Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin GAA Discussion Thread - Capital Punishment

Options
13567…334

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BPKS
    Registered Users Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭BPKS


    He deserves the 12 week ban for what he did but the fact that includes a ban on training is crazy. It was the same with the Paul Galvin case in 2008. Assuming Dublin have closed training sessions they should ignore that side of it and let him train away with the team.

    Dublin wont need Connolly until the semi final anyway. The A vs B games they will be playing will be more competitive than anything they encounter until the end of August. Better keep him out of harms way until then and let Tyrone or Donegal test his new found serenity.


  • Options
    #63
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    What I find disquieting is a significant number of Dublin fans seem to think because the ref didn't enforce the rules, that they are implying that it should amount to a get out of jail free card for Connolly.

    The referee and linesman messed up and they should be spoken to and left off the referees intercounty roster if deemed correct.


    If the CCCC can only deal with incidents that the referee didn't see (as alleged by Brolly), then, while a technical defence, it is a defence.

    I don't see the same outrage out there about a Kerry player using a technical defence (it was inadvertent) to escape a much more serious case of using a banned substance. In fact, nearly every GAA pundit in the country has defended the use of a technical defence in that case.


  • Options
    #64
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    Drumpot wrote: »
    I wasn't defending Connolly , I was putting context on the hysteria surrounding the case...

    You can accept he was wrong , accept he has to be punished and highlight the fact that he was reacting to abuse that's accepted in the game.

    In fairness, the only hysteria I see is coming from the Dublin fans themselves. Not all of them I will say, but a very vocal amount of them who seem to think that if they aren't incessantly ramming disingenuous still photos down everyone's necks, they aren't doing their bit.


  • Options
    #65
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,138 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    Drumpot wrote: »
    Quoting other sports that equally fail to protect their top athletes doesn't really address the problem. And how is accepting the tactic remotely progressive? So other sports are equally pathetic at protecting top athletes, so why bother ? Watch Maradonna in 1982 World Cup and again in 1986 and tell me that the sport didn't give him more protection that allowed him to flourish? Can you imagine how messi or ronaldo would of done in the 70s?

    What would be more beneficial for the sport? Protect its most talented players that people pay to watch or to allow teams abuse them to level the playing fields? Surely as abusive techniques change the rules should change to reflect it? Even the dinosaurs in the English FA are trying to address the diving issue in their sport and that's extremely hard to judge.

    Can't believe I even have to ask the question. Nothing would ever change in life or sport if people just accepted "well that's just the way it is".

    As a person who played a more physical game in soccer and Gaelic , I would prefer if the game protected talented players more. I felt under pressure to kick, insult and do all sorts of things to good players which ruined the experience for myself and prob the players I was told to target. I can't understand how any rational person could think it's not worth addressing.

    Im surprised nobody has mentioned the black card that was actually introduced to help deal with this sort of stuff. I don't believe the problem is completely at the door of the GAA, but the hysterics of fans and Pundits to changes to rules don't make it easy.

    If there were repercussions for these offences they would stop. Imagine those Wexford lads got some sort of retrospective bans. Teams couldn't try to push players to the brink and we wouldn't get players losing the head. Why is it acceptable to try and drive a player mad and then when they react there's retarded commentary as if a player lashed out for no logical reason?

    One of the underlying issues is resistance to change for different reasons . You have most teams who have more to lose By quality players being defended. Then you have old school fans/players that accept the abuse just because they don't want to sound soft or just don't know any better.

    I addressed other sports because your point:
    Drumpot wrote: »
    It's actually quite retarded for a sport to allow a strategy that prevents its most talented stars from shining on the big stage.

    could equally be put to pretty much every other sport out there.

    Also, I'm not entirely sure of your point about ronaldo and Messi if they played back then. Have you seen games of football in the 70s? Did you see Mickey Ned O Sullivan infamously being knocked unconscious as he waltzed through the Dublin defence. It was all out war back then. You could equally ask how would Gooch or the likes would have fared back then.

