Messages

Could be a  last shot at ulster for alot of Armagh players like Grugan, Campbell, Murnin, Forker who have given great service to Armagh for 10 plus years.  There is not alot between the sides, though Donegal will have the edge on the sideline and have came through the tougher side of the draw. 

My main hope is that Armagh play on the front foot, but the likelyhood is that it will be low scoring and a lot of possession based football. 

This game would have been earmarked as season defining by most supporters back when the Ulster championship draw was made last Autumn. You could also say that it could well define the Geezer era. The only surprise is that it is Donegal and not Derry whom we face. It does feel like now or never for a lot of those players but then you could have said the same last season and yet we have arrived back in another final with a good chance of winning.

I really hope we don't fall into the trap of engaging in the slugfest that many seem to be predicting, it doesn't really suit the type of player we have. If it is reduced to a hand passing, possession style game then I think Donegal have better players than us at this type of game. However we have the better kick passers and are more suited to that fast, physical game. We need to play to the strengths of our best players like Rian, Grugan and Murnin and not rely on running the ball endlessly up the pitch. We also have a lot of firepower to introduce from the bench in the last 20 minutes which could be crucial.   

Era defining for sure. I'd say defeat Sunday would mean anything short of an All Ireland final this year and it's curtains.

I would scale that back to a semi final. If we lose on Sunday but get our way through a group, a quarter final and potentially a round before that then I think he continues on.

I know what sort of game-plan Donegal hope we adopt. I hope we are brave enough to go beyond that.

A few lads on here posting here have preconceived notions of what Armagh are about. I think we have moved on and hopefully we prove that.

That last free, he didn't blow for the 'first' foul, blew for the obvious round the neck free, spoke to linesman, free then given for first free (which you can't do) and thankfully he missed

What is it there that the ref can't do?

Would blowing for the second foul not constitute a break in play during which the linesman could alert the ref to the first foul?

[On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.]

If any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.

Note that I referred the issue to the club or county contemplating the potential appointment, not the GAA.

Anyone can see that questions will be asked of any club/county appointing RG. The most obvious question being "how did you get comfortable that he is innocent of the allegations?". Given the seriousness of the allegations and refusal to answer that question or a response that was to the effect of "we didn't think it merited consideration" or "we asked him and he said that that it was already investigated by someone else and we thought sure that's all right then". Sponsors would run a mile.

The first step would have to be what RG himself when asked the inevitable question in public. If he was asked the basic question of did he beat his former partner and the only answer he could give was that "it was already investigated by someone else" then would remain unappointable.

On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.

No social media and no social media mob and there is no investigation by the Ulster Council. That is 2hy those terms have been used multiple times. You're happy enough for trial by social media to supersede the court of law? Where would that get us?

There is no dismissive language in here at all regarding this, none at all.

Show the bit where I said that trial by social media should supersede a court of law?

I have said again if an accusation is made to the authorities and is supported by at least one witness who makes themselves available for further questions and this is repeated or reported on social media that does not mean that it is trial by social media. To then refer it to as trial by social media and ignore the fact that a witness has supported the allegation and made themselves available then that is dismissive language. If you know the witness is lying then call them a liar but don't dismiss their existence or their testimony.

You're clearly just trying to get annoyed. Again, social media was mentioned as it was the catalyst for the Ulster Council investigation. I'm dismissing no witness ffs. For what it's worth, if anyone is guilty of such a crime, throw away the key.

Social media might well have been mentioned but GAA officials were also contacted directly by the accuser. This is not trial by social media.

2 things that we should have cherished.

One on one battles. Need to go back one one man tackling.

"Volunteerism" as it has been called in an earlier post. Pay expenses to everyone, but only expenses.

A failure to pay expenses leads to elitism. Only an elite can afford to put a significant effort in to committees and volunteer roles if they are not getting expenses covered.

Paying more than expenses is professionalism or semi-professionalism. We either formally acknowledge that or root it out. The current situation, which is effectively a nod and a wink black market, is a cod and demeaning to the organisation and it's supposedly amateur ethos.

[On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.]

If any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.

Note that I referred the issue to the club or county contemplating the potential appointment, not the GAA.

Anyone can see that questions will be asked of any club/county appointing RG. The most obvious question being "how did you get comfortable that he is innocent of the allegations?". Given the seriousness of the allegations and refusal to answer that question or a response that was to the effect of "we didn't think it merited consideration" or "we asked him and he said that that it was already investigated by someone else and we thought sure that's all right then". Sponsors would run a mile.

The first step would have to be what RG himself when asked the inevitable question in public. If he was asked the basic question of did he beat his former partner and the only answer he could give was that "it was already investigated by someone else" then would remain unappointable.

On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.

No social media and no social media mob and there is no investigation by the Ulster Council. That is 2hy those terms have been used multiple times. You're happy enough for trial by social media to supersede the court of law? Where would that get us?

There is no dismissive language in here at all regarding this, none at all.

Show the bit where I said that trial by social media should supersede a court of law?

I have said again if an accusation is made to the authorities and is supported by at least one witness who makes themselves available for further questions and this is repeated or reported on social media that does not mean that it is trial by social media. To then refer it to as trial by social media and ignore the fact that a witness has supported the allegation and made themselves available then that is dismissive language. If you know the witness is lying then call them a liar but don't dismiss their existence or their testimony.

If any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.

Note that I referred the issue to the club or county contemplating the potential appointment, not the GAA.

