Row in Mayo LGFA

Started by Seany, July 11, 2018, 08:57:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

nrico2006

Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 09:55:37 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 06:59:16 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 12:11:24 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 22, 2018, 10:41:44 PM
Whatever about their reasons for leaving the county set up, they are amateur players and are under absolutely no obligation to play for the county team.

Throwing their club out of the championship is up there with one of the most ridiculous decisions I've ever heard and will surely be overturned. It strikes me that people were sick of them winning and decided that this was an opportunity to fcuk them out. That's pretty pathetic.
Apparently they are obliged to play county if chosen. Was mentioned on Off the Ball earlier by Mayo journalist Edwin McGreal.
Not sure how he works that one out tbh.

Go to 13:30

Carnacon thrown out of Mayo championship - GAA on Off The Ball - Off The Ball - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/231883/Carnacon_thrown_out_of_Mayo_championship

Rule 193 ladies football. County boards have power to suspend for 6 months a player who refuses to travel or play for their county.

Surely that rule can be challenged.  Especially given the fact that the punishment doesn't seem to correlate with the rule, i.e. they haven't seemingly suspended any players but have kicked a team out.  Plus, there were non-Carnacon players who refused to play and they or their club haven't been punished.  Seems very unethical.
Rule 193 is not the rule that kicks Carnacon to touch, the rule the Mayo ladies football board used was rule 288 as quoted previously by From the Bunker which is  bringing the game into disrepute.

I know that but surely the 'member' in 288 is individual specific at not aimed at a club?  Additionally, if it can be applied to a club then why are the clubs of the others who left the panel not being subjected to the same punishment?
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

spuds

Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 09:55:37 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 06:59:16 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 12:11:24 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 22, 2018, 10:41:44 PM
Whatever about their reasons for leaving the county set up, they are amateur players and are under absolutely no obligation to play for the county team.

Throwing their club out of the championship is up there with one of the most ridiculous decisions I've ever heard and will surely be overturned. It strikes me that people were sick of them winning and decided that this was an opportunity to fcuk them out. That's pretty pathetic.
Apparently they are obliged to play county if chosen. Was mentioned on Off the Ball earlier by Mayo journalist Edwin McGreal.
Not sure how he works that one out tbh.

Go to 13:30

Carnacon thrown out of Mayo championship - GAA on Off The Ball - Off The Ball - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/231883/Carnacon_thrown_out_of_Mayo_championship

Rule 193 ladies football. County boards have power to suspend for 6 months a player who refuses to travel or play for their county.

Surely that rule can be challenged.  Especially given the fact that the punishment doesn't seem to correlate with the rule, i.e. they haven't seemingly suspended any players but have kicked a team out.  Plus, there were non-Carnacon players who refused to play and they or their club haven't been punished.  Seems very unethical.
Rule 193 is not the rule that kicks Carnacon to touch, the rule the Mayo ladies football board used was rule 288 as quoted previously by From the Bunker which is  bringing the game into disrepute.

I know that but surely the 'member' in 288 is individual specific at not aimed at a club?  Additionally, if it can be applied to a club then why are the clubs of the others who left the panel not being subjected to the same punishment?
You quoted my post on rule 193. Think this will run and run.
"As I get older I notice the years less and the seasons more."
John Hubbard

shark

Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 09:55:37 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 06:59:16 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 12:11:24 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 22, 2018, 10:41:44 PM
Whatever about their reasons for leaving the county set up, they are amateur players and are under absolutely no obligation to play for the county team.

Throwing their club out of the championship is up there with one of the most ridiculous decisions I've ever heard and will surely be overturned. It strikes me that people were sick of them winning and decided that this was an opportunity to fcuk them out. That's pretty pathetic.
Apparently they are obliged to play county if chosen. Was mentioned on Off the Ball earlier by Mayo journalist Edwin McGreal.
Not sure how he works that one out tbh.

Go to 13:30

Carnacon thrown out of Mayo championship - GAA on Off The Ball - Off The Ball - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/231883/Carnacon_thrown_out_of_Mayo_championship

Rule 193 ladies football. County boards have power to suspend for 6 months a player who refuses to travel or play for their county.

Surely that rule can be challenged.  Especially given the fact that the punishment doesn't seem to correlate with the rule, i.e. they haven't seemingly suspended any players but have kicked a team out.  Plus, there were non-Carnacon players who refused to play and they or their club haven't been punished.  Seems very unethical.
Rule 193 is not the rule that kicks Carnacon to touch, the rule the Mayo ladies football board used was rule 288 as quoted previously by From the Bunker which is  bringing the game into disrepute.

