Joe Brolly

[Buttofthehill]

Could it not be argued that Hennelly denied Andrews the chance to challenge Higgins for the breaking ball then? This notion that getting to the ball first=no foul is a sky sports soccer thing. It's possible to get to the ball first and then commit the foul which is what Hennelly did.

[Croí na hÉireann]

Could it not be argued that Hennelly denied Andrews the chance to challenge Higgins for the breaking ball then? This notion that getting to the ball first=no foul is a sky sports soccer thing. It's possible to get to the ball first and then commit the foul which is what Hennelly did.

The rule states that "the tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player" and that "deliberate bodily contact is forbidden". There is nothing deliberate (bodily contact wise) in reaching for and breaking away the ball.

[Cunny Funt]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

The contact came after the ball had broken away. If we take the same video ref protocol that is in rugby where clear concise pictures must show concrete evidence to give a decision, e.g. a ruck on the try line and if no video angle shows the ball grounded properly then a try can't be awarded. Not only does the video evidence not show a clear penalty infraction, all the evidence points to two players reaching for the ball and one breaking it away from the other.

GAA a different game with different rules than rugby. The contact was enough to call for a penalty IMO. If Hennelly didn't make contact with Andrews he could well have knocked the ball into the empty net

That would have proved hard to accomplish since the ball broke straight over to Keith Higgins. There is contact for every tussle/reach for a ball, doesn't mean an infraction occurred.

Andrews was tripped/fouled and without that contact he would have gathered the ball for a simple tap in goal.  Anyway your eyesight seems not the best as the only defender that was there was Durcan not Higgins.

[Fuzzman]

Croi have you lost the run of yourself or winding us up?

Are you saying then that if a player hits a shot at the keeper, he knocks the ball out to his full back but he then proceeds to grab the forward and not let him tackle the full back that that is no foul?
The fact is had he not fouled Andrews then Andrews would have got the ball and tapped it into the empty net. Simple

[Captain Obvious]

That penalty was one of the most straightforward decisions Deegan made. The black card to Keegan a bigger taking point and by the way Joe Brolly is attention seeking gobshite.

[Croí na hÉireann]

Not withstanding the error of the dropped ball, the bigger error here was the award of a penalty for what was a legitimate reach for the ball by Hennelly and indeed he succeeded in breaking the ball away from Paddy Andrews. The contact with Andrews comes after the ball has broken away. Now from the camera angle that gives Deegans view of the incident you can understand why he gave a penalty, which is why I believe we have to use video technology for big decisions like this where it is available.

I think even a video ref would have given a penalty for the contact that was made on Andrews. Hennelly lets be fair panicked after dropping the ball it was a double error and he didn't complain to the award of the penalty or the black card none of the Mayo players did either.

The contact came after the ball had broken away. If we take the same video ref protocol that is in rugby where clear concise pictures must show concrete evidence to give a decision, e.g. a ruck on the try line and if no video angle shows the ball grounded properly then a try can't be awarded. Not only does the video evidence not show a clear penalty infraction, all the evidence points to two players reaching for the ball and one breaking it away from the other.

GAA a different game with different rules than rugby. The contact was enough to call for a penalty IMO. If Hennelly didn't make contact with Andrews he could well have knocked the ball into the empty net

That would have proved hard to accomplish since the ball broke straight over to Keith Higgins. There is contact for every tussle/reach for a ball, doesn't mean an infraction occurred.

Andrews was tripped/fouled and without that contact he would have gathered the ball for a simple tap in goal.  Anyway your eyesight seems not the best as the only defender that was there was Durcan not Higgins.

When a ball is not in anyone's possession it is fair game for anyone. Andrews goes to pick up the bouncing ball, Hennelly lunges and slaps at the ball just as Andrews clasps both hands on it. The ball breaks free to Higgins/Durcan. Hennellys lunge carries him into Andrews and upends him. If Andrews had gained the possession and Hennelly trips him then yes it would have been a penalty. Go look at it again, tried to find it online there but no joy.

Fuzzman, I've no idea what language that question is in, never mind what it means.

[Buttofthehill]

If 2 midfielders contest a ball and midfielder A breaks the ball away from both and midfielder B drags back/ brings down A, it's still a foul even though neither are in possession. Replace the midfielders with keeper and corner forward and this is what happened-very simplistic I appreciate.

[tonto1888]

are people trying to say it wasnt a penalty?

[Croí na hÉireann]

If 2 midfielders contest a ball and midfielder A breaks the ball away from both and midfielder B drags back/ brings down A, it's still a foul even though neither are in possession. Replace the midfielders with keeper and corner forward and this is what happened-very simplistic I appreciate.

If there is a drag back then that is a deliberate action and is indeed a foul. If midfielder B brings down A deliberately then that is a foul. If midfielder B falls to the ground innocuously after both midfielders jump/contest for the ball then that is not a foul. The rule in full states:

"The Tackle is a skill by which a player may dispossess an opponent or frustrate his objective within the Rules of Fair Play. The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. The tackler may use his body to confront the opponent but deliberate bodily contact (such as punching, slapping, arm holding, pushing, tripping, jersey pulling or a full frontal charge) is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact can be a Fair Charge i.e. Shoulder-to-shoulder with at least one foot on the ground. More than one player can tackle the player in possession."

[Buttofthehill]

I suppose I disagree in that I think Hennelly knew what he was doing after he touched the ball first. What it does though is show the difficult job the ref has. We cant agree after seeing the incident so many times never mind having to make a decision in a split second.

