Poll
Question:
Are you in favour of the black card rule
Option 1: Yes
votes: 0
Option 2: No
votes: 0
Option 3: Still undecided
votes: 0
I would be interested to see if opinions have changed. Personally I think it has improved the game and eliminated a lot of the pulling and dragging and cynical fouls. There also have been some controversial black card decisions but overall I think it has improved the game and I for one am now a fan of the black card.
After 7 league games, most people would have an opinion one way or another.
I am still very much in the No camp.
I think the tyrone v dublin game highlighted the inconsistencies of the rules and how some of the calls are extremely difficult to call correctly.
Club football is a joke and the local season is very much in earnest!!!
One thing I've noticed is how reluctant referees are to give them. The yellow is the new throw the ball in.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on April 08, 2014, 04:21:16 PM
One thing I've noticed is how reluctant referees are to give them. The yellow is the new throw the ball in.
This.
Any club match I've seen there hasn't been a whiff of a black card but several black card offences. Its mainly been Reserve matches but at a minor match last week the ref (who was smaller and seemed younger than some of the players) give one of our lads one. At least he had the bottle to, the more senior refs don't seem to want to.
The senior league kicks off this weekend, so will be interesting then .
The worry is currently refs won't give them, old habits continue and then come championship or matches with the Intercounty level refs they'll be more rigourous with the black cards. I suppose its the same old story of looking for consistency.
Very inconsistent so far but there is an improvement in some games...............................no doubt any fault found is down to Dublin Gaa of course ::)
But surely the accumulation yellow cards still ends in a suspension ?
3 consecutive yellows still gets you a suspension.
Quote from: orangeman on April 08, 2014, 04:43:07 PM
But surely the accumulation yellow cards still ends in a suspension ?
3 consecutive yellows still gets you a suspension.
Is that 3 yellows in the same year? I'm not aware of that
I thought it would be a disaster but it has really cut out all the cynical fouling.
Now a player thinks twice before body checking a player to stop a run.
Quote from: squire_in_navy_slacks on April 08, 2014, 04:42:33 PM
Very inconsistent so far but there is an improvement in some games...............................no doubt any fault found is down to Dublin Gaa of course ::)
Lets bring in a "team foul" penalty. if a team, lets say the Dubs for example (LOL) commit more than 20 fouls, the opposition get a 14 yard free regardless of where the foul occurred. Alternatively if uour team commits double the number of fouls as your opponent, your opponent would have their score topped up by 2 points at the end of the game
At intercounty level it has definitely worked but at club level it has been an absolute disaster. A lot of referees have no clue about it and I've seen red card offences go for a black card, and black card offences go for a yellow. Ridiculous.
Monaghan accumulated a grand total of 0 black cards in the 7 league games.
Definitely the threat of it has made games more open and more of a test of genuine skill rather than bullying tactics.
Referees are applying it very unevenly, though, hopefully the overall consistency improves with time.
Only people with a vested interest in niggling, ugly play could ever defend the old way over what we have now. It may not be perfect but it's a damn sight better than what we had and it highlights the aspects of the sport that should be front-and-center.
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
+1
Netball on speed.
I don't think that's fair at all. There's been plenty of physicality in the league games I've seen.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 08, 2014, 10:49:43 PM
Will need at least two years to make a decent judgement. Seems to work OK in the national leagues where players are used to this, but it could well be different in the white heat of the championship and what tactics teams will use to bend around it. What it does show up is how many defenders at intercounty level have trouble executing a perfectly legal tackle against an opponent with the ball. However when almost every player can get away with breaking the four-step rule, maybe this needs to be more rigorously enforced so defenders can get a little leeway in attempting to make a well-timed dispossession.
That's before we've even gone on to its (potential) effect at club level.
This is the problem and it brings us back to basic enforcement of the rules as being the problem, not a need for loads of new ones.
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
Spot on.
Serious championship games will let it all unfold before us, until then no one can assess its impact.
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
Such a load of sh*te. Really finding it a turn off?? You would rather see the sh*t we have witnessed over the last few years started by Donegal who took cynicism to new depths? Blocking runners, intentional fouls, taking a yellow, closing out games zzzzzz Now that was a turn off!
For me it's a yes based on evidence of NFL but C'ship will be the acid test. My initial concern was inconsistency of referees and that remains my concern
I agree with your point on ref inconsistency but you have that problem on the application of most rules.
So we can shoot the messenger but I think the message itself is a good one. Football had become cynical and I for one have enjoyed the league games so far.
I don't have the statistics but I would bet that scoring is way higher this year especially goals.
Is high scoring the be all and end all of good football? I'd much prefer it when forwards have to work for their scores - a proper challenge and sorted the great forwards from the decent ones - the way competitive sport should be. I'm sick already of watching average enough players being given all day to kick scores and we are in danger of swaying things far too much in the favour of the forwards - give me Tyrone v Armagh 2005 AI semi final any day of the week.
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 09, 2014, 08:34:11 AM
Is high scoring the be all and end all of good football? I'd much prefer it when forwards have to work for their scores - a proper challenge and sorted the great forwards from the decent ones - the way competitive sport should be. I'm sick already of watching average enough players being given all day to kick scores and we are in danger of swaying things far too much in the favour of the forwards - give me Tyrone v Armagh 2005 AI semi final any day of the week.
+1
exactly this
christ you Tyrone boys are taking this black card badly ;D
Quote from: Hardy on April 08, 2014, 11:10:54 PM
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
Spot on.
That was your expectation pre the introduction of the black card Hardy, but have you seen enough games this year to support or refute that idea?
Because, in my opinion, its absolute nonsense to suggest the black card is impacting on the physicality of our games.
The views of the Tyrone lads here are just laughable. Dublin were far more physical in the game on Sunday and you've got Tyrone lads on that match thread moaning about the lack of black cards, and then on this thread the same lads moaning about lack of physicality!! Its probable that their frustraton lies with the rampant divers among their lads - that must be hugely annoying to them.
In reality, the black card does not impact on physical contact one bit. The Dublin-Tyrone match was a great example. Dublin got lots of tough tackles in on Tyrone lads. Over-penalised by Duffy in my opinion, but no doubt some were mis-timed or just badly executed. But no risk of a black card as all were attempted tackles.
We've had two perfect examples of a black card. Feeney in the club takes out a player off the ball who's trying to make a run. That's been the biggest benefit of the game. The off the ball blocking which was absolutely rampant among practically all teams at club and county level has completely disappeared.
The other was McNamee on Sunday. He first attempted a fair physical challenge. He caught O'Gara, slowed him down. O'Gara managed to ride through it, but then McNamee just tripped him up with no attempt to tackle or win the ball. Nothing physical about the latter trip and clear black card.
If Mick Lyons was playing today, in the same manner, he'd get plenty of yellows and reds, but I'd doubt he'd ever get a black. Because the black card attacks the sly/cyncial tackle, not the tough/robust tackle.
The refs, in the main, have done a super job on the black cards. The only worry is if the moaning of all the people who just don't understand the rule, seeps through to them and they start to be more profligate with it. Stuff like the "yellow card is the new bounce ball" etc is just maddening. Lads who don't know/understand the rules talking pure nonsense.
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
Impossible to defend, or impossible to defend in the old way. Did defending against running teams in the recent past involve dragging them down or body checking after the pass. If so, then that wasn't defending either, and should have seen yellow and red cards.
The only reason we have the black cards now is because people weren't getting penalised as they should have been in the past.
It's not necessarily about the physicality - it's about defenders not really knowing what they can and can't do and it's making it virtually impossible for defenders. We seem to be the only sport that actively frowns upon any sort of defensive tactics. The tackle in Gaelic football with one hand is not effective when trying to stop a player running at a defender, especially if he can take 6 steps in the process and off load to a runner who can't be touched either. I don't think there is a problem with standing your ground and stopping a runner from running past you, as long as you don't haul him down or trip him. But standing your ground puts you at risk of getting a black card these days. I think we will see an increased running game develop with very little kick passes. However, we may see an increase in long range point taking as defences just create a defensive line inside their own 45, a la rugby league.
Indeed this 'lack of physicality' nonsense being spouted is just that... nonsense!
The Last match I was at was Derry v Dublin and a Dublin defender was waiting for the ball to come into his hands and Patsy Bradley got to the ball first and ploughed through the man. It was brilliant.
As I've said before late tackles, 3rd man tackles and drag downs are nothing to do with physicality and if these things are eradicated, the National league has shown that quality will improve!
