Donegal vs Armagh Ulster Championship 2022

[tonto1888]

I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.

The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)

On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....

The keeper didn't catch the ball. ONeill did.

[Cavan19]

Well lads should it have given as a goal?

[J70]

I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.

The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)

On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....

The keeper didn't catch the ball. ONeill did.

Great. The solicitors are going to parse the legal definition of "caught" now.

[David McKeown]

I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.

The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)

On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....

The keeper didn't catch the ball. ONeill did.

Great. The solicitors are going to parse the legal definition of "caught" now.

To me it looked like it bounced in and out of his hands. Besides is there not a definition of caught in the rule book to allow for marks.

[tyroneman]

I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.

The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)

On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....

The keeper didn't catch the ball. ONeill did.

Great. The solicitors are going to parse the legal definition of "caught" now.

To me it looked like it bounced in and out of his hands. Besides is there not a definition of caught in the rule book to allow for marks.

1. BOUNCE  For a player who has caught the ball to play the ball against the ground with his hand(s) and to catch it on return to his hand(s) again.

or 4.7 - To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts.

I'd say that could have given the ref leeway enough to call it a 'catch / caught' in this instance - ball was loose in the air and keeper got it into his hands = caught

[tyrone08]

I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.

The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)

On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....

The keeper didn't catch the ball. ONeill did.

Great. The solicitors are going to parse the legal definition of "caught" now.

To me it looked like it bounced in and out of his hands. Besides is there not a definition of caught in the rule book to allow for marks.

1. BOUNCE  For a player who has caught the ball to play the ball against the ground with his hand(s) and to catch it on return to his hand(s) again.

or 4.7 - To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts.

I'd say that could have given the ref leeway enough to call it a 'catch / caught' in this instance - ball was loose in the air and keeper got it into his hands = caught

Is the issue not how the ball ended up in the net. Rian didn't palm it in or kick it in so how does the goal count

[Armamike]

Genuinely as an armagh man watching the game live  in ballybofey  and actuallyclose to that end of the ground I thought it was a free out so I don't see the angst over it.

Armagh should be more concerned at the inept performance on the pitch and on the side line .
We were bullied across the pitch and in reality could have been beaten out the gate by half time.

Agreed,
I cannot understand the fuss over the goal - It might have kick-started a recovery but I doubt it. Armagh only played with intensity for 10 minutes at the start of the second half and didn't even manage to score a single point during that period of pressure. It was a 7 point hammering.

Truth be told, Armagh scoring has been on a downward trajectory from the first two league games and they are back to the kind of slow approach play and caution that we seen pre-2021.

Thought the same myself in real time.  Immediate instinct was that you can't touch the goalie, free out.  It's neither here nor there though.  We weren't at the races. 

[David McKeown]

I just wonder how much in depth knowledge of the rule book do pundits and commentators actually have.

The amount of bullsh*t reasons given, since introduction, for a black card needing issued are astonishing (and continue to be uttered)

On Sunday, not 1 in the 'studio' or commentating on BBC even suggested that the free might have been for a foul under 4.8 "To wrest the ball from an opponent who has caught the ball" ..not even mentioning that as a possibility and then discounting it....

The keeper didn't catch the ball. ONeill did.

Great. The solicitors are going to parse the legal definition of "caught" now.

To me it looked like it bounced in and out of his hands. Besides is there not a definition of caught in the rule book to allow for marks.

1. BOUNCE  For a player who has caught the ball to play the ball against the ground with his hand(s) and to catch it on return to his hand(s) again.

or 4.7 - To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts.

I'd say that could have given the ref leeway enough to call it a 'catch / caught' in this instance - ball was loose in the air and keeper got it into his hands = caught

I was using bounce in the ordinary context. Surely for it to be a catch there must be an element of control otherwise you'd have far more marks given under contested high balls.

It seems to me that there are too broad schools of thought on the incident.

One there was no foul and the goal should have stood. I subscribe to that school of thought as do others.

Two there was definitely a foul but it can't be agreed wether it was for charging (which I can understand but don't agree with it) whether it was a foul on the keeper (which I don't see) or for how the ball ended up in the net which to me looks like it's actually put in the net by a Donegal player.

How In those circumstances it can be stated that 99/100 refs would award a foul I don't know but what I do know is the 1 ref that mattered adjudged it a foul and we may never know why.

[Milltown Row2]

Not that the keeper clearly had both hands securely on the ball and it was clearly ripped out?

[David McKeown]

Sorry having looked at that again you may be right although it seems like his arms go over O'Neills shoulders. I also can't see a rip as such. I don't think it's the clearest though. I also think the whistle has already gone before that. I just find it interesting that there seems to be no clear consensus about what the foul is amongst those who think there is a foul. Anyway at least it didn't matter and it wasn't the reason I thought Deegan had a poor game.

[An Watcher]

Jesus, still on about the goal!!!

[LeoMc]

Jesus, still on about the goal!!!

It is the only place they can match Tyrone.

[Applesisapples]

Having now watched the game back I stand by my initial comments. Armagh we're very poor and Donegal we're very good and deserved to win comfortably. Deegan had a very poor game. I see no foul in the build up to the goal. The ball to me seems to bounce out of the keepers hands as much as it is taken out. It then seems to go in off the keeper.

