Mayo Club Football.

[moysider]

Are we guessing who the players are?

I presume its casey & henry getting a month each for striking and brady got off

A joke

Brady could nt get off after getting sent off for striking. You ve got the Cross player right. He should have appealed.

Assumed everybody knew who was involved.

did gabriel get his card rescinded moysider ?

I believe so. He did nt deserve to walk for that anyway.

[moysider]

Here s The Mayo News report on the suspensions.

Crossmolina midfielder handed four-week ban
Monday, 27 July 2009
Crossmolina player gets four-week ban


Edwin McGreal

CROSSMOLINA'S Henry McLoughlin has been handed a four-week suspension arising out of the incident in this month's club championship clash with Ballina which left Mayo midfielder Ronan McGarrity nursing multiple fractures to his cheekbone.
The off-the-ball incident was not seen by the match referee, John Hughes, or his two linesmen or four umpires, but McLoughlin received the ban last week after two independent witnesses gave evidence about the incident to the Competitions Control Committee (CCC) of the Mayo GAA Board.
Mayo County Board Secretary Seán Feeney confirmed to The Mayo News that McGarrity was also implicated for his role in the incident by one of the independent witnesses, but the CCC had set a criteria of requiring two witnesses to give information. Feeney added that the witnesses can't be named.
"The criteria we laid down was we had to have two [independent witnesses]. One of the independent witnesses said that there was an incident prior to that, between the two players. So they [McLoughlin and McGarrity] were both equally guilty at that stage but the second witness saw the apparent retaliation [only].'
Ballina's Eanna Casey received a four-week ban from the CCC after an incident later in the game which left Henry McLoughlin with a facial wound that required stitches. However, the Ballina player successfully appealed his ban late last week.
"Eanna Casey sought a hearing which he is entitled to do," Feeney explained. "You have three days to accept the penalty [or appeal].
"Henry McLoughlin didn't contest it but Eanna Casey sought a hearing and, having examined the video back and over, and slowed it down, we felt that it was probably more accidental than intentional."
The secretary also confirmed that Crossmolina's Gabriel Walsh, who was sent off in the same game, has had his four-week ban quashed on appeal. Ballina's Liam Brady was also sent off but didn't contest his four-week suspension.

[Mayo4Sam]

Sounds like brady & henry should have objected to their suspensions. In fairness i dont think casey is a dirty player but from whats said on here he sounds like he should have gotten a suspension. Note: I wouldn't say brady is dirty either just a handbags merchant.

[rosnarun]

i dont think casey is a dirty player

Ahem

over all sounds like a fair outcome they werent fooled by the hysteria we heard and read about . hope they all take their punishment and stop wasting peoples time

[RedandGreenSniper]

i dont think casey is a dirty player

Ahem

over all sounds like a fair outcome they werent fooled by the hysteria we heard and read about . hope they all take their punishment and stop wasting peoples time

You do know Casey got off Ros??

[moysider]

i dont think casey is a dirty player

Ahem

over all sounds like a fair outcome they werent fooled by the hysteria we heard and read about . hope they all take their punishment and stop wasting peoples time

Looks like nobody wasted much time. Not unhappy with the outcome myself. Looks like natural justice prevailed to me. Think the powers that be accepted the law of the jungle as well.

[Mayo4Sam]

This sets a terrible precedence. What happens if someone lays kilcoyne out on the 15th, does that give us carte blanche to knock lumps out of ballina? Moysider normally i disagree with a lot/most of what u say but its usually well informed. i think you've let urself down big time on this one. But then the county board seem to agree with ur rationale so maybe its me that wrong

[stephenite]

I didn't see the incident, but is it Casey getting off that has you peeved M4S?

If the video was slowed down and it can't be proved that it was intentional then I can't see what "terrible precedent" is being set, if anything it insures justice for those that are sent off for accidental incidents in the future.

[venter]

I didn't see the incident, but is it Casey getting off that has you peeved M4S?

If the video was slowed down and it can't be proved that it was intentional then I can't see what "terrible precedent" is being set, if anything it insures justice for those that are sent off for accidental incidents in the future.

It was clear that retribution was being dished out in the second half of the game. There was plenty of verbals to go along with the boot to the face. It is a complete joke that Casey now turns round and claims the incident in question was accidental.

Mcloughlins suspension is deserved and it will hinder his progress in terms of cementing a starting place for the rest of the season, with James Cafferty coming back from injury.

The witness thing is a bit farcical but it has produced a fair result in most peoples eyes.

[stephenite]

I didn't see the incident, but is it Casey getting off that has you peeved M4S?

If the video was slowed down and it can't be proved that it was intentional then I can't see what "terrible precedent" is being set, if anything it insures justice for those that are sent off for accidental incidents in the future.