I also don't think the lack of kick passing thing will work either. With the lack of pulling/dragging/3rd man tackles it pays to kick the ball rather than give lads the chance to run back and set up their defensive screen!
In regards to the defensive line a la Rugby League well we have had that since 2002 anyway so i don't think that's a major issue!
Quote from: Hound on April 09, 2014, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Hardy on April 08, 2014, 11:10:54 PM
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
Spot on.
That was your expectation pre the introduction of the black card Hardy, but have you seen enough games this year to support or refute that idea?
Because, in my opinion, its absolute nonsense to suggest the black card is impacting on the physicality of our games.
The views of the Tyrone lads here are just laughable. Dublin were far more physical in the game on Sunday and you've got Tyrone lads on that match thread moaning about the lack of black cards, and then on this thread the same lads moaning about lack of physicality!! Its probable that their frustraton lies with the rampant divers among their lads - that must be hugely annoying to them.
In reality, the black card does not impact on physical contact one bit. The Dublin-Tyrone match was a great example. Dublin got lots of tough tackles in on Tyrone lads. Over-penalised by Duffy in my opinion, but no doubt some were mis-timed or just badly executed. But no risk of a black card as all were attempted tackles.
We've had two perfect examples of a black card. Feeney in the club takes out a player off the ball who's trying to make a run. That's been the biggest benefit of the game. The off the ball blocking which was absolutely rampant among practically all teams at club and county level has completely disappeared.
The other was McNamee on Sunday. He first attempted a fair physical challenge. He caught O'Gara, slowed him down. O'Gara managed to ride through it, but then McNamee just tripped him up with no attempt to tackle or win the ball. Nothing physical about the latter trip and clear black card.
If Mick Lyons was playing today, in the same manner, he'd get plenty of yellows and reds, but I'd doubt he'd ever get a black. Because the black card attacks the sly/cyncial tackle, not the tough/robust tackle.
The refs, in the main, have done a super job on the black cards. The only worry is if the moaning of all the people who just don't understand the rule, seeps through to them and they start to be more profligate with it. Stuff like the "yellow card is the new bounce ball" etc is just maddening. Lads who don't know/understand the rules talking pure nonsense.
+1. I think the contention that the black card reduces fair physicality is absolutely nonsensical. It reduces the bullshit, faux hard man stuff, and the deliberate, cynical, foul after a turnover type stuff. This thing that you somehow can't defend now because you're not allowed pull lads onto the ground or check their off the ball runs is bizarre. That wasn't 'defending' in this first place lads. You'd swear the black card has outlawed the block down, the fair shoulder charge or the dispossession.
Tyrone, Monaghan and Donegal are f*cked.
Quote from: screenexile on April 09, 2014, 10:23:57 AM
Indeed this 'lack of physicality' nonsense being spouted is just that... nonsense!
The Last match I was at was Derry v Dublin and a Dublin defender was waiting for the ball to come into his hands and Patsy Bradley got to the ball first and ploughed through the man. It was brilliant.
As I've said before late tackles, 3rd man tackles and drag downs are nothing to do with physicality and if these things are eradicated, the National league has shown that quality will improve!
I also don't think the lack of kick passing thing will work either. With the lack of pulling/dragging/3rd man tackles it pays to kick the ball rather than give lads the chance to run back and set up their defensive screen!
In regards to the defensive line a la Rugby League well we have had that since 2002 anyway so i don't think that's a major issue!
Under the new rules, if you run the ball you don't risk losing possession - kicking the ball does. If your playing the percentages you keep possession - you may be right, but my opinion is that the new rules won't see our games turn into a long kick passing spectacle. Indeed the defensive screen has been here since 2002 - wasn't that one of the things we were trying to get rid of. I think this is something that will get worse - defend in numbers, attack in numbers with men running off the shoulder. Rugby league without the tackling.
Disagree, we've already seen a lot more kicking into the forwards and this will continue IMO. I think most of the top teams are now going out to score more than there opponents rather than concentrating on keeping their opponents score down. Besides, the game is always evolving and different teams will play in different ways so there's no right answer as to how things will develop. Bottom line here is the physicality is not being taken out and is a complete red herring and it's up to teams and players to learn how to defend within the rules and without the help of 13 of your team-mates.
Quote from: Zulu on April 09, 2014, 10:36:58 AM
Disagree, we've already seen a lot more kicking into the forwards and this will continue IMO. I think most of the top teams are now going out to score more than there opponents rather than concentrating on keeping their opponents score down. Besides, the game is always evolving and different teams will play in different ways so there's no right answer as to how things will develop. Bottom line here is the physicality is not being taken out and is a complete red herring and it's up to teams and players to learn how to defend within the rules and without the help of 13 of your team-mates.
The reality is all defending has been neutered by an ill-conceived blunt instrument. One mistimed tackle can see a player walk in the first minute. Why would anyone risk ending their season like that?
Expect very high scores in some games and teams running out of subs in others with refs who properly follow the rules. The latter refs will probably be crucified.
Quote from: Zulu on April 09, 2014, 10:36:58 AM
Disagree, we've already seen a lot more kicking into the forwards and this will continue IMO. I think most of the top teams are now going out to score more than there opponents rather than concentrating on keeping their opponents score down. Besides, the game is always evolving and different teams will play in different ways so there's no right answer as to how things will develop. Bottom line here is the physicality is not being taken out and is a complete red herring and it's up to teams and players to learn how to defend within the rules and without the help of 13 of your team-mates.
When was everyone defending as a team outside the rules ? Is it outside the rules now? There is a difference between the tackle, (ie. Shoulder charge and dispossession) and defensive strategies. What is wrong with setting a team up to defend in numbers if that is what you have to do to get the best possible result?
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2014, 10:31:35 PM
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
+1
Netball on speed.
++1
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 09, 2014, 10:51:08 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 09, 2014, 10:36:58 AM
Disagree, we've already seen a lot more kicking into the forwards and this will continue IMO. I think most of the top teams are now going out to score more than there opponents rather than concentrating on keeping their opponents score down. Besides, the game is always evolving and different teams will play in different ways so there's no right answer as to how things will develop. Bottom line here is the physicality is not being taken out and is a complete red herring and it's up to teams and players to learn how to defend within the rules and without the help of 13 of your team-mates.
When was everyone defending as a team outside the rules ? Is it outside the rules now? There is a difference between the tackle, (ie. Shoulder charge and dispossession) and defensive strategies. What is wrong with setting a team up to defend in numbers if that is what you have to do to get the best possible result?
nothing wrong, but as a spectacle there is no comparison to fast free flowing football
QuoteThe reality is all defending has been neutered by an ill-conceived blunt instrument. One mistimed tackle can see a player walk in the first minute. Why would anyone risk ending their season like that?
That's the kind of scaremongering we had prior to the black card being used but the league has shown that a legitimate but mistimed attempt at a tackle is unlikely to get you a black card. Besides, the art of tackling is timing it right so we should see defenders get better at it.
QuoteWhen was everyone defending as a team outside the rules ? Is it outside the rules now? There is a difference between the tackle, (ie. Shoulder charge and dispossession) and defensive strategies. What is wrong with setting a team up to defend in numbers if that is what you have to do to get the best possible result?
It isn't outside of the rules but it isn't particularly attractive to watch 14 players inside their own 45 while their opponents laterally hand pass the ball across the pitch trying to find an opening. That's very few peoples idea of good football. Nor would I call that the art of defending, when I coach our kids how to tackle it is 1 v 1 situations where the skills of movement and technical defending are what give you a chance, not that you'll have 4 teammates to help you out. The swarm defence was killing the art of defending as it's true purpose was to frustrate opponents and force them to make a bad pass or shot for goals. As a defender all you had to do was not foul, you didn't have to worry about dispossessing as such.
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 09, 2014, 08:34:11 AM
Is high scoring the be all and end all of good football? I'd much prefer it when forwards have to work for their scores - a proper challenge and sorted the great forwards from the decent ones - the way competitive sport should be. I'm sick already of watching average enough players being given all day to kick scores and we are in danger of swaying things far too much in the favour of the forwards - give me Tyrone v Armagh 2005 AI semi final any day of the week.
If you make a proper challenge now you don't get black carded.....how is that not easily understood?
The difference the black card has made is that players aren't being blocked/checked off the ball or dragged down with no effort to play the ball etc or having their jerseys dragged back blatantly.....
