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

[vallankumous]

Refs used to be reluctant to issue cards now the throw them out without thinking.

A card should be a last resort for a referee.

[westbound]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey.  And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.

Couldn't agree more with this!

So many people are clueless on what is/isn't a black card. And you are 100% correct that it's coming from the media not having a clue. Tom Carr shouldn't be let near a microphone again until he learns the rules!

Like you say, it's not that complicated, there are only 5 possible black card offences!!

[nrico2006]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey.  And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.

Couldn't agree more with this!

So many people are clueless on what is/isn't a black card. And you are 100% correct that it's coming from the media not having a clue. Tom Carr shouldn't be let near a microphone again until he learns the rules!

Like you say, it's not that complicated, there are only 5 possible black card offences!!

Obviously we all know the shortcomings with how the black card offences were defined, but in reality any pull of a jersey should be a black card.

[joemamas]

It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.

Agree the muppets (no offence muppet  ) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.

Ffs, now we are judging intention by whether the player acts guilty afterwards!! Matty was steaming towards the player and in the instant it took for the play to unfold he collided with McHugh. Now id be very surprised if Matty had time to intentionally say to himself, "right, I'm doing him here, I'm happy to consider the consequences and feel that the benefit of thumping into McHugh outweighs the cost of being sent off" Whatever about intent or not, the greyness of so many of these instances mean that a player leaving the field for good is not justified, in my view!

Ball was well gone before he landed and carried himself into McHugh. For me there wasn't enough deliberate action to confirm a black card offence but there was enough to force the referee into making a decision. Unfortunately for Matty he came out the wrong end of it but if he tries to pull out he takes away that decision from the ref and probably clips McHugh as well for good measure.

Agree, even though I wanted Tyrone to win, thought he had ample opportunity to attempt to pull out of tackle. He was also having a poor game, gave away one stupid free(point) and then did not pass to open man during a prior attack. May have played into it a bit.

[Zulu]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

This is the sort of nonsense that annoys me, if the referees are getting it wrong as often as they are getting it right, then of course there is an issue.

I don't think the referees are getting it wrong that often. Like all decisions people agree or disagree on them but even after multiple viewings and days to consider it the posters on this board can't agree on Donnelly's black for a start. Of the black cards I saw over the weekend, both the Roscommon ones were correct, Colm Boyle's was correct and both the Tyrone ones were incorrect IMO but I can see why they could be deemed black cards. That's a pretty good strike rate for refs and a pretty bad reflection on our players.

[Jinxy]

Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.

Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.

There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.

You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.

the worst thing about the black card i it does nothing to solve the problem it was brought in to fix.
Last minute of a game, 2 points down, your shooting for goal when sean cavanagh(colm boyle?) come flying through the air with a rugby tackle. cavanagh black carded Goal chance gone , cavanagh wins you lose, Black cards just takes up time you could be looking for an equaliser.

As for the other reason for the Black card they were all yellow or reds under the old system anyway. any one who abuses a ref or deliberately trips  should get red anyway

Rugby and soccer have the same issue.
How do you stop someone taking a yellow/black for the team?
They're doing it to prevent a score, so the obvious thing is to increase the likelihood that the attacking team WILL score as a result of the offence.
I think a black card conceded within the defending team's half should also result in the automatic awarding of a 21 yard free.

[Zulu]

It was brought in to try and address cynical fouling, all through the game and all through the pitch. The shitty corner forward dragging down a back after a turnover, to kill the break, and allow his team get set. Those incidents don't look sexy and weren't on any video, but that is what the black card was primarily aimed at, and has been relatively successful at doing.

Cynical is the important word here and defining what is a cynical foul and what isn't is proving to be a bit difficult.
I agree with AZ above and whilst McShane's contact was very slight, he did reach out his hand and touch the defenders foot/leg and so stopped his progress from clearing the ball. Was it intentional? Hard to be 100% sure but it looked like it otherwise he was protecting himself from being stood on.

Personally I think ONLY the VERY clear cut cynical fouls should result in black cards and so any where there is an element of doubt over the intentional aspect should result in a yellow. A guy who definitely pulls a man down clearly to stop a scoring chance etc should be a black but if you pull a man back or down where there are lots of other players around then I don't see that as being that cynical.
The verbal abuse part of the rule seems to have been totally ignored.

I agree Fuzzman, a ref should only award a free or issue a card when they are 100% sure of what happened. However, as others point out, you'll have clowns like Tomas O'Se saying they ducked out of giving black cards if they give yellows when unsure if it was deliberate. My main gripe with referees is the guessing many seem to do which results is frees for nothing and players incorrectly carded. A guy can't be blamed for missing a foul but he can be justifiably criticised for giving a free/card for presuming something happened that he didn't see.

[AZOffaly]

I agree with that. He has to go back to the 2 questions I keep referring to. He will have to make a call on deliberate or not, but if he is sure it's deliberate in his view, then it's black. If it's not, he can't give one.

[TabClear]

Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.

Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.

There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.

You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that

I think a black card conceded within the defending team's half should also result in the automatic awarding of a 21 yard free.

You could take it a step farther and award a penalty regardless of where the offence is. Actually you could apply that to straight reds as well. Be interesting to see how that would impact on players behaviour.

[AZOffaly]

It would certainly encourage diving even more !

[TabClear]

It would certainly encourage diving even more !

Diving brought in as a black card offence. Just to really give the refs something to think about.  8 to 10 goals per game with specialist penalty takers brought on like NFL field goal kickers!

[Jinxy]

I think my idea is really good.

[BennyHarp]

Bernard Flynn isn't a fan....

Bernard Flynn finds Jarlath Burns' defence of the black card rather unpalatable.

The former Meath attacker is adamant that the controversial third card has to go and insists that his fellow county man David Gough was right to keep it in his pocket during Sunday's classic All-Ireland semi-final between Dublin and Kerry.

Referring in rather colourful terms to the chairman of the Standing Rules Committee, Flynn told RTE:

"Jarlath Burns came out this week and I nearly got sick and threw up on top of the paper when I read it, with all due respect, and he said the black card is doing its job – it is not doing its job.

"It has to be got rid of ASAP. Everyone is saying it, managers and players alike. A good referee will use the yellow and red and that's all you need.

"David Gough... in his mind, he said, 'there's no black card in my game today'. That's what made it a great game. The way he refereed it was one of the main reasons we got a great game.

"I thought the referee tried his best to let it go. The Kerry people won't be too happy with one or two decisions, a few 50-50 calls went against them. I just thought it was something special.

"He did everything he could to say, get rid of the black card and he refereed the game the way it should be refereed."

[Jinxy]

Never mind the Standing Rules Committee, we need a Manly Rules Committee.

[Rossfan]

So Bernard Flynn is a mind reader now!

On the broader picture if,as being alleged, Gough decided not to implement some rules and thereby allegedly made the game better - is it not time to abolish a scatter of rules??
Generally the over carrying and handpass rules are seldom implemented for a start.