I know that but surely the 'member' in 288 is individual specific at not aimed at a club?  Additionally, if it can be applied to a club then why are the clubs of the others who left the panel not being subjected to the same punishment?
You quoted my post on rule 193. Think this will run and run.

I doubt it will run too far. I expect the Connacht Council to overturn it once appeal is heard. The idea that you can compel club players to play county is legally bankrupt. The Carnacon players who left the county panel could have been 100% in the wrong and this decision would still be nonsense.

spuds

Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 12:15:14 PM
Refusing to play for the county is not bringing the game into disrepute. Refusing to play for the county for any reason cannot be punished.
You cannot be forced to play football ffs. Players should be able to choose what level of commitment they give to the game. If players are unhappy with the county set up, they should be able to opt out.
This is completely baffling.

Good man. Don't bother reading what is posted.
"As I get older I notice the years less and the seasons more."
John Hubbard

AQMP

Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 12:15:14 PM
Refusing to play for the county is not bringing the game into disrepute. Refusing to play for the county for any reason cannot be punished.
You cannot be forced to play football ffs. Players should be able to choose what level of commitment they give to the game. If players are unhappy with the county set up, they should be able to opt out.
This is completely baffling.

Completely nuts.  Surely "forcing" a player to play for the county team under threat of suspension goes full square against the amateur ethos of the GAA (or the LGFA in this case)??

Jinxy

Why would such a rule (193) even exist?
Just trying to get my head around someone proposing it, and the reasoning that was used to support it at the time.
If you were any use you'd be playing.

Kickham csc

Quote from: Jinxy on August 23, 2018, 12:24:01 PM
Why would such a rule (193) even exist?
Just trying to get my head around someone proposing it, and the reasoning that was used to support it at the time.

What I understand about this rule, it was put into place to prevent clubs holding the county team to ramson , i.e. prevent a club pulling their players from a squad for an upcoming game, either to influence the county boards on a decision or to gain competitive advantage for an upcoming game.

So basically, once your in a squad and committed, you can leave the squad on a personal reason, but a club can't organize to pull a group of players for an upcoming game

RadioGAAGAA

Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 12:41:13 PM
The 288 rule is fine but is not applicable in this case.

How on earth do you figure that?

A third of the panel walking off for false reasons (which would reflect poorly on the county setup) in the week leading up to a big game is not bringing the game into disrepute?

i usse an speelchekor

thebackbar1

Quote from: shark on August 23, 2018, 12:16:26 PM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 09:55:37 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 06:59:16 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 12:11:24 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 22, 2018, 10:41:44 PM
Whatever about their reasons for leaving the county set up, they are amateur players and are under absolutely no obligation to play for the county team.

Throwing their club out of the championship is up there with one of the most ridiculous decisions I've ever heard and will surely be overturned. It strikes me that people were sick of them winning and decided that this was an opportunity to fcuk them out. That's pretty pathetic.
Apparently they are obliged to play county if chosen. Was mentioned on Off the Ball earlier by Mayo journalist Edwin McGreal.
Not sure how he works that one out tbh.

Go to 13:30

Carnacon thrown out of Mayo championship - GAA on Off The Ball - Off The Ball - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/231883/Carnacon_thrown_out_of_Mayo_championship

Rule 193 ladies football. County boards have power to suspend for 6 months a player who refuses to travel or play for their county.

Surely that rule can be challenged.  Especially given the fact that the punishment doesn't seem to correlate with the rule, i.e. they haven't seemingly suspended any players but have kicked a team out.  Plus, there were non-Carnacon players who refused to play and they or their club haven't been punished.  Seems very unethical.
Rule 193 is not the rule that kicks Carnacon to touch, the rule the Mayo ladies football board used was rule 288 as quoted previously by From the Bunker which is  bringing the game into disrepute.

I know that but surely the 'member' in 288 is individual specific at not aimed at a club?  Additionally, if it can be applied to a club then why are the clubs of the others who left the panel not being subjected to the same punishment?
You quoted my post on rule 193. Think this will run and run.

I doubt it will run too far. I expect the Connacht Council to overturn it once appeal is heard. The idea that you can compel club players to play county is legally bankrupt. The Carnacon players who left the county panel could have been 100% in the wrong and this decision would still be nonsense.