The biggest problem is that for years with the blanked defence etc players weren't taught how to actually defend 1 on 1 or how to tackle properly and it's coming home to roost
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 09, 2014, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: screenexile on April 09, 2014, 10:23:57 AM
Indeed this 'lack of physicality' nonsense being spouted is just that... nonsense!
The Last match I was at was Derry v Dublin and a Dublin defender was waiting for the ball to come into his hands and Patsy Bradley got to the ball first and ploughed through the man. It was brilliant.
As I've said before late tackles, 3rd man tackles and drag downs are nothing to do with physicality and if these things are eradicated, the National league has shown that quality will improve!
I also don't think the lack of kick passing thing will work either. With the lack of pulling/dragging/3rd man tackles it pays to kick the ball rather than give lads the chance to run back and set up their defensive screen!
In regards to the defensive line a la Rugby League well we have had that since 2002 anyway so i don't think that's a major issue!
Under the new rules, if you run the ball you don't risk losing possession - kicking the ball does. If your playing the percentages you keep possession - you may be right, but my opinion is that the new rules won't see our games turn into a long kick passing spectacle. Indeed the defensive screen has been here since 2002 - wasn't that one of the things we were trying to get rid of. I think this is something that will get worse - defend in numbers, attack in numbers with men running off the shoulder. Rugby league without the tackling.
Did you see what happened Mayo when they tried to keep ball against Dublin? If you mark every player then you can't just retain possession by handpassing over and over.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 10:50:32 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 09, 2014, 10:36:58 AM
Disagree, we've already seen a lot more kicking into the forwards and this will continue IMO. I think most of the top teams are now going out to score more than there opponents rather than concentrating on keeping their opponents score down. Besides, the game is always evolving and different teams will play in different ways so there's no right answer as to how things will develop. Bottom line here is the physicality is not being taken out and is a complete red herring and it's up to teams and players to learn how to defend within the rules and without the help of 13 of your team-mates.
The reality is all defending has been neutered by an ill-conceived blunt instrument. One mistimed tackle can see a player walk in the first minute. Why would anyone risk ending their season like that?
Expect very high scores in some games and teams running out of subs in others with refs who properly follow the rules. The latter refs will probably be crucified.
An honest tackle which is mistimed should not result in a black card. A DELIBERATE pull down in any minute should result in one. That's what refs have to decide now.
You're still just pissed off about Ritchie Feeney's black card in March. That was cynical and a black card all day long, and rightly so.
Quote from: Zulu on April 09, 2014, 11:08:23 AM
QuoteThe reality is all defending has been neutered by an ill-conceived blunt instrument. One mistimed tackle can see a player walk in the first minute. Why would anyone risk ending their season like that?
That's the kind of scaremongering we had prior to the black card being used but the league has shown that a legitimate but mistimed attempt at a tackle is unlikely to get you a black card. Besides, the art of tackling is timing it right so we should see defenders get better at it.
QuoteWhen was everyone defending as a team outside the rules ? Is it outside the rules now? There is a difference between the tackle, (ie. Shoulder charge and dispossession) and defensive strategies. What is wrong with setting a team up to defend in numbers if that is what you have to do to get the best possible result?
It isn't outside of the rules but it isn't particularly attractive to watch 14 players inside their own 45 while their opponents laterally hand pass the ball across the pitch trying to find an opening. That's very few peoples idea of good football. Nor would I call that the art of defending, when I coach our kids how to tackle it is 1 v 1 situations where the skills of movement and technical defending are what give you a chance, not that you'll have 4 teammates to help you out. The swarm defence was killing the art of defending as it's true purpose was to frustrate opponents and force them to make a bad pass or shot for goals. As a defender all you had to do was not foul, you didn't have to worry about dispossessing as such.
The black card won't stop this. I stand to be corrected on this later in the year and will be happy to eat my words but teams will not go man to man come the biggest championship games in the summer and will resort to an even bigger retreat as it serves two purposes, firstly, protects the man against 1v1 and secondly it creates loads of runners for a counter attack. You can talk all you want about how you coach under 14s but the reality is that the odds are heavily stacked against the defenders - not because they can't foul now but because they aren't sure what they can do and they won't risk an early bath like Ritchie Feeney. So they will need even more protection than ever.
I've said it before, the tackle in Gaelic isn't effective if forwards can take 6 or 7 steps. And how many times have we saw clean shoulder charges be whistled up. Then what options does a defender have left?
Again, I agree 100% with this Benny.
I agree about forwards taking steps. This seems to have crept in over the years as some sort of pseudo advantage rule, whereby a referee would allow a lad take a pile of steps if he was being fouled. That morphed into letting him take more steps if there was any contact at all.. That's something that does need to be addressed.
On the massed defence thing, it might work that way, I'm sure some teams will try it. But at the end of the day you have to score to win, and if they turn the ball over on the counter attacks, that's where gaps will appear. In the past someone like Donegal (not picking on them, every team did it) would counter attack, turn the ball over and foul immediately to let the cover defence get set up. That option is greatly reduced now.
Also, a key part of the blanket defence was to block runners. The illegal body check is now also eliminated.
Refereed my first football game last night, (club minor level) no black card shown, maybe one possible black card but there wasn't any complaints for both sets of management, could have black carded a young lad for slabbering back but had a wee word with him and all fine. He even apologised at halftime, as for the gum shields, I couldn't be sure if every one was wearing them and couldn't be arsed checking.
Are players coaches adjusting their playing styles to ensure they stay on the pitch? Based on last nights game they must be (and one of the teams would have been a team that I would have fully expected pull downs and trips)
On a side note, the Belfast team came on to the pitch and one of the lads shouted over (in my direction) alright slap head!!! Needless to say he struggled to win/earn a free the whole night ;D
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:28:11 AM
I agree about forwards taking steps. This seems to have crept in over the years as some sort of pseudo advantage rule, whereby a referee would allow a lad take a pile of steps if he was being fouled. That morphed into letting him take more steps if there was any contact at all.. That's something that does need to be addressed.
On the massed defence thing, it might work that way, I'm sure some teams will try it. But at the end of the day you have to score to win, and if they turn the ball over on the counter attacks, that's where gaps will appear. In the past someone like Donegal (not picking on them, every team did it) would counter attack, turn the ball over and foul immediately to let the cover defence get set up. That option is greatly reduced now.
Also, a key part of the blanket defence was to block runners. The illegal body check is now also eliminated.
That is the one good thing about the black card, if it can eliminate this. (however duffy missed the one blantant example of this in the tyrone dublin game and chose to give two yellows instead :-\)
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 10:50:32 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 09, 2014, 10:36:58 AM
Disagree, we've already seen a lot more kicking into the forwards and this will continue IMO. I think most of the top teams are now going out to score more than there opponents rather than concentrating on keeping their opponents score down. Besides, the game is always evolving and different teams will play in different ways so there's no right answer as to how things will develop. Bottom line here is the physicality is not being taken out and is a complete red herring and it's up to teams and players to learn how to defend within the rules and without the help of 13 of your team-mates.
The reality is all defending has been neutered by an ill-conceived blunt instrument. One mistimed tackle can see a player walk in the first minute. Why would anyone risk ending their season like that?
Expect very high scores in some games and teams running out of subs in others with refs who properly follow the rules. The latter refs will probably be crucified.
An honest tackle which is mistimed should not result in a black card. A DELIBERATE pull down in any minute should result in one. That's what refs have to decide now.
You're still just pissed off about Ritchie Feeney's black card in March. That was cynical and a black card all day long, and rightly so.
Ah come on AZ, there has been plenty of action since Paddy's Day.
For example Dublin v Mayo is what I am mainly basing my argument on.
The Mayo defenders, 4 All-Stars among them just stood off and watch the goals fly in. If goals is only we want then great. But you can get that in the schoolyard.
If you have 4 All Star defenders standing off, then you have 4 All Star defenders that are not confident in their own tackling ability. That's going to come as they realise they are still allowed tackle. I don't know where this preconception has come from that you cannot tackle any more. You can, you just can't drag lads down deliberately.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:50:30 AM
If you have 4 All Star defenders standing off, then you have 4 All Star defenders that are not confident in their own tackling ability. That's going to come as they realise they are still allowed tackle. I don't know where this preconception has come from that you cannot tackle any more. You can, you just can't drag lads down deliberately.
This is precisely the point.
The black card advocates are telling All-Stars defenders how to do it.
