Should An Glenn object?

[seafoid]

I haven't read any of this thread, so sorry if it has been mentioned. If Crokes were 12+ points up at the time, what would be the honest consensus on here?

Anti Dublin bias, jealousy.
Plus Crokes would probably be spoofing- 12 points ?
The KCGFC 16th man would probably be Clifford.

[Mike Tyson]

For those that are saying the additional player didn't matter, have a look at the last seconds of the semi against Kerin's O'Rahilly's, Kerin's needed a last second goal to win (or maybe it was to equalise), high ball dropped into the box was flicked on and who was on the goal line to catch the ball and prevent the goal, only the boul Mullin.

So what you're saying is that in the dying minutes of the game when a "flaky" Kilmacud where under pressure to keep out a last gasp goal, they learnt from their defeat against Kilcoo and did so with 15 players in the pitch and thus would have be capable of the same again against Glen?

Think you've kind of contradicted yourself in proving they could defend last minute goal threats without the extra player.

[6th sam]

For those that are saying the additional player didn't matter, have a look at the last seconds of the semi against Kerin's O'Rahilly's, Kerin's needed a last second goal to win (or maybe it was to equalise), high ball dropped into the box was flicked on and who was on the goal line to catch the ball and prevent the goal, only the boul Mullin.

Interesting.
There is real possibility that the Mullin staying on and standing on the goal line was not accidental, and therefore the scrutiny and appeal is understandable .

[Armagh18]

For those that are saying the additional player didn't matter, have a look at the last seconds of the semi against Kerin's O'Rahilly's, Kerin's needed a last second goal to win (or maybe it was to equalise), high ball dropped into the box was flicked on and who was on the goal line to catch the ball and prevent the goal, only the boul Mullin.

So what you're saying is that in the dying minutes of the game when a "flaky" Kilmacud where under pressure to keep out a last gasp goal, they learnt from their defeat against Kilcoo and did so with 15 players in the pitch and thus would have be capable of the same again against Glen?

Think you've kind of contradicted yourself in proving they could defend last minute goal threats without the extra player.

But they didn't...

[Mike Tyson]

For those that are saying the additional player didn't matter, have a look at the last seconds of the semi against Kerin's O'Rahilly's, Kerin's needed a last second goal to win (or maybe it was to equalise), high ball dropped into the box was flicked on and who was on the goal line to catch the ball and prevent the goal, only the boul Mullin.

So what you're saying is that in the dying minutes of the game when a "flaky" Kilmacud where under pressure to keep out a last gasp goal, they learnt from their defeat against Kilcoo and did so with 15 players in the pitch and thus would have be capable of the same again against Glen?

Think you've kind of contradicted yourself in proving they could defend last minute goal threats without the extra player.

But they didn't...

In the semi final they did. But there appears to be references to conceding in last years final as the reason the 16th man made a material difference but the more recently evidence overlooked.

[Armagh18]

For those that are saying the additional player didn't matter, have a look at the last seconds of the semi against Kerin's O'Rahilly's, Kerin's needed a last second goal to win (or maybe it was to equalise), high ball dropped into the box was flicked on and who was on the goal line to catch the ball and prevent the goal, only the boul Mullin.

So what you're saying is that in the dying minutes of the game when a "flaky" Kilmacud where under pressure to keep out a last gasp goal, they learnt from their defeat against Kilcoo and did so with 15 players in the pitch and thus would have be capable of the same again against Glen?

Think you've kind of contradicted yourself in proving they could defend last minute goal threats without the extra player.

But they didn't...

In the semi final they did. But there appears to be references to conceding in last years final as the reason the 16th man made a material difference but the more recently evidence overlooked.

Bit ironic that the man who stopped the goal in the semi was the same man who should have been off in the final. Anyway it's all irrelevant tbh. I think there will have to be a replay, as unfair as it is to KC but they should have made sure Mullin came off.

[Milltown Row2]

Ah Christ of almighty

It's like talking to a door.  A stupid door

They broke the rule that says you can only have a max of 15 players on the field

How they broke it or why they broke it or whose fault it was that they broke it is only relevant in mitigation

And no, I don't think they did it on purpose at all

But they were very careless

So you haven't found the rule?

I've said there is a rule break and there are procedures that a forfeit, fine or replay will be determined by Croke.

You can bleat all you want

You're making a fool of yourself here

They broke Rule 2.1

I paraphrased for you, but evidently I need to spell it out

Aye dead on,

1.7 SUBSTITUTION ZONE.
An area of the sideline, extending 5m. on either side of the centre-line, shall be marked as the Substitution Zone, and all the players coming off/going on to the field of play in acts of substitution/temporary substitution shall go through this point, when given permission by the Referee.

