Cynical fouling is not the biggest blight on our games

[samwin08]

To quote Colm O Rourke Sunday Independent, August 4th 2013: "Gallogly had no elbow, knee or fist up and was quite entitled to go for the ball and the man."
Colm you are wrong. To go for the man is not within the rules of the GAA, only when, with two feet on the ground and shoulder to shoulder.
The pundits have focused so much on cynical fouling and defensive football that "the cute hoors" of Kerry, Dublin, Monaghan and Mayo" have got away with the most cynical foul of all "if you don't get the ball, get the man" and examples are "Tadgh Kennelly foul 2009 All Ireland final v Cork, 2011 semi final Barry Cahill v Karl Lacey, 2013 Ulster final Stephen Gallogly v Mark Mc Hugh, 2013 semi final  Mayo v Tyrone Peter Harte. (No yellow or red cards issued for any of these fouls), which resulted in serious injuries.
All key players instrumental in each team's game plan. All the above fouls committed by the type of football advocated in the above quote and the most "vociferous pundits" have missed all of these.

[screenexile]

To quote Colm O Rourke Sunday Independent, August 4th 2013: "Gallogly had no elbow, knee or fist up and was quite entitled to go for the ball and the man."
Colm you are wrong. To go for the man is not within the rules of the GAA, only when, with two feet on the ground and shoulder to shoulder.
The pundits have focused so much on cynical fouling and defensive football that "the cute hoors" of Kerry, Dublin, Monaghan and Mayo" have got away with the most cynical foul of all "if you don't get the ball, get the man" and examples are "Tadgh Kennelly foul 2009 All Ireland final v Cork, 2011 semi final Barry Cahill v Karl Lacey, 2013 Ulster final Stephen Gallogly v Mark Mc Hugh, 2013 semi final  Mayo v Tyrone Peter Harte. (No yellow or red cards issued for any of these fouls), which resulted in serious injuries.
All key players instrumental in each team's game plan. All the above fouls committed by the type of football advocated in the above quote and the most "vociferous pundits" have missed all of these.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that tackle and it was completely within the rules of the game!

[brokencrossbar1]

Sour grapes are really sour this morning.  Maybe the county board should organise someone to do a 'fact sheet' to show how put upon Tyrone were yesterday! Suck it up and take your beating. Was a fair shoulder, end of discussion.

[Zulu]

To quote Colm O Rourke Sunday Independent, August 4th 2013: "Gallogly had no elbow, knee or fist up and was quite entitled to go for the ball and the man."
Colm you are wrong. To go for the man is not within the rules of the GAA, only when, with two feet on the ground and shoulder to shoulder.
The pundits have focused so much on cynical fouling and defensive football that "the cute hoors" of Kerry, Dublin, Monaghan and Mayo" have got away with the most cynical foul of all "if you don't get the ball, get the man" and examples are "Tadgh Kennelly foul 2009 All Ireland final v Cork, 2011 semi final Barry Cahill v Karl Lacey, 2013 Ulster final Stephen Gallogly v Mark Mc Hugh, 2013 semi final  Mayo v Tyrone Peter Harte. (No yellow or red cards issued for any of these fouls), which resulted in serious injuries.
All key players instrumental in each team's game plan. All the above fouls committed by the type of football advocated in the above quote and the most "vociferous pundits" have missed all of these.

You haven't a clue.

[Hardy]

To go for the man is not within the rules of the GAA, only when, with two feet on the ground and shoulder to shoulder.

If you're going to pronounce on the interpretation of a rule, you might at least read the relevant rule. It's one foot on the ground.

Someone on another tread was calling the shoulder charge on Harte illegal because he wasn't in possession. Also nonsense - see (c) below.

From Rule 1.9:
Provided that he has at least one foot on the ground, a player may make a shoulder to shoulder charge on an opponent-
(a) who is in possession of the ball, or
(b) who is playing the ball, or
(c) when both players are moving in the direction of the ball to play it.

As for the foot block rule, it's just another of the myriad nonsensically worded rules in the T.O. In these cases, you'd expect some sort of attempt at a consistent interpretation, effected by a directive to referees, but no - each ref applies his own logic and in the absence of an agreed interpretation, it's pointless arguing here over whether a decision was right or wrong.

If I was reffing yesterday, I might have given the foot block, but I'd have been embarrassed by the slow motion examination - he was far enough away for it not to be remotely dangerous (which I presume is the spirit of the rule) and the fact that it hit his shin wouldn't even come under an attempt at a foot block in my interpretation, since it's probably more clearly an attempted LEG block, which is not a problem by any reading of the rule.

It just illustrates how hard a referee's job is.

[Greenabovethered]

I see Mickey Harte is complaining about the challenge on Peter Harte yesterday.

"I think that would annoy me more than anything," he said.  "He (Peter Harte) didn't even get a free for something which forced him to leave the field on crutches"

It's getting embarrassing now.

[Hardy]

What was Harte's injury, by the way?

[Zulu]

Deadleg apparently. That's some joke comment from Harte, getting injured doesn't define whether something is legal or not.

[Celt_Man]

I see Mickey Harte is complaining about the challenge on Peter Harte yesterday.

"I think that would annoy me more than anything," he said.  "He (Peter Harte) didn't even get a free for something which forced him to leave the field on crutches"

It's getting embarrassing now.

Did he not walk/limp off the field??

Embarrassing...

[ONeill]

Pelvic injury I thought.

[ONeill]

I see Mickey Harte is complaining about the challenge on Peter Harte yesterday.

"I think that would annoy me more than anything," he said.  "He (Peter Harte) didn't even get a free for something which forced him to leave the field on crutches"

It's getting embarrassing now.

Did he not walk/limp off the field??

Embarrassing...

I think he means after the game.

[Zulu]

Deadleg according to the Sunday game (I think) so it's probably nothing to do with the leg at all.

[BennyHarp]

Although pictures can sometimes be deceiving I think this picture suggests that it was a fair shoulder to shoulder challenge.

http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=199493

[theticklemister]

Exact quote from irish star about harte from uncle mickey....'Peter who's just new at this level, was playing very well for us.....'

How the hell is he 'new ' to this level. And who would give a fiddler's?? Yer on that field yer gonna get shouldered!!

[easytiger95]

I don't think Harte's injury should be downplayed as a rhetorical device to embarass Mickey Harte. It was a bone-shuddering (and fair) challenge, he was helped off the field, and went into the subs area on crutches.

If Mickey Harte thought it was a free, he is entitled to say so, as entitled as anyone here is to type away. Maybe he is sour, maybe he believes it to be true. I'm not his greatest fan, as previous posts would attest, but I think people can be bad winners as well as bad losers.