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

[screenexile]

I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule.  We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.

Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.

If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field.  In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.

Take a look at the poll at the top of the page

Tis a reliable poll alright with its 26 participants!!

Well its certainly more reliable than one person saying 'for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game' with no evidence that this is the view at all.

Nope - neither of those things is more reliable than the other. Without any kind of detailed sample nobody can say anything about "most people this or that" it's all a matter of opinion!

[orangeman]

I don't see it as the ref being incompetent. The ref doesn't have the benefit of replays like the viewer does. Players are going out to get lads black carded now. Call it cheating, being cute or simulation or whatever but the players and coaches have moved on. Some counties and players  are working at getting the opposition sent off. Some counties like Dublin are working hard to keep their players on the pitch.

The rule changes have worked to some degree but can't be hailed as a complete success.

In Monaghan and Tyrone match on Sunday you had loads of lads, big strong lads, who were more like Bambi than footballers. There was no ice in Clones on Sunday - lads weren't great at staying on their feet and that goes for both counties.

[sheamy]

It's a good thing for the game and has improved it. It didn't go far enough in removing cynical play but it's a process.

The question should be: why the constant focus on referees and not on those who try to cheat or commit the fouls? Refs make mistakes with the most obvious one so far by David Coldrick in Omagh and not giving McGinn a black card for the penalty. Most of the rest have been correct. The hysteria comes because many people at games don't actually know the new rules.

Watching the world cup, players diving is absolutely endemic in soccer. It's actually part of the culture of that game now and it's horrible. It's so bad that it's tolerated by commentators with a mild 'harsh' or 'not much in that' comment when it's clear that a player is deliberately trying to get another booked or sent off.

It makes soccer unwatchable for me and it's something which needs constant focus in our game.

[blewuporstuffed]

I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule.  We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.

Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.

If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field.  In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.

Take a look at the poll at the top of the page

Tis a reliable poll alright with its 26 participants!!

Well its certainly more reliable than one person saying 'for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game' with no evidence that this is the view at all.

Nope - neither of those things is more reliable than the other. Without any kind of detailed sample nobody can say anything about "most people this or that" it's all a matter of opinion!

i was just trying to point out some of the rubbish that is trotted out in support of the black card that has no basis in any fact.

'it has improved the game'
'there is more free flowing football'
'there is less cynical fouling'
'most people are in favour of the black card'

I havent seen any evidence of any of this.

[Hardy]

I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.

We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.

We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?

We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!

[AZOffaly]

Has anyone done a statistical analysis? I'm in favour of the black card, as I do think it has cut down on the insidious fouling way out the field that just broke up the rhythm of the game. I've also noticed a serious lack of body checks, or 'third man tackles' in the  games.

I am worried about the diving, and I am also worried about referees being inconsistant.

In the interests of objectivity, with a very small sample size, here are some match stats from 2013 versus 2014.


Monaghan v Tyrone (august 2013, AIQF, Croke Park)

Frees - 49. Tyrone 23, Monaghan 26.

Yellow Cards - 10, Tyrone 5, Monaghan 5.

Red Cards - 2, Tyrone 1, Monaghan 1.

Score - Monaghan 0-12, Tyrone 0-14.

Monaghan v Tyrone (June 2014, UQF, Clones

Frees - 43. Tyrone 17, Monaghan 26.

Yellow Cards - 6, Tyrone 4, Monaghan 2.
Black Cards - 3, Tyrone 1, Monaghan 2.

Red Cards 0.

Score: Monaghan 1-12, Tyrone 0-14.


Very little difference between the two Monaghan Tyrone games, other than Monaghan fouled 6 times fewer. Tyrone had exactly the same amount of fouls, and the same amount of cards received.  Tyrone even scored the same amount. Monaghan fouled 6 times fewer, scored a goal more, and got 1 fewer card than last year.

Are there other repeat games so far we could take a look at?

[AZOffaly]

I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.

We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.

We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?

We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!

Hardy, I'm going to have to take you up on this a bit, because I am a proponent of at least giving the black card a chance, and I'm not sure you have captured my argument in that summary above. In fact I think that's a bit of a straw man so you can say 'I told you so'.

