12 Week Ban For Geezer

[Owen Brannigan]

So McGeeney did/said nothing.
Joe McQuillan told the ref to make a false report.
Seems refs in club games in Armagh submit false reports all the time.

Funny oul world up North.

Who said this?

+1

[smelmoth]

These posts are almost satirical. Between this forum and one other I've 'heard' four different accounts of what McGeeney is 'rumoured' to have said to the linesman and/or the referee. That's a lot of misinformation. Yet the people questioning the details of this issue are the 'muppets' who should 'take a hard look at themselves'.

Your point is articulate and well made, but unfortunately you're wasting your time. What you're dealing with here are bitter, small minded individuals who cannot debate these things in a reasonable manner without that bitterness coming through. Reasoned debate - as your post alluded to - is all but impossible.

You should appeal for calm on the armagh gaa forum. Some disgraceful comments and very few reasoned ones. Completely lost the run of ourselves if that is representative

I think most of it is in jest. As you say no one knows the truth. In the heat of the moment I would doubt even the 2 involved hand on heart could be sure what was said.

When people say the linesman deserved the threat to be carried out or that he has never ever been impartial - is that humour?

There were a few references to the Davy Fitz punishment. It has zero relevance. Geezer got the minimum punishment. He could not have got less. Someone else getting a different punishment for a different offence with a different punishment scale is of no relevance.

Also I think someone said it was mad for decisions to be made on the word of an official. Unbelievable

"In the heat of the moment " doesn't work either. I wasn't close enough to hear what was said. No fan was but what is the evidence that the linesman was hot and bothered?

[smelmoth]

Main Street I have no doubt something was said. How serious I do not know. We also do not know if Joe himself would have reported it if he was referee. He may have passed it off as heat of the moment. Having watched Gaelic sport for many a year it is obvious referees do not report all such incidents. If every incident was reported and dealt with - as they probably should - this story would not have made many headlines.
The major question is does the punishment fit the crime. Is it consistent with other incidents?  It does not appear so. It also does not look like the rules give any leeway
As a final point if McGeeney did say something worth a suspension does anyone actually think he would have carried out the threat? I really doubt it.
Also considering how he reacted to a number of bizarre decisions thus year I feel his reaction was more to do with the welfare of his players than any spite against McQuillan.

Are you seriously arguing for a sentence less than the minimum tariff? How is that going to work?

Not all fans buy into the persecution complex. Start winning meaningful matches and we won't need one

[Owen Brannigan]

These posts are almost satirical. Between this forum and one other I've 'heard' four different accounts of what McGeeney is 'rumoured' to have said to the linesman and/or the referee. That's a lot of misinformation. Yet the people questioning the details of this issue are the 'muppets' who should 'take a hard look at themselves'.

Your point is articulate and well made, but unfortunately you're wasting your time. What you're dealing with here are bitter, small minded individuals who cannot debate these things in a reasonable manner without that bitterness coming through. Reasoned debate - as your post alluded to - is all but impossible.

You should appeal for calm on the armagh gaa forum. Some disgraceful comments and very few reasoned ones. Completely lost the run of ourselves if that is representative

I think most of it is in jest. As you say no one knows the truth. In the heat of the moment I would doubt even the 2 involved hand on heart could be sure what was said.

When people say the linesman deserved the threat to be carried out or that he has never ever been impartial - is that humour?

There were a few references to the Davy Fitz punishment. It has zero relevance. Geezer got the minimum punishment. He could not have got less. Someone else getting a different punishment for a different offence with a different punishment scale is of no relevance.

Also I think someone said it was mad for decisions to be made on the word of an official. Unbelievable

"In the heat of the moment " doesn't work either. I wasn't close enough to hear what was said. No fan was but what is the evidence that the linesman was hot and bothered?

It's the rule that the word of a referee in his report cannot be contradicted.

Of course the officials were 'hot and bothered'. The alleged incident occurred at the end of a game when an experienced referee had lost control, had doled out three red cards and, according to reports, the discipline of the Antrim players had broken down. 

