Video Evidence

[J70]

Almost every game played turns into a nightmare with the media concentrating on the negatives. A great game of football was played. Leave it like that.

Do you expect everyone to just ignore these incidents then, pretend we didn't see them?

He was dirty on Sunday and he'll suffer the next day with the Dubs hitting him hard (hopefully within the rules). There is no need to suspend him.

"hopefully within the rules"? You're proposing a bit of vigilantism instead of the proper authorities dealing with his transgressions in a proper professional manner? What happens if the retaliating Dub doesn't stay within the rules? Should the Meathmen sort it out themselves, or should the GAA then step in?

Video evidence is not apart of the game in squareball decisions or anything to do with the play. The referee, linesmen and umpires are there to lay down the law and are part of the game. 

And they obviously cannot watch every pair of players and the ball for every second of the game. I agree with the original complaint about the rather arbitrary nature with which these punishments are dished out, but that is a problem with the process, not the principle. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea of retrospective punishment for something like the dig to the head Geraghty gave Henry when he was on the ground after releasing the ball. The problem is that Geraghty might be punished but the next guy might not.

The use of instant playbacks to decide issues like square balls is a separate issue.

People calling for players suspension are a joke just like players who run to the referee trying to get a player booked or sent off. I don't know how GAA survived before TV came along.

That is just stupid. If Geraghty gets suspended, its his fault, and his alone. Dublin fans have every right to demand justice, as long as it is fairly and consistently applied.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a player telling the ref if someone threw a sneaky cheap punch or whatever. As long as its genuine.

[INDIANA]

read j70's response that covers it.

[J70]

Do you expect everyone to just ignore these incidents then, pretend we didn't see them?

No. We saw them but only for the TV. There are people in place to look at everything that goes on on the pitch. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about them but why are we putting pressure on people to deal with things after the game is over?

"hopefully within the rules"? You're proposing a bit of vigilantism instead of the proper authorities dealing with his transgressions in a proper professional manner? What happens if the retaliating Dub doesn't stay within the rules? Should the Meathmen sort it out themselves, or should the GAA then step in?

It's bound to happen. They will target Geraghty. No, I didn't ever say that the Meath men should sort it out but I do hope the referee sorts it out.

And they obviously cannot watch every pair of players and the ball for every second of the game. I agree with the original complaint about the rather arbitrary nature with which these punishments are dished out, but that is a problem with the process, not the principle. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea of retrospective punishment for something like the dig to the head Geraghty gave Henry when he was on the ground after releasing the ball. The problem is that Geraghty might be punished but the next guy might not.

The use of instant playbacks to decide issues like square balls is a separate issue.

The point I'm making is why do we want certain mistakes by the referee looked at and not others?

That is just stupid. If Geraghty gets suspended, its his fault, and his alone. Dublin fans have every right to demand justice, as long as it is fairly and consistently applied.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a player telling the ref if someone threw a sneaky cheap punch or whatever. As long as its genuine

.
Hold on a minute, who is controlling the decisions in the game? How can you even consider that players (never mind a teams fans as you mentioned) influencing the referees decisions is just? It makes a bit of a joke to the term referee. "Teacher, he hit me", "No I didn't teacher".

The point is that hindsight is a great thing but not something we should bring into our games.

I don't see why we shouldn't have hindsight in the game. If the technology is available, why not use it?

When I said square balls and so on were a separate issue, I meant as in a case can be made for treating serious foul play separately in terms of whether to use retrospective punishment. But, I accept your point of "if one, why not the other?"

Regarding players calling a referee's attention to an off-the-ball incident or a thrown dig or something, obviously the ref can only take action during the game if he or one of the other officials he can consult saw it. That kind of goes without saying!

[J70]

I don't see why we shouldn't have hindsight in the game. If the technology is available, why not use it?

The technology that we have can be used in hindsight but could also be used during the game. It would take about three seconds for someone to talk in the referee's ear piece saying "Geraghty struck a dirty blow and has to walk". I would prefer this than people talking on the Sunday Game about the dirty blow Geraghty hit the Dublin boy and Geraghty being pulled up a week later. The technology is there in both cases.

When I said square balls and so on were a separate issue, I meant as in a case can be made for treating serious foul play separately in terms of whether to use retrospective punishment

Same as above really. I don't want to slow the games down but it wouldn't take much time for the referee to be called back by an official that watches it on a screen telling him that a serious foul took place. You may think, what do I put in my report says the referee? The same as he would put in his report if a linesman or umpire called his attention to something. Not even that but he could even watch it afterwards himself for satisfication.

Regarding players calling a referee's attention to an off-the-ball incident or a thrown dig or something, obviously the ref can only take action during the game if he or one of the other officials he can consult saw it. That kind of goes without saying!

Of course. I don't know if I missed what you were getting at in this part of your last post but this stands to sense with me.
What I'm saying is that I don't like hindsight evidence in football as it can be influenced too much. I prefer it being dealt with at the time.

Fair points all of those, but I think there is room for both.

[INDIANA]

[

People calling for players suspension are a joke just like players who run to the referee trying to get a player booked or sent off.

Bang on.


i'd love to see you as a ref -i'd say it would be compelling viewing. Tell you what let's go the whole hog- forget the rules let's just let everyone beat the shit out of each other- whatever team has less men in A&E after the game wins.

Very simple- why shouldn't people call for suspensions when someone strikes on the field. What are you suggesting exactly- that we can allow anyone away with anything on the field? If so that menas it's open season for players to get away with what they like and you may as well have no rules. If the technology is there then use it. Rugby use citings post the event and there is no reason and i haven't even seen one arguement yet that suggests that we shouldn't. If players know they can get away with anything then that is what they will do.
It wasn't a late tackle-it was a strike with the fist with no attempt to play the ball -sneaky and cowardly is what i would call it and it needs to be out of the game.

[Jinxy]

If he is available for the replay I don't think he'll come in for any special attention. Sure who's going to give it to him? McConnell, Griffin, Casey?

[Tyrone Dreamer]

Does no one have a list of the players who have so far been banned using video evidence? It would be interesting if they were all either high profile players or from one of the big name counties.

[INDIANA]

Where have I suggested that we should just let everything go because you have pointed at that on two seperate occasions? Do you really think that if we don't use hindsight video evidence then it is open for players to get away with what they like? How have we come so far without it? Do you realise that there is a referee at matches, never mind linesmen and umpires?? "

yes and they all missed a bloody punch to the head despite two of them being within 15 yards of it.  Thanks for making my point for me.