So what do ye think of the black card rule now?

[moysider]

The Black card was approved at Congress 3 or 4 months before the Cavanagh foul.
Why do people keep saying it was introduced because of Cavanagh ? ??

Maybe because it was the foul that black cards were supposed to punish. Not a lazy tackle or a tackle where a player feels hands on him and dives to the ground.

[RedHandTom]

Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies

[moysider]

Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies

I've no problem with the black card. It's the referees that seem to have the biggest problem getting used to it and implementing it consistently. And that is just any individual referee over different games, let along all refs. singing off the same hymn sheet.
It's becoming like rugby where different refs. referee the scrum and the breakdown differently and players adjust how they play to what they think the referee is going to punish or allow.

[westbound]

Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies

I've no problem with the black card. It's the referees that seem to have the biggest problem getting used to it and implementing it consistently. And that is just any individual referee over different games, let along all refs. singing off the same hymn sheet.
It's becoming like rugby where different refs. referee the scrum and the breakdown differently and players adjust how they play to what they think the referee is going to punish or allow.

I would argue it is many 'expert' analysts on tv who have the biggest problem getting used to it. Many of these 'experts' blatantly don't know the rules.
So many supporters at games don't know the rules either, hence nearly every free awarded you hear some eejits shouting black card!
In fairness to the refs, they know the rules, but I agree that the inconsistency is a problem. But it is virtually impossible to be consistent when you have to try and decide in a split second (with no  tv replays) the intention of the offender.

[AZOffaly]

Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies

I've no problem with the black card. It's the referees that seem to have the biggest problem getting used to it and implementing it consistently. And that is just any individual referee over different games, let along all refs. singing off the same hymn sheet.
It's becoming like rugby where different refs. referee the scrum and the breakdown differently and players adjust how they play to what they think the referee is going to punish or allow.

I would argue it is many 'expert' analysts on tv who have the biggest problem getting used to it. Many of these 'experts' blatantly don't know the rules.
So many supporters at games don't know the rules either, hence nearly every free awarded you hear some eejits shouting black card!
In fairness to the refs, they know the rules, but I agree that the inconsistency is a problem. But it is virtually impossible to be consistent when you have to try and decide in a split second (with no  tv replays) the intention of the offender.

I agree with this. It has become a self fulfilling prophesy. 'Experts' saying it is unworkable, and then making a balls of explaining what is and isn't a black card. Pressure mounts on refs. Refs then second guess every decision, which leads to inconsistency. Which then leads to it being unworkable. Q.E.D. 'Experts' can say they were right all along.

[J70]

I don't know why referees even bother. You have boys on here arguing and whining and disagreeing on fouls that they've seen three different ways in slow motion, yet there is non-stop crying about the decisions of referees who get one real time, split second, look at a particular foul, from who knows what angle, with who knows how many players in the way, with who knows what antics the players involved are up to or what intent is involved. And all of those factors are highly variable, which means the same foul two minutes later might not be seen in the same way by the same ref. Its no wonder soccer went the professional referee route. There is no sum you could pay me to convince me to carry out this thankless task that our games couldn't exist without.

[Fuzzman]

With it being so hard for refs to decide whether or not it was a cynical foul then there are going to be lots of mistakes made and in big matches this could be the difference to winning and losing. Can you imagine if the Dubs lost Rock to an early black card or Mayo lost CoC and how it would affect the game.

For argument sake lets say Lee Keegan gets out in front of Rock or Connolly and gets the ball. The forward puts his hand in to tackle and Keegan grabs his arm and throws himself to the ground. The ref who is miles away gives the free and a black card. The punishment is too much for the crime in my opinion.
If the black card was ONLY for very very obvious cynical play like an intentional foot trip or rugby tackle when the player has broke free of his man rather than a trip because their legs crossed each other or a foot trip because the offender was reaching for the ball and caught the player's leg.

I think most of us know the type of cynical fouls that we want the black card to stop but it is too wide in its scope in my opinion and so too often players are been removed from the field of play early in a match because they made a genuine mistake or silly tackle

[westbound]

With it being so hard for refs to decide whether or not it was a cynical foul then there are going to be lots of mistakes made and in big matches this could be the difference to winning and losing. Can you imagine if the Dubs lost Rock to an early black card or Mayo lost CoC and how it would affect the game.

For argument sake lets say Lee Keegan gets out in front of Rock or Connolly and gets the ball. The forward puts his hand in to tackle and Keegan grabs his arm and throws himself to the ground. The ref who is miles away gives the free and a black card. The punishment is too much for the crime in my opinion.
If the black card was ONLY for very very obvious cynical play like an intentional foot trip or rugby tackle when the player has broke free of his man rather than a trip because their legs crossed each other or a foot trip because the offender was reaching for the ball and caught the player's leg.