In addition, McGeeney is being treated differently because of the behaviour of Davy Fitz and the uproar it caused in the media.  As set out by Colm O'Rourke, common sense was not being used, and officials on a committee decided to use the report on McGeeney to send out a warning to other managers.  It is just like how the cards are used hot and heavy in the first few weeks of the championship and by the end there is hardly a card issued. 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/colm-orourke-why-losing-the-head-never-works-out-35666459.html

BTW I can hardly imagine that McGeeney was as hands on as Davy given the TV and photo evidence.......

[Throw ball]

Main Street I have no doubt something was said. How serious I do not know. We also do not know if Joe himself would have reported it if he was referee. He may have passed it off as heat of the moment. Having watched Gaelic sport for many a year it is obvious referees do not report all such incidents. If every incident was reported and dealt with - as they probably should - this story would not have made many headlines.
The major question is does the punishment fit the crime. Is it consistent with other incidents?  It does not appear so. It also does not look like the rules give any leeway
As a final point if McGeeney did say something worth a suspension does anyone actually think he would have carried out the threat? I really doubt it.
Also considering how he reacted to a number of bizarre decisions thus year I feel his reaction was more to do with the welfare of his players than any spite against McQuillan.

Are you seriously arguing for a sentence less than the minimum tariff? How is that going to work?

Not all fans buy into the persecution complex. Start winning meaningful matches and we won't need one

If you read what I wrote when I said the rules give no leeway I think it shows that I do not think any reduction can be implemented.
The problem is in the GAA the application of the rules does not seem appropriate. I know I may be biased but I cannot see how what McGeeney is alleged to have done is worse than what Fitzgerald accepted that he did.
To make it clear. If McGeeney broke the rules he should be punished. But as I said no one on here can definitely say what he did or said. I just hope the punishment fits the crime and it is uniformly applied from now on.

[smelmoth]

These posts are almost satirical. Between this forum and one other I've 'heard' four different accounts of what McGeeney is 'rumoured' to have said to the linesman and/or the referee. That's a lot of misinformation. Yet the people questioning the details of this issue are the 'muppets' who should 'take a hard look at themselves'.

Your point is articulate and well made, but unfortunately you're wasting your time. What you're dealing with here are bitter, small minded individuals who cannot debate these things in a reasonable manner without that bitterness coming through. Reasoned debate - as your post alluded to - is all but impossible.

You should appeal for calm on the armagh gaa forum. Some disgraceful comments and very few reasoned ones. Completely lost the run of ourselves if that is representative

I think most of it is in jest. As you say no one knows the truth. In the heat of the moment I would doubt even the 2 involved hand on heart could be sure what was said.

When people say the linesman deserved the threat to be carried out or that he has never ever been impartial - is that humour?

There were a few references to the Davy Fitz punishment. It has zero relevance. Geezer got the minimum punishment. He could not have got less. Someone else getting a different punishment for a different offence with a different punishment scale is of no relevance.

Also I think someone said it was mad for decisions to be made on the word of an official. Unbelievable

"In the heat of the moment " doesn't work either. I wasn't close enough to hear what was said. No fan was but what is the evidence that the linesman was hot and bothered?

It's the rule that the word of a referee in his report cannot be contradicted.

Of course the officials were 'hot and bothered'. The alleged incident occurred at the end of a game when an experienced referee had lost control, had doled out three red cards and, according to reports, the discipline of the Antrim players had broken down. 

In addition, McGeeney is being treated differently because of the behaviour of Davy Fitz and the uproar it caused in the media.  As set out by Colm O'Rourke, common sense was not being used, and officials on a committee decided to use the report on McGeeney to send out a warning to other managers.  It is just like how the cards are used hot and heavy in the first few weeks of the championship and by the end there is hardly a card issued. 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/colm-orourke-why-losing-the-head-never-works-out-35666459.html

BTW I can hardly imagine that McGeeney was as hands on as Davy given the TV and photo evidence.......

You misunderstand me. The refs say he said something then he said it. End off. Anything would be chaos. Just like if the ref says it's a foul, linesmans says the ball touched an opponent on the way out or umpire says he saw foul play. We put these decisions in the hands of officials.

