So what do ye think of the black card rule now?

[imtommygunn]

Me neither. I think it's a good rule.

You could see a couple of times yesterday players drawing back from pulling guys down as they knew they would go for it. No black card and there'd have been way more drag downs.

It's not being enforced properly but if it was it would be for the good of the game.

[rrhf]

I think its obvious at this stage that referees are allowed to interpret this as they wish.  It can suit the masterplan. 

[AZOffaly]

I think its obvious at this stage that referees are allowed to interpret this as they wish.  It can suit the masterplan.

Ara stop will you. The masterplan. For fecks sake we can't plan Garth Brooks concerts!!!

[Canalman]

I think its obvious at this stage that referees are allowed to interpret this as they wish.  It can suit the masterplan.

In fairness the main term is "deliberate" and always always has to be interpereted by a referee on what he has seen............... with no doubt six or seven players roaring in his ear at the time.

[Stall the Bailer]

The problem is they are getting as many wrong as correct. I feel it is too difficult to implement correctly. Consistency in our refereeing is what we need and the black card is making this worse.
If we want to improve the consistency of our refereeing the black cards needs to go. It is not only thing needed though.

[AZOffaly]

I don't buy that. There is no cause and effect here. I'd listen to arguments that the black card is resulting in more diving. That would make sense. Then you have to make a value call, do you add diving to the list of black card offences, or do you scrap the black card to try and rein in the diving.

But scrapping the black card because refs are shite seems to be a classic baby-bathwater issue. I don't think this is a difficult call to make 90% of the time. You have to be sure, and if you're not sure, then it's not a black card.

I'd be interested in hearing what refs think of it.

There'd be no need for the black card if we implemented the rules we had, but we weren't, and the refs were too inconsistent there too. So at some stage we have to solve the consistency issue, rather than continually throwing away suggestions like the sin bin or the black card just because the refs make a balls of it.

[muppet]

AZ I understand your interpretation of the Black Card rule, and I understand why you think the Tyrone player should have got yellow. but I have been reading this again:

The Gaelic Football Rule Changes which become operative on 1 January 2014 are as follows:
1. Introduction of a Black Card for Cynical Behaviour Fouls.
2. Change in the number of substitutes allowed.
3. Distinction between Deliberate and Accidental Fouls.
4. Definition of the Tackle.
5. Introduction of a clearer Advantage Rule.
6. A player in possession may score a point with an open-handed hand-pass.
Cynical Behaviour Fouls
1. Deliberately pull down an opponent.
2. Deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
3. Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.
4. Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate.
5. Remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.

[my emphasis]

I think it was reasonable for the ref to see that hit as deliberate. It was a shoulder charge to the chest which is why everyone agrees it was a yellow card. However the word 'or' in #3 above is vital. Most people seem to assume the sentence is along the lines of...... deliberately collide after he has played the ball AND for the purposes of taking him out of a movement of play. But the word OR means he (Gooch in this case) doesn't have to had played the ball away.

Thus the sentence is deliberately collide with a player.....for the purposes of taking him out of a movement of play. Is it not at least arguable that the ref was within his rights to issue a black card under that interpretation?

[AZOffaly]

No, it's an OR thing alright. Collide with him after he plays the ball away, to take him out of the play, is one scenario OR collide with him as he is making a run to take him out of the play is another.

In this case it was basically a tackle, and the only way Deegan could have thought it was black is if he thought he was deliberately pulled him down.

[Stall the Bailer]

From yesterday's game there were more wrong than correct. This is the same in most games.
There are many different things you need to do  when determining a black card. For example in the pull down, did he pull him down, was it deliberate, who pulled who down. With the angle the ref is to play sometime they can look like pull downs when they are not. In the McNamee one yesterday from a behind angle (where ref would have been) the ref would have see McNamee put his arm across Cooper and Cooper falling. From the front angle you could see that McNamee was going to tackle the ball. TV replays may make some these look obvious but on the pitch with players backs to you or players running across the sight lines of the ref, there are going to be as many wrong as right.

[AZOffaly]

It's not complicated though, and certainly no more complicated than many other calls a ref has to make. You basically said the same as me. 'Was it a pull down, was it deliberate?'. You added who pulled who, which is a variation on the first question, rather than a brand new one.

[Stall the Bailer]

The problem is that ref can't always answer these questions as he doesn't see them correctly and is just guessing or is being fooled by the angle he is standing at.
Do you of the movies slap stick punches where someone throws and punch at someone and they add a sound effect of the hit? It is only an illusion due to the viewers angle of the punch.
I'm saying the refs are unable to determine the correct answer to few questions of was it a pull down, was it deliberate.

[AZOffaly]

The problem is that ref can't always answer these questions as he doesn't see them correctly and is just guessing or is being fooled by the angle he is standing at.
Do you of the movies slap stick punches where someone throws and punch at someone and they add a sound effect of the hit? It is only an illusion due to the viewers angle of the punch.
I'm saying the refs are unable to determine the correct answer to few questions of was it a pull down, was it deliberate.

In which case he can't give a black card. That's my point. It's so prescriptive it should be hard to get one.

[Stall the Bailer]

The problem is some are giving them when not sure. And others think they are black cards due to what they see at the angle they are standing at. Both wrong and both leading to mistakes

[AZOffaly]

Yes, exactly. So the problem is the referees, not the black cards themselves per se. If we remove the black cards, we'll still have the same situation of referees applying the rules inconsistently, leading to more of the cynical play which saw the black card come into play in the first place.

It's far from perfect, and it has encouraged diving in my opinion, but it *has* been effective in removing a lot of the bollocky cynical fouls up the field that teams used to do a lot of.

[muppet]

No, it's an OR thing alright. Collide with him after he plays the ball away, to take him out of the play, is one scenario OR collide with him as he is making a run to take him out of the play is another.

In this case it was basically a tackle, and the only way Deegan could have thought it was black is if he thought he was deliberately pulled him down.

I understand this is the normal interpretation and that is that way it was explained when they introduced the rule. But that is not what is written in 3.

In both your 'or' cases it appears the player being hit doesn't have the ball. But the rule doesn't make any such condition. Thus is it not reasonable to read it as a deliberate foul to take a player out, even if he has the ball? There is no requirement to have pulled him down in rule 3 above, just a deliberate collision.