Messages

The split season cant help either.  I remember when the 1st round of the Ulster championship was a great day out played in late May or early June with decent weather.  Families could make a day of it and watch two knock out matches.  Yesterday only me and my brother could go.  His kids have exams coming up, there was no minor game, it was expensive, it was cold, it was wet it was windy and little to nothing rested on the outcome. Win and you had at least 4 matches left this season lose and you have at least 3 matches left.  I never liked the backdoor for what it did to the provincial championships it was the first nail in their coffin for me.  This current format is the final nail.

Having seen the replay I think he was lucky to have escaped a red, that said the referee does seem to have been very close to it and with a good view and none of the other players seem to be demanding a red card like you would often see

Hard to take much out of that.  Armagh did what they had to and then looked like they wanted to work on a different style for future opposition.

Marginally better than the league final but not by much. I thought Paddy Burns and Rory Grugan had very good games though.

Didn't have a good view of the Jarly Og incident.

One of them carries a maximum life sentence but the point remains. Parliament set the maximum sentence and then set the guidelines based on that. I don't know what the guidelines in the South are for that offence but I do know that in the north the guideline is 8 - 10 years after trial which is 5-7 on a plea. This guy got 6 years of which he will serve 4 in custody. Had he received a 6 year sentence in the north that would mean only serve 3 in custody and 3 on licence.

If that seems too lenient then the issue needs addressed by parliament.

What utter nonsense. As if the judiciary give a crap about the tax payer when they're billing their time! And they're well fit to throw the book at people if they've gotten out of the wrong side of the bed for trivial crap.

This sc**bag raped a baby, filmed it, put it up on a sharing platform and would not co-operate with authorities in naming his buddies. The book should be thrown at him. If some p***k in government then wants to take issue with that and over rule the judge, I doubt they'd be too popular or get very far.
There are not too many crimes as stomach churning or vile as this one. Letting him walk in 4 years is a complete insult and more retraumatizing to the victims than anything that could have been said in court. And if we've lowered ourselves to the point of affording credit to the most depraved of paedos so as not to upset them, then the lunatics are truly running the asylum. 

I am in no way defending the sentence. It is reprehensible. The problem is. The judge does what you suggest and goes against the guidance from government and it's an easy and costly appeal with the potential for damages, further suffering for victims and further ridicule. Had this sentence been imposed in the north it would have been at the lower end of the guidance but still within the guidance. So in such a scenario was the Judge wrong to follow the guidance or is the guidance wrong?  Clearly the guidance is wrong and therefore the criticism of the judiciary is largely misplaced.

Also individual politicians or even ministers or governments can't really over rule judges in particular cases. Parliament can of course amend the law but by and large in criminal matters this can't have retrospective effect. But the law has developed over many years to water down or eradicate the executives role in judicial matters. Save for providing guidance on sentences which should be followed.

[a maximum life sentence]

"Marshall was facing a maximum life sentence for the defilement charge, a maximum sentence of five years for the possession charge, and up to 14 years on each of the other three charges including, producing child pornography, distributing child pornography and using communication technology to facilitate the sexual exploitation of a child. "

"Marshall uploaded and shared 15 videos and two images on kik of sex acts involving children, including the infant boy, as well as images and videos of a number of underage girls that were shared with him by a third party whom Marshall did not identify."

The law needs to be tougher on crime in general but I see nothing here to give that judge a pass. If he saw fit to give that utter scum "credit" and thinks it's ok for him to prey on others in 4 years time, which he most certainly will do, then he is not fit to be a judge.

The judge didn't see fit to rather he is obligated by law as set by parliament too. There's good reason to afford credit in cases like this not because defendants deserve it or to condone their actions but because if credit wasn't given then defendants would have nothing to lose by running trials. Increasing costs to the taxpayer and much more significantly retraumitising victims.

Strangely there's been a couple of reports on the justice system in recent months talking about the necessity of credit but how terms like credit and discount for a plea shouldn't be used on the basis they don't accurately convey what's happened and the terms themselves undermine confidence.

I don't know what the guidelines are for these offences in the south and this judge may be quiet lenient but similar offending in the north would probably attract a similar sentence for a 'non dangerous' defendant. That's not though a reflection on the judiciary but rather on parliament.

Courts don't have carte Blanche in sentencing decisions. They take their lead from parliament and statutory committees such as JSBNI in Northern Ireland or the sentencing guidelines counsel in England and Wales. Parliament can and does intervene when sentences are too low. But until it does Courts are highly curtailed by the will of parliament.

All that said when sentences that are seen as lenient are imposed then whilst Courts who really couldn't have done anything else, parliaments who could have set proper guidance get off Scot free. That annoys me.

1. The quality of the rule book.

Yes definitely needs looked at and simplified 

2. Knowledge of the rules for all involved.

The biggest bugbear of mine, classic example of a senior player asking me the rules at the game at the weekend. If the players are struggling with the rules what chance have ya? 

3. Respect towards officials.

I get, give respect get respect but I've yet to see a referee running around the pitch complaining about a tackle  not given as a foul the whole match, reverse that and you can understand why no one is putting their hand up to ref

4. Quality of refereeing.

fix the first few issues and the quality might get a lot better, as it will have a knock on affect

5. Assistance for referees in so form be it technology, number of officials or the development of an elite unit properly remunerated.

Better Tech will only be available at 1% percent of the associations games, i.e Intercounty level, not grassroots, more officials? can't get them unless the first few are fixed, so I doubt it, and more officials on the pitch means different opinions on the rules lol! As for the development of elite refs, they do have an extensive training program to be fair to them, and its never about the money, anyone taking up the whistle needs their head looked at if they are doing it for a few quid!