The rest of us are pointing out the obvious problem.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:50:30 AM
If you have 4 All Star defenders standing off, then you have 4 All Star defenders that are not confident in their own tackling ability. That's going to come as they realise they are still allowed tackle. I don't know where this preconception has come from that you cannot tackle any more. You can, you just can't drag lads down deliberately.
This is precisely the point.
The black card advocates are telling All-Stars defenders how to do it.
The rest of us are pointing out the obvious problem.
Black Card Advocates are telling them 'Lads, tackle away. No bother. Work like divils, dispossess the man, block him down, shoulder him, beat him to the ball, track his run, all of that. Just don't drag him down when he beats you, and don't throw a sly body check to stop him making a run'. You know. The f**king rules as they have always been there. I don't understand why any of this is new. It's like you're saying because you're not allowed drag a lad onto the ground, the art of defending is dead. That's nonsense in my opinion.
I can't see how that's possibly a 'problem'.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:53:55 AM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:50:30 AM
If you have 4 All Star defenders standing off, then you have 4 All Star defenders that are not confident in their own tackling ability. That's going to come as they realise they are still allowed tackle. I don't know where this preconception has come from that you cannot tackle any more. You can, you just can't drag lads down deliberately.
This is precisely the point.
The black card advocates are telling All-Stars defenders how to do it.
The rest of us are pointing out the obvious problem.
Black Card Advocates are telling them 'Lads, tackle away. No bother. Work like divils, dispossess the man, block him down, shoulder him, beat him to the ball, track his run, all of that. Just don't drag him down when he beats you, and don't throw a sly body check to stop him making a run'.
I can't see how that's possibly a 'problem'.
The problem is that the above is not happening.
What above? Sorry, I missed that.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
What above? Sorry, I missed that.
Quotetackle away. No bother. Work like divils, dispossess the man, block him down, shoulder him, beat him to the ball, track his run, all of that
Instead we have shootouts. I expect some awful massacres this summer.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
What above? Sorry, I missed that.
Quotetackle away. No bother. Work like divils, dispossess the man, block him down, shoulder him, beat him to the ball, track his run, all of that
Instead we have shootouts. I expect some awful massacres this summer.
But that's not the fault of the black card. That's because a lot of defenders are having to relearn the basics, or at least get confident in their own ability to execute the basics.
My big fear of the black card is that it will encourage diving to get black cards issued, and that's something I would have serious sympathy with defenders for if it becomes a major issue. But I'm sorry, a lad telling me he can't defend against Bernard Brogan because he can't drag him to the ground when he gets the ball doesn't make me pine for the art of defending. It just makes me think you need to improve your technique.
The thing is I believe most county defenders absolutely CAN defend properly, they've just lost confidence in their ability to do so because they've been getting away with the other stuff for so long. It will settle down in the Championship I think.
Edit ** Also I should point out, because we're talking about defending here, the forwards were probably the worse culprits of the lot, because they were dragging defenders down to stop a quick counter attack. That's what frustrated me more than any defender dragging a lad down in a scoreable position.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
What above? Sorry, I missed that.
Quotetackle away. No bother. Work like divils, dispossess the man, block him down, shoulder him, beat him to the ball, track his run, all of that
Instead we have shootouts. I expect some awful massacres this summer.
But that's not the fault of the black card. That's because a lot of defenders are having to relearn the basics, or at least get confident in their own ability to execute the basics.
My big fear of the black card is that it will encourage diving to get black cards issued, and that's something I would have serious sympathy with defenders for if it becomes a major issue. But I'm sorry, a lad telling me he can't defend against Bernard Brogan because he can't drag him to the ground when he gets the ball doesn't make me pine for the art of defending. It just makes me think you need to improve your technique.
The thing is I believe most county defenders absolutely CAN defend properly, they've just lost confidence in their ability to do so because they've been getting away with the other stuff for so long. It will settle down in the Championship I think.
Edit ** Also I should point out, because we're talking about defending here, the forwards were probably the worse culprits of the lot, because they were dragging defenders down to stop a quick counter attack. That's what frustrated me more than any defender dragging a lad down in a scoreable position.
I don't think anyone is arguing for pulling & dragging. The danger for defenders is that physicality could get them in trouble. You mentioned diving, but even more innocent challenges could get players in trouble.
Ironically this could dovetail with the Provincial discussion. If, for example Dublin route everyone in Leinster, what appetite will anyone have for next year's Leinster Championship?
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2014, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
What above? Sorry, I missed that.
Quotetackle away. No bother. Work like divils, dispossess the man, block him down, shoulder him, beat him to the ball, track his run, all of that
Instead we have shootouts. I expect some awful massacres this summer.
But that's not the fault of the black card. That's because a lot of defenders are having to relearn the basics, or at least get confident in their own ability to execute the basics.
My big fear of the black card is that it will encourage diving to get black cards issued, and that's something I would have serious sympathy with defenders for if it becomes a major issue. But I'm sorry, a lad telling me he can't defend against Bernard Brogan because he can't drag him to the ground when he gets the ball doesn't make me pine for the art of defending. It just makes me think you need to improve your technique.
The thing is I believe most county defenders absolutely CAN defend properly, they've just lost confidence in their ability to do so because they've been getting away with the other stuff for so long. It will settle down in the Championship I think.
Edit ** Also I should point out, because we're talking about defending here, the forwards were probably the worse culprits of the lot, because they were dragging defenders down to stop a quick counter attack. That's what frustrated me more than any defender dragging a lad down in a scoreable position.
I don't think anyone is arguing for pulling & dragging. The danger for defenders is that physicality could get them in trouble. You mentioned diving, but even more innocent challenges could get players in trouble.
Ironically this could dovetail with the Provincial discussion. If, for example Dublin route everyone in Leinster, what appetite will anyone have for next year's Leinster Championship?
Well those counties should work harder. Simple.
Donegal hammered Derry two years ago. I can bet it wont happen this summer!
Here's my take on it... I grew up watching Tony Scullion and Kieran McKeever who were 2 of the best defenders of the 90s and the main compliment they got from anyone was "they are great readers of the game". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard that saying in a good few years and the only defender I can think of where that applies at the minute would be Marc O'Se.
Defenders nowadays (Including Mayo's 4 allstars) are conditioned to mark from behind because they will always have cover from somebody dropping back when the attacker gets the ball in front. Take the other player away and they don't have the necessary skill to mark from the front and hence we have seen a multitude of corner backs 5 yards behind their attacker throughout the National League.
We will get back to the way it was in the 90s again and all will be good again but it will take a bit of time for lads to get their bearings defensively. People are generally coming round to be in favour of the black card and I think it will just be accepted as the norm after 2 years.
Quote from: screenexile on April 09, 2014, 12:36:46 PM
Here's my take on it... I grew up watching Tony Scullion and Kieran McKeever who were 2 of the best defenders of the 90s and the main compliment they got from anyone was "they are great readers of the game". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard that saying in a good few years and the only defender I can think of where that applies at the minute would be Marc O'Se.
Defenders nowadays (Including Mayo's 4 allstars) are conditioned to mark from behind because they will always have cover from somebody dropping back when the attacker gets the ball in front. Take the other player away and they don't have the necessary skill to mark from the front and hence we have seen a multitude of corner backs 5 yards behind their attacker throughout the National League.
We will get back to the way it was in the 90s again and all will be good again but it will take a bit of time for lads to get their bearings defensively. People are generally coming round to be in favour of the black card and I think it will just be accepted as the norm after 2 years.
I agree with this I am afraid that to avoid 1 on 1 situations at the back, some teams will park the bus to keep the goals out. Donegal, for example, may see the logic of reverting to a 12 backs an 2 forwards line-up. Mayo might see too much risk in launching runners from the half back line and might move, for example Higgins (already happened), Keegan and say Vaughan into the half-forward line, picking more defenders to replace them.
Quote from: Hound on April 09, 2014, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Hardy on April 08, 2014, 11:10:54 PM
Quote from: rrhf on April 08, 2014, 10:01:27 PM
It has changed the game to a non physical gaelic lite type sport. I m sure soccer had to evolve like this to become the w bland yet palatable sporting soufflé it is today. It's impossible to defend against running teams. Really Finding it a turn off.
Spot on.
That was your expectation pre the introduction of the black card Hardy, but have you seen enough games this year to support or refute that idea?
Because, in my opinion, its absolute nonsense to suggest the black card is impacting on the physicality of our games.
