Tyrone V Monaghan AIQF 2015

[Hardy]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

This is my favourite line from this thread so far. And someone accused Tyrone of having a lack of perspective. 

It wasn't me that brought criminal law into the debate. It was Joe Brolly. I don't know how to point out my disagreement without reference to the criminal law.

[Hardy]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

Did you actually write that, oh sorry its you Hardy, that explains all. Why use genocide in this conversation to illustrate a point? Why? Your trying to exaggerate the level of the alleged offence to some how compare it with the worst possible crime imaginable. Your a silly sick individual that would do such a thing.

As for your attempt at trying to justify the legality of the ban. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the legal system that the GAA uses? Is it common or civil?

Assuming its civil your talking shite because then it explicitly states the offence and punishment.

Assuming its common your still talking shite because there has been prior precedence set of not punishing the offence of feigning injury retrospectively.

Your just full of stupid hateful prejudice Hardy, taking a stupid snigger at all this media created mayhem which you fed into. And sorry to break your bubble but Meath in the 80 and 90s were not in the slightest bit manly, they were a filthy, cowardly shower of thugs. If they behaved the way that they did in the street as they did on the pitch they would have been locked up.

And BTW trying to act like you know more than a legal professional makes you look like an idiot.

If there's anything more annoying than being abused ungramatically it's being abused illogically.

"Your just full of stupid hateful prejudice Hardy", in the same breath as:
"Your a silly sick individual"
"Meath in the 80 and 90s ... were a filthy, cowardly shower of thugs."

Hateful prejudice begins at home for you, joe.

[qz]

James Horan on Newstalk is the voice of reason...Colm Parkinson, the voice of a prat. Jeez I wish he'd won an all Ireland with Mayo after listening to that man. He'd restore faith in the GAA if he was seconded to TSG.

[Bingo]

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/an-honest-post-mortem-will-see-monaghan-bounce-back-again-348142.html *

Good piece from Dick Clerkin here about dealing with the end of the inter county season and how it ends for different teams. He mightn't be finished just yet.

* - No children or Intercounty players where harmed in the writing of this piece.

[LeoMc]

shows ye wer people's heads are at, this over hyped dung in the media has half wits like this one thinking it is more acceptable to consciously go out to severely injure somebody than the bad error of judgement McCann made in a split second... bravo sir, u just reached an extra special level of stupid

Once again Tyrone people trying to justify McCann saying it was split second thing spur of the moment. The rest of us just don't buy that because Tyrone have been consistently diving ever since St Micky took over. McCann is jus copying players like cavanagh although admittedly this was the worst example I've seen even from Tyrone players. I've yet to see or hear a Tyrone person condemn McCann and all I've seen is him getting sympathy as if he's the victim in this.

You obviously aren't following the 4 or 5 threads on this closely enough.

[Armamike]

Good article.

[bennydorano]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

This is my favourite line from this thread so far. And someone accused Tyrone of having a lack of perspective. 

It wasn't me that brought criminal law into the debate. It was Joe Brolly. I don't know how to point out my disagreement without reference to the criminal law.

Sorry to hijack and it's nowt to do with you,  but I'm finding it amusing that Brolly is the sane reasoned one in this furore  (even taking into account his profession). I bet he is very glad that he wasn't on the rota for the Tyrone game / delighted Sky had it, could you imagine what his immediate post-match reaction would have been like?!Fair chance his head would have exploded. Luckily for him he'd a chance to cool off and actually engage his brain before his bake.

[redhandefender]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

As a legal professional, I found this hilarious! Someone's been watching Law & Order. What is this offence someone can be charged with under Civil Law??

[Applesisapples]

As Brolly intimates, he can't be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. He feigned injury in an attempt to gain an advantage, theres a penalty already clearly laid out for that. If they can charge him for something else instead on a whim, then what point is there in having any rules in the first place? It can't be done. Whoever comes up with this sh**e make idiots of themselves at every turn round.

Notwithstanding Joe's legal credentials, I can't see anything in the rule book that says the rules are mutually exclusive. In fact, Rule 7.2(e) (discrediting the association) specifically mentions that it includes one particular infraction that is covered by another rule - racial abuse. This would seem to suggest that it may also be applied to any other infraction already covered by rule, since no infraction is specifically excluded from 7.2(e).

The logic of what Joe is saying is that legally the rule book categorically states that feigning injury carries a specific punishment, i.e. a yellow card. To invoke the discrediting the association rule is unfair and not logical. There is not a cats chance in hell of this sticking, the GAA would need to show that this act of simulation was worse than others and that is simply not true. Sometimes I wonder at the calibre of T*ts we have in high office of the association. The CCCC should be charged with discrediting the GAA.

[trueblue1234]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

My suggestion of a clean slate, everyone warned, no excuses would have the same impact as McCann banned and everyone else will get the same....

The only difference is that McCann gets banned. This makes me believe that it is more about getting McCann banned for you.

It's not. It's about the effectiveness of the action. Somebody needs to get done for it or it doesn't stop. A statement that something would be done in n the future would be nowhere near as effective as the full glare of publicity and that comes with this action.

But by dealing with the diving issue in this way they are opening themselves open to accusations of being bias. Which in my opinion is a much worse problem that one individual dive. Why not make a statement that diving will be addressed in the close season and actually follow through on it. That way they deal with the issue and there's no negativity. The way the GAA are doing it now is ham fisted and it's actually distracting from the issue of diving itself.

[Applesisapples]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

My suggestion of a clean slate, everyone warned, no excuses would have the same impact as McCann banned and everyone else will get the same....