Neither you nor TB offer any evidence that the linesman was hot and bothered. I have read no sensible argument that the linesman made this up or that once guilty that the 12 week suspension is not automatic. Deal with it and move on. Summer ain't started yet

[smelmoth]

Main Street I have no doubt something was said. How serious I do not know. We also do not know if Joe himself would have reported it if he was referee. He may have passed it off as heat of the moment. Having watched Gaelic sport for many a year it is obvious referees do not report all such incidents. If every incident was reported and dealt with - as they probably should - this story would not have made many headlines.
The major question is does the punishment fit the crime. Is it consistent with other incidents?  It does not appear so. It also does not look like the rules give any leeway
As a final point if McGeeney did say something worth a suspension does anyone actually think he would have carried out the threat? I really doubt it.
Also considering how he reacted to a number of bizarre decisions thus year I feel his reaction was more to do with the welfare of his players than any spite against McQuillan.

Are you seriously arguing for a sentence less than the minimum tariff? How is that going to work?

Not all fans buy into the persecution complex. Start winning meaningful matches and we won't need one

If you read what I wrote when I said the rules give no leeway I think it shows that I do not think any reduction can be implemented.
The problem is in the GAA the application of the rules does not seem appropriate. I know I may be biased but I cannot see how what McGeeney is alleged to have done is worse than what Fitzgerald accepted that he did.
To make it clear. If McGeeney broke the rules he should be punished. But as I said no one on here can definitely say what he did or said. I just hope the punishment fits the crime and it is uniformly applied from now on.

It seems to me that its the rules (one set of tariffs being higher than the others) you don't like rather than their application (as the rules have been applied correctly). Your energies would be better directed at some campaign for a rule change. That way might lie happiness.

The Fitzgerald thing is done and dusted. The authorities cannot make a judgment call and give Geezer a lower punishment than Fitzgerald if it goes below the minimum tariff. End of

[Throw ball]

Main Street I have no doubt something was said. How serious I do not know. We also do not know if Joe himself would have reported it if he was referee. He may have passed it off as heat of the moment. Having watched Gaelic sport for many a year it is obvious referees do not report all such incidents. If every incident was reported and dealt with - as they probably should - this story would not have made many headlines.
The major question is does the punishment fit the crime. Is it consistent with other incidents?  It does not appear so. It also does not look like the rules give any leeway
As a final point if McGeeney did say something worth a suspension does anyone actually think he would have carried out the threat? I really doubt it.
Also considering how he reacted to a number of bizarre decisions thus year I feel his reaction was more to do with the welfare of his players than any spite against McQuillan.

Are you seriously arguing for a sentence less than the minimum tariff? How is that going to work?

Not all fans buy into the persecution complex. Start winning meaningful matches and we won't need one

If you read what I wrote when I said the rules give no leeway I think it shows that I do not think any reduction can be implemented.
The problem is in the GAA the application of the rules does not seem appropriate. I know I may be biased but I cannot see how what McGeeney is alleged to have done is worse than what Fitzgerald accepted that he did.
To make it clear. If McGeeney broke the rules he should be punished. But as I said no one on here can definitely say what he did or said. I just hope the punishment fits the crime and it is uniformly applied from now on.

It seems to me that its the rules (one set of tariffs being higher than the others) you don't like rather than their application (as the rules have been applied correctly). Your energies would be better directed at some campaign for a rule change. That way might lie happiness.

The Fitzgerald thing is done and dusted. The authorities cannot make a judgment call and give Geezer a lower punishment than Fitzgerald if it goes below the minimum tariff. End of

There are so many rules need updating I could have a full time job! Won't pay the bills though.

