'd be better off teaching the Mayo Seniors how to kick points.

I am not condoning what he did, but I'll tell you what, the posts here are nothing short of shocking from supposed GAA fans. Thing is what he does on the pitch is what matters and I'd guess thats what truly pisses off other not so level headed fans not from Dublin.

John 8:7 lads...... back to AH with it.

Disturbingly idiotic comment. Does Dublin GAA not operate by any moral code whatsoever? Does anything go? Violent criminals? Rapists? Paedophiles? Murderers? The silence is deafening from Dublin GAA - has any official statement been released?
If they had any moral compass, they would suspend him for at least a year.
The general consensus seems to be "who cares if he has a violent uncontrollable temper, he's some boy to kick a point"
We are continually bombarded with how professional GAA players are nowadays, yet if this scenario involved a soccer player they would no doubt be suspended by their club.
These players are portrayed as role models - what message does it portray if this goes unpunished?

Grats · 29-05-2014 12:16AM

Some wonderful experts posting on the GAA thread who never contributed to a GAA topic before. Makes you wonder about their motivation.

I actually think that this thread should be closed.

Lucas Castroman · 29-05-2014 01:15AM

Grats wrote: »

Some wonderful experts posting on the GAA thread who never contributed to a GAA topic before. Makes you wonder about their motivation.

I actually think that this thread should be closed.

You've got me - this is a childish attempt to derail Dublin's Championship run so that my own backwater can have a shot.

I have little interest in GAA but this goes beyond and reflects societies attitude to violence - playing for Dublin is a prestigious opportunity. These players are role models. Your "win at all costs" mentality condones the behaviour of this player who has displayed he is violent, aggressive and dangerous both on and off the pitch.

If Dublin GAA wanted to make a statement about violent disorder they should suspend Diarmaid Connolly and condemn outrightly his behaviour - perhaps this would alienate "the hill". Instead, they have said nothing and in doing so, speak volumes about the mentality and lack of morality within GAA circles. Violence is a growing problem in this society - the GAA portray themselves as a bastion of irish society yet when they have had an opportunity to make a statement they have been found wanting.

This is something which really angers me and intend contacting the Dublin GAA county board regarding their apathy. Society has to be consistent in these matters. On one hand, we unreservedly abhor violence yet if somebody can kick a ball, it is acceptable for them to engage in a violent UNPROVOKED vicious assault.

Yes, close the thread when a genuine issue has been raised - maybe you like to keep things light and superficial around here.

Reading these posts is something of an education and helps me understand why society is rapidly disintegrating when such opinions/mentalities exist.

"it only matters what he does on the pitch"
Go cheer your hero with a clear conscience.

Meglamonia · 29-05-2014 01:32AM

Jesus I'm a Dub but saying what he does on the pitch is all that matter is a ridiculous statement.

Intercounty players have a responsibility and that's to act in a reasonable manner off the pitch not just for yourself but to all the kids that look up to you.It's not too hard to go and have a night out without punching the head off somebody.

Very lenient sentence,in what was a disturbing trait in Connolly's character he looks to have fixed it.But if some fans are only worried about what players behaviours are on the pitch then we have a problem I wouldn't have any player who repeatedly acts the maggot off the pitch anywhere near a county set up.

Anonymou · 29-05-2014 01:43AM

It was actually the fella Connolly attacked who decided the compensation should go to charity,not Connolly himself. Think it is a lenient sentence, but the biggest thing is he goes through with the anger management course. Sounded like an awful attack regardless of circumstances, and for such a talented footballer his behaviour on the pitch has let him down in the past, it's been evident on numerous occasions how short a fuse he has.

largepants · 29-05-2014 07:37AM

Grats wrote: »

Some wonderful experts posting on the GAA thread who never contributed to a GAA topic before. Makes you wonder about their motivation.

I actually think that this thread should be closed.

Why? Because you dont like what you are reading?

I actually admire Boards for allowing this topic to be discussed in this way. There is a complete blackout of this subject on others Gaa forums. Why is that I wonder?

I'd seriously question the thinking of the courts when putting a person with obvious anger issues working with kids. From experience thats anything but calming.

nice_guy80 · 29-05-2014 09:05AM

Anonymou wrote: »

It was actually the fella Connolly attacked who decided the compensation should go to charity,not Connolly himself. Think it is a lenient sentence, but the biggest thing is he goes through with the anger management course. Sounded like an awful attack regardless of circumstances, and for such a talented footballer his behaviour on the pitch has let him down in the past, it's been evident on numerous occasions how short a fuse he has.

He turned down the money.
Very strange

ArielAtom · 29-05-2014 09:09AM

There are people posting on here who have stated they have no interest in the GAA. Why come on and post. This is not a problem for the GAA, this happened in a pub when Connolly was not on duty with the Dublin team. He has been sentenced and accepted his punishment.

