This is up on the UTV website and Logie did a piece about it on TV this afternoon.
Martin Cole gets four week suspension
Problems are mounting for Down ahead of Saturday`s Ulster championship replay with Tyrone in Newry.
Down defender Martin Cole has been handed a four week suspension arising out of a second half incident with Tyrone`s Davy Harte.
Harte had his nose broken when Cole lashed back.
He was given a yellow card by referee David Coldrick but the disciplinary committee have handed the player a four week suspension as a result.
If Down win on Saturday it means he will also miss the Ulster semi-final.
f**king joke, :o he had possesion of the ball and went to shrug Harte off, it was nt intentional, a disgrace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does anyone agree that this trial by Television has become ridiculous?. I certainly think it has.
if true its a fuckin disgrace, he shrugged off the tackle, no intent watsoever. sure he got booked for it, thought there could be nothin done when ref takes action. complete sham!!! :o
Quote from: Onlooker on June 11, 2008, 05:42:40 PM
Does anyone agree that this trial by Television has become ridiculous?. I certainly think it has.
it definately has! sure them cnuts on sunday game try and say it was as bad as Docs thump the week before! anyone that even thinks of comparing them needs their head examined!!
Quote from: bridgegael on June 11, 2008, 05:47:28 PM
if true its a fuckin disgrace, he shrugged off the tackle, no intent watsoever. sure he got booked for it, thought there could be nothin done when ref takes action. complete sham!!! :o
apparently if the ref books the player at the time of the incident, they then can be asked to review the footage later and are then asked if they think they took adequate action at the time, if they say no I think the CCCC come in to deal with it, think I read it in the Irish News this week?
Have to take the same view as 'brigegael' on this one, this is going to open the floodgates for suspensions by these dickheads in high places,the player was dealt with at the time by the ref & now they undermine his authority by handing out this punishment. Will they be looking at every tackle now to try & hand out retrospective suspensions?
Although I am shooting us in the foot here, is this not the same situation as Ricey's foul back in 05 that ended up with a successful appeal? Was this put into place in the aftermath of that?
Was this the shrug off that Tony Davis was highlighting on "The Sunday Game". The comparison of this to Fergal Doherty's punch the week before was a joke, two completely different scenarios. When the ball is there and in play more toleration is generally (rightly) given to any loose arms unless there's obvious intent. There was no obvious intent and to compare it to Doherty's punch off the ball last week was just plain stupid.
correct deciision in my view at least we're getting a bit of consistency now.
Quote from: bridgegael on June 11, 2008, 05:47:28 PM
if true its a fuckin disgrace, he shrugged off the tackle, no intent watsoever. sure he got booked for it, thought there could be nothin done when ref takes action. complete sham!!! :o
Sorry, whatever about the dubious mechanics of this suspension, but that's total bollix; he knew exactly where his elbow was going.
what is this consisten with?
This is an absolute disgrace yes he should have got a yellow card for carelessness more than anything by throwing the arm baack to shrug off the tackle, but there's no way there was any intent to break hartes nose, trial by television what a fuckin joke the game getting more professional every year I wonder how long it will be before they start fining the players when they get yellow carded or sent off!!!
FREE THE ROSTREVOR 1
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 11, 2008, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: bridgegael on June 11, 2008, 05:47:28 PM
if true its a fuckin disgrace, he shrugged off the tackle, no intent watsoever. sure he got booked for it, thought there could be nothin done when ref takes action. complete sham!!! :o
Sorry, whatever about the dubious mechanics of this suspension, but that's total bollix; he knew exactly where his elbow was going.
the back of his hand hit him not his elbow
Quote from: superblues on June 11, 2008, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 11, 2008, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: bridgegael on June 11, 2008, 05:47:28 PM
if true its a fuckin disgrace, he shrugged off the tackle, no intent watsoever. sure he got booked for it, thought there could be nothin done when ref takes action. complete sham!!! :o
Sorry, whatever about the dubious mechanics of this suspension, but that's total bollix; he knew exactly where his elbow was going.
the back of his hand hit him not his elbow
Sorry, more tat: I was very close to the incident, and it was no 'back of a hand'. You don't throw an elbow to 'shrug off a tackle'.
Cole lashed out with intent, I wouldn't know how much but it wasn't all good.
He looked to have retaliated to a heavy enough punch from Harte, therefore the yellow from the ref on the spot was about right.
I thought he made contact with his fist or hand.
This is being done for consistency - which is good to see.
Whilst it didn't appear as bad because it happened during play, rather than a break in play, it was obviously intentional, and them's the rules. Also, it did appear a lot worse second time around, when slowed down a bit.