The views of the Tyrone lads here are just laughable. Dublin were far more physical in the game on Sunday and you've got Tyrone lads on that match thread moaning about the lack of black cards, and then on this thread the same lads moaning about lack of physicality!! Its probable that their frustraton lies with the rampant divers among their lads - that must be hugely annoying to them.
In reality, the black card does not impact on physical contact one bit. The Dublin-Tyrone match was a great example. Dublin got lots of tough tackles in on Tyrone lads. Over-penalised by Duffy in my opinion, but no doubt some were mis-timed or just badly executed. But no risk of a black card as all were attempted tackles.
We've had two perfect examples of a black card. Feeney in the club takes out a player off the ball who's trying to make a run. That's been the biggest benefit of the game. The off the ball blocking which was absolutely rampant among practically all teams at club and county level has completely disappeared.
The other was McNamee on Sunday. He first attempted a fair physical challenge. He caught O'Gara, slowed him down. O'Gara managed to ride through it, but then McNamee just tripped him up with no attempt to tackle or win the ball. Nothing physical about the latter trip and clear black card.
If Mick Lyons was playing today, in the same manner, he'd get plenty of yellows and reds, but I'd doubt he'd ever get a black. Because the black card attacks the sly/cyncial tackle, not the tough/robust tackle.
The refs, in the main, have done a super job on the black cards. The only worry is if the moaning of all the people who just don't understand the rule, seeps through to them and they start to be more profligate with it. Stuff like the "yellow card is the new bounce ball" etc is just maddening. Lads who don't know/understand the rules talking pure nonsense.
Presume that's aimed at me. Only going on what I've witnessed this year. The most prominent example is lads slabbering to the referee and as the referee calls them over for what can only be a black under the new rules a yellow mysteriously appears. The higher the profile of the player the greater the chance he will get away with it as the referee's don't want to issue blacks. Take the Ritchie Feeney example, the ref there almost apologised for issuing the black card, shrugging his shoulders to say that he was left with no choice.
I would agree with the rest of your post btw.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:28:11 AM
I agree about forwards taking steps. This seems to have crept in over the years as some sort of pseudo advantage rule, whereby a referee would allow a lad take a pile of steps if he was being fouled. That morphed into letting him take more steps if there was any contact at all.. That's something that does need to be addressed.
On the massed defence thing, it might work that way, I'm sure some teams will try it. But at the end of the day you have to score to win, and if they turn the ball over on the counter attacks, that's where gaps will appear. In the past someone like Donegal (not picking on them, every team did it) would counter attack, turn the ball over and foul immediately to let the cover defence get set up. That option is greatly reduced now.
Also, a key part of the blanket defence was to block runners. The illegal body check is now also eliminated.
This could make teams retreat even faster as they can't slow down the counter attack and it will make the running game even more attractive as those deep lying players counter attack in droves off the shoulder. It's all well and good explaining how to execute the perfect tackle but it's clear that some counties do not have the personnel to go man to man for this coming season and I'd be massively surprised if the likes of Tyrone persist in doing so. It will be fascinating how it turns out and certainly adds a different dynamic to things.
I think the black card came from good intentions but is going to be the talking point of the summer rather than the wonderful football it was introduced to encourage.
One high profile black card in Championship football will spark fury. The reason for this is inconsistency. You can highlight a number of incidents which to the letter of the law are black card offenses in every game of football, live or televised. At present from the 7 league games I've witnessed we've had inconsistency from the same ref across the same game, never-mind how frustrating it will get when you see inconsistencies between different games with different refs. I'm not saying I'd like to see more black cards per se, rather that I'd expect uniforming and consistency of approach across the games.
The rule states the offenses as follows
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.
From what I've seen 4 and 5 have not been implemented.
1, 2 and 3 have been horrendously inconsistently implemented, 3 in particular which has infuriated me over the past few months as it stops the running game which I enjoy.
I think this comes down (as it always, inevitably, does) to the man in the middle. The key word in 1,2 and 3 is DELIBERATELY. One man's view of deliberate might well be another man's accidental. Referees are human, and will make the call as they see it, so expect a lot of that was deliberate/no it wasn't type arguments during the summer. I think what you'll see happen is referees will end up giving the benefit of the doubt, and if they can't be sure in their own mind they will lean towards accidental.
What should NEVER happen is a yellow card being awarded for a black card foul. If a lad accidentally trips an opponent (tangle of legs or whatever) he shouldn't receive a black card, but he shouldn't receive a yellow either!
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 02:57:46 PM
I think this comes down (as it always, inevitably, does) to the man in the middle. The key word in 1,2 and 3 is DELIBERATELY. One man's view of deliberate might well be another man's accidental. Referees are human, and will make the call as they see it, so expect a lot of that was deliberate/no it wasn't type arguments during the summer. I think what you'll see happen is referees will end up giving the benefit of the doubt, and if they can't be sure in their own mind they will lean towards accidental.
What should NEVER happen is a yellow card being awarded for a black card foul. If a lad accidentally trips an opponent (tangle of legs or whatever) he shouldn't receive a black card, but he shouldn't receive a yellow either!
Agreed. This would be the equivalent of the 'there was contact' farce that now prevails in soccer.
Yeah, it would seem going by the crowd reactions at different games that people assume that any time an attacker ends up on the ground, a black card is warranted.
Quote3. 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.
So our legitimate side to side shoulder could be a black card?
I think the biggest horseshit that is talked is the "there's more scores so it's good for the game" type rubbish. Fair enough, defenders were doing illegal things and have now been forced to stop doing them but as I've always said - attackers can still take 6-8 steps and rarely be punished. Did defenders pull and drag as a reaction to overcarry or vice versa? I'm not sure. However, the current rule changes coupled with their implementation clearly favour the person in possession, running with the ball. I don't think that's right. If I had my way the rules would be leaning against players who took the ball into the tackle (use the ball, don't play rugby league).
Quote from: Jinxy on April 09, 2014, 03:25:07 PM
Yeah, it would seem going by the crowd reactions at different games that people assume that any time an attacker ends up on the ground, a black card is warranted.
An attacker from their team!
Well as expected a heated discussion. Not sure i buy the packed defense argument anyone remember dublin v donegal in 2011 when the score was roughly 2 pts to 4 at half time.
Surely part of the reason is to eliminate puke football, which I think it has. The definition of the tackle has not changed, just the punishment for breaking the rules. It's hard to argue that you dont like the rule because now you can't drag someone to the ground and get away with it.
It's all Cavanaghs fault :'( :-\ >:(
Quote from: sligoman2 on April 09, 2014, 04:17:40 PM
Well as expected a heated discussion. Not sure i buy the packed defense argument anyone remember dublin v donegal in 2011 when the score was roughly 2 pts to 4 at half time.
Surely part of the reason is to eliminate puke football, which I think it has. The definition of the tackle has not changed, just the punishment for breaking the rules. It's hard to argue that you dont like the rule because now you can't drag someone to the ground and get away with it.
It's all Cavanaghs fault :'( :-\ >:(
It's actually not, and that's why I thought the whole Cavanagh thing was a joke. If you look at Kerry v Cavan, and look at the fouls Kerry committed in the forwards, in a game they were well in control of, there you'll see the reason for the black card.
Quote from: sligoman2 on April 09, 2014, 04:17:40 PM
Well as expected a heated discussion. Not sure i buy the packed defense argument anyone remember dublin v donegal in 2011 when the score was roughly 2 pts to 4 at half time.
Surely part of the reason is to eliminate puke football, which I think it has. The definition of the tackle has not changed, just the punishment for breaking the rules. It's hard to argue that you dont like the rule because now you can't drag someone to the ground and get away with it.
It's all Cavanaghs fault :'( :-\ >:(
Jaysus - do people actually use this term in real life?
The refs need retrained in this ruling.
Or the rules needs changed
Or something.
Jaysus - do people actually use this term in real life?
Yes, we sligonians unfortunately use the term a lot along with a few other choice adjectives
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 09, 2014, 11:28:11 AM
I agree about forwards taking steps. This seems to have crept in over the years as some sort of pseudo advantage rule, whereby a referee would allow a lad take a pile of steps if he was being fouled. That morphed into letting him take more steps if there was any contact at all.. That's something that does need to be addressed.
On the massed defence thing, it might work that way, I'm sure some teams will try it. But at the end of the day you have to score to win, and if they turn the ball over on the counter attacks, that's where gaps will appear. In the past someone like Donegal (not picking on them, every team did it) would counter attack, turn the ball over and foul immediately to let the cover defence get set up. That option is greatly reduced now.