Why people think Dublin GAA need to now act on that fact I do not know. If the posters feel this is a sentence that needs discussing further take it to the legal forum. It is not a GAA related item. If we were to bring everything a Soccer, GAA or Rugby player did to the relevant sports forum it would leave no room for discussing the topic it was set up for.

STB · 29-05-2014 09:21AM

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Disturbingly idiotic comment. Does Dublin GAA not operate by any moral code whatsoever? Does anything go? Violent criminals? Rapists? Paedophiles? Murderers? The silence is deafening from Dublin GAA - has any official statement been released?
If they had any moral compass, they would suspend him for at least a year.
The general consensus seems to be "who cares if he has a violent uncontrollable temper, he's some boy to kick a point"
We are continually bombarded with how professional GAA players are nowadays, yet if this scenario involved a soccer player they would no doubt be suspended by their club.
These players are portrayed as role models - what message does it portray if this goes unpunished?

I said I didn't condone it. And let me just clarify what I said earlier. In terms of "what he does on the pitch is what counts" was said with regard to this being a GAA forum on boards where GAA is discussed and NOT second guessing a Judge's decision in a Court case and demanding that the GAA add to a judges decision. The victim in this case has also accepted his apology.

There are plenty of court cases around the country that have received less media coverage that have resulted in similar court decisions. All you need to do is google "Gaelic Football player assault" and you will see that it is more common than you think, both on and off the pitch.

Despite other posts on this thread Diarmuid Connolly's disciplinary record on the pitch over the last 3 years has been very good. His performances on the pitch have been excellent during the league this year.

I'm sure we all would like to think that we could get a second chance, without begrudgery. Let he who cast the first stone etc.

rebel girl 15 · 29-05-2014 09:31AM

i've deleted a numbers of comments, I don't care your opinion on the matter but we don't tolerate name calling of players around here.

Warning to everyone to thread lightly, as I can see this getting heated

Paranoid Mandroid · 29-05-2014 09:56AM

largepants wrote: »

I'd seriously question the thinking of the courts when putting a person with obvious anger issues working with kids. From experience thats anything but calming.

This isn't right, insinuating such things.

NavyandBlue · 29-05-2014 10:44AM

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

If Dublin GAA wanted to make a statement about violent disorder they should suspend Diarmaid Connolly and condemn outrightly his behaviour - perhaps this would alienate "the hill". Instead, they have said nothing and in doing so, speak volumes about the mentality and lack of morality within GAA circles. Violence is a growing problem in this society - the GAA portray themselves as a bastion of irish society yet when they have had an opportunity to make a statement they have been found wanting.

This is something which really angers me and intend contacting the Dublin GAA county board regarding their apathy. Society has to be consistent in these matters. On one hand, we unreservedly abhor violence yet if somebody can kick a ball, it is acceptable for them to engage in a violent UNPROVOKED vicious assault.

Yes, close the thread when a genuine issue has been raised - maybe you like to keep things light and superficial around here.

Reading these posts is something of an education and helps me understand why society is rapidly disintegrating when such opinions/mentalities exist.

"it only matters what he does on the pitch"
Go cheer your hero with a clear conscience.

I disagree with the leniency of the sentence. But ultimately this is a matter for the Courts and not the GAA. If he was assigned to perform his community service with a particular club and that club refused because of the violent nature of the offence, I would have no objection.

It's not the job of the GAA to impose an additional punishment on Connolly. I don't see how continuing to pick Connolly is an endorsement of his off-field activities. Are there any actual cases where a sporting organisation has suspended a player for a period in excess of the time they are legally obliged to do so - either by the law of the land or the internal rules of the sporting body? I understand your point about moral apathy - but directing your ire at a sporting body is not the best course of action. Lobbying your local TD to legislate for reduced judicial discretion in imposing sentences would surely be a wiser and more effective path to follow.

And how far should the non-judicial punishment extend? What is the logical conclusion of your argument? He should be suspended from playing for the Dublin senior team - does this extend to suspension from any GAA activities? And should he be punished in other facets of his life? Should he be excluded from a place of worship because they object to violent assault? Should he be excluded from a restaurant because the owner finds his previous actions distasteful? Engaging in non-judicial punishment can open up a can of worms.

largepants · 29-05-2014 10:48AM

Paranoid Mandroid wrote: »

This isn't right, insinuating such things.

Was he not ordered to do an anger management course?

yop · 29-05-2014 11:09AM

ProudDUB wrote: »

Do we have any legal experts in the house?