If the Ref. had blown Harte up for hanging on to Cole this incident would not have occured. Disgraceful decision to suspend, there was clearly no intent. Wonder if Dublin, Kerry or Cork would be treated in the same manner, if the past is anything to go by we know the answer.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 11, 2008, 07:48:16 PM
If the Ref. had blown Harte up for hanging on to Cole this incident would not have occured. Disgraceful decision to suspend, there was clearly no intent. Wonder if Dublin, Kerry or Cork would be treated in the same manner, if the past is anything to go by we know the answer.
So why did his hand go up? It's clearly not as serious as a strike when play is stopped, but if the opposition kept hanging off him, he'd have been awarded a free.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 11, 2008, 06:59:42 PM
Quote from: superblues on June 11, 2008, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 11, 2008, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: bridgegael on June 11, 2008, 05:47:28 PM
if true its a fuckin disgrace, he shrugged off the tackle, no intent watsoever. sure he got booked for it, thought there could be nothin done when ref takes action. complete sham!!! :o
Sorry, whatever about the dubious mechanics of this suspension, but that's total bollix; he knew exactly where his elbow was going.
the back of his hand hit him not his elbow
Sorry, more tat: I was very close to the incident, and it was no 'back of a hand'. You don't throw an elbow to 'shrug off a tackle'.
you may have been close to the incident, if it had have been an elbow his arm would have been bent and not fully stretched. it wa the back of his hand that made contact with harte, watch it back on tv if you don't believe me. he shrugged the tackle off, this happens all over the field it was just unfortunate that he mad contact with his nose1
OK bridgegael, I haven't seen the replay, and it looked bad to me at the time, I didn't think his arm was fully extended.
Either way, this is a precedent (with Derry's Doherty) that will have to be adhered to strictly from here onwards -- the Committee will have to review every game from here onwards, regardless of who's involved, and regardless of the pontifications of any pundits. And if it is a zero-tolerance policy, then that's to be welcomed, but it must be absolutely beyond reproach in its execution.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 11, 2008, 08:51:40 PM
OK bridgegael, I haven't seen the replay, and it looked bad to me at the time, I didn't think his arm was fully extended.
Either way, this is a precedent (with Derry's Doherty) that will have to be adhered to strictly from here onwards -- the Committee will have to review every game from here onwards, regardless of who's involved, and regardless of the pontifications of any pundits. And if it is a zero-tolerance policy, then that's to be welcomed, but it must be absolutely beyond reproach in its execution.
Exactly. they have set a precedent now and they must stick by it, otherwise stay out of it altogether.
Fear ón Srath Bán, can I tell you something.
Fearghal Doherty was involved in a clearcut, off-the-ball striking incident, in which his intent to strike an opponent was obvious. but as the referee didn't see it he got off with it. For then.
Martin Cole was involved in a ball-carrying incident in which he used his arm to gain leverage. Unfortunately his opponent got hurt, but there is absolutely no way to prove intent. It was a natural reaction to a footballing situation. This is born out by the tame reaction of Harte and his teammates to the incident. And in this instance, the referee had a full view of the situation and meted out a punishment accordingly.
If you can't see that there is a world of difference between these two incidents, then i'm sorry, but you don't have a fiucking clue.
Where am I equating the two incidents? Rather, the equation here is that the Committee has sat in judgement after the game, to deal with an incident that was deemed (by them) to have been dealt with either too lightly or not at all by the referee at the time.
Quote from: thewobbler on June 11, 2008, 09:05:49 PM
...then i'm sorry, but you don't have a fiucking clue.
Totally beside the point ;)
Ah feck - apologies, I read you wrong.
Anyway, they are not being consistent here. The ref saw the incident, awarded a free and penalised the player.
They surely cannot go down the road of analysing normal game incidents. Where do they stop - after they have awarded post-match black ticks to every defender in Ireland for shirt holding?
Whether the decision is right or wrong, RTE and their analysts must now stop showing these incidents ( and spending as much time as full game highlights ).
Trial by media that has gone nuts. This also stops referees being brave enough to make tough calls as this committee will have to remain consistent and intervene until the end of the championship.
Whether it was intentional or not, this is a VERY dangerous precedent to set and I'd imagine that this will cause a lot of controversy during the rest of the year - personsally I think this is very harsh.
Quote from: thewobbler on June 11, 2008, 09:16:59 PM
Anyway, they are not being consistent here. The ref saw the incident, awarded a free and penalised the player.
They surely cannot go down the road of analysing normal game incidents. Where do they stop - after they have awarded post-match black ticks to every defender in Ireland for shirt holding?
Agreed, though I'd say the specific criterion/directive they were working on here was that it was a red cardable offence (rightly or wrongly) that was missed, and that
is dangerous, because no game in this Championship should now escape such scrutiny, otherwise they have indeed reacted to media pressure from self-appointed judges. Down have every right to feel deeply aggrieved.
who will replace cole now??harsh decision
The post match discipline procedure in soccer is more realistic and less big brother.
There was an excellent ref in Omagh, he saw enough of the incident to give a yellow. Now we have suits from a distance overseeing his decisions made in a game and over ruling his decisions made in a game.