Also, a key part of the blanket defence was to block runners. The illegal body check is now also eliminated.
How are the options to do this greatly reduced? Grab some lads arm and don't let go .... pull a jersey back .... bear-hug someone. Ok so teams can't pull someone to the ground but there's plenty of other ways to give up a free and let your defense get back. I don't feel that this tactic is in any way less of an option for teams this year than last year.
I can tell you that Donegal will be playing a swarm defense this year - pretty much the same as we did for the last few years. The rule around blocking runners can only help us. While we get a lot of stick for doing that, we were by far more the victim of such blocks. The Donegal game is based on runners breaking from defense. I'd safely say that Mark McHugh was one of the most blocked players in the whole country over the last few years.
So how do the black card rules force a team to alter it's defensive strategy? They don't. Look at Cavan this year, look at us. Plenty of massed defenses will be on display this year so don't be worrying.
Is the player receiving a black card considered sent off, or merely replaced? If sent off, he is not allowed participate in any of the post- game activities. Normally not a big deal, right?
Cavan captain was black carded tonight and he was allowed to collect the cup. I think black card means replaced, so no harm done tonight. Has anyone any experience of a captain being sent off by red card and then not allowed to receive the cup? There would be a riot, no?
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 09, 2014, 03:31:12 PM
Quote3. 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.
So our legitimate side to side shoulder could be a black card?
I think the biggest horseshit that is talked is the "there's more scores so it's good for the game" type rubbish. Fair enough, defenders were doing illegal things and have now been forced to stop doing them but as I've always said - attackers can still take 6-8 steps and rarely be punished. Did defenders pull and drag as a reaction to overcarry or vice versa? I'm not sure. However, the current rule changes coupled with their implementation clearly favour the person in possession, running with the ball. I don't think that's right. If I had my way the rules would be leaning against players who took the ball into the tackle (use the ball, don't play rugby league).
In general I'm willing to give the black card a chance but the next thing that needs sorted out as you and AZOffaly amongst others have alluded to, is FORWARDS OVERCARRYING. And I say that as an ex-forward who's sympathies have always lain with the lads lined out 10-15.
When the forward takes the ball into contact and the defender has the hand in he is allowed several big steps, small steps, shuffles and wriggles to get himself free before popping off a shot. It is not uncommon to count 8-9 steps taken in total. The only time you really see a ref blowing for carrying is if a forward turns one way, then the other, then back again, then around a fourth time. Sometimes in these cases there aren't a huge amount of steps taken but the player is penalised for 'taking too much out of it', which everyone hates, and he trudges off with his tail between his legs ;D
What needs to be looked at is forwards anywhere around 30 yards from goal, being legitimately tackled but using 7/8/9 steps to wriggle free and get a shot away. They are being tackled, they need to solo or hop the ball and risk losing it or pass it before getting bottled up.
Feel for backs myself these days.
Quote from: Ball Hopper on April 09, 2014, 10:29:57 PM
Is the player receiving a black card considered sent off, or merely replaced? If sent off, he is not allowed participate in any of the post- game activities. Normally not a big deal, right?
Cavan captain was black carded tonight and he was allowed to collect the cup. I think black card means replaced, so no harm done tonight. Has anyone any experience of a captain being sent off by red card and then not allowed to receive the cup? There would be a riot, no?
I remember it happening in a Markey cup final.The captain sent of for a second yellow in extra time, and wasnt allowed to lift the cup then.
I thought it was a particularly harsh thing to happen at schools level.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 10, 2014, 09:27:23 AM
Quote from: Ball Hopper on April 09, 2014, 10:29:57 PM
Is the player receiving a black card considered sent off, or merely replaced? If sent off, he is not allowed participate in any of the post- game activities. Normally not a big deal, right?
Cavan captain was black carded tonight and he was allowed to collect the cup. I think black card means replaced, so no harm done tonight. Has anyone any experience of a captain being sent off by red card and then not allowed to receive the cup? There would be a riot, no?
I remember it happening in a Markey cup final.The captain sent of for a second yellow in extra time, and wasnt allowed to lift the cup then.
I thought it was a particularly harsh thing to happen at schools level.
That's a dumb rule and should be abolished. It makes no sense like the rule in golf if you are ready to putt and the wind blows your ball it's a penalty.
I do agree with the comments on over carrying and I have noticed it myself. 7 or 8 steps are what most players can take without being fouled and i think 4 is too few and refs don't enforce it. They should change the rule and then enforce it
http://m.rte.ie/sport/touch/gaa/football/2014/0410/608084-black-card/
Interesting article on rte today about how scores are up and card are down.
Equally interesting article from Kevin Cassidy;
WHEN the black card was introduced I decided to hold my counsel on the issue until I had watched a few games at county and club level.
Two weeks ago my club Gaoth Dobhair were playing in the opening round of Comortas Peile Na Gaeltachta away to Glenswilly. The game was evenly balanced and with our league programme about to come into full swing in Donegal I felt it was time to sample my first taste of competitive football for 2014.
I was introduced as a substitute with 20 minutes left. Approximately 45 seconds later I was back standing on the sideline again shouting at my troops having received a black card.
Since taking up my role as player manager this year I have spent time studying the offences that come under the black card rule and I must say I was puzzled when I saw the referee waving a black card above my head.
When asked what it was for I was told it was for cynical play. Considering I was reaching out for a misplaced pass from one of my team-mates and this happened in the opposition's half of the field I found it difficult to agree with him.
I did not argue as when this rule was introduced I said from the start that the referees were going to be the real losers in this situation. Their job was hard enough without introducing this carry on as well.
Let me be clear, I am all for positive football and providing the opportunity for skilful players to express themselves. People might say, 'What's that man talking about. Sure didn't he help bring negative football to a new level playing the way he did in 2011 when Jim McGuinness took over?'
My answer is that it's no great secret I was totally against the way we set up. I have stated publicly on a number of occasions that I didn't enjoy playing that way, but we also knew that with the players at our disposal it was the only way to achieve success.
Was there a need for this rule to be introduced? Was it media driven? And will it really improve our game? I don't think there was a real need for this to be brought in if we had properly imposed the rules that were in place. You would arrive at the same outcome, clamping down on cynical play and systematic fouling.
After my colleague Joe Brolly's rant on RTE about the Sean Cavanagh rugby tackle in the All-Ireland quarter-final his crusade grew legs and suddenly this new rule was introduced and was going to change the way Gaelic football is played.
Anyone who thinks that this new rule means a player bearing down on goal in the last few minutes of a championship match this summer is not going to be hauled down is living on another planet.
When weighing up the pros and cons of the rule I am afraid it just doesn't wash for me. Yes, to date in the league there have been more high scoring games and free flowing football, but I feel that come championship when the stakes are higher we will see the numbers coming back into kilter.
One major gripe I have with it is that it takes the physicality out of our game. Players can no longer go wholeheartedly into tackles. If you were to fly in your fate lies in the hands of the referee and depending on the way he see it you could be watching the rest of the game from the sideline.
Spectators go to games to see forwards scoring fantastic points but they also love to see defenders putting their body on the line and throwing themselves into crunching tackles. Francie Bellew on his game was worth the admission price alone just to see him putting his body on the line time after time. With this new rule players like Francie will be surplus to requirements. As a result our games will lack intensity, with players afraid to tackle for fear of being sidelined.
When this rule came in my main area of concern was for the referees and how it would be dealt with not only at county level but at club level also. As stated earlier referees have a tough enough job as it is and now they have to deal with this.
From my experience of it a club level to date I am actually disgusted by what I have witnessed. What you have now is when any player is fouled you have players from the opposing team screaming in the referees face that it's a black card.
We played a league match last weekend and half way through the game the opposition's midfielder came bursting down the middle with the ball. As I have done a thousand times before I met the player with everything I had in an attempt to disposes him. Yes, it was a foul, I was a split-second late, but it just about worth a free kick. Within seconds the referee was surrounded by players demanding I get a black card.
Under extreme pressure the referee showed me a yellow card. In days gone by the player I fouled would have been awarded a free and the game would have continued, but now we have a situation where every foul is being punished by a card and it's a lottery as to which one you will get.
For me the jury is still out on the issue, but one thing I will miss this summer is the intensity and physicality that only a crunching tackle from the likes of a big Francie can create.