    I also never said it was worth addressing. My point being that sport is by its nature competitive, and all sports are. Regardless of how many rules you want to bring in to try save the best players and let them entertain, you will still always have a dark undercurrent of somesorts. thats not the same as leaving things as it is, it is a realisation of facts. The black card was brought in to stop cynical play. Has it actually done that? no, all it does is punishes players.

    I'm not sure what your reference to Wexford is. I assume you mean Carlow. And I'm also not entirely sure you want to punish their players for, because I dont know what they did to warrant any punishment.

    I know the point you are trying to make, but at the same time, there has to be some sort of realistic look at things. Sport by its nature is fierce and competitive. There has to be a line that you cant cross. Finding that line is the issue, but at the same time, you cant eradicate all physical and competitiveness out of it totally.

    By and large, most players dont react to what goes on and play the game fine. Connolly is an exception to this, as was Galvin in his time. There may be more underlying issues with these lads than others.

    and one other things:
    Drumpot wrote: »
    I wasn't defending Connolly , I was putting context on the hysteria surrounding the case...

    You can accept he was wrong , accept he has to be punished and highlight the fact that he was reacting to abuse that's accepted in the game.
    he was not reacting to abuse when he went to the linesman. He was reacting to what he thought was a wrong call. Him being "abused" had little or nothing to do with his reaction, and that in itself furthers your own point about abuse in the game.


    Also, separate issue, I'm not sure why you keep saying retarded. Doesnt fit well in your points.


  • Options
    #66
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    BPKS wrote: »
    He deserves the 12 week ban for what he did but the fact that includes a ban on training is crazy. It was the same with the Paul Galvin case in 2008. Assuming Dublin have closed training sessions they should ignore that side of it and let him train away with the team.

    It's Ireland

    Dublin would never be able to keep it quiet that Connolly is training away with the team if his suspension is upheld


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,138 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    blanch152 wrote: »
    If the CCCC can only deal with incidents that the referee didn't see (as alleged by Brolly), then, while a technical defence, it is a defence.

    I don't see the same outrage out there about a Kerry player using a technical defence (it was inadvertent) to escape a much more serious case of using a banned substance. In fact, nearly every GAA pundit in the country has defended the use of a technical defence in that case.

    :confused:

    the Kerry player was given a much longer ban than is proposed to Connolly and most have acknowledged that he deserves a ban, even for just being utterly stupid in what he did, even if it was inadvertent. He didnt escape anything.


  • Options
    #68
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,093 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    Tbh, the biggest problem highlighted in the Dublin Carlow game for me was the Cooper Murphy incident. And it wasn't Murphy's reaction, rather this constant niggling that goes on to provoke such reactions.

    I could take verbals all day long but the only things that ever got me to lose the head was a tackle with intent to do damage (you won't see many at inter-county level) or these niggly incidents which are part and parcel of the game these days.

    It goes on up and down the Country so it's not just a pop at Cooper or Dublin. Mayo do it, everyone does. Blocking runs 50 yards away from the ball, being dragged down off the ball, someone holding your hand etc etc.

    Eliminate that and you're left with a great game. I don't think anyone minds a "welcome to the game" dig, people can easily shrug off a marker telling them their scoring stats... the nasty verbals is something that's disgusting to hear about but I don't think they go on to any great degree...the GPA should really take that upon themselves if it is indeed a problem.

    These off the ball incidents are the most common way star players are being targeted imo. If the GAA want to sort it out, it's quite simple, 2 refs or let the two linesmen roam onto the pitch and act as "off the ball" refs.

    The next thing I would sort out is the appeals process. The whole thing is a farce. If you decide to appeal, then a greater suspension should given, if the original decision is upheld. This may stop the circus, appeals are almost automatic at this stage. If Dublin didn't appeal for Connolly it would be as good as saying they don't want him around.


