So what do ye think of the black card rule now?

[screenexile]

I see he still won't co operate with RTE th'oul grumpy ******.
Time for him to cop on.

If RTE joked about the death of your daughter, you'd be grumpy too. 

Aye but sure he's wile holy should he not be forgiving them at this stage??!! They did apologise in fairness!

[Rossfan]

I see he still won't co operate with RTE th'oul grumpy ******.
Time for him to cop on.

If RTE joked about the death of your daughter, you'd be grumpy too. 

I don't recall that. I understood it was about Brian Carty not getting promoted by RTE

[Zulu]

Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.

Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.

Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.

That middle paragrtaph is exactly why have too many rules makes the job even more difficult. Coldrick is supposed to be our top ref and you are saying he got a bit rattled because he made a mistake with the new rules?

But we don't have many rules at all. In terms of what a ref has to deal with in a game it isn't that bad, Coldrick just made an awful mistake they same way as O'Hare did with the free or both managers may have made with their team selections. I really don't understand how lads are still questioning the black card. It hasn't had a negative impact on games as refs have been slow to dish it out but it has definitely had a positive impact on the cynical fouling and off the ball blocking. There isn't any change we can make to the game or it's competition structures that won't have some negative aspects, the only question is whether the changes have more positives than negatives and the black card certainly seems to have more positives.

[BennyHarp]

Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.

Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.

Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.

That middle paragrtaph is exactly why have too many rules makes the job even more difficult. Coldrick is supposed to be our top ref and you are saying he got a bit rattled because he made a mistake with the new rules?

But we don't have many rules at all. In terms of what a ref has to deal with in a game it isn't that bad, Coldrick just made an awful mistake they same way as O'Hare did with the free or both managers may have made with their team selections. I really don't understand how lads are still questioning the black card. It hasn't had a negative impact on games as refs have been slow to dish it out but it has definitely had a positive impact on the cynical fouling and off the ball blocking. There isn't any change we can make to the game or it's competition structures that won't have some negative aspects, the only question is whether the changes have more positives than negatives and the black card certainly seems to have more positives.

People are questioning it because the best ref in the country who was used in the video explaining the black card made a balls of his decision, in a big championship game, where the player who should have received the black card went on and had a major baring on the game by scoring the goal that very nearly put a team out of the championship. I really don't see what it added to Sundays game other than controversy and confusion.

[Rossfan]

I see he still won't co operate with RTE th'oul grumpy ******.
Time for him to cop on.

If RTE joked about the death of your daughter, you'd be grumpy too. 

I don't recall that. I understood it was about Brian Carty not getting promoted by RTE

Tyrone stance has decency on its side
EAMONN SWEENEY – UPDATED 05 MAY 2013 04:06 AM

I'm glad to see that Tyrone footballers will be boycotting RTE coverage for the third championship summer in a row. Not because I've anything against the RTE sports department but because it's good to see people sticking by their principles.

We're talking about respect. Back in August 2011, only a few months after Tyrone manager Mickey Harte's daughter had been murdered in Mauritius, RTE's John Murray Show broadcast a sketch which lampooned Harte as a kind of idiot for going to see the Dalai Lama and included the song, 'Pretty Little Girl From Omagh In The County Of Tyrone'.

It was horrible stuff. But the worst thing about it was the ignoble motivation behind the skit. Harte was, at the time, one of a number of inter-county managers who had criticised RTE management for not promoting GAA correspondent Brian Carthy.

So the sketch smacked of sycophants having a go at Harte in order to ingratiate themselves with their bosses.

Or, worse again, of Mickey Harte being taught a lesson about what happened to people who dared cross the national broadcaster. Gotcha Mickey.

It took RTE three days before they decided to furnish an apology, an apology which you'd have to say didn't exactly reek of wholeheartedness

Actually, it's unbelievable stuff. A group of people decided to take the piss out of a Tyrone man whose daughter had been murdered by playing a song about a girl from Tyrone.

Think about it. Murray continues to purvey his brand of wacky fun on RTE Radio. Meanwhile, Mickey Harte and his family have had to get on with their lives.

So it's strange to see the Tyrone boycott being portrayed as something surprising or even unreasonable. In reality, the team and the county can do nothing else. Respect for Mickey Harte and the memory of Michaela McAreavey leaves them no choice.

The RTE boycott, far from being an infringement of press freedom, is actually a tribute to the integrity and spirit of the Tyrone footballers which says a lot about the kind of people they are.

There are more important things in life than a few post-match interviews.

Thanks HS.
Don't recall it all. Must have been out of the Country at the time. Amended my original post.

[Zulu]

Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.

Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.

Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.

That middle paragrtaph is exactly why have too many rules makes the job even more difficult. Coldrick is supposed to be our top ref and you are saying he got a bit rattled because he made a mistake with the new rules?