Anyone can see that questions will be asked of any club/county appointing RG. The most obvious question being "how did you get comfortable that he is innocent of the allegations?". Given the seriousness of the allegations and refusal to answer that question or a response that was to the effect of "we didn't think it merited consideration" or "we asked him and he said that that it was already investigated by someone else and we thought sure that's all right then". Sponsors would run a mile.

The first step would have to be what RG himself when asked the inevitable question in public. If he was asked the basic question of did he beat his former partner and the only answer he could give was that "it was already investigated by someone else" then would remain unappointable.

On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.

If any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

Thought O'Neill got away with a forearm smash to the defender's face myself.

Smash?

Have a look at it again. It's a whole pile of nothing.

The whole Clarke stuff is confusing though. If there is no truth in the rumour that the Committee told management to stand him down then there is some unrest around the club giving rise to competing versions

This

Surely Geezer is a liability for Armagh

And this

Armagh are a force of social contagion

From the poster who writes this

If the match was decided on the basis of GAAboard posts, Armagh would be unbackable.

Is this an educational standards issue?

The biggest issue facing us now is the level of expectation in the county and how we manage the occasion on Sunday. The last 2 matches we weren't widely tipped to come through but listening to pundits this week most of them seem to be predicting us to win. The fans can get carried away all they want, that doesn't bother me one bit but hopefully the players are able to deal with this and insulate themselves a little, since the sense of excitement has gone up a few levels for this match. It feels like its Armaghs biggest game since 2005 in terms of supporter anticipation anyway.

If they can manage all of that I'd be confident that we can get the job done in a close run game but wary that Galway are capable of producing absolutely anything as well.

There is a band of Armagh fans who think that promotion to Division 1 was a bad idea and would set the team back. And there is a band who think that excitement and expectation are the same thing.

This is the business end of the season. With the game comes pressure. Handling the pressure is part of the game. Good players are ones who have the full package of skill, fitness, commitment, game intelligence and temperament in all its many forms. If we are good or want to be good we need to show we can handle the big occasions. I think we are good and that there are bigger occasions (this year or the near future) than an AI q/f. Mental preparation is key. But thats what management is there for.

Quietly confident. Only quietly mind you.

Version A

seems all the people talking about the conspiracy theory about holding back best tickets are right.

loads of good hogan and cusack stand tickets available now

I said previously what happens is so many go on ticketmaster and then county boards/season ticket holders etc are held back. If there are returns from these they are then sold online closer to the game. It's complete nonsense to say that they hold back the good seats so people will buy bad ones.

Version B

seems all the people talking about the conspiracy theory about holding back best tickets are right.

loads of good hogan and cusack stand tickets available now

One of these versions is true and one version is reactionary b#llocks.
Discussion boards in a nutshell

i just stated facts . there are better tickets available now than there were 2 weeks ago and that  certain people had expressed views why this may be
Personally i would say its the little Caesars who will lose power if tickets good 100% online  that want this situation.

With all due respect you stated that tickets were held back and that conspiracy theorists were correct.

Those are not facts. They are in fact b#llocks and reactionary b#locks at that.

Tickets that have been returned have been made available for sale. If you think that is not a good thing then set out your reasons why

Version A

seems all the people talking about the conspiracy theory about holding back best tickets are right.

loads of good hogan and cusack stand tickets available now

I said previously what happens is so many go on ticketmaster and then county boards/season ticket holders etc are held back. If there are returns from these they are then sold online closer to the game. It's complete nonsense to say that they hold back the good seats so people will buy bad ones.

Version B

seems all the people talking about the conspiracy theory about holding back best tickets are right.

loads of good hogan and cusack stand tickets available now

One of these versions is true and one version is reactionary b#llocks.
Discussion boards in a nutshell

I think McStay is right. I think you would get a lot more but in to 3 and a lot more edge to these season with teams trying to get into or stay in a higher level competition

You Galway lads not even know the height of u lads. Paul Conroy, all 6ft 4 of him is not a ball fetching midfielder, right, Tierney a inch bigger again, christ.

Literally a simple google will tell you Conroy's not 6 4'. We've been watching him for 15 years, often as the midfield partner of actual 6 4' players such as Tom Flynn or Fintain o'Currain.

This is one of the oddest things I've ever seen someone get butthurt over. Galway fans explaining an area that their team is lacking in and an opposition fan trying to argue against it. Weird

He is 6'3" or thereabouts.

This could come down to inches

Whilst the rule book states "Any video footage as long as it's 'reliable and unedited'. Back and white can be used", this still has to be provided by a proper media outlet, to be credible to stand up to Appeals etc.   Unlike the Social Media evidence that appears to have been used by RTE Sunday Game etc, which not only does it not show the beginning of the Melee but appears to show only parts of what actually happened.  How RTE were even permitted to show this given it was not actual footage from a proper camera at the match also begs questions for the Legal Teams.  Both Teams were entitled to appeal and it is actually laughable the uproar at present from Donegal and other counties......having been at the match and viewed exactly what started it.....Murphy attacking Grogan with a Lines Man right beside them ....  Donegal only took their punishment as they were afraid of video evidence of this being provided.  More worrying for the GAA was the fact that Donegal Stewards pushing and shoving Armagh players to the ground during the Melee, were clearly seen on this Unofficial Video evidence and yet nothing has been said or done about that, which was much worse that the players actions!

By Sunday Game I presume you mean league Sunday. In which case absolutely no social media footage was used. Just the camera used in the TG4 footage. Let's stick to the facts here