  • Options
    #69
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    blanch152 wrote: »
    If the CCCC can only deal with incidents that the referee didn't see (as alleged by Brolly), then, while a technical defence, it is a defence.

    I don't see the same outrage out there about a Kerry player using a technical defence (it was inadvertent) to escape a much more serious case of using a banned substance. In fact, nearly every GAA pundit in the country has defended the use of a technical defence in that case.

    To be honest I think brolly's defence is bs and he knows it. He is filling in far too many if, buts and maybes for the thing to be credible, plus he is acting like refs and linesmen are robots. He doesn't take into account that the linesman isn't adjudicating for a foul or something run of the mill, but rather a physical altercation involving himself. In that situation it is understandable that he might be out of his comfort zone to the point of not acting in the 100% correct manner in accordance with the rulebook.

    The irony is, functionally what Connolly has done is in fact very similar to 'targeting' the linesman. If we accept that this can knock Connolly off his game to the point of making a mistake, then the same has to apply for the linesman too.

    Brolly is only out to get himself on the airwaves.


  • Options
    #70
    Dots1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭Dots1982


    blanch152 wrote: »
    If the CCCC can only deal with incidents that the referee didn't see (as alleged by Brolly), then, while a technical defence, it is a defence.

    I don't see the same outrage out there about a Kerry player using a technical defence (it was inadvertent) to escape a much more serious case of using a banned substance. In fact, nearly every GAA pundit in the country has defended the use of a technical defence in that case.

    Apples and oranges for me. Kerry lad made a technical defence of honest mistake that was found to be believeable. DC would get off purely on a technical matter as the rulebook states he clearly he contravened the rule.

    Anyway most Dublin fans on here seem to agree he's been dealt with fairly so to be honest I don't have an issue with the Dublin fans on here. The Dublin fans on twitter and hoganstand take a less magnamious view on balance.


  • Options
    #71
    Dots1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭Dots1982


    bruschi wrote: »
    :confused:

    the Kerry player was given a much longer ban than is proposed to Connolly and most have acknowledged that he deserves a ban, even for just being utterly stupid in what he did, even if it was inadvertent. He didnt escape anything.

    He did escape to be fair. He would have got maybe 2 years for an outright open and shut case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    bruschi wrote: »
    I addressed other sports because your point:



    could equally be put to pretty much every other sport out there.

    Also, I'm not entirely sure of your point about ronaldo and Messi if they played back then. Have you seen games of football in the 70s? Did you see Mickey Ned O Sullivan infamously being knocked unconscious as he waltzed through the Dublin defence. It was all out war back then. You could equally ask how would Gooch or the likes would have fared back then.

    I also never said it was worth addressing. My point being that sport is by its nature competitive, and all sports are. Regardless of how many rules you want to bring in to try save the best players and let them entertain, you will still always have a dark undercurrent of somesorts. thats not the same as leaving things as it is, it is a realisation of facts. The black card was brought in to stop cynical play. Has it actually done that? no, all it does is punishes players.

    I'm not sure what your reference to Wexford is. I assume you mean Carlow. And I'm also not entirely sure you want to punish their players for, because I dont know what they did to warrant any punishment.

    I know the point you are trying to make, but at the same time, there has to be some sort of realistic look at things. Sport by its nature is fierce and competitive. There has to be a line that you cant cross. Finding that line is the issue, but at the same time, you cant eradicate all physical and competitiveness out of it totally.

    By and large, most players dont react to what goes on and play the game fine. Connolly is an exception to this, as was Galvin in his time. There may be more underlying issues with these lads than others.

    and one other things:

    he was not reacting to abuse when he went to the linesman. He was reacting to what he thought was a wrong call. Him being "abused" had little or nothing to do with his reaction, and that in itself furthers your own point about abuse in the game.


    Also, separate issue, I'm not sure why you keep saying retarded. Doesnt fit well in your points.