[Itchy]

Main Street I have no doubt something was said. How serious I do not know. We also do not know if Joe himself would have reported it if he was referee. He may have passed it off as heat of the moment. Having watched Gaelic sport for many a year it is obvious referees do not report all such incidents. If every incident was reported and dealt with - as they probably should - this story would not have made many headlines.
The major question is does the punishment fit the crime. Is it consistent with other incidents?  It does not appear so. It also does not look like the rules give any leeway
As a final point if McGeeney did say something worth a suspension does anyone actually think he would have carried out the threat? I really doubt it.
Also considering how he reacted to a number of bizarre decisions thus year I feel his reaction was more to do with the welfare of his players than any spite against McQuillan.

Are you seriously arguing for a sentence less than the minimum tariff? How is that going to work?

Not all fans buy into the persecution complex. Start winning meaningful matches and we won't need one

If you read what I wrote when I said the rules give no leeway I think it shows that I do not think any reduction can be implemented.
The problem is in the GAA the application of the rules does not seem appropriate. I know I may be biased but I cannot see how what McGeeney is alleged to have done is worse than what Fitzgerald accepted that he did.
To make it clear. If McGeeney broke the rules he should be punished. But as I said no one on here can definitely say what he did or said. I just hope the punishment fits the crime and it is uniformly applied from now on.

It seems to me that its the rules (one set of tariffs being higher than the others) you don't like rather than their application (as the rules have been applied correctly). Your energies would be better directed at some campaign for a rule change. That way might lie happiness.

The Fitzgerald thing is done and dusted. The authorities cannot make a judgment call and give Geezer a lower punishment than Fitzgerald if it goes below the minimum tariff. End of

If you want sensible argument you've come to the wrong place. You can have "poor Armagh, why always us" arguments instead!

[magpie seanie]

I think what this thread proves is how little most people know about the rules and disciplinary procedures of the GAA. In short, being abusive and being threatening are two different things. It appears that McGeeney has been reported for threatening behaviour for which the minimum suspension is 12 weeks. Comparisons with Davy are null and void as Davy was not accused of being threatening.

[Owen Brannigan]

I think what this thread proves is how little most people know about the rules and disciplinary procedures of the GAA. In short, being abusive and being threatening are two different things. It appears that McGeeney has been reported for threatening behaviour for which the minimum suspension is 12 weeks. Comparisons with Davy are null and void as Davy was not accused of being threatening.

I think they were similar offence but one was grade IIa and other grade IIIa offences hence 8 weeks minimum and 12 weeks minimum suspensions.

[Itchy]

I think what this thread proves is how little most people know about the rules and disciplinary procedures of the GAA. In short, being abusive and being threatening are two different things. It appears that McGeeney has been reported for threatening behaviour for which the minimum suspension is 12 weeks. Comparisons with Davy are null and void as Davy was not accused of being threatening.

I think they were similar offence but one was grade IIa and grade IIIa offences hence 8 weeks minimum and 12 weeks minimum suspensions.

Look on the bright side, I think Armagh have a better chance to win without him on the sideline!

[magpie seanie]

I think what this thread proves is how little most people know about the rules and disciplinary procedures of the GAA. In short, being abusive and being threatening are two different things. It appears that McGeeney has been reported for threatening behaviour for which the minimum suspension is 12 weeks. Comparisons with Davy are null and void as Davy was not accused of being threatening.

I think they were similar offence but one was grade IIa and other grade IIIa offences hence 8 weeks minimum and 12 weeks minimum suspensions.

Exactly

[Il Bomber Destro]

I heard that he threatened the referee. He deserves what he got and you Armagh muppets with your victimhood complex should start to look at yourselves instead of blaming referees and whatever else yer having.

Why are you getting so riled?  Are you rankled because McQuillan is from Cavan and you're standing up for your own?  You seem like the one with the victimhood complex.

I did find it funny that Cavan went and started a brawl three years ago with Armagh, got softened up in it and then whinged about it.

[Erwin Rommel]

I heard that he threatened the referee. He deserves what he got and you Armagh muppets with your victimhood complex should start to look at yourselves instead of blaming referees and whatever else yer having.

Why are you getting so riled?  Are you rankled because McQuillan is from Cavan and you're standing up for your own?  You seem like the one with the victimhood complex.

I did find it funny that Cavan went and started a brawl three years ago with Armagh, got softened up in it and then whinged about it.