This didn't happen

And?

I've looked at your rule 2-1 and states a team shall consist of 15 players...

It doesn't say the onus is on the team to ensure when making a substitution that he has to come off, the rule above states (I've highlighted for you) when given permission by the ref, so the onus is with the officials.

Don't agree with your interpretation.

If the onus was not on the team, why would there be a provision for punishing a team and team only when rule broken. If referee is fully responsible rule would be obsolete.

Regarding the highlighted bit, substitution process cannot begin until referee gives permission i.e halts play and signals to line. Nothing in that to suggest referee must manage everything or hold hands with he players through this (self managed) zone. I guess there's a certain level of assumption here that players and management know the rules and are responsible adults.

But sure, grey area now. Going forward rule will likely have to be dumbed down to make it fool proof.

You'll have been at games with actual linesmen? Ok So what basically happens, is the lines man takes the slip. informs the Ref, next break of play sub for team A... the ref blows whistle at next break, player from team A comes on and while that is happening, the linesman holds his flag up in the air till the player sub'd, comes off, Ref blows his whistle, play resumes. At no point in that process is anyone looking to the management of Team A and say thanks for being responsible adults!

Its in the rules, the rule was broken and if I was KC I'd be hammering that to CCCC and saying we did nothing wrong by the rules, we instructed the linesmen 4th official and so on..

Lets see what the CCCC say though, be interesting to see who they through under the bus for this one, the replay forfeit or fine

All the above is just my view on it, referees don't get to have any opinion on what the CCCC do in these matters, the match report is what they work off and if there is other evidence on the day they'll use it also. Too much stuff to twist and turn to suit the outcome.

When will there be a meeting? Tonight?

[Armagh18]

For those that are saying the additional player didn't matter, have a look at the last seconds of the semi against Kerin's O'Rahilly's, Kerin's needed a last second goal to win (or maybe it was to equalise), high ball dropped into the box was flicked on and who was on the goal line to catch the ball and prevent the goal, only the boul Mullin.

Interesting.
There is real possibility that the Mullin staying on and standing on the goal line was not accidental, and therefore the scrutiny and appeal is understandable .

Of course it's possible but I really don't think the risk of getting found out was worth the advantage- likely would have defended the play alright with 15 men if the ref had done his job and ordered a retake. The fact that this didn't happen and that there is a chance Glen could have scored means a replay is needed imo.

[Hectic]

Think what above shows is that it is not impossible to have a lead lost in the final throws.  I didn't watch a lot of the club championship this year but from the few games I did see Cargin dropped a ball into the box for a last gasp goal in the Ulster Quarter final.  So any chat about the extra man being no advantage and game lost anyway is incorrect.

[Franko]

Ah Christ of almighty

It's like talking to a door.  A stupid door

They broke the rule that says you can only have a max of 15 players on the field

How they broke it or why they broke it or whose fault it was that they broke it is only relevant in mitigation

And no, I don't think they did it on purpose at all

But they were very careless

So you haven't found the rule?

I've said there is a rule break and there are procedures that a forfeit, fine or replay will be determined by Croke.

You can bleat all you want

You're making a fool of yourself here

They broke Rule 2.1

I paraphrased for you, but evidently I need to spell it out

Aye dead on,

1.7 SUBSTITUTION ZONE.
An area of the sideline, extending 5m. on either side of the centre-line, shall be marked as the Substitution Zone, and all the players coming off/going on to the field of play in acts of substitution/temporary substitution shall go through this point, when given permission by the Referee.

This didn't happen

And?

I've looked at your rule 2-1 and states a team shall consist of 15 players...

It doesn't say the onus is on the team to ensure when making a substitution that he has to come off, the rule above states (I've highlighted for you) when given permission by the ref, so the onus is with the officials.

Don't agree with your interpretation.

If the onus was not on the team, why would there be a provision for punishing a team and team only when rule broken. If referee is fully responsible rule would be obsolete.

Regarding the highlighted bit, substitution process cannot begin until referee gives permission i.e halts play and signals to line. Nothing in that to suggest referee must manage everything or hold hands with he players through this (self managed) zone. I guess there's a certain level of assumption here that players and management know the rules and are responsible adults.

But sure, grey area now. Going forward rule will likely have to be dumbed down to make it fool proof.