1 - I never expected the black card to stop the last ditch drag down to stop scores, especially goals. In fact I remember arguing when Joe Brolly was going Armageddon on Sean Cavanagh last year that the Sean Cavanagh tackle was not the issue, it was the Declan O'Sullivan v Cavan, and countless other low profile systemic fouls that were the real cynicism in the game. A lad dragging a forward down is going to concede a score from the free, more than likely, and in the old rules would have gotten a yellow. The forward dragging down a defender breaking out is just cynically breaking up play, allowing his defence to get set, and slowing the whole game down. He was, in the old rules, getting a 'tick' and that was it, if even that. I believe that there is far less of this type of strategic fouling in general, and that has been a good thing. I also believe the 'third man tackle' has effectively been eradicated from the game. Also a good thing.

2 - I agree on both counts. There would probably not have been a reason for the black card in  the first place if refs were sending forwards off for the fouls I'm talking about. However, imagine the outcry from affronted managers if their star forward got two yellows for 'harmless' (sic) fouls out the field. It would be an outcry. A big reason we have issues with regard to discipline in the GAA is because our managers seem unable to accept the fact that you have to play by the rules. Every time a clampdown is tried on cynical fouling (Sin Bin, Black Card, whatever) there's an outcry to mirror the protests in Rio. Imagine if lads were being red carded if the referees applied the old rules? But yes, if they were applying them, then we'd not need the black card. Now that we are in a situation where something else is attempted, our referees are making a hames of the most important thing, which is consistency. If the key word is deliberate, and you are not sure, then it's not a black card. If you are sure, and it's one of the cited fouls, then give the f**king thing.

3 - Agree on this. It was my big worry. I even gave it a name, the divers' charter, but I hoped the referees would be better at spotting it (see point 2). I would add diving to the list of black card offences if I had my way, and send a message. It's cynical to pull a lad down when he's going forward with possession, but it's just as cynical to engineer a black card for an innocent opponent.

I don't think our views are 180 degrees apart to be honest, but I do believe that something had to be done about the cynical, low profile, fouling and to a large extent I think it has helped in that area.

[BennyHarp]

I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.

We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.

We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?

We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!

I agree with this post (Obviously the Sean Cavanagh bit was uncalled for!  ) and I agree we are seeing a development of increased cynicism of trying to get lads black carded, this unwanted side effect was one of my big concerns. We are only a few weeks in an im afraid as the games get even more important we will see even more pressure on the refs and even more problems.  I'm also sick of the type of arrogant phrase trotted out by the like of Sheamy there, that anyone who doesn't agree with the black card obviously doesnt understand the rules.

[blewuporstuffed]

I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.

We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.

We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?

We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!

I agree with this post (Obviously the Sean Cavanagh bit was uncalled for!  ) and I agree we are seeing a development of increased cynicism of trying to get lads black carded, this unwanted side effect was one of my big concerns. We are only a few weeks in an im afraid as the games get even more important we will see even more pressure on the refs and even more problems.  I'm also sick of the type of arrogant phrase trotted out by the like of Sheamy there, that anyone who doesn't agree with the black card obviously doesnt understand the rules.

I pretty much agree with that all aswell hardy.
The one thing i would say, is that the black card has almost completely gotten rid of teh 3rd man tackle/body check type foul which is a good thing. However, as i said at the time, how about we started issuing yellow cards for these and instructing the linesmen/ umpires to look out for the off the ball ones  and clamp down that way before we introduce a completely new system.

[tbrick18]

To my mind the black card has been successful in its main aim, to cut out the systematic fouling that had crept in which would stop a team at the opposite end of the pitch.
Now that this has all but stopped, the remaining (and always existing) issue of diving to get players booked and sent off has become more noticeable.
I'm going to pick on our nearest and dearest red arse neighbours a bit here, Peter Canavan and Brian Dooher had the dark art of diving down to perfection. In Sean Cavanagh's defence, he came into that side when these players were at their peak and this is what they were doing, so of course he's going to mimic his betters. He's just doing what he's been taught to do. He's not the only one at it, every team does it if they can, Tyrone (and to a lesser extent Donegal) are particularly good at it.

If we can get the diving cut out we are nearly there.

As for referees, even taking the black card out of it, they are a joke. Inconsistency, non-application of the rules, lack of knowledge of the rules in some cases and for a handful a bad case of "small man syndrome" where they have to be centre of attention.
That's the single biggest issue I believe at the minute. There's not one referee on the panel of refs at the minute who I would consider consistent in their application of the rules.

[Rossfan]

[However, as i said at the time, how about we started issuing yellow cards for these and instructing the linesmen/ umpires to look out for the off the ball ones  and clamp down that way before we introduce a completely new system.

