We need to talk about Diarmuid

[OgraAnDun]

My stance is that all incidents should be punished. But just because one isn't, doesn't mean the other one shouldn't. That's a path to madness.

Connolly pushed a linesman, and should serve his 12 weeks. End of story.

Whether the Carlow lads should have got a yellow card (very debatable) for trying to take the ball off him is a completely different matter.

Connolly should have let go of the ball. What do people want the Carlow players to do, ask him politely "would you awfully mind giving me the ball back dear chap?"? It will be sending out a very bad message to players and officials all over the country if Connolly gets away with this one - it's already sending out bad signals that they're even going to appeal it.

[Ball Hopper]

Aussie Rules slap a 50 metre penalty if a player doesn't return the ball immediately.  And immediately means exactly that - without any delay whatsoever.

That's the root cause here.

[Hound]

Aussie Rules slap a 50 metre penalty if a player doesn't return the ball immediately.  And immediately means exactly that - without any delay whatsoever.

That's the root cause here.

Connolly released the ball as soon as he realised the linesman had mistakenly given the sideline to Carlow.

Why were 3 Carlow lads looking to take the ball?! It wouldnt be much benefit for them to take the sideline quickly with the 3 lads standing beside other!

The Moar Uisce remonstrations further highlights the fact that the linesman (and ref who was standing very close by) adjudicated at the time that the contact warranted no further action.

[westbound]

I really can't understand the logic behind the diarmuid connolly supporter's believing he shouldn't be punished.

He MIGHT get off on a technicality, but that doesn't make it right!

Pushing a linesman = 12 weeks minimum (REGARDLESS OF ANY PROVOCATION).

[macdanger2]

Heffo, what would you ask be done to the 3 Carlow lads? The Maor Uisce didn't do much except jump up and down and roar and shout.

All Connolly had to do, as hundreds of times every year, is do a bit of pulling and dragging, and then drop the ball and walk away. He only got thick when he saw the line ball was for Carlow. He wasn't complaining about the Carlow lads trying to take the ball off him.

Under rule are three players allowed physically remonstrate with a player off the field of play? If not, why is it Connolly's job to complain about it? Why didn't the ref throw up the ball at that point? Why didn't the linesman tell the ref what had happened? Why wasn't it included in the supposed debriefing?

Are team officials allowed roar at match officials in order to influence their decisions?

'You cannot put your hand on an official' though.

You're aware that it was called (incorrectly perhaps but called nonetheless) as a Carlow ball, right? Connolly was holding on to the ball, remonstrates with with the ref, puts a hand on him and yet he's still the victim??

[WT4E]

Sorry if already asked - If GAA reject the appeal can they increase the ban?

[Hardy]

Sorry if already asked - If GAA reject the appeal can they increase the ban?

I want it to be so, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. We should have automatic doubling of penalties on failed appeals. This would put a stop to these frivolous proceedings.

[ballinaman]

Aussie Rules slap a 50 metre penalty if a player doesn't return the ball immediately.  And immediately means exactly that - without any delay whatsoever.

That's the root cause here.

Connolly released the ball as soon as he realised the linesman had mistakenly given the sideline to Carlow.

Why were 3 Carlow lads looking to take the ball?! It wouldnt be much benefit for them to take the sideline quickly with the 3 lads standing beside other!

The Moar Uisce remonstrations further highlights the fact that the linesman (and ref who was standing very close by) adjudicated at the time that the contact warranted no further action.

[Captain Scarlet]

Sorry if already asked - If GAA reject the appeal can they increase the ban?

I want it to be so, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. We should have automatic doubling of penalties on failed appeals. This would put a stop to these frivolous proceedings.

That would do something. Or even pay the full costs similar to civil law when you take a case and lose. The problem then of course is the bigger counties with more resources would push ahead no matter.

[magpie seanie]

I'm very disappointed that Connolly/Dublin seem to have done an about turn on this and are requesting a hearing. The punishment should have been accepted, plain and simple. I believe the suspension will not be overturned though. I simply cannot see how they make a case. They must be intending to go all the way to the DRA which is sad.

My belief is that the Hearings committee can issue a longer suspension if they see fit. It would be unusual but within their power.

[lenny]

I'm very disappointed that Connolly/Dublin seem to have done an about turn on this and are requesting a hearing. The punishment should have been accepted, plain and simple. I believe the suspension will not be overturned though. I simply cannot see how they make a case. They must be intending to go all the way to the DRA which is sad.

My belief is that the Hearings committee can issue a longer suspension if they see fit. It would be unusual but within their power.

Joe Brolly had an article about this in the independent yesterday. Basically says everything I've been saying about this from the start. The connolly touch on the linesmans shoulder was so trivial that the officials adjudicated that it wasn't worthy of any sanction. It is ridiculous for any player to miss the best part of the season for such a minor incident. A 12 week ban ruling him out of all club and county action and hurling also is way way too severe a punishment for an incident which if it had been any other player, particularly a carlow player, wouldn't have been mentioned after the game.

[heffo]

I'm very disappointed that Connolly/Dublin seem to have done an about turn on this and are requesting a hearing. The punishment should have been accepted, plain and simple. I believe the suspension will not be overturned though. I simply cannot see how they make a case. They must be intending to go all the way to the DRA which is sad.

My belief is that the Hearings committee can issue a longer suspension if they see fit. It would be unusual but within their power.

The CHC can increase the sanction. At club level they would be unaware of what sanction the relevant CCC have proposed.

I can't see why there is such piety that some rules should be sacrosanct and others aren't.

[AZOffaly]

In this case because it's hard enough to get referees as it is. If we in any way say that it's ok to push them around, then we are making a rod for our own backs. If people can't see this, then I give up.

[tonto1888]

In this case because it's hard enough to get referees as it is. If we in any way say that it's ok to push them around, then we are making a rod for our own backs. If people can't see this, then I give up.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the ban. It's how it has been done that seems to be the problem

[AZOffaly]

In this case because it's hard enough to get referees as it is. If we in any way say that it's ok to push them around, then we are making a rod for our own backs. If people can't see this, then I give up.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the ban. It's how it has been done that seems to be the problem

Absolutely. I understand that. I also understand the frustration when other get away with other stuff. However this is important. If the GAA is seen as being soft on protecting its officials, then we're heading down a dangerous path.