    The retarded word is me venting. Granted it's not needed but it's like the way they say it's therapeutic shouting out "f**k" when you bang your foot. I find using the word retarded the perfect way to describe how I feel about this point. I might add I would use the word retarded in respect to how the powers that be dealt with the financial crisis (absolutely zero fundamental changes to address the underlying issue). It's a consistent disgust at anything that obviously should be addressed but is just ignored. But point noted, I will try to refrain from using it.

    In many regards my issue isn't anything to do with the punishment of Connolly. It's more how selective people are about how the rules are applied and how targeted abusing of players technically isn't considered worth addressing.

    I think some people genuinely like the drama and bullsh*t surrounding these things. I think Connolly should respect the sport and stick to the rules. But I think the sport should do its uptmost to likewise respect and protect its players. The abuse that players can take throughout a match can be ridiculous. For larger games could they not have a 2nd ref whose sole job is to monitor players looking to wind up rivals?

    With regards to the 70s in Gaelic , had the powers not be addressed the physical issues in the game it wouldn't of changed. Back then people might of had the "sure that's all part and parcel of the game" excuse that's used today to defend the abuse top players get during a match. As the game moves on, the rules should change with a strategy to promote the playing of the game, not the destruction of the sport. Cynical play will always be in sport, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be efforts to address them.


  • Options
    #73
    Sweet Science
    Closed Accounts Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Sweet Science


    Connolly gets nowhere near the same attention as inside forwards would get .

    The likes of Canavan, Bernard and the Gooch took a lot more without reacting.

    No longer should we be looking for ways to excuse his actions.

    It happens in other sports aswel. Messi had his teeth knocked out against Madrid and nearly had his leg broke . Didn't stop him winning the game for Barca and that's a lot more extreme than a bit of pushing that Dermo gets .


  • Options
    #74
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,138 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    Drumpot wrote: »
    But point noted, I will try to refrain from using it.
    sound, just a silly bugbear of mine. no malice intended.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Cynical play will always be in sport, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be efforts to address them.

    I'm not sure anywhere I didnt disagree with that, in fact thats what I have been saying. As much as you try advance the rules, like the black card, it will never eradicate those kind of issues. But if the vast majority of players can adapt and keep going, despite any cynicism or foul play levelled their way. And thats it all sports. And in all sports you will still have those who go over the top in foul play, and those who go over the top in their reaction to foul play.


  • Options
    #75
    LeoB
    Registered Users Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭LeoB


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    Of course Brolly was ''decent'' he articulated your point of view. As is stated by many all top forwards have to live with treatment. Its the nature of the game unless we turn it into tiddltwinks. You can look at the treatment meated out to O'Connor, Murphy, Gooch, Greany, Brogan etc etc. But they live with it. Connolly gets no more or no less but he reacts to it.
    Brolly picked holes in a flawed process. He also asked questions about why it was not dealt with at the time it happened. To me that sounds veru very suspecious.
    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    What happened last Sunday had nothing to do with treatment he was meated out. He caused a furore by picking up a line ball given against him and he then tried to intimidate the linesman.
    I could have swore I saw 3 lads pulling and dragging at him.
    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    You wonder how it came to the refs attention. Connolly continued to barage the linesman after that. Maybe after the game the ref asked the linesman ''what was all that about'' and became aware of the incident then.
    The linesman and the referee are regarded as "elite" officials "maybe after the game" is not good enough at this level.
    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    It is the refs job to protect his officials he may have mentioned it then in the report. Brannigan not bringing it to the refs attention means the matter was not dealt with. If the ref booked him or yellow carded him it may have been deemed to have been dealt with. If he red carded as happened to Paul Galvin in 2008 the GAA could also carry it forward.
    It is the refs job to apply the rules correctly and to protect players. Galvin in that game was treated disgracefully by his opponent.
    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    I think that Dublin GAA are in a quandry. If they appeal they are condoning what he did. This pulls the rug from under every referee that is reffing games at any level in Dublin. They are condoning the intimidation of officials.