I think most of us know the type of cynical fouls that we want the black card to stop but it is too wide in its scope in my opinion and so too often players are been removed from the field of play early in a match because they made a genuine mistake or silly tackle

The black card is currently for intentional foot trips and is not for an accidental foot trip. That is the current rule.

[Fuzzman]

I know that Westbound but my point is it should need to be very obvious that the fouling player was trying to take his opponent down as opposed to reach out to tackle to win the ball.
Last year in the Ulster final McShane got a black card for a foot trip (we think) but it looked like he was trying to protect his face from a boot and there was no clear advantage from him doing that. I think most would have thought even a yellow card wasn't necessary as it didn't look like cynical play.

There was another incident last year when Johnny Cooper got a black card for a foot trip on a Mayo player I think around the 40 yard line. I think there were a few players on the ground and so no real advantage to the attacker yet Cooper pulled back his foot. In that incidence I thought a yellow would suffice but under the current law he got a black.

However, if a forward gets out in front of his man and wins the ball, turns his man but his man drags back his foot/leg and he falls then that is much more obvious of cynical play and that's what I'm saying people want to see the black card used for. I think ALL black cards decisions should be discussed first between the ref and his assistants to get a better consensus before making the call. It's a big deal to send someone off and so you should be pretty sure you're right before ending someone's game. I just think they are being handed out too easily and some of our games are being spoiled as we're losing our best players because of it.

[J70]

But if they have to be "very sure" then you'll have fans and pundits screaming about the ones where the slow motion replays show they erred in not issuing the card.

They can't win.

[Fuzzman]

Of course they're never always gonna get it right but I think the fact the black card is there at all now means players are a lot less likely to be cynical in their fouling. It certainly has cleaned up the 3rd man tackle or taking a runner out sort of tackle and you don't see as many rugby style drag a man down around the hips.
I think it has worked to a degree but where most people have a problem with it now is players getting a black card when a yellow would suffice but refs feel under pressure to give a black.

[magpie seanie]

Of course they're never always gonna get it right but I think the fact the black card is there at all now means players are a lot less likely to be cynical in their fouling. It certainly has cleaned up the 3rd man tackle or taking a runner out sort of tackle and you don't see as many rugby style drag a man down around the hips.
I think it has worked to a degree but where most people have a problem with it now is players getting a black card when a yellow would suffice but refs feel under pressure to give a black.

Some times a foul is just a foul. We've now developed this soccer culture of calling for cards after almost every foul (and I must admit to getting drawn into it myself on a few occasions). I've always opposed this rule but the biggest thing is the word "deliberate". I'm not someone who usually defends referees but how can you be a mind reader? A club mate of mine got a very harsh black card last week against Offaly. He did trip or pull down the player but he seemed to me to be genuinely trying to play the ball/dispossess the guy as he usually does (he's a particularly good, clean tackler) but when he didn't get the ball the player came down. I know the guy so perhaps that's why I'd give the benefit of the doubt but obviously the ref went the other way.

[Main Street]

If the aim is for refereeing perfection then a video ref would go a good way to achieving that.
In the time that Coldrick spent discussing with the umpire about McShane's hand trip in that Ulster final, a video ref in a Ford Transit van outside the ground could have told him, after viewing the replay from a different angle, that it was more likely McShane was protecting his face than indulging in dark art cynical fouling.
On the flip side, I could imagine Coldrick being way too slow and pedantic about receiving the assistance of the video ref.

[thewobbler]

The word deliberate should be removed.

Black cards should be used to stop opponents gaining an advantage from coughing up a "cute" free. The overwhelming majority of these instances are "lazy" fouls that kill momentum before it starts, or else trips designed to stop an attacker reaching a shooting position.

It's extremely difficult to judge these incidents when they involve a head-on tackle, as in many of these cases the foul is caused by trickery and movement, rather than a purposeful attempt to kill play by any means necessary.

Instead we should concentrate on fouls from behind.

So something along the lines of this would suffice:

"when tackling a player from behind (i.e. at an angle between 90 and 270 degrees from the direction of the attacker's movement), if the tackling action results in a technical foul that causes the ball carrier to trip or stumble, the tackler should be punished with a black card."

Simply put, if you choose to tackle a player from begin, don't foul him, or it's an early bath.

[DuffleKing]

Is it illegal to tackle an opponent from behind?