Joe Brolly

[mayo.mick]

Is a Platform > Directly Responsible??
I have him at fault for 1-1 and the incalculable loss of Lee Keegan?? Well I say incalculable but I'm sure you can put a figure on that for me!

No, it would be the inverse. And you can't fault him for an incorrect decision from Deegan. Times 2.

Yes Maurice Deegan should have taken to Twitter instead.

You could be on to something there. Incidentally I scrolled through the responses to Hennellys posts and not one troll could I find, very heartening I thought.

That's good to hear. I certainly have no animosity towards him, a feeling shared by the vast majority of Mayo supporters.

Great perspective on Brolly's bullshit by soberpaddy on soberpaddy.com. Well worth a read.

Just after reading it! Worth reading surely

[macdanger2]

In my eyes, Joe is a compulsive attention seeker and often mars his contributions, which can be insightful, with puerile jokes and carefully planned "off the cuff" witticisms that makes his fellow panelists come across as rocket scientists by comparison.
Some years ago, Monaghan played Tyrone (I think) in an Ulster final. Tommy Freeman who works as a roofer badly injured his right hand. While working on a roof, he managed to drive a Hilti nail through his hand. There was considerable doubt about his fitness to play in the run in to the game and when he did appear, his right hand was heavily bandaged.
O'Rourke and the other pair in the studio expressed their sympathies and praised the man for his grit and determination to play despite the obvious pain.
Brolly, on the other hand, found something to laugh about in Freeman's misfortune and kept wisecracking about his carelessness from beginning to end.
At one stage as Freeman prepared to take a free, Brolly chipped in with a snide remark along the lines of he'd better be more careful with the free than he was with his nail guin or God knows what damage he might do.
None of the others from beginning to end paid any attention to his smart arse, running commentary but, undaunted, he kept on looking for laughs until the end of the programme.
Another time, O'Rourke's son was playing in the AI minor final  and Meath were getting a pasting from Kerry. When coverage switched to the Lyster and his panellists, the closing few minutes of the minor game could be seen in the background.
Jeez, Brolly couldn't shut up about what was happening and sarted ribbiing O'Rourke about his son and what he must be feeling. O'Rourke's reply was simple and traight to the point.
"Look,," sez he," Shane will have other days. Now let's get on with what we are being paid for."
Another time, one of O'Rourke's racehorses was in the news for something or other and, once again, Brolly tried to rib him about it. O'Rourke again kept his cool and told Joe they weren't there for the horse racing and (guess what?) once again suggested that maybe they should stick to what they were supposed to be doing.
Okay, others may not agree with me but for me it's a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many of his excellent analyses can be ruined by his need to seek cheap publicity- more sound bytes than common sense.

I remember watching an Offaly match ~10 years back, Mcmanus (who had been one of offaly's best player for years when they were at a low enough ebb) at midfield had a poor enough game on front of goal; several wides, some of which were awful. At fulltime, Brolly & O'Rourke had a piece put together showing misses and misplaced passes from Mcmanus as they sniggered over it. Showed a complete lack of respect for a decent fella trying his best.

A pair of w*nkers the two of them although Joe is certainly the senior w*nker

[Cunny Funt]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

[Keyser soze]

That was never a penalty IMO, clearly reached in and knocked the ball away from Andrews.

[iorras]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

Feck it, if we had only known that all you needed to do was complain about a referees decision to get it changed we'd have won the All Ireland. Although Cillian O'Connor complained to Conor Lane about Bastick picking the ball off the ground from the kickout after his equalising point in the first game, but he didn't give the free. He gave a free out for Evan Regan clattering into him. So does it only work if you complain about penalties or what are the rules?

[criostlinn]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

Feck it, if we had only known that all you needed to do was complain about a referees decision to get it changed we'd have won the All Ireland. Although Cillian O'Connor complained to Conor Lane about Bastick picking the ball off the ground from the kickout after his equalising point in the first game, but he didn't give the free. He gave a free out for Evan Regan clattering into him. So does it only work if you complain about penalties or what are the rules?

No. It seems to works on 45's and black cards. But I think it depends on the colour of the jersey.

[Croí na hÉireann]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

The contact came after the ball had broken away. If we take the same video ref protocol that is in rugby where clear concise pictures must show concrete evidence to give a decision, e.g. a ruck on the try line and if no video angle shows the ball grounded properly then a try can't be awarded. Not only does the video evidence not show a clear penalty infraction, all the evidence points to two players reaching for the ball and one breaking it away from the other.