    The pundits that you are angry with just have a different point of view to Brolly.
    Dublin I believe have no intention of appealing this. That could change. The problem here is the way it happened. I think fuelled by A pundit and or another senior official. I have seen plenty of lads catch a referee by the arm in the form of appealing a decision and no one bats an eyelid.

    Referees in Dublin get a fair bit of stick by times but this is not pulling the rug from under anyone. Referees know when they fck up and so do players it is how they handle it. Like another person pointed out Sean Cavenagh getting dragged around Croke park last year for 50 minutes but he was the one to walk he got no protection at all. The referee didnt have balls to deal with the real culprit. As was pointed out Canavan, Gouch, Brogan get stick but dont react the same way, fair point but Canavan had a few hard men around him a lot of the time who dished out plenty of belts to his markers

    I have spoken to a good few Dublin followers and 99% feel he was stupid and also feel just go on without him. As a referee I have had lads go haywire with me for awarding what were point blank frees and I think most referees have had this. Heat of the moment stuff. But this thing with Connolly just smells.

    Im not a fan of the appeals process either as it is now totally out of hand. Unless it is clear cut lads need to accept what the bans.


  • Options
    #76
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    bruschi wrote: »


    he was not reacting to abuse when he went to the linesman. He was reacting to what he thought was a wrong call. .

    It was a wrong call, it was right in front of me.


  • Options
    #77
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    Apples and oranges for me. Kerry lad made a technical defence of honest mistake that was found to be believeable. DC would get off purely on a technical matter as the rulebook states he clearly he contravened the rule.

    Anyway most Dublin fans on here seem to agree he's been dealt with fairly so to be honest I don't have an issue with the Dublin fans on here. The Dublin fans on twitter and hoganstand take a less magnamious view on balance.

    I don't want to go off-topic on the Kerry lad, and I have made the point elsewhere, but Sports Ireland warned all athletes in 2012 of the particular issue. The "honest mistake" defence shouldn't have been credible after that.

    On Connolly, if you rewound the video and examined every bit of it for things the referee missed, you could ban about 20 players from every televised match, many of them for much more serious offences.


  • Options
    #78
    MayoAreMagic
    Registered Users Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭MayoAreMagic


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It was a wrong call, it was right in front of me.

    Doesn't justify his actions though. Wrong calls happen.
    Similarly, the three lads hanging out of him, got the chance to do so because he wouldn't release the ball. That happens in every game up and down the country in that situation.


  • Options
    #79
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,138 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It was a wrong call, it was right in front of me.

    one of your own doesnt agree:
    corny wrote: »
    I was right in line with it.....it did touch Cooper in the air and the correct decision was a sideline ball to Carlow. Also, Brannigan looked to the ref for guidance and the ref pointed Carlow ball. The decision was made for him.

    and regardless, Connolly isnt the ref or linesman, he doesnt make calls. It's not up to him to go chase after the linesman and roar at him because he thought the wrong call was made.


  • Options
    #80
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    MayoAreMagic wrote: »
    Doesn't justify his actions though. Wrong calls happen.


    Never said it did justify his actions, just correcting the facts. It was a wrong call, end of.


    MayoAreMagic wrote: »
    Similarly, the three lads hanging out of him, got the chance to do so because he wouldn't release the ball. That happens in every game up and down the country in that situation.

    At the time the three lads were hanging out of him, Connolly hadn't seen the linesman's flag and correctly thought the call was going his way.