But we don't have many rules at all. In terms of what a ref has to deal with in a game it isn't that bad, Coldrick just made an awful mistake they same way as O'Hare did with the free or both managers may have made with their team selections. I really don't understand how lads are still questioning the black card. It hasn't had a negative impact on games as refs have been slow to dish it out but it has definitely had a positive impact on the cynical fouling and off the ball blocking. There isn't any change we can make to the game or it's competition structures that won't have some negative aspects, the only question is whether the changes have more positives than negatives and the black card certainly seems to have more positives.

People are questioning it because the best ref in the country who was used in the video explaining the black card made a balls of his decision, in a big championship game, where the player who should have received the black card went on and had a major baring on the game by scoring the goal that very nearly put a team out of the championship. I really don't see what it added to Sundays game other than controversy and confusion.

But we've had red and yellow card controversies and massive debates about whether game winning frees were frees or not for years so I don't see how this is much different. Anyway, he would have been replaced so who is to say his replacement or another Down player wouldn't have made that run for the goal anyway?

[magpie seanie]

Coldrick mustn't have done his job right becasue neither team got close to 20 scores.

[blewuporstuffed]

But we've had red and yellow card controversies and massive debates about whether game winning frees were frees or not for years so I don't see how this is much different. Anyway, he would have been replaced so who is to say his replacement or another Down player wouldn't have made that run for the goal anyway?

So it wouldn't really have been much of a disadvantage to Down, him having to be replaced?
Then what is the discouragement for him doing it? I thought the black card was supposed to penalise teams for being cynical?

Just because there has been refereeing controversies in the past doesnt mean we should introduce more rules that increase this happening.
If anything , rule changes should allow simplification of the rules so we can get them consistently applied.

[Zulu]

The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.

I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.

[blewuporstuffed]

The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.

I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.

yes, new punishments that referees need to make a decision between, and from what i have seen so far have been hugely inconsistent in doing so.

Before the black card came in, the only major issue i seen that needed addressed was the off the ball body checking. The main issue here was, not that we needed a new sanction for it, but that the existing one (the yellow card) was rarely being used.
Before the black card was introduced, a period should have been tried where referees were instructed to clamp down on it and issue yellow cards to see if this stamped it out.
This wasn't even attempted, rather a new sanction, that introduced a new set of decisions for referees was introduced.
The other 'drag down' or sean cavanagh tackle was a very rare occurrence in my experience and again i dont think it needed a separate sanction introduced.
What we have now created i feel is that players are more likely to go to ground when tackled in order for it to look like a black card offence.i.e. more of the most cynical act of all in sport- diving.

The 'black card' sanction (player sent off but can be replaced) for verbal abuse of an official, i actually have no issue with.

[take_yer_points]

The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.

I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.

yes, new punishments that referees need to make a decision between, and from what i have seen so far have been hugely inconsistent in doing so.

Before the black card came in, the only major issue i seen that needed addressed was the off the ball body checking. The main issue here was, not that we needed a new sanction for it, but that the existing one (the yellow card) was rarely being used.
Before the black card was introduced, a period should have been tried where referees were instructed to clamp down on it and issue yellow cards to see if this stamped it out.
This wasn't even attempted, rather a new sanction, that introduced a new set of decisions for referees was introduced.
The other 'drag down' or sean cavanagh tackle was a very rare occurrence in my experience and again i dont think it needed a separate sanction introduced.
What we have now created i feel is that players are more likely to go to ground when tackled in order for it to look like a black card offence.i.e. more of the most cynical act of all in sport- diving.

The 'black card' sanction (player sent off but can be replaced) for verbal abuse of an official, i actually have no issue with.

Totally agree.

Zulu, you stated in your post "cynically foul and you are off the pitch." That's not correct as we witnessed on Sunday - the cynical foul is only the first step - the ref then has to make his decision and we've seen that refs aren't capable of distinguishing between an orindary foul, a tick foul, a black card foul, a yellow card foul and a red card foul. The penalty incident was a text book black card foul. It came from a dead ball incident (Cavanagh kicking in the sideline ball) so the referee was up with play - you can see on the TV coverage he was about 15 yards away and was looking straight at it. Coldrick has been mooted here as the best ref in the country and even he can't get that one right. Somone said he was put off by the Tyrone players complaining about not playing advantage - what chance is there in club matches where half of both teams are in the ref's face about a foul and half the crowd trying to get in at him too (I'm assuming a club match in Tyrone here of course).

My difficulty with it is the yellow card sanction was already there and wasn't applied correctly. If it was, whether in the first minute, 10th minute, or 70th minute, then I think there would be a lot less fouling without the need for the black card. There'd also be a lot less complaints about consistency when discussing the implementation of the rules. I'd agree the black card seems to have eliminated some of the cynical fouling (though it's very early in the Championship), but I think the same could have been achieved by implementing the yellow card sanction as per the rule book - that didn't happen and now we're seeing the same with the black card.