Where will this end?
In one way it does take the pressure of the ref not to give a red during a game. But i'd prefer to go with the conventional - if the ref sees it and deals with it then that should be it for better or for worse.
Main Street is completely right. Everyone has been operating on the basis that a decision taken by a referee after seeing an incident resolved the matter. If the incident was off the ball, and the referee did not see it, then a suspension could follow as a result of video evidence. The referee in Omagh saw that Cole took a fairly heavy tackle from Harte, allowed Down the advantage as Cole ran on, saw Cole's elbow go out and judged that it was a yellow card offence. If this intervention from Croke Park is to be upheld, then every yellow card could be upgraded to a later suspension and chaos will follow.
Cole will have to appeal and I wonder if Fergal Logan will end up acting for him. It is also worth pointing out that Cole had a fine disciplinary record at county level over many years. I don't think he has ever had a red card in a Down jersey.
I agree that the use of the elbow needs to be taken seriously, but a referee standing beside an incident must be allowed to rule whether it merits a yellow or a red. I cannot see how any other approach can be sustained.
Harsh decision. I'd say Harte's injury was a main reason for the verdict. If Davy'd been clamped further down and just came out with a fat lip and didn't go off, there'd have been nowt done.
you could get twice the belt in a minor club game and no more would be said. not condoning elbows to the face but are we going down the bath of eliminating the physicality of the game like some have said?
Quote from: thewobbler on June 11, 2008, 09:05:49 PM
Fear ón Srath Bán, can I tell you something.
Fearghal Doherty was involved in a clearcut, off-the-ball striking incident, in which his intent to strike an opponent was obvious. but as the referee didn't see it he got off with it. For then.
Martin Cole was involved in a ball-carrying incident in which he used his arm to gain leverage. Unfortunately his opponent got hurt, but there is absolutely no way to prove intent. It was a natural reaction to a footballing situation. This is born out by the tame reaction of Harte and his teammates to the incident. And in this instance, the referee had a full view of the situation and meted out a punishment accordingly.
If you can't see that there is a world of difference between these two incidents, then i'm sorry, but you don't have a fiucking clue.
thats some joke...he did what most players do at club level and get away with it...he threw his arm/elbow back with intent to hit the tyrone player because he was holding his jumper...because he did not look back to see where he was going to hit is the players fault. Very deliberate aggressive foul.
Quote from: dodgy umpire on June 11, 2008, 10:50:25 PM
you could get twice the belt in a minor club game and no more would be said. not condoning elbows to the face but are we going down the bath of eliminating the physicality of the game like some have said?
talking shite...it was dirty play...plain and simple
i dare say if davy harte was hangin off ur jersey youd try to shake him off. had cole stopped, chucked the ball away, turned around and aimed for his nose with his elbow i could see where your coming from. unless he has eyes on the back of his head id contest his ability to deliberatly break his nose
You could see it in his eyes. HIS EYES!
I thought the discussion was on cole and the alledged 4 week suspension !
where does Tyrone bandwagon come into it ?
Quote from: dodgy umpire on June 11, 2008, 10:57:43 PM
i dare say if davy harte was hangin off ur jersey youd try to shake him off. had cole stopped, chucked the ball away, turned around and aimed for his nose with his elbow i could see where your coming from. unless he has eyes on the back of his head id contest his ability to deliberatly break his nose
thats a different story now then dodgy umpire. He didnt mean to deliberatley do it. The appeal should be straight forward then ::)
As a rule I'm loathe to agree with Max I'd indeed anyone from the inbred red hands. However in this case Cole threw his arm out at head height and connected with a man's nose. As we are told in many sports "if you raise your hands you're in trouble'. He did so now he's in trouble.
I also don't accept this 'shrugging him off' caper. A man of Cole's size was well capable of leaning his shoulder across Harte to either shrug him off or get his own free. I don't think he intentionally struck, he just made a bad decision in the heat of battle. He should take his punishment and get on with it.
it's as clear a case as any of the others in my view. you can't swing back like that, i don't believe he meant to break his nose but there are more conventional ways of freeing yourself and i believe the ban is merited on that basis. you can't let that go.
Quote from: Bensars on June 11, 2008, 11:02:46 PM
I thought the discussion was on cole and the alledged 4 week suspension !
where does Tyrone bandwagon come into it ?
Quote from: dodgy umpire on June 11, 2008, 10:57:43 PM
i dare say if davy harte was hangin off ur jersey youd try to shake him off. had cole stopped, chucked the ball away, turned around and aimed for his nose with his elbow i could see where your coming from. unless he has eyes on the back of his head id contest his ability to deliberatly break his nose
thats a different story now then dodgy umpire. He didnt mean to deliberatley do it. The appeal should be straight forward then ::)
not sure i completly follow?