  • Options
    #81
    Kavrocks
    Registered Users Posts: 2,343 ✭✭✭Kavrocks


    PARlance wrote: »
    These off the ball incidents are the most common way star players are being targeted imo. If the GAA want to sort it out, it's quite simple, 2 refs or let the two linesmen roam onto the pitch and act as "off the ball" refs.
    It's not that simple actually. The GAA makes no distinction between club and inter-county when it comes to the application of the rules or the powers and duties of a referee. If the role of the referee or linesmen is to be changed there are loads of issues that arise, the major being the disparity between club and inter-county and the complexity of rewriting the rules.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Joe Brolly put it well when he described the circumstances of the incident appearing in the referees report. I agree and I find it strange that in effect the referee and linesman have both admitted to being incompetent. They should certainly be dropped from the inter-county referee rota. There are grounds of appeal in relation to how the retrospective action was dealt with.
    Joe Brolly didn't describe the circumstances of the incident appearing in the referees report because he didn't see the referees report before he made his comments. Neither the referee or the linesman have admitted to being incompetent. The contents of the referee report are private between the referee and the CCCC until such stage other parties are made privy to their contents, for example during an appeals process.

    Most people seem to forget referees are human, they are bound to make mistakes and they are more likely to make mistakes in heated situations. The lack of respect for referees is a disgrace at all levels and I would much rather see a change with respect to that than anything else arising out of this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Kavrocks wrote: »

    Most people seem to forget referees are human, they are bound to make mistakes and they are more likely to make mistakes in heated situations. The lack of respect for referees is a disgrace at all levels and I would much rather see a change with respect to that than anything else arising out of this.

    Oh I agree, I have said in another post that this ruling sets an important precedent for the protection of referees (even if it is overturned on a technicality) and I look forward to the long list of suspensions that will occur if the number of incidents of the referee being physically impeded last year are repeated this season. The pulling of the referees arm to try and prevent a booking is one used by a number of inter-county teams.


  • Options
    #83
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Such bans have been reduced in the past:

    http://www.the42.ie/grimley-ban-reduced-to-four-weeks-395243-Mar2012/


  • Options
    #84
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    PARlance wrote: »
    Tbh, the biggest problem highlighted in the Dublin Carlow game for me was the Cooper Murphy incident. And it wasn't Murphy's reaction, rather this constant niggling that goes on to provoke such reactions.

    Correct me If I'm wrong but didn't murphy hurl dogs abuse at the officials when he was sent off that the cameras picked up? Same offence as the bould connolly with the same punishment I believe

    Pit Spilline was'nt pursing his lips about that :D


  • Options
    #85
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Never said it did justify his actions, just correcting the facts. It was a wrong call, end of.


    At the time the three lads were hanging out of him, Connolly hadn't seen the linesman's flag and correctly thought the call was going his way.

    Again, you say it was the wrong call. As bruschi pointed out above, another Dublin fan was certain that it was a Carlow ball. Unfortunately, the Sunday game didn't actually show the ball go over the line. Unless someone has the Sky coverage recorded, it's difficult to know.

    And Connolly was right next to the linesman pointing in Carlow's direction. You'll notice that as soon as he dropped the ball, the Carlow players let go of him. Had he "played to the whistle" (for lack of a better term) none of this would have happened.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Oh I agree, I have said in another post that this ruling sets an important precedent for the protection of referees (even if it is overturned on a technicality) and I look forward to the long list of suspensions that will occur if the number of incidents of the referee being physically impeded last year are repeated this season. The pulling of the referees arm to try and prevent a booking is one used by a number of inter-county teams.
    Out of interest, I'd like to see these incidents from last year (as long as it's not that picture of Maurice Deegan and Cillian O'Connor that's been doing the rounds).
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Such bans have been reduced in the past:

    http://www.the42.ie/grimley-ban-reduced-to-four-weeks-395243-Mar2012/
    That's not the same thing though. Grimley was initially charged with threatening an official but got it reduced to "verbal abuse". With that sort of issue, it's one person's word against another's. In this case we have video evidence of "minor physical interference".


  • Options
    #86
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bambi wrote: »
    Correct me If I'm wrong but didn't murphy hurl dogs abuse at the officials when he was sent off that the cameras picked up? Same offence as the bould connolly with the same punishment I believe

    Pit Spilline was'nt pursing his lips about that :D


    Well you see, as Mr. Spillane, in his rush to spit bile, didn't realise was that there is a lesser punishment of four weeks for verbal abuse as Paul Grimley got in 2012 on reduction from his twelve week ban. Poor old Pat, tried to conflate verbal abuse and physical abuse in his rush to condemn Connolly. But yes, by the same standards as are being used to punish Connolly, Murphy should get four weeks. This will run all summer as there are bound to be many examples.