- See more at: http://gaeliclife.com/2014/04/kevin-cassidy-a-farewell-to-francie/#sthash.Eek634fX.dpuf
Disagree with Kevin. What was happening was defenders were throwing themselves in without any real attempt to play the ball because if you managed to dispossess the attacker great but if not you'd stop him in his tracks anyway which was just as good and there was no deterrent to defending this way. Now there is a greater onus on you to try and play the ball in the tackle but the opportunity to level him with a shoulder is still there.
Excellent Kevin
I couldn't disagree with Kevin as he says practically everything I was saying before this wrongheaded clampdown on defending was introduced.
Quote<Referees'> job was hard enough without introducing this carry on as well.
QuoteWas it media driven? And will it really improve our game? I don't think there was a real need for this to be brought in if we had properly imposed the rules that were in place.
QuoteAnyone who thinks that this new rule means a player bearing down on goal in the last few minutes of a championship match this summer is not going to be hauled down is living on another planet.
QuoteIt takes the physicality out of our game. Players can no longer go wholeheartedly into tackles.
QuoteOur games will lack intensity, with players afraid to tackle for fear of being sidelined.
Quote from: Hardy on April 12, 2014, 10:49:37 PM
I couldn't disagree with Kevin as he says practically everything I was saying before this wrongheaded clampdown on defending was introduced.
Quote<Referees'> job was hard enough without introducing this carry on as well.
QuoteWas it media driven? And will it really improve our game? I don't think there was a real need for this to be brought in if we had properly imposed the rules that were in place.
QuoteAnyone who thinks that this new rule means a player bearing down on goal in the last few minutes of a championship match this summer is not going to be hauled down is living on another planet.
QuoteIt takes the physicality out of our game. Players can no longer go wholeheartedly into tackles.
QuoteOur games will lack intensity, with players afraid to tackle for fear of being sidelined.
While I agree with all the above and did from the outset of this silliness, the bit in bold is key. They're still not enforcing all of the rules.
We'll done lads and lassies in an excellent thread.
Some great posts!
Personally I feel as an amateur sport we should strive to play our games fairly and in a sporting way at all levels, for me in theory the black card is a necessary safeguard for this, but in truth all players and mentors need to pull their own weight and at least genuinely try to play the game within the rules. Genuine attempts for the ball should never be punished by a black card and thankfully so far haven't seem to be.
Gesturing to a ref to card a player akin to a certain mayo player v Dublin or any other player doing likewise should be vilified,
The steps rule should be enforced.
So far In the games I've seen so far the rule has been enforced well and the refs also need time to adjust to the rule change.
Fair sporting tough physical games will hopefully be the result of the rule change and passion in the play will be brought to the fore in the right way!
There is really no point in having the black card rule, or any other rules for that matter, while the GAA continues to appoint the same officials.
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on April 13, 2014, 07:45:31 PM
There is really no point in having the black card rule, or any other rules for that matter, while the GAA continues to appoint the same officials.
rarly do I hear winners giving out about the ref
Quote from: Johnnybegood on April 13, 2014, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on April 13, 2014, 07:45:31 PM
There is really no point in having the black card rule, or any other rules for that matter, while the GAA continues to appoint the same officials.
rarly do I hear winners giving out about the ref
I haven't seen one Derry poster speak positively of Mr Hughes' performance today. One literally has no idea what colour card, if any, he would brandish after blowing for a free.
Quote from: Hardy on April 12, 2014, 10:49:37 PM
I couldn't disagree with Kevin as he says practically everything I was saying before this wrongheaded clampdown on defending was introduced.
Love to hear an example of how the black card impacts on legitmate defending Hardy?
Is it not being allowed to trip a lad up with no intention to go near the ball that you object to? Or is it the off-the-ball takeouts that you want to see more of?
Obviously havent seen any football Hardy this year if you think black card impacts on the physicality of defending!
Sly tripping or off the ball nonsense is what the black card targets, not physicality. And the refs are doing a good job in the main in officiating this.
Must also be said the the black card offences are so clearly set out, that its arguably one of the easiest areas to officiate.
Quote from: Hound on April 13, 2014, 09:42:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 12, 2014, 10:49:37 PM
I couldn't disagree with Kevin as he says practically everything I was saying before this wrongheaded clampdown on defending was introduced.
Love to hear an example of how the black card impacts on legitmate defending Hardy?
Is it not being allowed to trip a lad up with no intention to go near the ball that you object to? Or is it the off-the-ball takeouts that you want to see more of?
Obviously havent seen any football Hardy this year if you think black card impacts on the physicality of defending!
Sly tripping or off the ball nonsense is what the black card targets, not physicality. And the refs are doing a good job in the main in officiating this.
Must also be said the the black card offences are so clearly set out, that its arguably one of the easiest areas to officiate.
This would be my opinion too. I know the fear is that honest attempts to win the ball will be misinterpreted as cynical fouls, but to be honest I find it hard to see how an honest, mis timed attempt to win a ball would result in a drag down that can be judged deliberate.
I am worried about a big incident that will turn out to be a dive though.
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on April 13, 2014, 08:59:11 PM
Quote from: Johnnybegood on April 13, 2014, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on April 13, 2014, 07:45:31 PM
There is really no point in having the black card rule, or any other rules for that matter, while the GAA continues to appoint the same officials.
rarly do I hear winners giving out about the ref
I haven't seen one Derry poster speak positively of Mr Hughes' performance today. One literally has no idea what colour card, if any, he would brandish after blowing for a free.
The ref was absolutely atrocious. I agree completely with the above but would add that any referee that thinks our games are non-contact sports should f#uck off back to soccer.
I've been meaning to respond to Hound and AZ but no spare time to put together what I want to say. It's not about the black card rules per se, but about the mentality the new initiatives represent that's manifesting itself in penalising honest physicality, indulging attackers in stepping And promoting an attitude that more scoring means all this is working for the best. Maybe say something more sensible when I have time.
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2014, 10:05:08 PM
I've been meaning to respond to Hound and AZ but no spare time to put together what I want to say. It's not about the black card rules per se, but about the mentality the new initiatives represent that's manifesting itself in penalising honest physicality, indulging attackers in stepping And promoting an attitude that more scoring means all this is working for the best. Maybe say something more sensible when I have time.
This is exactly it.
The black card hasn't changed the rules regarding tackling, but as a result of the black card players are afraid to tackle.
Many times when the whistle went yesterday players and fans all looked at the ref to see if he thought a black card offence had occurred. Often players on the ground who had just been fouled called for the black card. Pointing to mores scores as proof that the card is working is missing a bigger problem.
Quote from: muppet on April 14, 2014, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 13, 2014, 10:05:08 PM
I've been meaning to respond to Hound and AZ but no spare time to put together what I want to say. It's not about the black card rules per se, but about the mentality the new initiatives represent that's manifesting itself in penalising honest physicality, indulging attackers in stepping And promoting an attitude that more scoring means all this is working for the best. Maybe say something more sensible when I have time.
This is exactly it.
The black card hasn't changed the rules regarding tackling, but as a result of the black card players are afraid to tackle.
Many times when the whistle went yesterday players and fans all looked at the ref to see if he thought a black card offence had occurred. Often players on the ground who had just been fouled called for the black card. Pointing to mores scores as proof that the card is working is missing a bigger problem.
OK I understand that, and maybe there's a period where players will need to find their feet. I'm sure it will settle down. In fairness, as long as a ref is sure something was deliberate, then the black card offences are about as clear as can be.
From my experience of the black card in yesterdays club game, it was a complete disaster.
This has always been my biggest worry about the new rules, how they work when having to be implemented by referees at ALL levels.
The new rules do NOTHING to improve the game as a spectacle.
They encourage a player to take the ball into contact and then go down with the slightest of contact.
I know i will get loads of replies saying ' oh but thats nothing to do with the rules' but in my opinion it is.
There is alot more to gain now from 'going down easily' or 'diving' or whatever way you want to put it.
There is a huge grey area over what is a black card foul and what is not, its ok arguing the wording of the rulebook on here, but when it comes to referees making that distinction in real time during games confusion & inconsistency reign.
we had a player yesterday get a black card in the first 5 minutes or so for a foul that im pretty sure last season wouldnt have recieved a yellow even.
the ref went on to give out 5 more black cards, all of which where very debatable. (not to mention another clear bodycheck off the ball, for which he awarded a free but NO black card)
I can see there being huge controversy over this throughout the year, especially in club football.
be careful what you wish for lads.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 14, 2014, 12:26:05 PM
From my experience of the black card in yesterdays club game, it was a complete disaster.
This has always been my biggest worry about the new rules, how they work when having to be implemented by referees at ALL levels.