The connacht council that is headed by john prenty have no jurisdiction over this matter

Jinxy

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on August 23, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 12:41:13 PM
The 288 rule is fine but is not applicable in this case.

How on earth do you figure that?

A third of the panel walking off for false reasons (which would reflect poorly on the county setup) in the week leading up to a big game is not bringing the game into disrepute?

Didn't think they gave any reason, false or otherwise.
If you were any use you'd be playing.

AZOffaly

I thought the punishment was against Carnacon because the charge was that Carnacon the club coerced all its members to leave the panel (for whatever reason). That's why the charge is about bringing the game into disrepute.

Rule 193 is a joke, but I don't think that's what the club is banned for.

The player themselves, as individuals, are not banned, is that correct?

shark

Quote from: thebackbar1 on August 23, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: shark on August 23, 2018, 12:16:26 PM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 11:36:41 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on August 23, 2018, 10:48:28 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 09:55:37 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 06:59:16 AM
Quote from: spuds on August 23, 2018, 12:11:24 AM
Quote from: hardstation on August 22, 2018, 10:41:44 PM
Whatever about their reasons for leaving the county set up, they are amateur players and are under absolutely no obligation to play for the county team.

Throwing their club out of the championship is up there with one of the most ridiculous decisions I've ever heard and will surely be overturned. It strikes me that people were sick of them winning and decided that this was an opportunity to fcuk them out. That's pretty pathetic.
Apparently they are obliged to play county if chosen. Was mentioned on Off the Ball earlier by Mayo journalist Edwin McGreal.
Not sure how he works that one out tbh.

Go to 13:30

Carnacon thrown out of Mayo championship - GAA on Off The Ball - Off The Ball - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/231883/Carnacon_thrown_out_of_Mayo_championship

Rule 193 ladies football. County boards have power to suspend for 6 months a player who refuses to travel or play for their county.

Surely that rule can be challenged.  Especially given the fact that the punishment doesn't seem to correlate with the rule, i.e. they haven't seemingly suspended any players but have kicked a team out.  Plus, there were non-Carnacon players who refused to play and they or their club haven't been punished.  Seems very unethical.
Rule 193 is not the rule that kicks Carnacon to touch, the rule the Mayo ladies football board used was rule 288 as quoted previously by From the Bunker which is  bringing the game into disrepute.

I know that but surely the 'member' in 288 is individual specific at not aimed at a club?  Additionally, if it can be applied to a club then why are the clubs of the others who left the panel not being subjected to the same punishment?
You quoted my post on rule 193. Think this will run and run.

I doubt it will run too far. I expect the Connacht Council to overturn it once appeal is heard. The idea that you can compel club players to play county is legally bankrupt. The Carnacon players who left the county panel could have been 100% in the wrong and this decision would still be nonsense.

The connacht council that is headed by john prenty have no jurisdiction over this matter

Do you really think that is what I was referring to? Really?

There is an LGFA equivalent.

easytiger95

I was listening to this on Off the Ball last night, and I thought yer man Joe was ridiculous. He completely prejudged the County Board position. Why would anyone from the board be interested in giving their views when he has already declared that he thinks they are eejits? Not the first time he has done this. Good presenter- but a very, very poor journalist.

AZOffaly

Quote from: hardstation on August 23, 2018, 01:51:08 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 23, 2018, 01:42:38 PM
I thought the punishment was against Carnacon because the charge was that Carnacon the club coerced all its members to leave the panel (for whatever reason). That's why the charge is about bringing the game into disrepute.

Rule 193 is a joke, but I don't think that's what the club is banned for.

The player themselves, as individuals, are not banned, is that correct?
I'm not sure they have evidence of that. Also, Rule 288 states 'member'. How can they ban the entire club from the competition?

That's true. Maybe it's not 288 then. The rule underneath (292?) is interesting. It's like a catch all.

easytiger95

Quote from: AZOffaly on August 23, 2018, 01:42:38 PM
I thought the punishment was against Carnacon because the charge was that Carnacon the club coerced all its members to leave the panel (for whatever reason). That's why the charge is about bringing the game into disrepute.

Rule 193 is a joke, but I don't think that's what the club is banned for.

The player themselves, as individuals, are not banned, is that correct?

You are right AZ, the journo from Mayo last night, McGreal, made that point - it wasn't individual players leaving a panel, it was done (allegedly) at the instigation of the club, and as such it could be judged as bringing the game into disrepute. The individuals are not banned but the club is - though effectively it is both.