  • Options
    #87
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    Bambi wrote: »
    Correct me If I'm wrong but didn't murphy hurl dogs abuse at the officials when he was sent off that the cameras picked up? Same offence as the bould connolly with the same punishment I believe

    Pit Spilline was'nt pursing his lips about that :D

    Not the same offence or punishment at all. To use abusive language towards an official is a red card offence but it's "only" a category III offence which carries a one match ban.
    I'm not sure if Murphy will get a one match ban regardless given that he was sent off. But again, abusive language is a lot more difficult to prove if it wasn't in the referee's report.


  • Options
    #88
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    @Hammer, from my recollection at the time at the match I was convinced it was a Carlow ball.


  • Options
    #89
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    @Hammer, from my recollection at the time at the match I was convinced it was a Carlow ball.

    I thought the same, but to be honest who cares, the right or wrong call it wasnt going to influence the game at all


  • Options
    #90
    LeoB
    Registered Users Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭LeoB


    Kavrocks wrote: »
    It's not that simple actually. The GAA makes no distinction between club and inter-county when it comes to the application of the rules or the powers and duties of a referee. If the role of the referee or linesmen is to be changed there are loads of issues that arise, the major being the disparity between club and inter-county and the complexity of rewriting the rules.
    Yes it would be very difficult. But maybe it is time to use 2 referees, once they read off the same hymn sheet. The playing rules would remain the same just an extra body. The other problem is there is a massive difference between the refereeing standards we see from week to week.

    Kavrocks wrote: »
    Joe Brolly didn't describe the circumstances of the incident appearing in the referees report
    I think he did. He said it was strange how it appeared in the report after the game, (there is a section in the report which he said allows referees to add stuff when the game is over) He questioned the "integrity" of this particular process in this case which Sean O'Rourke distanced R.T.E from his comments. He also questioned how 2 "elite" officials missed it, even in the heat of the moment. I think Brolly may have suggested incompetence from the officials to miss such an incident. Bottom line is this smells to me of interference.

    because he didn't see the referees report before he made his comments. Neither the referee or the linesman have admitted to being incompetent. The contents of the referee report are private between the referee and the CCCC until such stage other parties are made privy to their contents, for example during an appeals process.

    Most people seem to forget referees are human, they are bound to make mistakes and they are more likely to make mistakes in heated situations. The lack of respect for referees is a disgrace at all levels and I would much rather see a change with respect to that than anything else arising out of this.[/QUOTE]

    Yes the referee is human and has like us all has a family and life to go home to, all the more reason to get this put to bed by whatever means and look forward to hopefully less mistakes


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    mountgomery burns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭mountgomery burns


    I dunno what the linesman has to do with players getting off the ball treatment? Shove the player then, not the linesman. The rule is clear, until its changed it should be enforced.

    I don't think the referee not implementing it at the time is a good excuse for it not being enforced retrospectively. All the examples of players getting off the ball treatment notably here by those defending Connollys actions are from counties outside of Dublin. There can be no doubt that Dublins principal markers are just as guilty as anyone of dishing out said rough treatment though.

    Fair enough if you think its an issue, but it should be a point separate to whether Connolly is banned or not. In light of Comerfords ban for Tipp, I think the GAA have no choice but to enforce the same ban or I would think justifiably we are not dealing with a level playing field.

    The GAA undoubtedly have made plenty of mistakes and bad calls when dealing with punishments in the past, but that's completely irrelevant to current cases. Enforce the rules, and in this instance the rule is clear. I would acknowledge though it is a harsh rule for somebody to be missing an entire summer for something that was minor, depending of course on what was said to the linesman.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement