Messages

You're missing the bit 'after they have played the ball away'

And the last bit.

Or intentionally taking him out of the movement of play.

I see the Sunday Game hinted at being told by an official that Hampsey had made an abusive gesture after the shot had been missed. That's also a black card offence.

So I think we probably have no clue what the cards were for in order to know if they were correct or not.

So no one knows the rules around adding time?

I genuinely have no idea. If you extra time is 10 minutes a half does that mean that when 2 mins extra time is played 7 would have been played had it been a 35 minute half?

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

My point on the shit referee is that when you start limiting the reasons to have a referee because of said reasons, you'll end up with a small pool to pick from.

You can, if you want and search it, a reason for not having a particular ref for any game!

Ireland is very small, there'd be some link or two

I accept that it wont always be possible or fair to a referee and If its not possible its not possible I just dont know why its not a consideration when it can be.  Its an active consideration in soccer.  Mike Dean (the senior referee in English football) only refereed Liverpool 13 times and Everton 11 in his entire career (with 8 of those games being between the 2) apparently because of his known fandom of Tranmere Rovers.  He refereed Man Utd 84 times, Arsenal 80, Man City 82, Chelsea 78 etc

Yeah he's a mad tramere fan, but still ref'd them, albeit far less.

I know you're not questioning someone's integrity and feel some by location or work or whatever may have that bitta doubt before blowing the whistle or not blowing it.

At intercounty level they are (believe it or not lol) scrutinised from an application of rules all the way down to how their umpires look!

Would be disastrous for a ref to ruin his/hers name by being bias

Ref's at either football or hurling at intercounty level come championship are picked early doors for Sam/Liam all games are ref'd from that selection. I'm sure all considerations are taken but I'd not be privy to how that's done in fairness

No I don't feel that way at all.  I am obviously not articulating myself well enough here.  What I am saying is that the association isn't helping in terms of creating a culture of respect towards ref by some of the awkward spots they put referees in.  I don't think I have ever seen a referee certainly not at IC level make a decision that I felt was because they had a connection to the team involved or because it would benefit their own county.  I have however heard plenty of fans make such connections and it therefore introduces some unnecessary doubt into what is already a difficult job.  I think the GAA should be removing all unnecessary doubt and pressure from referees where possible to make their job easier.

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

My point on the shit referee is that when you start limiting the reasons to have a referee because of said reasons, you'll end up with a small pool to pick from.

You can, if you want and search it, a reason for not having a particular ref for any game!

Ireland is very small, there'd be some link or two

I accept that it wont always be possible or fair to a referee and If its not possible its not possible I just dont know why its not a consideration when it can be.  Its an active consideration in soccer.  Mike Dean (the senior referee in English football) only refereed Liverpool 13 times and Everton 11 in his entire career (with 8 of those games being between the 2) apparently because of his known fandom of Tranmere Rovers.  He refereed Man Utd 84 times, Arsenal 80, Man City 82, Chelsea 78 etc

I see almost ironically that Forrest have lodged a complaint today that the VAR official for todays game was a Luton fan and didn't give them three penalties as a result

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

What if you end up with a shit referee?

Get the best ref's for the game, I can't for the life of me see how a ref in front of the thousands watching and viewers on tv be bias.

Of course take that possibility of people thinking that one could be bias because they are x y z but it starts to limit that range of available refs of a certain standard.

It's like club championship, if you only used ref's from a div below to ref senior then you are limiting it, then if he's married someone from another parish then questions will be asked, if he did some work for someone from another parish and so, people will just presume stuff regardless

Now another look at would be this ref has worked his ass off to get an opportunity to referee a final or a big game, but because his ma used to date someone from up the road he's black listed lol!

If the referee is shit what are they doing at that level anyway?  My point is I feel sorry for refs who have gotten to the point of being good enough to referee big games then do a good job only for it to be completely undermined by a stupid comment about where they are from or who they are married to etc. I don't think that's fair on referees.

Unless I am misreading the interview Fenton gave about his recent appeal, it seems his challenge was that he had never been sent off before and therefore shouldn't receive the minimum punishment for his sending off.  If I am reading that correctly its such a nonsense which can only further undermine referees and the rule book if it were granted.

The other point I wanted to make about standard of refereeing etc is the stupid positions that the association often puts referees in.  I want to be very clear I do not think referees are biased or would deliberately do anything that could benefit third parties but why oh why do the association keep selecting referees who it could be said have a vested interest in a particular match.

For example why in all Ireland finals involving Dublin in recent years have they selected a referee who lives, works and as far as I understand is connected to a club in Dublin.  I know he is an excellent referee and I dont think he's ever done anything wrong but so selecting him leaves him open to baseless criticism should he make a 50/50 call in favour of Dublin.  That's a pressure I don't think referees need.  Similarly why select a referee who is from a county that one of the two teams who are playing will meet in the next round.  If there's a controversial red card and it then impacts that match, questions will again be unfairly asked.  There's no need to put that extra pressure on referees.

In law the test for bias isn't has there been or is there likely to be actual bias.  The test is can an individual fully aware of all the facts conclude there is no chance of bias (conscious or otherwise), if they cant then you remove that possibility.  I think this is something the association need to look at. 

On another matter, there seems to be, a few new posters on here past few weeks. On the messages, I get the impression they been on here before or jumping between a few names.

On the matter at hand watching the goals again, first was terrible, second Lynch actually scored it, it was going wide, forth lying in a heap in midfield embarrassing stuff.

I think this is the lesson for all teams with the  'fly keeper' nowadays.

I think Dublin were doing this to Derry in the NFL Final but didn't attack with much agression.

Donegal took it to a new level.  Derry press high with Lynch covering space way out the pitch and Patton kicks over the top.  It's 50/50 but if it breaks Donegal's way, they attack with serious pace and power from all angles and score the goals.

It got that bad that the last goal, the keeper actually kicked it deliberately (in my opinon) on top on Lynch, it broke and Donegal were in again for a really handy goal.

For me, when the press is on the kick-out, the only option is to go long. That's where the space is and Mc Guinness nd his management recognised this. The space is in the other half.

Patton is great at the long kicks butthe key is the strong pacey runners driving forward in support.

Now I'm sure Donegal's plan was to get a goal and a few points from this, thinking obviously, that Derry would recalibrate and stop this but for it to hppen time after time, Isure Mc Guinness couldn't believe it.

Now the thing is, the high press and keeper has been found out, will other teams be as brave to do it.

Mc Guinness and his management worked it well. Will it work again for them? 

I don't think McGuinness is getting enough credit for not only exploiting the space on the long kick outs but also in creating it.  Id need to see the goals again but from memory on 3 of them he made sure that there were no Donegal forwards near the goals so that there would be no covering defenders who could drop back and cover for Lynch.  That was unusual tactically and worked a treat at creating the goals.

All that said, Donegal were gifted 4 goals and only won the game by 6 points (although there is no doubt they deserved to win), that will have to be of concern.

I don't feel Lynch being out where he was was the sole reason for his concession of the goals. On 3 of the 4 Donegal had done a great job of creating empty space in front of the Derry goals meaning there was no defender who could easily drop and force Donegal in to taking points. Had there been it would have made it a much closer game.

I think that should be a bigger worry for Derry than simply Lynch'S performance.

We need to see more of this. Indeed it needs the full backing of VFI and another supplier ready to step in.

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/dublin-pub-takes-stand-against-29004882

(Why do so many "news" websites have to destroy the user experience with an advert every scroll? Yes I clicked on that article because it interested me. No, I refuse to stay on that site and see if there's anything else interesting to read)

I thought you couldn't penalise customers for paying by card now? the article doesn't clearly explain their "cash discount scheme"
The Chinese we go to used to charge 50p to pay by card, now since that rule came in they only accept cash

Rules could be different in the South? Either way easy way round it would be to say you are rewarding people for using cash rather than penalising them for card. E.g. advertise something for £5.50 but give a  50p discount for cash etc.

It's an EU directive under PSD2.

I'm not sure that easy way round it would pass much muster. No pun intended. It would at the very least need to be a % discount rather than a fixed fee per transaction one

Recently sat on a jury in Queens. I don't think I'd want to run the risk of sitting on this particular one however.

Nearest I ever got was when I lived in Manhattan, I got called in to the initial meeting where the lawyer for each side got to speak to us briefly, sent off for lunch and by the time we got back it was settled, apparently settling right at the final moment is not unusual.

Pretty common over here anywhere

Recently sat on a jury in Queens. I don't think I'd want to run the risk of sitting on this particular one however.

I am very glad I'm not allowed to sit on juries at all but I agree this one would be horrendous

[I don't think any of those 6 counties are going 100% to win an Ulster]

Is it really? Most counties have goals at the start of the year, get promoted, avoid relegation, beat neighbours etc. do they really need a coping mechanism of devaluing competitions, I seriously doubt it.  There are about 26 counties under the new system never going win Sam, Derry don't need another Ulster but will probably win it, any other county would relish it.

I believe JoG2 was referring the fans attempting to devalue a competition as a defense mechanism for if they don't win it. Armagh will have failed this year (again) if they do not win Ulster. How anyone can think different is beyond me.

What if they lose Ulster but play in an All Ireland final. Is that a bigger failure than winning Ulster and then going out in the groups?

You're changing angles here. What is having a good year, which reaching an AI final for most teams is, got to do with questioning the value of the Anglo Celt cup which you did? A hypothetical appearance in an AI final shouldn't come into the equation.
You're Armagh yes, very surprising considering the last 15+ years winning nothing. Derry winning 2 years ago was incredible, winning back to back was, well incredible. The thought of winning a treble, well that's the stuff of dreams. Worry about any attack on a Sam after.

The answer is the Ulster Championship is not viewed in isolation You've said Armagh will have failed this year if they don't win Ulster. I disagree. They could miss out on Ulster and make an All Ireland final which to me would be far less of a failure than winning Ulster and going out in the group stages. Similarly I'd rather have been promoted this year than win Ulster. That's not to say doing both wouldn't be nice but simply that Ulster can be viewed in isolation.

You are holding the Anglo Celt up as some kind of be all and end all for the season. It's not. For me If your county would prefer to win an Ulster and nothing else this year then it's extremely meaningful. If your county would prefer a deep run in the All Ireland series then Ulster is less meaningful.

Hmm, honestly if you said to me now win Ulster and go out in group or lose in Ulster and lose in a semi final I think I'd take an Ulster given a fair chunk of our team were in primary school when we last won it.

(Pointless argument anyway because if you win Ulster and go in as top seed there would be something seriously wrong if you couldnt at least make a preliminary QF)

That's a perfectly valid view but I don't think it's one universally shared. I don't feel that way and I feel a provincial championship is as meaningful as it once was.

When you have 6 teams capable of beating eachother in a one off game in a competition it's certainly an achievement to win it!!

I genuinely don't think you have that in Ulster this year but I take your point. My issue is that it's not as meaningful as it once was. I don't think any of those 6 counties are going 100% to win an Ulster at the expense of their future progress certainly not to the extent they might have in years gone bye. For me that makes it less meaningful than it used to be. As has the introduction of the back door. As has the moved to being played in April/May. As has the talk of it potentially being axed all together etc etc.

So I don't think I'm devaluing it out of some kind of coping mechanism for not winning it. I think it merely has become devalued. That's not a view shared by all and I accept that.

What do you think those counties are doing (or not doing) to lead you believe that they are giving less than 100%?

I think every county are trying their best to win a provincial title but for some it's just a safeguard mechanism that if they happen to fail along the way. The proper judgement on that will only come when the season has ended and the year as a whole can be properly assessed.

I don't think they plan to peak for a run at Ulster. I think training is set so they are at a good enough level for Ulster but hope to peak for the later matches. I think they know that being at your absolute best from April to August is much more difficult than peaking in mid to late June. I think in the modern sport science approach that many of the top counties have a similar approach.

In a similar vein I don't think fellas will risk injuries by playing when not fit in provincial games the way you would have seen in previous years.

Of course I could be wrong. As you say the only way you'll ever know is in hindsight.

I see the foreman of the Jury in the Trump trial is Irish

Not quoting that but in reply^ yeah theres probably genuine reasons for not valuing it as much as years gone by and I agree the back door was the start of that, but personally Ulster will always mean something to me (unless we do a Dublin and win the next 10 )

Totally understand why you'd see it as less meaningful now though but I'd say you'll roar as loud as me if we do go on and win it this year!

I would say you are right. But come game day all rational thought goes out the window anyway.