The McHugh decision was soft as well. Whether that would have made a difference or not we will never know. But we do know though is that ultimately Donegal we're the far better side yesterday.

It's not the big decisions that annoyed me with Deegan's performance yesterday. It's the smaller things. A lot of this may be down to loss aversion as humans tend to put far more weight on the things that go against them rather than what goes for them but Deegan seemed to give Donegal their frees far more easily but also played advantage to Donegal far more. It seemed like similar tackles were not being refereed in similar ways.

I think what most drew my ire were four incidents. Two in each half. In the first half one of the Donegal midfielders was pushed out over the sideline. A free was correctly awarded. Before it was taken there was some pushing and shoving for the ball and the referee immediately indicated an advantage before Donegal even took the kick. I can't fathom what kind of advantage he thought he was playing. Shortly after there was a swarm tackle situation. As the whistle blew Rian O'Neill won the ball and played a quick pass. Now the whistle had gone but Deegan hadn't indicated which way the free had been awarded (and it wasn't obvious) and O'Neill had his back to him. Deegan moved the free up.

In the second half Deegan warned the Donegal keeper several times to hurry up then did nothing and let him take his time. Finally the incident that annoyed me most was when he awarded a hop ball following what I thought was a foul by an Armagh player. Now either it was a foul and was a free out or the defender fell on the ball and touched it on the ground and should have been in a free in.  Before the hop ball was taken both teams made a substitution. Before the departing players left the field Deegan restarted the match. The sideline official ran on and told the Armagh sub to come off but didn't go after the Donegal sub. As a result Donegal had sixteen men on the field. They won the hop ball went up the pitch and won a free that Murphy ultimately scored. All with 16 men on the pitch.

Those little things can cumulatively be very frustrating for a supporter. They can impact the flow and momentum of a match.

For me Deegan had a poor game which thankfully didn't impact the result although I appreciate it's a very difficult job. I agree with Oisin that we should at least trial two referees at senior inter county level.

On the current Armagh squad I think it's as strong as it has been in 15 years. It may lack the top drawer player with the exception of O'Neill but conversely I think the average standard is better with maybe 22 or 23 players who are decent but not spectacular inter county footballers. I also think they are a young team and with the manager can improve.

I've also said I think they are closer to the top table than they have been since 2005 but I think a lot of that has been down to other teams coming back to them as much as it's been them catching up.

It's good that you can re watch the game back under the comfort of the settee, be able to stop rewind the action, having many camera angles and no tension confusion and other distractions around you.

The ref has one opportunity to carry out his duties under the microscope of thousands of supporters at the ground, the players and managers.

Did you manage to watch all the handling errors wrong decision the players made and poor tactics the managers made?

David makes a lot of sense when assessing the Armagh performance. Deegan had a poor day notwithstanding that I agree with you that Refs have to make on the spot decisions and they don't have the benefit of differing angles. What annoys me with Deegan and a number of other refs is the inconsistency. if a ref is consistent then there can be no complaints and as happens in Rugby players learn to play the way a referee tends to ref a game. I don't see that in football or hurling. Linesmen and umpires should be trained to assist and given more responsibility. Trained linesmen who are not competing for matches with the ref would help. There are enough decent refs out there who's fitness levels don't match the standard for inter county ref who could do an excellent job in this role. Too much is left to just one person when the ball is in play.
Oh and on the goal on first viewing on tv my reaction was no goal but possibly a penalty, I thought O'Neill was fouled. that said best team won at a canter. Forker is no defender and in my view deserved red for punching.

[Milltown Row2]

But they can't ref at that level without passing the fitness test, which is a high enough bar to be fair, they also have the rules test, which again the pass rate is late 90'!

The inconsistency or consistency you are getting or looking for is impossible as the game has so many different variables to rugby and cannot be used as an example, the rules are straight forward and the game is played at a 10th of the pace , the referee is literally 2 meters from play, again impossible for our games.

You mentioned players learning how a ref plays his game and learning from his pattern of play, that is a must for any decent player or manager worth his salt to understand, if a player goes in blindly to how a ref approaches a game then I find that daft..

Some ref's give extra steps in a tackle, some blow for the slightest touch and others forget their cards and don't mind a little hustle in the tackle, other refs are very rulesy and you need to know that .

[David McKeown]

But they can't ref at that level without passing the fitness test, which is a high enough bar to be fair, they also have the rules test, which again the pass rate is late 90'!

The inconsistency or consistency you are getting or looking for is impossible as the game has so many different variables to rugby and cannot be used as an example, the rules are straight forward and the game is played at a 10th of the pace , the referee is literally 2 meters from play, again impossible for our games.

You mentioned players learning how a ref plays his game and learning from his pattern of play, that is a must for any decent player or manager worth his salt to understand, if a player goes in blindly to how a ref approaches a game then I find that daft..

Some ref's give extra steps in a tackle, some blow for the slightest touch and others forget their cards and don't mind a little hustle in the tackle, other refs are very rulesy and you need to know that .

I think this comes back to what do you look for in a ref. Some have no issues with refs who consistently allow extra steps or consistently allow borderline fouls to go unpunished. Others I've spoken to including inter county players prefer referees who make the odd mistake but try to ref in the same way as all the others.