[Croí na hÉireann]

I suppose I disagree in that I think Hennelly knew what he was doing after he touched the ball first. What it does though is show the difficult job the ref has. We cant agree after seeing the incident so many times never mind having to make a decision in a split second.

We definitely disagree alright, Hennelly for me is in a bit of a blind panic and realises he has to get something on the ball. His arms are outstretched and are aimed totally at the ball, which he slaps, and his momentum carries him into Andrews. Absolutely agree how difficult a job the ref has, which is why we should use video technology. In fact one of the camera angle shows the incident from Deegans angle and you can see why he gave the penalty. However the other angles give a clearer picture.

[westbound]

I suppose I disagree in that I think Hennelly knew what he was doing after he touched the ball first. What it does though is show the difficult job the ref has. We cant agree after seeing the incident so many times never mind having to make a decision in a split second.

We definitely disagree alright, Hennelly for me is in a bit of a blind panic and realises he has to get something on the ball. His arms are outstretched and are aimed totally at the ball, which he slaps, and his momentum carries him into Andrews. Absolutely agree how difficult a job the ref has, which is why we should use video technology. In fact one of the camera angle shows the incident from Deegans angle and you can see why he gave the penalty. However the other angles give a clearer picture.

How would a video referee help if ye still can't agree on whether it was a penalty or not 2 weeks after the event and having watched it as often as ye wanted.

[Croí na hÉireann]

I suppose I disagree in that I think Hennelly knew what he was doing after he touched the ball first. What it does though is show the difficult job the ref has. We cant agree after seeing the incident so many times never mind having to make a decision in a split second.

We definitely disagree alright, Hennelly for me is in a bit of a blind panic and realises he has to get something on the ball. His arms are outstretched and are aimed totally at the ball, which he slaps, and his momentum carries him into Andrews. Absolutely agree how difficult a job the ref has, which is why we should use video technology. In fact one of the camera angle shows the incident from Deegans angle and you can see why he gave the penalty. However the other angles give a clearer picture.

How would a video referee help if ye still can't agree on whether it was a penalty or not 2 weeks after the event and having watched it as often as ye wanted.

Very simple, if it is not immediately obvious then it can't be given. I'm repeating myself here but take the black cards the last day, two huge decisions. Video reviews would immediately show there wasn't concrete proof that Keegan dragged Connolly to the ground whereas it can clearly be seen that Cooper grabs Vaughans leg and trips him.

[westbound]

I suppose I disagree in that I think Hennelly knew what he was doing after he touched the ball first. What it does though is show the difficult job the ref has. We cant agree after seeing the incident so many times never mind having to make a decision in a split second.

We definitely disagree alright, Hennelly for me is in a bit of a blind panic and realises he has to get something on the ball. His arms are outstretched and are aimed totally at the ball, which he slaps, and his momentum carries him into Andrews. Absolutely agree how difficult a job the ref has, which is why we should use video technology. In fact one of the camera angle shows the incident from Deegans angle and you can see why he gave the penalty. However the other angles give a clearer picture.

How would a video referee help if ye still can't agree on whether it was a penalty or not 2 weeks after the event and having watched it as often as ye wanted.

Very simple, if it is not immediately obvious then it can't be given. I'm repeating myself here but take the black cards the last day, two huge decisions. Video reviews would immediately show there wasn't concrete proof that Keegan dragged Connolly to the ground whereas it can clearly be seen that Cooper grabs Vaughans leg and trips him.

But my point was that what one person sees as 'immediately obvious' another disagrees with.

some people think it is immediately obvious that hennelly pulled down andrews. Others think it is immediately obvious that he didn't foul him.

I'm not against video technology being used, but when we have rules that are open to interpretation and we have humans adjudicating on same there will always be contentious issues that people don't agree on (with or without technology).

[Croí na hÉireann]

I suppose I disagree in that I think Hennelly knew what he was doing after he touched the ball first. What it does though is show the difficult job the ref has. We cant agree after seeing the incident so many times never mind having to make a decision in a split second.

We definitely disagree alright, Hennelly for me is in a bit of a blind panic and realises he has to get something on the ball. His arms are outstretched and are aimed totally at the ball, which he slaps, and his momentum carries him into Andrews. Absolutely agree how difficult a job the ref has, which is why we should use video technology. In fact one of the camera angle shows the incident from Deegans angle and you can see why he gave the penalty. However the other angles give a clearer picture.

How would a video referee help if ye still can't agree on whether it was a penalty or not 2 weeks after the event and having watched it as often as ye wanted.

Very simple, if it is not immediately obvious then it can't be given. I'm repeating myself here but take the black cards the last day, two huge decisions. Video reviews would immediately show there wasn't concrete proof that Keegan dragged Connolly to the ground whereas it can clearly be seen that Cooper grabs Vaughans leg and trips him.

But my point was that what one person sees as 'immediately obvious' another disagrees with.

some people think it is immediately obvious that hennelly pulled down andrews. Others think it is immediately obvious that he didn't foul him.

I'm not against video technology being used, but when we have rules that are open to interpretation and we have humans adjudicating on same there will always be contentious issues that people don't agree on (with or without technology).

Sorry, forgot to add, I'd have 2 or ideally 3 video referees and it'd have to be a unanimous decision between the 2 or 3 of them. It would have to be fairly instantaneous too, none of the slow wind/rewind decisions we see the video ref in rugby, they get one chance to look at each camera angle and they have to give an instant decision. If all 2/3 aren't in quick agreement then the decision can't be given and play resumes with whoever was in possession.