[rosnarun]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

The contact came after the ball had broken away. If we take the same video ref protocol that is in rugby where clear concise pictures must show concrete evidence to give a decision, e.g. a ruck on the try line and if no video angle shows the ball grounded properly then a try can't be awarded. Not only does the video evidence not show a clear penalty infraction, all the evidence points to two players reaching for the ball and one breaking it away from the other.

only problem is wed be still waiting for a final call if rugby is anything to go by.
it has become unwatchable as an event that clearly the ref has best view of is replayed to death and all the momentum is go from the game and of the call still looks wrong.
we should just accept referees are going to make mistakes and we are going to complain about them

[Croí na hÉireann]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

The contact came after the ball had broken away. If we take the same video ref protocol that is in rugby where clear concise pictures must show concrete evidence to give a decision, e.g. a ruck on the try line and if no video angle shows the ball grounded properly then a try can't be awarded. Not only does the video evidence not show a clear penalty infraction, all the evidence points to two players reaching for the ball and one breaking it away from the other.

only problem is wed be still waiting for a final call if rugby is anything to go by.
it has become unwatchable as an event that clearly the ref has best view of is replayed to death and all the momentum is go from the game and of the call still looks wrong.
we should just accept referees are going to make mistakes and we are going to complain about them

I agree that video technology can be drawn out in rugby, which is why something must be immediately obvious or else it can't be given. Take the black cards the last day, two huge decisions. Video reviews would immediately show there wasn't concrete proof that Keegan dragged Connolly to the ground whereas it can clearly be seen that Cooper grabs Vaughans leg and trips him.

[The Aristocrat]

Just so I have this right between this thread and the all Ireland final thread.

Dublin peno was never a peno.
Dublin should have received 6 black cards.
Dublin should have received 5 yellows.
Dublin should have received 2 reds.
Dublin should have conceded 12 more frees than they should have.
Dublin should not be back to back all Ireland champions.
Some of you are comparing our game to rugby.
Accusations of a head butt that one person he alleged he saw but 82,000 spectators and millions watching around the world missed.
Dublin were lucky.
Poor Mayo
Poor Aiden O Shea.
Poor Cillian O Connor, poor thing.

Just wondering how Dublin won it in the end and led nearly the whole 160 minutes of play except for a couple of bloopers in the first half of the replay.

Again gentlemen, enjoy the winter, and winter well because by the sound of it, some of you are going to find it quite difficult to get through knowing that Sam is resting at home in Dublin.

[Fuzzman]

Are you offering a replay Aristo?

Lads, Brolly doesn't like all this non Brolly chat so can you please keep him in the middle of this discussion.
He just texted me there from some hospital along with Donald Trump.

[Main Street]

What amazes me about Brolly is how quickly people are to forgive him for his personal outburts.
The story of Cluxton wanting to punch him but then shaking his hand is typical of how Joe can use his personality and wit to bring people around to like him.
I'd say McGeaney and Grimley would be slower to put up with his chat. Did I read in one of his articles that he likes RTE as they put no limits on what he can or cannot say.

In my opinion, he seems to use the whole attending sick people in hospital and going to Novena masses etc as a way to balance up what people think of him. He does seem to put a lot of effort and time into that which is admirable but it just seems to highlight the other side of him as he attacks GAA players and managers at will.

I read that piece what Joe wrote about Stephen Cluxton and nowhere do I see that Stephen Cluxton was offering his hand or was being bamboozled by Joe's alleged personality.
According to Joe in his article, Cluxton said
"Before you do that (offer hand) I want to tell you that for years I thought of breaking your jaw. I will never forgive you for what you said."

Your point though has much relevance, but don't soil Stephen Cluxton

[whitey]

Anyone remember back in the mid 90s when a well known player's brothers (who are/were notorious hard-men) were going to give Spillane a hiding, and Martin Carney had to smuggle poor Pateen out of Croke Park in the trunk of his car. If Brolly keeps it up don't be surprised if someone takes a swing at him. He's definitely outdone himself this time out

[Cunny Funt]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

The contact came after the ball had broken away. If we take the same video ref protocol that is in rugby where clear concise pictures must show concrete evidence to give a decision, e.g. a ruck on the try line and if no video angle shows the ball grounded properly then a try can't be awarded. Not only does the video evidence not show a clear penalty infraction, all the evidence points to two players reaching for the ball and one breaking it away from the other.

GAA a different game with different rules than rugby. The contact was enough to call for a penalty IMO. If Hennelly didn't make contact with Andrews he could well have knocked the ball into the empty net

[Croí na hÉireann]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

The contact came after the ball had broken away. If we take the same video ref protocol that is in rugby where clear concise pictures must show concrete evidence to give a decision, e.g. a ruck on the try line and if no video angle shows the ball grounded properly then a try can't be awarded. Not only does the video evidence not show a clear penalty infraction, all the evidence points to two players reaching for the ball and one breaking it away from the other.

GAA a different game with different rules than rugby. The contact was enough to call for a penalty IMO. If Hennelly didn't make contact with Andrews he could well have knocked the ball into the empty net

That would have proved hard to accomplish since the ball broke straight over to Keith Higgins. There is contact for every tussle/reach for a ball, doesn't mean an infraction occurred.