EDIT:

Here's a still image from RTE player (it's not as sharp an image as on TV but you can see the ref on the edge of the square just past McVeigh) - one of the top refs in the country can't get that one right 10 or 15 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view.

[Hardy]

The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.

I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.

yes, new punishments that referees need to make a decision between, and from what i have seen so far have been hugely inconsistent in doing so.

Before the black card came in, the only major issue i seen that needed addressed was the off the ball body checking. The main issue here was, not that we needed a new sanction for it, but that the existing one (the yellow card) was rarely being used.
Before the black card was introduced, a period should have been tried where referees were instructed to clamp down on it and issue yellow cards to see if this stamped it out.
This wasn't even attempted, rather a new sanction, that introduced a new set of decisions for referees was introduced.
The other 'drag down' or sean cavanagh tackle was a very rare occurrence in my experience and again i dont think it needed a separate sanction introduced.
What we have now created i feel is that players are more likely to go to ground when tackled in order for it to look like a black card offence.i.e. more of the most cynical act of all in sport- diving.

The 'black card' sanction (player sent off but can be replaced) for verbal abuse of an official, i actually have no issue with.

That's it, pretty much exactly. The only modification I'd make to your summary is that I would have introduced a (real) deterrent for the drag down offence - a fourteen metre free for such a foul committed anywhere on the pitch, or a penalty if committed inside 20 metres. The black card will do absolutely nothing to eliminate the very offence it was introduced to address - the game-saving last-minute rugby tackle.

I said in the debate before the introduction of the black card that, apart from its sensible provisions for advantage and its sanctions for trash talking, all it would achieve would be to provide more things for referees to get wrong. I think we're seeing that in spades.

One aspect of this that I haven't seen debated is the introduction of a raft of situations where  the referee must adjudicate on intent. Until now, if, for instance, one player tripped another, it was a foul and a free, whether it was an accidental entanglement of legs or a deliberate trip. For the most part, a foul was a foul, regardless of intent.

The word was mentioned only once in the pre-black card Official Guide, and then only in the hurling rules – in the rule about intentionally dropping the hurley. The words "deliberate" and "deliberately" occurred only in rules about time-wasting and leaving the field to gain an advantage.

Now, the referee must mind-read the players in real time and make an instant decision (well, OK – a five second decision in some cases, unless he's David Coldrick). All we've achieved is gratuitous complication, more opportunities for game-changing errors, the wrong solution to a second-order problem  and, worst of all, actually worsening the biggest problem in the game, diving and cheating.

[PAULD123]

Maginn would probably have been replaced by Ryan Johnston or maybe Benny. Maginn had a great game but so did those two when they came on. The black card may or may not have had a big bearing on the game if it had happened. So even if the ref had called it right it doesn't mean things would definitely have got worse for Down.

However the black card for the goalkeeper did indeed have a huge bearing on the game. Tyrone were punished for a cynical trip by the penalty and the forced replacement of the keeper with one that was clearly less efficient at kick outs.

So does the black card work? Still a big debate. Is it meant to punish an individual, or punish a team by weakening them a little when the commit a cynical offence? I assume it is the second scenario that is intended.

Clearly when it was awarded to the keeper it certainly did work. Even if Maginn had got one it may not have worked. My opinion is that it depends on the player. There are some players you can afford to lose to a substitution and some that are vital to have on the field. The rule can't account for that and so at best it is a small improvement but can't be considered to be achieving its aim as it's impact is uneven depending in the player removed.

Personally I think it is a poor rule and the GAA should just have accepted the vastly superior approach of rugby by implementing a sin-bin and, for county matches, a video referee. (though even the video referee doesn't work always, as Ulster were robbed on Saturday night because the referee refused arrogantly to even look at the replay!!!)

[Jinxy]

Jesus, I wish people would stop saying we need a video ref.
There would be an hour of extra-time with all the stoppages.

[PAULD123]

There would not be an extra hour. In every game there are no more than a few controversial incidents. The simple evidence of this is the slow-motion replays we get on TV. The vast majority are based on scoring or passing. There are never more than a few for serious offences or controversial scores. I can think of only three from the match on Sunday - Maginn black card (or not!!), Morgan Black card, and Laverty strike on Cavanagh. Each of those incidents had 2 minute stoppages anyway so there would be no real additional time added. Your argument is completely non-existent.

Where would this extra hour of stoppage come from? A rugby match doesn't go on for an extra hour does it? Rugby has far more stoppages for injury and even then the elapsed time is only increased by about 10 minutes.

But the video replay is nothing more than a sensible bonus in advancing our sport. The main point is that the black card rule is vastly inferior to sin-bins in punishing teams for cynical play.