That decision is absolute horseshit....Harte was pulling and dragging and stopping Cole from moving forward- the arm (not elbow) was to shrug off (most players on here will agree to this) Harte from halting him further as it was clear up until then Cole wasnt getting a free. Unfortunate incident and nasty injury but imo an accident. To be fair to Cole- how could he tell where Harte's head was? Cole is not the sort to get involved in shite like that- even though previous record etc doesnt come into something like this! Terrible decision- where will they draw the line? If the Meath Dublin row and Fergal Doc had not happened then i doubt we would be discussing this! How does the ccc justify this sort of decision when Geraghty for example was not investigated last year after he hit his man a sneaky and very deliberate box when he went down for a ball? Absolute jokers the whole lot of them. They are going to make a mess of the entire championship if they continue their crusade! Are they going to ensure all chamionship games are televised? Will they decide to deal with incidents depending on the 'experts' views on the sunday game?
well said!
colm o rourke would ban every player north of louth
I'll have to watch the incident again but I thought Harte was after giving Cole a good box in the ribs when he swung back.Should action be taken against Harte or is Cole being victimized just because Harte suffered a bad injury caused by something that happens countless times during a game but usually just gives a black mark somewhere
I did watch it again, and Cole reacted to a mother of a punch to the chest from Harte while he (Cole) was in possession of the ball. It is unfortunate that Harte got the injury he did, as clearly Cole was lashing back had not sight of Harte's head. If Harte had got a bloody lip and played on, there would have been no suspension. The Committee are reacting to the extent of the accidental injury instead of the fouls committed by both players.
Quote from: western exile on June 12, 2008, 01:34:50 AM
The Committee are reacting to the extent of the accidental injury instead of the fouls committed by both players.
I agree with Western Exile. It's the broken nose that got him suspended. We just have to accept it and move on. I hope they don't decide to appeal but that has never been Down's style.
Absolute disgrace lads! This is going to ruin our championship this year! It seems that someone will get suspened after every game. Cole was the man in possession. He is only banned because Harte broke his nose! Dan Gordon broke his thumb can they not use video evedience to suspend someone from Tyrone for this?
Quote from: Lecale2 on June 12, 2008, 08:05:13 AM
Quote from: western exile on June 12, 2008, 01:34:50 AM
The Committee are reacting to the extent of the accidental injury instead of the fouls committed by both players.
I agree with Western Exile. It's the broken nose that got him suspended. We just have to accept it and move on. I hope they don't decide to appeal but that has never been Down's style.
Short memory my good man. Does the name Ross Carr ring any bells?
Or if they do decide to appeal, they could use the "It was an off the record incident and not meant to appear in any national media outlet" defence.
It would appear, that like 2003 and 2005, Tyrone seem to be benefitting from any 'disciplinary' procedures that the GAA have in place.
Whilst the procedure is unprecedented and the suspension harsh, I think that both can be justified, although Harte's role should also be subject to scutiny, as was the case, for example with Paddy 'Ball Grabber" Campbell and Enda Muldoon from a few years back.
The most questionable incident of the whole game is one that no-one has mentioned here. As Ambrose Rogers scored the second Down goal, a heroic Tyrone defender (no. 7) can clearly be seen trying to stick the boot in him. This cowardly action is worthy of at least a three month ban. I think we need a citing commissioner for all these games. I am available for this job.
monk didnt even know anything about the ban until he seen it on the news
Quote from: Mickey Linden on June 12, 2008, 08:20:06 AM
Absolute disgrace lads! This is going to ruin our championship this year! It seems that someone will get suspened after every game. Cole was the man in possession. He is only banned because Harte broke his nose! Dan Gordon broke his thumb can they not use video evedience to suspend someone from Tyrone for this?
This is getting out of hand. The suits will be looking to ban somebody after every match - gaelic football will soon be a non contact sport if the suits get their way.
SS2 you should stick to sorting Antrims problems out as by each week they become bigger and bigger
Quote from: Mickey Linden on June 12, 2008, 08:20:06 AM
Absolute disgrace lads! This is going to ruin our championship this year! It seems that someone will get suspened after every game. Cole was the man in possession. He is only banned because Harte broke his nose! Dan Gordon broke his thumb can they not use video evedience to suspend someone from Tyrone for this?
sure stick your head in the sand and pretent Cole did not very aggressively through his fore arm back...naw it never happened...I didn't see it because my rose tinted coloured glasses were in the way of my eyes :D
I think Cole was very harsly dealt with here, there was no intent.
He was lucky to stay on the field for an incident a few minutes later. He was coming out of defence with the ball a used a hand off in the face of an on coming Tyrone played lifting the Tyrone man clean off his feet. Another yellow in my book, I was screaming for him to be taken off before he got sent off.
Quote from: amallon on June 12, 2008, 09:08:06 AM
I think Cole was very harsly dealt with here, there was no intent.