It was clear that retribution was being dished out in the second half of the game. There was plenty of verbals to go along with the boot to the face. It is a complete joke that Casey now turns round and claims the incident in question was accidental.

Mcloughlins suspension is deserved and it will hinder his progress in terms of cementing a starting place for the rest of the season, with James Cafferty coming back from injury.

The witness thing is a bit farcical but it has produced a fair result in most peoples eyes.

OK - but my point is that even if it was deliberate (and you seem 100% on this) it cannot be proven by slow motion replays of the incident. To my mind this shows that the CB are willing to give the benefit of the doubt if the replays cannot prove anything.

Forgetting about the game in question, is this not a good precedent to set for the future, as opposed to a terrible one?

[venter]

OK - but my point is that even if it was deliberate (and you seem 100% on this) it cannot be proven by slow motion replays of the incident. To my mind this shows that the CB are willing to give the benefit of the doubt if the replays cannot prove anything.

Forgetting about the game in question, is this not a good precedent to set for the future, as opposed to a terrible one?

Yeah, I've no problem with the county board looking at it and coming to that conclusion. To look at it with fresh eyes and not know the circumstances of the game, it might be difficult to say there was intent.
I just dont think there should have been an appeal in the first place.

[stephenite]

OK - but my point is that even if it was deliberate (and you seem 100% on this) it cannot be proven by slow motion replays of the incident. To my mind this shows that the CB are willing to give the benefit of the doubt if the replays cannot prove anything.

Forgetting about the game in question, is this not a good precedent to set for the future, as opposed to a terrible one?

Yeah, I've no problem with the county board looking at it and coming to that conclusion. To look at it with fresh eyes and not know the circumstances of the game, it might be difficult to say there was intent.
I just dont think there should have been an appeal in the first place.

Fair enough - I think most players will take the chance of an appeal if there's even a sliver of a chance it'll save them from suspension, I would.

The whole thing about witnesses is fairly dodgy ground to be on in my mind while we're on the subject, would there be any impression of this being a political decision (not to appeal) by Cross given the huge fall out after the incident? Whilst video evidence is fairly straight forward, the notion of an 'independent witness' in Mayo football is fairly funny, unless the witnesses are from China or somewhere, nearly everyone ever involved in Mayo football would have some sort of small grudge against everyone else, or at least a preference between two clubs. But maybe that's just me.

[venter]

The whole thing about witnesses is fairly dodgy ground to be on in my mind while we're on the subject, would there be any impression of this being a political decision (not to appeal) by Cross given the huge fall out after the incident? Whilst video evidence is fairly straight forward, the notion of an 'independent witness' in Mayo football is fairly funny, unless the witnesses are from China or somewhere, nearly everyone ever involved in Mayo football would have some sort of small grudge against everyone else, or at least a preference between two clubs. But maybe that's just me.

Yes and I agree with the rest of what you're saying. The club is being lambasted from all quarters over this and it would be indecent to lodge any appeals.

The people lamabasting the club wont have a word to say about the next incident that doesn't involve a county player and I include the editor of the western in that. The hysteria that Ros describes is real, especially when you consider that Ronan was back training within a few days and even playing a competitive A versus B game within a week. Posters close to the ground were on here talking bout multiple breaks and missing the rest of the season, when in fact Ronan was already back at county training.

[stephenite]

From what I can gather everyone was convinced that it was season ending, that it turned out not to be is a blessing for all involved in the incident.

You're proabbly right about the county player aspect, but if Kenny Golden had laid out Ciaran Mac in a championship game in the summer of 2004 the reaction from the local media and the Cross club would have been the same, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that per se. It's what happens when county players get done in off the ball incidents.

I can understand that it seemed like hysteria to Crossmolina people, but it wasn't deliberate or in anyway misplaced at the time.

Anyway - probably time to park it there and move on now that the suspensions have been handed down

[moysider]

This sets a terrible precedence. What happens if someone lays kilcoyne out on the 15th, does that give us carte blanche to knock lumps out of ballina? Moysider normally i disagree with a lot/most of what u say but its usually well informed. i think you've let urself down big time on this one. But then the county board seem to agree with ur rationale so maybe its me that wrong

If somebody lays Kilcoyne out then I hope the officials have their eyes open and the courage to deal with it there and then. This mess happened because the officials were incompetent. Even one of the players that was sent off was done so in error. I dont like players taking the law into their own hands but I ve been around long enough to know it can happen if the referee and his officials lose a situation.

As long as McGarrity was able to play against Galway I was happy enough. I believe if he was out longer then the suspension would have been much longer. Some people here - not you-  might reflect on that before complaining about him not being as injured as they first heard/ or would have liked maybe.