Not much point dragging that up now is there?
As for polls on GAABoard  most of them have been totally at odds with the real world - Martin McGuinness for Uachtarán and so on.
Could the black card please be extended to the gobsh1tery of stopping a player taking a quick free or refusing to hand over the ball when it's a free against you? Both of those scenarios are melee inducers.

[muppet]

Thought this was quite witty!

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/the-top-10-unofficial-rules-of-the-gaa-that-referees-must-observe-1.1834021

2 It is, of course, a foul for a player going up for a high ball to knee an opposing player in the back or elbow them in the face . . . unless they catch it. Then, well, fair play.

Known as the . . . Machiavelli rule. Aussie Rules rule.

Brilliant but I'd have had one change. Machiavellianism is a real foreign sport whereas Aussie Rules is a local foreign sport.

As for the black card I don't think it has been a success. Most refs just ignore it since the championship started and we have games that resemble any other year as far as I can see. In the League some refs stuck to the letter of the law (fair enough from their pov) and we had games with very little tackling. The subsequent high scores were used as proof of the revolutionary success of the rule. That argument seems to have died a death lately as no matter which side of the argument you are on, a single League campaign was hardly going to prove the case either way.

[Hardy]

I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.

We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.

We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?

We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!

Hardy, I'm going to have to take you up on this a bit, because I am a proponent of at least giving the black card a chance, and I'm not sure you have captured my argument in that summary above. In fact I think that's a bit of a straw man so you can say 'I told you so'.

1 - I never expected the black card to stop the last ditch drag down to stop scores, especially goals. In fact I remember arguing when Joe Brolly was going Armageddon on Sean Cavanagh last year that the Sean Cavanagh tackle was not the issue, it was the Declan O'Sullivan v Cavan, and countless other low profile systemic fouls that were the real cynicism in the game. A lad dragging a forward down is going to concede a score from the free, more than likely, and in the old rules would have gotten a yellow. The forward dragging down a defender breaking out is just cynically breaking up play, allowing his defence to get set, and slowing the whole game down. He was, in the old rules, getting a 'tick' and that was it, if even that. I believe that there is far less of this type of strategic fouling in general, and that has been a good thing. I also believe the 'third man tackle' has effectively been eradicated from the game. Also a good thing.

2 - I agree on both counts. There would probably not have been a reason for the black card in  the first place if refs were sending forwards off for the fouls I'm talking about. However, imagine the outcry from affronted managers if their star forward got two yellows for 'harmless' (sic) fouls out the field. It would be an outcry. A big reason we have issues with regard to discipline in the GAA is because our managers seem unable to accept the fact that you have to play by the rules. Every time a clampdown is tried on cynical fouling (Sin Bin, Black Card, whatever) there's an outcry to mirror the protests in Rio. Imagine if lads were being red carded if the referees applied the old rules? But yes, if they were applying them, then we'd not need the black card. Now that we are in a situation where something else is attempted, our referees are making a hames of the most important thing, which is consistency. If the key word is deliberate, and you are not sure, then it's not a black card. If you are sure, and it's one of the cited fouls, then give the f**king thing.

3 - Agree on this. It was my big worry. I even gave it a name, the divers' charter, but I hoped the referees would be better at spotting it (see point 2). I would add diving to the list of black card offences if I had my way, and send a message. It's cynical to pull a lad down when he's going forward with possession, but it's just as cynical to engineer a black card for an innocent opponent.

I don't think our views are 180 degrees apart to be honest, but I do believe that something had to be done about the cynical, low profile, fouling and to a large extent I think it has helped in that area.

AZ, it wasn't my purpose to capture your argument. (Though my "straw man" did a fairly substantial job if he got you to agree with most of what he said.)  I was referring to the three main reasons I/we were against the black card.

I thinks it's accepted that the drag-down rugby tackle (and, more importantly,  of course, The Sunday Game's reaction to a single incidence of it) was the impetus for the black card's introduction. They added other stuff when they were at it – tripping, impeding a runner, trash talking, mouthing to referees.

I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.

Though I've noticed no reduction in the level of verbals, I haven't seen any cards yet for it. I'll be surprised if there are any in the Championship. But I'm willing to bet that, if we see one, we'll see several. It will mostly depend on whether the Sunday Game picks on some incident where some lad should have got a card for mouthing and makes a big deal out of it.

[AZOffaly]

I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.

We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.

We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?

We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!

Hardy, I'm going to have to take you up on this a bit, because I am a proponent of at least giving the black card a chance, and I'm not sure you have captured my argument in that summary above. In fact I think that's a bit of a straw man so you can say 'I told you so'.