I think there's considerable overlap and you can't improve one with out tackling the others. I also don't think you neglect the highest levels of officiating because you can't replicate it at the lower levels. This shouldn't be a lowest common denominator thing.

I think there's a myriad of factors here and it links to the rules discussions.

The rule book is poorly drafted and haphazard that leads to widely different interpretations. That in turn leads to rows and adverse criticism or worse.

That in turn leads to a shortage of referees who why would they bother to get that abuse.

As a result refereeing standards fall.

Which in turn leads to more criticism and more abuse.

Then you get to the top levels where the game is simply too big too fast and too professional for one amateur referee and some amateur assistants.

I think the following need tackled and improved in no particular order.

1. The quality of the rule book.
2. Knowledge of the rules for all involved.
3. Respect towards officials.
4. Quality of refereeing.
5. Assistance for referees in so form be it technology, number of officials or the development of an elite unit properly remunerated.

I don't think you achieve anything tackling only one in isolation.

All that said we might have to close down the GAA discussion section if we all start to agree on refereeing matters.

Donegal deserved to win but Armagh were awful. Falling back in to all the old habits I thought they had moved away from this year (Louth match excepted).

The manner of the defeat against a Donegal who will get much better is hard to take. I'd no longer be confident of an Ulster final let alone hoping for something more. 

having saw down Fermanagh and antrim they should be making it with bit to spare.

In fairness I was maybe a little raw after the match but I am not as confident as I was before yesterday

Not saying you are one of them, but Armagh fans have unrealistic expectations for this crop of players. The team is in a better place than it was but there's  still a way to go to get to Derry's level. Is McGeeney the man, I'm not sure but I don't think there is a queue for the job.  Rian O'Neill I understand has had issues outside of the game and is being eased back in. Talking of unrealistic expectations though the fans have placed too much on his shoulders and indeed Oisin's before him. Maybe just let them play football they both are class acts on their day. It was strange I'd say that the best club team in the county didn't have one starter.

I think my view on the current crop is that we lack the very top quality players to challenge the top teams but we have very few weak links either and plenty of players who are at a decent to good inter county level.

I don't think it's mockery to be honest.

It's more frustration.

A sizeable group of GAA followers - perhaps even the majority - have limited interest in rules being applied correctly, fairly or consistently. Instead they have an inner expectation that every coin toss should land in their favour.

Social media then provides an echo chamber for this approach, which allows them to feel vindicated, indeed unbiased, to have these thoughts.

It's not a GAA unique issue by the way. Soccer is drowning in "attack referee first, analyse performance second" followers. The NFL is falling down with it. Even in rugby where the players and management are almost entirely courteous to referees, suffers from it.

People are people.

Makes refereeing very difficult all the same.

I will be the first one i admit I don't know all the rules these days. However, I know what I see and that things being done inconsistently within games. A ref will blow player up for over carrying but not player B. Or charging or whatever. I've no issue with them doing that against an Armagh man but only if they apply it the same against the other team. And it's not just Armagh games I'm referring to. I've seen it in other games also. I get it can come down to the refs interpretation of a charge for example, but surely his interpretation can't change in the same game?

I remember discussing this with a prominent inter county player when we were at uni. His response always stuck out to me. He said that he didn't care at all about in game consistency but rather that the ref got the decision correct. That way there'd be more game to game consistency over the course of the season and they wouldn't have to prepare for specific refs.

Who the alleged victims are... mods wouldn't appreciate it being posted.

I think they have instructed lawyers to go through social media and take people to task over putting 'names' out there.

Those WhatsApp messages, those that sourced and forwarded on would need to be careful I'd imagine

Its a criminal offence to disclose any information that can lead to the identification of a victim of a sexual offence.  Whilst I dont expect PSNI to start seizing phones of people forwarding Whatsapps etc I do know they are pretty stong on investigating anyone who posts names on X or Facebook or the like.

I'm no legal expert but surely the fact the Mrs has also been charged with aiding and abetting suggests there's a strong chance of a successful conviction?

He could end up in jail here. I think there is a strong chance he will.

The fact he was  charged suggests to  me that he will. 

Statistically there's more likelihood of you being convicted if you have been reported and prosecution decision issues to go by way of summons albeit the differences aren't startling in the grand scheme of things.  Statistics would show about 81% of charge sheet decisions result in successful prosecutions and about 89% of cases that go by way of summons do.

I think there is also an element of the nature of the rulebook itself.  The fundamental rules of for example association football haven't really been tweaked much over the years.  A few interpretations have but the rules themselves have remained pretty consistent.  Its the same in most sports.  In the GAA it seems like it changes on an annual basis. Sometimes only subtly yet those minor tweaks can have significant effects.

It can be hard for most people to keep up. I remember most of the Armagh fans around me being very curious why Armagh were awarded a penalty against Cavan when the foul was clearly outside the large square, it was due to it being a black card offence denial of goalscoring opportunity within the 21.

On top of that the association's approach to how to tweak rules has been inconsistent over the years with the make up of the relevant committees changing drastically over the years. As a result it can lead to questions over what is intended by some of the rules and the approach that should be used to interpreting them. The double bounce that wasn't a double bounce for that goal by Kerry v Dublin (i think it was last year) being a prime example.

Finally I don't think there's a permanent committee or person whose job it is to officially explain a decision or an interpretation the way there is in the NFL or association football.  I think someone like that would help as well

Donegal deserved to win but Armagh were awful. Falling back in to all the old habits I thought they had moved away from this year (Louth match excepted).

The manner of the defeat against a Donegal who will get much better is hard to take. I'd no longer be confident of an Ulster final let alone hoping for something more. 

having saw down Fermanagh and antrim they should be making it with bit to spare.

In fairness I was maybe a little raw after the match but I am not as confident as I was before yesterday