You'll have been at games with actual linesmen? Ok So what basically happens, is the lines man takes the slip. informs the Ref, next break of play sub for team A... the ref blows whistle at next break, player from team A comes on and while that is happening, the linesman holds his flag up in the air till the player sub'd, comes off, Ref blows his whistle, play resumes. At no point in that process is anyone looking to the management of Team A and say thanks for being responsible adults!

Its in the rules, the rule was broken and if I was KC I'd be hammering that to CCCC and saying we did nothing wrong by the rules, we instructed the linesmen 4th official and so on..

Lets see what the CCCC say though, be interesting to see who they through under the bus for this one, the replay forfeit or fine

All the above is just my view on it, referees don't get to have any opinion on what the CCCC do in these matters, the match report is what they work off and if there is other evidence on the day they'll use it also. Too much stuff to twist and turn to suit the outcome.

When will there be a meeting? Tonight?

Finally, you seem to have got there.

[Farrandeelin]

Ah Christ of almighty

It's like talking to a door.  A stupid door

They broke the rule that says you can only have a max of 15 players on the field

How they broke it or why they broke it or whose fault it was that they broke it is only relevant in mitigation

And no, I don't think they did it on purpose at all

But they were very careless

So you haven't found the rule?

I've said there is a rule break and there are procedures that a forfeit, fine or replay will be determined by Croke.

You can bleat all you want

You're making a fool of yourself here

They broke Rule 2.1

I paraphrased for you, but evidently I need to spell it out

Aye dead on,

1.7 SUBSTITUTION ZONE.
An area of the sideline, extending 5m. on either side of the centre-line, shall be marked as the Substitution Zone, and all the players coming off/going on to the field of play in acts of substitution/temporary substitution shall go through this point, when given permission by the Referee.

This didn't happen

And?

I've looked at your rule 2-1 and states a team shall consist of 15 players...

It doesn't say the onus is on the team to ensure when making a substitution that he has to come off, the rule above states (I've highlighted for you) when given permission by the ref, so the onus is with the officials.

Don't agree with your interpretation.

If the onus was not on the team, why would there be a provision for punishing a team and team only when rule broken. If referee is fully responsible rule would be obsolete.

Regarding the highlighted bit, substitution process cannot begin until referee gives permission i.e halts play and signals to line. Nothing in that to suggest referee must manage everything or hold hands with he players through this (self managed) zone. I guess there's a certain level of assumption here that players and management know the rules and are responsible adults.

But sure, grey area now. Going forward rule will likely have to be dumbed down to make it fool proof.

You'll have been at games with actual linesmen? Ok So what basically happens, is the lines man takes the slip. informs the Ref, next break of play sub for team A... the ref blows whistle at next break, player from team A comes on and while that is happening, the linesman holds his flag up in the air till the player sub'd, comes off, Ref blows his whistle, play resumes. At no point in that process is anyone looking to the management of Team A and say thanks for being responsible adults!

Its in the rules, the rule was broken and if I was KC I'd be hammering that to CCCC and saying we did nothing wrong by the rules, we instructed the linesmen 4th official and so on..

Lets see what the CCCC say though, be interesting to see who they through under the bus for this one, the replay forfeit or fine

All the above is just my view on it, referees don't get to have any opinion on what the CCCC do in these matters, the match report is what they work off and if there is other evidence on the day they'll use it also. Too much stuff to twist and turn to suit the outcome.

When will there be a meeting? Tonight?

KC have until 11am Saturday morning to respond.

[Milltown Row2]

Ah Christ of almighty

It's like talking to a door.  A stupid door

They broke the rule that says you can only have a max of 15 players on the field

How they broke it or why they broke it or whose fault it was that they broke it is only relevant in mitigation

And no, I don't think they did it on purpose at all

But they were very careless

So you haven't found the rule?

I've said there is a rule break and there are procedures that a forfeit, fine or replay will be determined by Croke.

You can bleat all you want

You're making a fool of yourself here

They broke Rule 2.1

I paraphrased for you, but evidently I need to spell it out

Aye dead on,

1.7 SUBSTITUTION ZONE.
An area of the sideline, extending 5m. on either side of the centre-line, shall be marked as the Substitution Zone, and all the players coming off/going on to the field of play in acts of substitution/temporary substitution shall go through this point, when given permission by the Referee.

This didn't happen

And?

I've looked at your rule 2-1 and states a team shall consist of 15 players...

It doesn't say the onus is on the team to ensure when making a substitution that he has to come off, the rule above states (I've highlighted for you) when given permission by the ref, so the onus is with the officials.

Don't agree with your interpretation.

