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

[magpie seanie]

Panic in Croke Park.


Refs summoned to emergency meeting
27 May 2014

The GAA's top football referees have been asked to attend an emergency meeting in Croke Park tomorrow night.

The move comes after the game's leading match officials have found themselves at the centre of a number of high-profile controversies in the opening two weekends of the championship.

The Ulster SFC in particular has been blighted by inconsistent refereeing, with incorrect handling of both the black-card and advantage rules evident in the three matches played so far.

The GAA opted to put its most prominent refs into the spotlight first, confident that the likes of David Coldrick, Joe McQuillan and Cormac Reilly would lay down markers for the summer.

But they have failed to do so and the 16-strong championship referees panel will all attend the extraordinary meeting in GAA HQ on Wednesday night, where they will again be briefed on the correct application of the new rules.

refs have been the problem all along, didn't implement the rules before, and are not implementing the new ones either. Refs are not doing their jobs for a long time, and remember they are the ones getting paid, which is more than the players.

Players get paid a lot more than refs at intercounty level but yes, and I have said it all along - the rules are ok if they were consistently applied. Referees are not doing their job for whatever reason and this has to be addressed.

[Zulu]

Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

[muppet]

Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

This is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.

[highorlow]

Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it.

I wouldn't say extreme is the correct phrase. It's only as difficult as the refs allow it to be. The current standard of refs are very poor. I've seen club games reffed better than the opening championship games.

The man in charge McAneany doesn't instill confidence that any improvement will be made. Going public and calling in a big meeting isn't exactly the wisest thing to be doing. He should have had a separate private meeting with the 2 refs that made the bad calls lately and left it at that. Then again Pat likes the aul publicity.

[highorlow]

The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

Zulu thats baulliks and you know it. Stop making up nonsense.

[Zulu]

Read the rule book highorlow, you are only allowed tackle the ball, not the man.

The man in charge McAneany doesn't instill confidence that any improvement will be made. Going public and calling in a big meeting isn't exactly the wisest thing to be doing. He should have had a separate private meeting with the 2 refs that made the bad calls lately and left it at that. Then again Pat likes the aul publicity.

And then you'd have lads giving out there's nothing being done to deal with it. He is dead right to public call a meeting.

I wouldn't say extreme is the correct phrase.

It's absolutely the correct phrase, especially if you want this consistency people keep demanding. Go out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly and see how consistent you are.

This is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.

Exactly muppet but the rule book is a farce, I was at a refs course recently and the main point made to us was that it was our interpretation that mattered. All of us could watch the same tackle/foul and view it differently but if questioned you could refer to how you interpreted the rule to justify your view. In other words, if me and you viewed it differently nobody could clarify which of us was definitely right and which wrong. That's why refs can ref games differently.

[highorlow]

The Tackle
The Tackle is re-defined as:
"The Tackle is a skill by which a player may dispossess an opponent or frustrate his objective within the Rules of Fair Play. The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact can be a Fair Charge i.e. Shoulder-to-shoulder with at least one foot on the ground. More than one player can tackle the player in possession."

ZULU, I posted the above definition in the HUG tackle thread. Nowhere does it state that you cannot touch the opponent, in fact it states that ' the tackler may use his body to confront the opponent '

Get your facts correct the next time.

[Zulu]

So even though you've read it you don't understand it?

- The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. (Just like I said)

- The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden. (So I can hold my ground but if you go past me and I put my hand on your shoulder or upper arm which is very common before coming across with my other arm to tackle the ball I'm fouling - arm holding. If I attempt to knock the ball out of your possession but hit your arm, hand, or anything else bar the ball, and only the ball, I'm fouling - slapping).

I'll grant you, that's a very strict interpretation of the rules but they are the rules. How you can't see that despite posting the rule is odd.

[Jinxy]

Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

This is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.

This happens in rugby all the time and yet their referees are held up as a shining example to every other sport.

[Zulu]

I'd suggest that's because most of us don't know the rules Jinxy. I get the impression most real rugby folk have a good degree of frustration with how refs manage games while the day trippers think they walk on water.

[blewuporstuffed]

So even though you've read it you don't understand it?

- The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. (Just like I said)

- The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden. (So I can hold my ground but if you go past me and I put my hand on your shoulder or upper arm which is very common before coming across with my other arm to tackle the ball I'm fouling - arm holding. If I attempt to knock the ball out of your possession but hit your arm, hand, or anything else bar the ball, and only the ball, I'm fouling - slapping).

I'll grant you, that's a very strict interpretation of the rules but they are the rules. How you can't see that despite posting the rule is odd.

so not only is refereeing almost impossible, so is defending within the rules!
one thing i think everyone can agree on is that the rule books needs a  major overhaul with a lot of things clarified to try and eliminate as much of the inconsistency as possible.
As the referees & players are human , we will never get it perfect, but we are along way off that at the minute

[Zulu]

blewuporstuffed, I'd suggest tackling strictly as per the rule book is impossible. I agree entirely that the rule book should be overhauled, as I said, after that refs course I took it that I could ref as I liked and nobody could show I was wrong bar the technical fouls which is a crazy situation.

[muppet]

Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.

This is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.

This happens in rugby all the time and yet their referees are held up as a shining example to every other sport.

Rugby refs generally know the rules and usually apply some of them at least.

[highorlow]

you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering

ZULU, you wrote that yet you don't want to admit your wrong.

Point to me where it says in the definition (not rule) where you can't touch a player?

[magpie seanie]

Most of what has been said is correct regarding the rules etc. That doesn't stop a referee interpreting them in a consistent fashion. And in fact with all the courses, assessing and training they get, the interpretation shouldn't vary between refs all that much - certainly at the top level.