He was lucky to stay on the field for an incident a few minutes later. He was coming out of defence with the ball a used a hand off in the face of an on coming Tyrone played lifting the Tyrone man clean off his feet. Another yellow in my book, I was screaming for him to be taken off before he got sent off.
Now that takes the biscuit FFS
My take on it was that firstly I did think Harte gave Cole a right good dig with a closed fist and it was this that caused Cole to react. I think the ref should have blown Hartes indiscretion because it was severe enough to warrant a ticking and it wasn't as if Cole had some major advantage by letting play go on.
I'm afraid I disagree with the majority on Coles actions tho. There is a difference in shrugging a fella off with your arm which I think is what most people are refferring to here and what happens an awful lot. That is much more of a push off but in this case Cole definitely swung at Harte and no matter where he hit him it was never going to have the affect of "shrugging him off". In this case I really thought there was a bit more intent in the swing made by Cole (obvioulsy not to break Hartes nose but to hit him rather than shrug him off) That all being said I thought the ref issuing the yellow was sufficient punishment and I'm amazed the hierarchy have intervened. If this is the standard they are in for a long summer!!
1. harte gave cole a right good dig in the ribs with the closed fist, this is plain for all to see. as far as i know a strike with the closed fist warrants a month suspension. now that we are following the exact letter of the law in suspending cole im sure we will see equal treatment regarding the strike by harte. (couldnt see it though)
i cant believe none of the commentators even mentioned the punch by harte.
2. saffron sam is right about the sighting officer. it is used to good effect in the aussie rules. would cut out any off the ball stuff.
Maximus - Whats wrong with what I said? It my opinion and judging by the comments on this thread a large percentage of the people here think it was accidental, more clumsy than anything. I still think he should have walked for the "arm off" then the "hand off" into the face a few minutes later.
amallon..there was nothing accidental in throwing his forearm back...infact it was deliberate. I have no doubt he did not mean to break the guys nose...but to suggest that his arm being thrown back was accidental is just simply ludicrous
Max - Read back through the thread I think you are in the minority on this one be it a fairly decent sized minority.
amallon...if you read my posts, no where have I said he should be suspended....my posts have been in respect of many who are in denial of the fact that his use of his fore arm was deliberate. Personally I feel that the ref dealt with and that should be the end of it...but you can thank the Tyrone County board for their unwillingness to accept suspensions back in 2005 for the reason this new rule was introduced...
We will have to agree to disagree, I thought it was a shrug off.
I'm a neutral as regards the result of this tie, but I think this suspension is a disgrace. Coles arm was being impeded (not necessarily illegally) and he threw back his arm to shrug off the player. Theres four or five of these incidents in every game, sometimes the arm connects, sometimes not - in this case it connected with hartes face, so depending on interpretation ref could well give a yellow card for it, as he did, end of. Usually theres no penalty. There certainly shouldnt be a ban, it wasnt a deliberate attempt to elbow harte in the face.
And that 'by the letter of the law' stuff is rubbish - it doesn't and can't ever apply to gaelic football. FFS our tackle is a series of 'by the letter of the law' strikes to the opponents body!
I'm telling you - soon gaelic football will be non contact !
has it def been confirmed that monk's got a 4 week ban!! it's an absolute joke and a disgrace if he gets a ban!!
lads should we accept that it is OK to hit some one in the haed either by accident or intentional...forget about this particular incident...as a rule of thumb is it OK or NOT
personally i think cole is very hard done by. the hand off by way of giving yourself forward momentum is a very natural movement in gaelic football when a ball carrier is under pressure. rarely does it result in a free but if the tackler is caught high (usually when he's smaller) it can look worse than its intended. yellow card was a fair adjudication for this one.
interestingly, going by the technicalities posted on the other thread, the ref has obviously looked at the video evidence and communicated to the powers that be that he should have sent cole off. that being the case, i'd worry about colderick's understanding of the natural flow of the game.
on a lighter note, this gave me a good laugh -
Quote from: Lecale2 on June 12, 2008, 08:05:13 AM
I hope they don't decide to appeal but that has never been Down's style.
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on June 12, 2008, 10:40:21 AM
lads should we accept that it is OK to hit some one in the haed either by accident or intentional...forget about this particular incident...as a rule of thumb is it OK or NOT
Max thats silly. there are hundreds of accidental collisons in every high intensity game. intent is a very big part of the rules of any contact sport and a referee's ability to ready that is very often the benchmark for hi overall refereeing
Quote from: Uladh on June 12, 2008, 10:43:22 AM
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on June 12, 2008, 10:40:21 AM
lads should we accept that it is OK to hit some one in the haed either by accident or intentional...forget about this particular incident...as a rule of thumb is it OK or NOT
Max thats silly. there are hundreds of accidental collisons in every high intensity game. intent is a very big part of the rules of any contact sport and a referee's ability to ready that is very often the benchmark for hi overall refereeing
perhaps, but it is but the inference here is that it is Ok to hit some one on the head if unintentional....surely if you throw your arm back during a game and are not sure where it is going to hit you have to bear the responsability if it hits someone in the face and break their nose.
its ok to hit someone once its not on television and the Sunday Game analysts have no other controversy to talk about.