If the onus was not on the team, why would there be a provision for punishing a team and team only when rule broken. If referee is fully responsible rule would be obsolete.

Regarding the highlighted bit, substitution process cannot begin until referee gives permission i.e halts play and signals to line. Nothing in that to suggest referee must manage everything or hold hands with he players through this (self managed) zone. I guess there's a certain level of assumption here that players and management know the rules and are responsible adults.

But sure, grey area now. Going forward rule will likely have to be dumbed down to make it fool proof.

You'll have been at games with actual linesmen? Ok So what basically happens, is the lines man takes the slip. informs the Ref, next break of play sub for team A... the ref blows whistle at next break, player from team A comes on and while that is happening, the linesman holds his flag up in the air till the player sub'd, comes off, Ref blows his whistle, play resumes. At no point in that process is anyone looking to the management of Team A and say thanks for being responsible adults!

Its in the rules, the rule was broken and if I was KC I'd be hammering that to CCCC and saying we did nothing wrong by the rules, we instructed the linesmen 4th official and so on..

Lets see what the CCCC say though, be interesting to see who they through under the bus for this one, the replay forfeit or fine

All the above is just my view on it, referees don't get to have any opinion on what the CCCC do in these matters, the match report is what they work off and if there is other evidence on the day they'll use it also. Too much stuff to twist and turn to suit the outcome.

When will there be a meeting? Tonight?

Finally, you seem to have got there.

I've consistently said the sub rule was broken, I've backed a appeal from the start. Its who broke what rule? The ref, in my opinion started the game without ensuring the player left the field, that was the only mistake here. KC will argue they did everything right that was asked of them. Like I said, be interesting to see how this is worded up when finally done.

See you can post without throwing abuse 

[johnnycool]

Ah Christ of almighty

It's like talking to a door.  A stupid door

They broke the rule that says you can only have a max of 15 players on the field

How they broke it or why they broke it or whose fault it was that they broke it is only relevant in mitigation

And no, I don't think they did it on purpose at all

But they were very careless

So you haven't found the rule?

I've said there is a rule break and there are procedures that a forfeit, fine or replay will be determined by Croke.

You can bleat all you want

You're making a fool of yourself here

They broke Rule 2.1

I paraphrased for you, but evidently I need to spell it out

Aye dead on,

1.7 SUBSTITUTION ZONE.
An area of the sideline, extending 5m. on either side of the centre-line, shall be marked as the Substitution Zone, and all the players coming off/going on to the field of play in acts of substitution/temporary substitution shall go through this point, when given permission by the Referee.

This didn't happen

And?

I've looked at your rule 2-1 and states a team shall consist of 15 players...

It doesn't say the onus is on the team to ensure when making a substitution that he has to come off, the rule above states (I've highlighted for you) when given permission by the ref, so the onus is with the officials.

Don't agree with your interpretation.

If the onus was not on the team, why would there be a provision for punishing a team and team only when rule broken. If referee is fully responsible rule would be obsolete.

Regarding the highlighted bit, substitution process cannot begin until referee gives permission i.e halts play and signals to line. Nothing in that to suggest referee must manage everything or hold hands with he players through this (self managed) zone. I guess there's a certain level of assumption here that players and management know the rules and are responsible adults.

But sure, grey area now. Going forward rule will likely have to be dumbed down to make it fool proof.

You'll have been at games with actual linesmen? Ok So what basically happens, is the lines man takes the slip. informs the Ref, next break of play sub for team A... the ref blows whistle at next break, player from team A comes on and while that is happening, the linesman holds his flag up in the air till the player sub'd, comes off, Ref blows his whistle, play resumes. At no point in that process is anyone looking to the management of Team A and say thanks for being responsible adults!

Its in the rules, the rule was broken and if I was KC I'd be hammering that to CCCC and saying we did nothing wrong by the rules, we instructed the linesmen 4th official and so on..

Lets see what the CCCC say though, be interesting to see who they through under the bus for this one, the replay forfeit or fine

All the above is just my view on it, referees don't get to have any opinion on what the CCCC do in these matters, the match report is what they work off and if there is other evidence on the day they'll use it also. Too much stuff to twist and turn to suit the outcome.

When will there be a meeting? Tonight?

KC have until 11am Saturday morning to respond.

What are they responding to?

It's a well established fact they'd 16 active players on the field when the last 45 was taken, they can hardly say they didn't.

[Milltown Row2]

So have Croke gave KC a ruling that they have to respond to?

[Rossfan]

Doesn't HQ have to send the appeal to Kilmacud and give them 3 days for any response they wish to submit.