1 - I never expected the black card to stop the last ditch drag down to stop scores, especially goals. In fact I remember arguing when Joe Brolly was going Armageddon on Sean Cavanagh last year that the Sean Cavanagh tackle was not the issue, it was the Declan O'Sullivan v Cavan, and countless other low profile systemic fouls that were the real cynicism in the game. A lad dragging a forward down is going to concede a score from the free, more than likely, and in the old rules would have gotten a yellow. The forward dragging down a defender breaking out is just cynically breaking up play, allowing his defence to get set, and slowing the whole game down. He was, in the old rules, getting a 'tick' and that was it, if even that. I believe that there is far less of this type of strategic fouling in general, and that has been a good thing. I also believe the 'third man tackle' has effectively been eradicated from the game. Also a good thing.

2 - I agree on both counts. There would probably not have been a reason for the black card in  the first place if refs were sending forwards off for the fouls I'm talking about. However, imagine the outcry from affronted managers if their star forward got two yellows for 'harmless' (sic) fouls out the field. It would be an outcry. A big reason we have issues with regard to discipline in the GAA is because our managers seem unable to accept the fact that you have to play by the rules. Every time a clampdown is tried on cynical fouling (Sin Bin, Black Card, whatever) there's an outcry to mirror the protests in Rio. Imagine if lads were being red carded if the referees applied the old rules? But yes, if they were applying them, then we'd not need the black card. Now that we are in a situation where something else is attempted, our referees are making a hames of the most important thing, which is consistency. If the key word is deliberate, and you are not sure, then it's not a black card. If you are sure, and it's one of the cited fouls, then give the f**king thing.

3 - Agree on this. It was my big worry. I even gave it a name, the divers' charter, but I hoped the referees would be better at spotting it (see point 2). I would add diving to the list of black card offences if I had my way, and send a message. It's cynical to pull a lad down when he's going forward with possession, but it's just as cynical to engineer a black card for an innocent opponent.

I don't think our views are 180 degrees apart to be honest, but I do believe that something had to be done about the cynical, low profile, fouling and to a large extent I think it has helped in that area.

AZ, it wasn't my purpose to capture your argument. (Though my "straw man" did a fairly substantial job if he got you to agree with most of what he said.)  I was referring to the three main reasons I/we were against the black card.

I thinks it's accepted that the drag-down rugby tackle (and, more importantly,  of course, The Sunday Game's reaction to a single incidence of it) was the impetus for the black card's introduction. They added other stuff when they were at it – tripping, impeding a runner, trash talking, mouthing to referees.

I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.

Though I've noticed no reduction in the level of verbals, I haven't seen any cards yet for it. I'll be surprised if there are any in the Championship. But I'm willing to bet that, if we see one, we'll see several. It will mostly depend on whether the Sunday Game picks on some incident where some lad should have got a card for mouthing and makes a big deal out of it.

I don't think that's true Hardy. I think the black card was brought in before the Cavanagh incident. Joe just used it as his showpony to talk about the black card, which was ridiculous. Nonetheless the rule was already in and accepted. Passed in April 2013. So I think your prejudice against it ( ) is based on a false assumption that it's as a result of joe Brolly's rant.


I maintain Joe Brolly's rant is irrelevant (in fact worse than irrelevant, it was a needless distraction) and was aimed at something that the black card was never going to eradicate, so claiming this justifies your skepticism is a red herring I think.

Do you think we have seen less of the fouls which I believe the black card was brought in to target? Namely the momentum breakers, usually at the other end of the field, committed by forwards and midfielders after a turnover. Committed to slow down the counter attack. Do you think we have less of these now?

[Hardy]

You're right. It was last year's Congress that approved it, I think. I think I was confused by the memory that most of the talk about it was about the suggestion that it would put an end to "cynical play" and when most people think "cynical play" they think about the drag-down, especially in the wake of the Cavanagh tackle last year. In fact,  think it was yourself who, from the beginning (rightly) placed more emphasis on what it would do for blocking.

Edit:
Ah wait. You edited your post after I posted the paragraph above. I never claimed that Joe Brolly's rant justified my scepticism. I was sceptical on my own account, from first principles, for the reasons I went to all that trouble to point out above.

Brolly has as much influence on my opinions as the droppings of an undernourished gnat would have on the water level of the Grand Coulee Dam. (With apologies to J.B. Keane.)