Each situation must be judged on its merits - thats why we have referees. Broken nose or not, i don't believe cole's intention was to strike harte. that said, his flailing action could be interpreted as dangerous so a yellow card.
Maximus, you are entitled to take a hard stance on this. But if you choose to do so, you should be (or at least attempt to be) consistent and fair. If you criticise Cole for his reaction, you must also criticise Harte for the original strike with intent! I hope your head was not buried in the sand for that one ;)
I don't hear you shouting for a suspension for Harte :-\ It is most unfortunate that Harte came off the worse, injury wise, and we all hope he makes a speedy return to football, however that does not excuse him of his illegal strike on Cole.
Quote from: cornafean on June 12, 2008, 11:03:48 AM
its ok to hit someone once its not on television and the Sunday Game analysts have no other controversy to talk about.
But this game wasn't live on any channel !
Quote from: western exile on June 12, 2008, 11:33:27 AM
Maximus, you are entitled to take a hard stance on this. But if you choose to do so, you should be (or at least attempt to be) consistent and fair. If you criticise Cole for his reaction, you must also criticise Harte for the original strike with intent! I hope your head was not buried in the sand for that one ;)
I don't hear you shouting for a suspension for Harte :-\ It is most unfortunate that Harte came off the worse, injury wise, and we all hope he makes a speedy return to football, however that does not excuse him of his illegal strike on Cole.
auld hand let me tell you something...you didn't hear shouting that Cole should be suspended either...but saying as your a bit doppy, here i have posted it for you ;)
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on June 12, 2008, 10:12:18 AM
amallon...if you read my posts, no where have I said he should be suspended....my posts have been in respect of many who are in denial of the fact that his use of his fore arm was deliberate. Personally I feel that the ref dealt with and that should be the end of it...but you can thank the Tyrone County board for their unwillingness to accept suspensions back in 2005 for the reason this new rule was introduced...
ah for the want of a brain :P
The real issue is not whether Cole fouled or not.
The Ref saw it full on, he gave a yellow, the matter should be left at that.
The issue here is that there is no need for more referees in the game to judge the same incident.
Hindsight is wonderfull ::)
and throw in a medical report into the mix.
There is a case for other incidents not dealt with by the ref to be brought to the CCCC.
I´d say the vast majority are happy enough when a good ref keeps up with the game, spots the incidents and applies the law.
I need a brain, and you need a heart ;D
The Coldrick and the Committee need some courage, instead of bowing to outside pressures.
Where is the wizard when you need him ???
Sorry, Max for inadvertently accusing you of shouting for suspensions. My main point to you was to be consistent. The vibe of your posts, whether intentional or not, was on an anti Cole bias and Harte was an angel.
Quote from: orangeman on June 12, 2008, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: cornafean on June 12, 2008, 11:03:48 AM
its ok to hit someone once its not on television and the Sunday Game analysts have no other controversy to talk about.
But this game wasn't live on any channel !
What has that to do with anything? It wasn't until 10pm on Sunday night that one of the Sunday Game panelists made a big fuss of the incident.
QuoteWill they be looking at every tackle now to try & hand out retrospective suspensions?
Certainly hope so, then he could give that free to McComiskey near the end which he should have and there would be no need for a replay.
Do you know what I think happened here. It happened infront of the Ulster counsil officials who were sitting and standing over a bit from me. They would have had the same view as our Strabane friend who posted earlier and he said he it looked bad. Now I think that these Ulster Council half wits are the ones who pushed it.
Regardless of what Cole did, the fact remains that it was dealt with by the referee at the time.
This sets a very dangerous precedent. Who decided to ask the referee to "have another look"? Was is Coldrick's final decision to upgrade the yellow to a red? If not, then we have problem. We can't have matches being re-refereed by committees just because somebody spotted something on the Sunday Game or read about it in the paper the next day.
I know this might smack of bias, but in the wake of last week's attack on referees by TV pundits, surely the GAA should be supporting their refs and not trying to emasculate them in this way.
QuoteDo you know what I think happened here. It happened infront of the Ulster counsil officials who were sitting and standing over a bit from me. They would have had the same view as our Strabane friend who posted earlier and he said he it looked bad. Now I think that these Ulster Council half wits are the ones who pushed it.
Not likely is one of them was Danny Murphy.