The only difference is that McCann gets banned. This makes me believe that it is more about getting McCann banned for you.

It's not. It's about the effectiveness of the action. Somebody needs to get done for it or it doesn't stop. A statement that something would be done in n the future would be nowhere near as effective as the full glare of publicity and that comes with this action.

But by dealing with the diving issue in this way they are opening themselves open to accusations of being bias. Which in my opinion is a much worse problem that one individual dive. Why not make a statement that diving will be addressed in the close season and actually follow through on it. That way they deal with the issue and there's no negativity. The way the GAA are doing it now is ham fisted and it's actually distracting from the issue of diving itself.

They are also setting a precedent for every poor decision by a referee to be challenged, or the CCCC's lack of action on future cases to be challenged in court. Messy situation which could have been avoided. The rescinding of the red and a retrospective issuing of a yellow card would have sufficed.

[Hardy]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

As a legal professional, I found this hilarious! Someone's been watching Law & Order. What is this offence someone can be charged with under Civil Law??

I wouldn't be watching anything with lawyers as heroes. Slip of the tongue/finger.You know that I meant - the legal system in civil society as opposed to the GAA's disciplinary procedure.

[Hardy]

As Brolly intimates, he can't be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. He feigned injury in an attempt to gain an advantage, theres a penalty already clearly laid out for that. If they can charge him for something else instead on a whim, then what point is there in having any rules in the first place? It can't be done. Whoever comes up with this sh**e make idiots of themselves at every turn round.

Notwithstanding Joe's legal credentials, I can't see anything in the rule book that says the rules are mutually exclusive. In fact, Rule 7.2(e) (discrediting the association) specifically mentions that it includes one particular infraction that is covered by another rule - racial abuse. This would seem to suggest that it may also be applied to any other infraction already covered by rule, since no infraction is specifically excluded from 7.2(e).

The logic of what Joe is saying is that legally the rule book categorically states that feigning injury carries a specific punishment, i.e. a yellow card. To invoke the discrediting the association rule is unfair and not logical.

The question is whether it's procedurally incorrect. As I've said, I don't think it is, given the wording of Rule 7.2(e), which states that another particular offence, which already has a specific penalty, can be treated under this rule as well/instead. I think that opens the way for any other offence to be similarly treated. But that's only my opinion. I'm not a (bow down) legal professional.

There is not a cats chance in hell of this sticking, the GAA would need to show that this act of simulation was worse than others and that is simply not true. Sometimes I wonder at the calibre of T*ts we have in high office of the association. The CCCC should be charged with discrediting the GAA.

No argument from me on the calibre of our t**ts as compared to anyone else's. As a personal opinion, this act was worse than any of the others. That's simply because he's from Tyrone (that's just to keep omaghjoe and the lads fuming). No, it was worse in my subjective estimation. The contact was to touch his hair. The dive was spectacularly theatrical. The smirk. But that's neither here nor there. All I'm concerned about is whether we've finally done something effective to put this kind of playacting beyond the pale. Even if this penalty is rescinded, I hope and think we have. Nobody will want to be the next Tiernan McCann as a laughing stock for the public.

[Applesisapples]

As Brolly intimates, he can't be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. He feigned injury in an attempt to gain an advantage, theres a penalty already clearly laid out for that. If they can charge him for something else instead on a whim, then what point is there in having any rules in the first place? It can't be done. Whoever comes up with this sh**e make idiots of themselves at every turn round.

Notwithstanding Joe's legal credentials, I can't see anything in the rule book that says the rules are mutually exclusive. In fact, Rule 7.2(e) (discrediting the association) specifically mentions that it includes one particular infraction that is covered by another rule - racial abuse. This would seem to suggest that it may also be applied to any other infraction already covered by rule, since no infraction is specifically excluded from 7.2(e).

The logic of what Joe is saying is that legally the rule book categorically states that feigning injury carries a specific punishment, i.e. a yellow card. To invoke the discrediting the association rule is unfair and not logical.

The question is whether it's procedurally incorrect. As I've said, I don't think it is, given the wording of Rule 7.2(e), which states that another particular offence, which already has a specific penalty, can be treated under this rule as well/instead. I think that opens the way for any other offence to be similarly treated. But that's only my opinion. I'm not a (bow down) legal professional.

There is not a cats chance in hell of this sticking, the GAA would need to show that this act of simulation was worse than others and that is simply not true. Sometimes I wonder at the calibre of T*ts we have in high office of the association. The CCCC should be charged with discrediting the GAA.

No argument from me on the calibre of our t**ts as compared to anyone else's. As a personal opinion, this act was worse than any of the others. That's simply because he's from Tyrone (that's just to keep omaghjoe and the lads fuming). No, it was worse in my subjective estimation. The contact was to touch his hair. The dive was spectacularly theatrical. The smirk. But that's neither here nor there. All I'm concerned about is whether we've finally done something effective to put this kind of playacting beyond the pale. Even if this penalty is rescinded, I hope and think we have. Nobody will want to be the next Tiernan McCann as a laughing stock for the public.

Simulation is simulation I have no love for Tyrone but this application of the rule book is unjust and a reaction to the Sunday Game et al, shame on the CCCC.

[BennyHarp]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

This is my favourite line from this thread so far. And someone accused Tyrone of having a lack of perspective. 

It wasn't me that brought criminal law into the debate. It was Joe Brolly. I don't know how to point out my disagreement without reference to the criminal law.

So you decided upon the measured approach of comparing it to Milosevic's murder and genocide? We have officially lost the run of ourselves.