What would usually be considered a "normal" sentence for someone in DC's position. If you plead guilty, you do what the court told you to do re paying compensation, you had no previous convictions for anything and you have kept your nose clean since the incident....what sentence could the average Joe, in the same position, expect to get?

Would a custodial sentence be the norm for someone on their first conviction? I find that hard to believe, when we seem to have God knows how many people with dozens of convictions to their name, wandering the streets scot free.

It is very easy to say that he got off lightly because he is an inter county footballer, but if community service is the norm for situations like these, then he just got the same treatment as every one else. I am not saying he did, I am just asking the question, as to what the "norm" would be in situations like these.

From any cases I have read or heard he got what the large majority get, whether they be GAA/Rugby or just "normal Joes".
It would be extremely harsh that he would get a custodial sentence for his 1st offence and it doesn't happen unless the assault leaves the victim long term incapacitated and even then there are many cases where the person walks away with a warning and/or fine and/or community service.

In his defense its his 1st offense, he pleaded guilty, he offered compensation and he admitted he was in the wrong. Because he is a GAA player/star this can't have any effect on the case or mean he should get a harsher or lesser sentence.

From the GAA side of it, which hasn't been done previous and probably needs to come from the top, which I personally think it should, if a player is convicted of a crime as serious of this or on a similar line then they should be suspended until the case is fully closed. It happens in the UK with regards soccer players, the clubs suspend them immediately.

The intercounty lads are idols to our kids, its not a great example that like in this case and many others, they continue to play for their clubs and/or counties.

I find it strange though that a lad who has confirmed anger issues and is receiving treatment for same is now working with kids, I as a parent would not be happy that a guy no matter who he was, who had been convicted of an unprovoked assault, was now working with my kids, if its community service the person should be out sweeping the streets like they do in other countries.

NavyandBlue · 29-05-2014 11:39AM

yop wrote: »

From the GAA side of it, which hasn't been done previous and probably needs to come from the top, which I personally think it should, if a player is convicted of a crime as serious of this or on a similar line then they should be suspended until the case is fully closed. It happens in the UK with regards soccer players, the clubs suspend them immediately.

The intercounty lads are idols to our kids, its not a great example that like in this case and many others, they continue to play for their clubs and/or counties.

The analogy with soccer clubs is surely not the best example because that would involve an employment relationship. The club's reputation is much more closely connected to the actions of its employees (as the club is playing their wages) than is the case between the County Board and a County player in the GAA. Also, the contract of employment for soccer players would establish a legal position where the clubs are clearly entitled take such suspensory action - I don't think there is anything with the internal rules of the GAA to cater for this. The intercounty player is not in receipt of remuneration (leaving aside any income they would receive from third party sponsors resulting from their intercounty career) from the GAA, therefore I don't think it would be right for the GAA to insist that the player lives an exemplary off-field lifestyle before they are picked.

And I don't really buy the "think of the children" argument. Nothing that good parenting couldn't solve.

keane2097 · 29-05-2014 11:47AM

NavyandBlue wrote: »

The analogy with soccer clubs is surely not the best example because that would involve an employment relationship. The club's reputation is much more closely connected to the actions of its employees (as the club is playing their wages) than is the case between the County Board and a County player in the GAA. Also, the contract of employment for soccer players would establish a legal position where the clubs are clearly entitled take such suspensory action - I don't think there is anything with the internal rules of the GAA to cater for this. The intercounty player is not in receipt of remuneration (leaving aside any income they would receive from third party sponsors resulting from their intercounty career) from the GAA, therefore I don't think it would be right for the GAA to insist that the player lives an exemplary off-field lifestyle before they are picked.

And I don't really buy the "think of the children" argument. Nothing that good parenting couldn't solve.

I agree that the whole idea of role models in general is pretty problematic, particularly so when it comes to GAA players who I find it hard to put any burden or expectation on in that regard since they're amateurs.

That said, I do see that there's an argument that Dublin should have stopped playing him while the case was ongoing, particularly as he had acknowledged guilt.

A panel are entitled to expect a certain level of behaviour regardless of whether someone is being paid to be there or not, and it could possibly have been an opportunity for the Dublin panel to take a moral highground position and say Connolly isn't going to be involved while this is going on because we don't want to be seen to implicitly condone his behaviour. Once the case is over, it's dealt with by the correct means and he should be able to return to action.

I'm not totally convinced that would be the correct action either, but there's certainly an argument for it.

Paranoid Mandroid · 29-05-2014 11:50AM

largepants wrote: »

Was he not ordered to do an anger management course?

He was. The way i read your comment you insinuated that he'd lash out at kids. That's not fair IMO. He apologised, got his punishment, now his name is forever tarnished in public, everywhere he goes. With everything else, its punishment enough. Thats all I'll say on it.

Diarmuid Connolly

Comments