He does not run the Ulster Council you will find ;D
may be it has been mentioned in earlier posts but if you can hand out a ban after the ref only seen it as a yellow what about the meath player who committed the dirtest elbow i have seen in a long time?why does he get away with that?what doc did was wrong,what cole did was wrong but fcuk me that was gbh in comparason
Quote from: Drumanee 1 on June 12, 2008, 04:34:39 PM
may be it has been mentioned in earlier posts but if you can hand out a ban after the ref only seen it as a yellow what about the meath player who committed the dirtest elbow i have seen in a long time?why does he get away with that?what doc did was wrong,what cole did was wrong but fcuk me that was gbh in comparason
The GAA Board video panel (mainly composed of Meathmen) have decided, after a frame by frame analysis, that that assault was 100% accidental.
There is no appeal.
Quote from: Wee Roddy on June 12, 2008, 04:26:46 PM
He does not run the Ulster Council you will find ;D
]
No he just owns it !
Cannot see this being overturned, it would weaken the authority of the ccc.
I agree 100% with max. For what its worth i dont think he should have been suspended as the referee dealt with it on the field of play.
However for some to say it wasnt deliberate is silly. He may not have meant to break his nose but he threw back with as much force as he could to make contact with harte. In that alone he knew what he was doing. The fact of harte hanging off him is another matter which the referee should have dealt with.
I would be shocked if this was overturned.
By the way i think DJs possible extension to his suspension is ridiculous. I know DJ and hes a good lad, the last time i was speaking to him was at half time in the Down v Tyrone replay, he was near ready to head into the pitch himself, he was spitting bullets, totally shocked and disgusted with Downs performance that day. Hes Down to the back bone, and dare i say it without being attacked, over the last few years they could have been doing with his passion and more like him.
Quote from: Bensars on June 12, 2008, 10:00:26 PM
By the way i think DJs possible extension to his suspension is ridiculous.
C'mon! The one thing I was sure of watching the game was that he was gonna get another suspension.
Dunno what the original ban was for, but a blind man couldda seen he didnt obey it. They have to extend it or they'll look even more ridiculous.
Quote from: Bensars on June 12, 2008, 10:00:26 PM
By the way i think DJs possible extension to his suspension is ridiculous. I know DJ and hes a good lad, the last time i was speaking to him was at half time in the Down v Tyrone replay, he was near ready to head into the pitch himself, he was spitting bullets, totally shocked and disgusted with Downs performance that day. Hes Down to the back bone, and dare i say it without being attacked, over the last few years they could have been doing with his passion and more like him.
Ah well then. does the GAA not know what a great fella he is? surely such a samson figure should not have to obey bans like mere mortals? they had some cheek banning him in the first placei tells ya.
Have to say I agree. Have a lot of time for DJ, he is a genuine Down man and if the team showed have the heart he does, they'd run through brick walls to win a match. However, he doesn't do himself any favours and has become a bit of a laughing stock of late. I would've thought that someone as measured and thoughtful as Ross might be able to have a quiet word in the ear. Having said that, if the half-time team talk did the trick on Sunday, then he'll gladly take the consquences of another ban.
The Cole ban, on the other hand is a disgrace. It's not a case of it not being overturned because CCCC will look weak, surely if it's proved to go contrary to the GAA's own rules, it has to be thrown out.
not saying that at all uladh.
i wasnt aware that the ruling applied to entering the dressing room as well. i was under the impression that it was only a pitchside ban.
sure he was on the sideline as well.
thats exactly what you were saying
Quote from: Main Street on June 12, 2008, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: Drumanee 1 on June 12, 2008, 04:34:39 PM
may be it has been mentioned in earlier posts but if you can hand out a ban after the ref only seen it as a yellow what about the meath player who committed the dirtest elbow i have seen in a long time?why does he get away with that?what doc did was wrong,what cole did was wrong but fcuk me that was gbh in comparason
The GAA Board video panel (mainly composed of Meathmen) have decided, after a frame by frame analysis, that that assault was 100% accidental.
There is no appeal.
if that is the case it's a total disgrace,to say that tackle was accidental is just unbelievable,why has this not been highligted more in the media?it seems to me that this video panel are only interested in what happens in ulster >:(
I think you're being harsh Drum.
From what I seen of that particular incident the Meath man leaned in for the shoulder and the Wexford man was falling as the tackle came and his head connected with the Meath man's shoulder. He didn't stick his elbow out which if he was trying to be dirty he could've done and caused a lot more damage. I think it was just something you will get with a high intensity championship game.
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2008, 10:24:46 AM
I think you're being harsh Drum.
From what I seen of that particular incident the Meath man leaned in for the shoulder and the Wexford man was falling as the tackle came and his head connected with the Meath man's shoulder. He didn't stick his elbow out which if he was trying to be dirty he could've done and caused a lot more damage. I think it was just something you will get with a high intensity championship game.
dont agree screen,he was trying to do him but we will agree to disagree
According to today's Indo, DJ KANE has been handed an additional 6 month touchline ban !
Just chatting to 1 of down players cole's appeal unsuccessful! He's out for 4 weeks! Disgraceful
Just right too... what an eejit the man is! Great servant to DOwn football and all the rest but an eejit!
Dunno how you can call the man an eejit for shrugging off a tackle....happens a dozen times in every match he was unfortunate hartes nose was broken but I really dont think there was intent and the yellow given at the time for dangerous play without intent was suffice!
Cole gets a yellow card during the game by the ref, that should have been it, we now have a situation where the ref in the middle are just there to confirm scores, an absolute disgrace.
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2008, 10:51:27 AM
Just right too... what an eejit the man is! Great servant to DOwn football and all the rest but an eejit!
Sorry I mean DJ! DJ is an eejit.
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2008, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2008, 10:51:27 AM
Just right too... what an eejit the man is! Great servant to DOwn football and all the rest but an eejit!
Sorry I mean DJ! DJ is an eejit.
I don't think the Down fans would agree with your sentiment - I know that he is held in high regard in Down.
Ah but in all seriousness. He was down on the sideline, in the changing rooms at half time. He only had a few games to go until his ban was up and given the fact that Carr is likely to have his suspension upheld, the 2 of them will be missing for the next round be it in the Ulster Championship or the Qualifiers. In my opinion it was stupidity of the highest order and a mistake that could cost Down in the long run!
Players win matches - mangers lose them !
I did n't think being in the changing room was breaking his suspension. must be wrong
having received a ban recently from the touchline i think the whole thing is getting out of hand,how petty are they going to get?i got my ban for questioning a decision,i did not use foul or abusive language yet i received 8 weeks,within 24 hours i sent in a appeal,now get this i got a phone call last night from our club secretary to tell me my hearing would be next Wednesday,my ban is up next Monday :o.
if you tear into a ref and call him every name under the sun,OK take your punishment but if you question a ref are you going to get a ban? DJ stayed outside the field boundary and i never new he could not be in the changing room but to me it seems that they are doing DJ to get back at carr for putting in a appeal and seemingly being successful in that.
Im not davy Harte but I dont think the incident should have been revisited. The GAA has gone mad.
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2008, 11:26:02 AM
Ah but in all seriousness. He was down on the sideline,
When? AFAIK he was not on the sideline and did not leave the stand enclosure untill half time! These cowboys who are incharge of running our games are doing their best to ruin them............power struggle of the highest order and the suits are to blame! What did the GAA ever do without the cccc? A total pain in the arse and a joke- their appeals system is nonsense too. Jobs for the boys.
Quote from: redandblackjack on June 13, 2008, 01:21:58 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2008, 11:26:02 AM
Ah but in all seriousness. He was down on the sideline,
When? AFAIK he was not on the sideline and did not leave the stand enclosure untill half time! These cowboys who are incharge of running our games are doing their best to ruin them............power struggle of the highest order and the suits are to blame! What did the GAA ever do without the cccc? A total pain in the arse and a joke- their appeals system is nonsense too. Jobs for the boys.
[/b]
I'd have to agree with you there - there's no way the scene should have been revisited. Do we really have to imitate rugby and soccer all the time ?
Most of the suits especially in Ulster are against pay for play ? Isn't that right ?
Well, could it be that they are now taking the view, that the players are now getting paid to play and therefore should be more responsible ??? Maybe ??? Maybe not ???
Quote from: orangeman on June 13, 2008, 02:18:31 PM
Most of the suits especially in Ulster are against pay for play ? Isn't that right ?
Well, could it be that they are now taking the view, that the players are now getting paid to play and therefore should be more responsible ??? Maybe ??? Maybe not ???
Good God
Quote from: Uladh on June 13, 2008, 02:36:08 PM
Quote from: orangeman on June 13, 2008, 02:18:31 PM
Most of the suits especially in Ulster are against pay for play ? Isn't that right ?
Well, could it be that they are now taking the view, that the players are now getting paid to play and therefore should be more responsible ??? Maybe ??? Maybe not ???
Good God
Surprised ? :o
Can't say that i am...
Quote from: Uladh on June 13, 2008, 02:40:20 PM
Can't say that i am...
I'm coming round more to your way of thinking actually !
Ban upheld.
Same as Fergal Doherty's.
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2008, 04:22:43 PM
Same as Fergal Doherty's.
I didn't think he appealed...... Did he?
Never mind Screen, I just saw it. I'm surprised they appealed. It was never likely to be overturned
having not read all nine pages of comments but the ref dealt with it on the day so that should be it.
are we at a stage when the ref is there to make up the numbers
They have opened a right Hornets nest here. Expect trouble further down the line this Summer, the Lawyers, barrack room or genuine will be very busy. The real casualty here is common sense, which seems to have received a life ban
Quote from: Pangurban on June 14, 2008, 12:12:40 AM
They have opened a right Hornets nest here. Expect trouble further down the line this Summer, the Lawyers, barrack room or genuine will be very busy. The real casualty here is common sense, which seems to have received a life ban
Well said !