The new rules do NOTHING to improve the game as a spectacle.
They encourage a player to take the ball into contact and then go down with the slightest of contact.
I know i will get loads of replies saying ' oh but thats nothing to do with the rules' but in my opinion it is.
There is alot more to gain now from 'going down easily' or 'diving' or whatever way you want to put it.
There is a huge grey area over what is a black card foul and what is not, its ok arguing the wording of the rulebook on here, but when it comes to referees making that distinction in real time during games confusion & inconsistency reign.
we had a player yesterday get a black card in the first 5 minutes or so for a foul that im pretty sure last season wouldnt have recieved a yellow even.
the ref went on to give out 5 more black cards, all of which where very debatable. (not to mention another clear bodycheck off the ball, for which he awarded a free but NO black card)
I can see there being huge controversy over this throughout the year, especially in club football.
be careful what you wish for lads.
That's what I'd be worried about alright.
But in terms of grey areas, I can't agree. It's as black and white as it can be. All the ref has to decide is was it deliberate or not. Of course some refs will make the wrong call there, and that's a flaw but ultimately all refereeing is flawed.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 14, 2014, 12:26:05 PM
From my experience of the black card in yesterdays club game, it was a complete disaster.
This has always been my biggest worry about the new rules, how they work when having to be implemented by referees at ALL levels.
The new rules do NOTHING to improve the game as a spectacle.
They encourage a player to take the ball into contact and then go down with the slightest of contact.
I know i will get loads of replies saying ' oh but thats nothing to do with the rules' but in my opinion it is.
There is alot more to gain now from 'going down easily' or 'diving' or whatever way you want to put it.
There is a huge grey area over what is a black card foul and what is not, its ok arguing the wording of the rulebook on here, but when it comes to referees making that distinction in real time during games confusion & inconsistency reign.
we had a player yesterday get a black card in the first 5 minutes or so for a foul that im pretty sure last season wouldnt have recieved a yellow even.
the ref went on to give out 5 more black cards, all of which where very debatable. (not to mention another clear bodycheck off the ball, for which he awarded a free but NO black card)
I can see there being huge controversy over this throughout the year, especially in club football.
be careful what you wish for lads.
That's what I'd be worried about alright.
But in terms of grey areas, I can't agree. It's as black and white as it can be. All the ref has to decide is was it deliberate or not. Of course some refs will make the wrong call there, and that's a flaw but ultimately all refereeing is flawed.
i agree it may be black & white in the rule book, but when it comes to making the decisions in real time, its not that simple.
Just as there are varying levels of players from junior club right up to senior intercounty, there are varying degrees of referees as well and in my opinion the new rules have added a n extra level of difficulty for them to deal with.
That's probably a fair statement. However we have to have refs, and this rule really just asks them to make one decision. Deliberate or not. If they can't get most of them right, then we have bigger problems.
Anyway, tell yer lads to stop cynically fouling everyone. ;)
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2014, 01:39:41 PM
That's probably a fair statement. However we have to have refs, and this rule really just asks them to make one decision. Deliberate or not. If they can't get most of them right, then we have bigger problems.
Anyway, tell yer lads to stop cynically fouling everyone. ;)
we had 2 black cards, they had 4! so it isnt just a case of being on the wrong side of a few decisions and taking the hump with the rules! I really feel it detracted form the game (which was a good contest) rather than adding to it.
If there are six black cards in a single match, either the ref is useless or the players are idiots.
Quote from: Hound on April 14, 2014, 02:17:23 PM
If there are six black cards in a single match, either the ref is useless or the players are idiots.
or the rules are flawed......
Can't be the rules. That hasn't happened in any IC game so it isn't the rules. There hasn't been a single black card in our (the county) club games so far.
Quote from: Zulu on April 14, 2014, 02:38:42 PM
Can't be the rules. That hasn't in any IC game so it isn't the rules. There hasn't been a single black card in our (the county) club games so far.
We had two yellow cards in our club game yesterday that everyone knew were black cards, including the ref. They only had 15 players and we had 17 but two went off injured.
We also had a penalty given against us and he opposition were pissing themselves laughing. Indeed I think the guy who took it was still laughing as he hit a weak penalty along the ground that was gratefully saved by our keeper!
Here's another interesting article on this subject from Eamon Sweeney in today's indo.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/official-line-must-hold-firm-30180603.html
I took an underage training session before and it was time to pick teams to play a match, I had red and black bibs. There were two lads of African decent playing. I handed out the bibs randomly and said 'red team you spread about and you're shooting that way', I was goin to say the same to the black team but the two lads were on it so I stopped in my tracks, would it be racist to call them the black team I asked myself.
I looked around and told the kids that the teams weren't fair so I swapped a few of them around, including the two black lads over to the red team. This solved an awful conundrum I had gotten myself into but what if a referee finds himself in a similar sticky situation? What if a coloured lad drags down a fella in a match and deserves a black card? Will the ref feel a bit racist doing this and give him a red instead?
Quote from: sligoman2 on April 14, 2014, 05:40:34 PM
Here's another interesting article on this subject from Eamon Sweeney in today's indo.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/official-line-must-hold-firm-30180603.html
The real test of the black card is whether referees will have the guts to brandish it in the championship where much more is at stake. Will we see it in one of those Ulster slugfests where managers and pundits already appeal for referees to recognise the distinctive culture of football in the province and go easy with the cards? Will we see it if a big name commits a cynical foul in the first five minutes of a big match? Will we see it with five minutes left in a packed and noisy Croke Park and the result still in doubt? Will we see it from a referee who's been slagged off in his previous game by a big-name manager who wants to retain cynicism as an option for the rest of the campaign?The trouble is the consistency, there is none! Interpretation is all over the place. And allot of referees are brandishing yellows as a kop out! Good players are going to be targeted into doing a tackle that will be made look like a cynical foul. Play acting! It's all ahead of us. Loads of great scores are great for the game. But there are players who take up to 8 steps into a tackle and rarely get pulled for it unless there are three or more players around him and he gets bottled up. We all know the players.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 14, 2014, 12:26:05 PM
From my experience of the black card in yesterdays club game, it was a complete disaster.
This has always been my biggest worry about the new rules, how they work when having to be implemented by referees at ALL levels.
The new rules do NOTHING to improve the game as a spectacle.
They encourage a player to take the ball into contact and then go down with the slightest of contact.
I know i will get loads of replies saying ' oh but thats nothing to do with the rules' but in my opinion it is.
There is alot more to gain now from 'going down easily' or 'diving' or whatever way you want to put it.
There is a huge grey area over what is a black card foul and what is not, its ok arguing the wording of the rulebook on here, but when it comes to referees making that distinction in real time during games confusion & inconsistency reign.
we had a player yesterday get a black card in the first 5 minutes or so for a foul that im pretty sure last season wouldnt have recieved a yellow even.
the ref went on to give out 5 more black cards, all of which where very debatable. (not to mention another clear bodycheck off the ball, for which he awarded a free but NO black card)
I can see there being huge controversy over this throughout the year, especially in club football.
be careful what you wish for lads.
That's what I'd be worried about alright.
But in terms of grey areas, I can't agree. It's as black and white as it can be. All the ref has to decide is was it deliberate or not. Of course some refs will make the wrong call there, and that's a flaw but ultimately all refereeing is flawed.
Refereed my second football game on Sunday, no black cards shown at all, in fairness both teams are not noted for cynical type football so all tackles (in my opinion, which on the day is the one that matters lol) seemed fair, and there was no calls for black cards by either the players or management teams. Can't see that lasting as the season hot's up and championship games kick in.
As a referee I'm not a fan of the black card rule only for the slobbering at the referee, deliberate pull downs/trips should be a yellow and followed by another should same player do it again. A home referee yesterday watching the game viewed 3 black cards in his opinion so it shows you the difference of how the rules are going to be applied
But that's true of every decision a ref makes. I'd wager if you placed 4 refs on each side of the pitch and asked them to write down all frees, yellows, blacks and reds they felt should be given in the game, not only would it be different from the ref who did the game but they would be different from each other.
Your right Zulu, but we are going to have ones complaining like fcuk all year regardless. This image say's it all, if we worked to this we'd cut a lot of shite out
(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/q74/s720x720/10156044_741476099230869_3491368084524397907_n.jpg)
Quote from: Dont Matter on April 14, 2014, 06:07:46 PM
I took an underage training session before and it was time to pick teams to play a match, I had red and black bibs. There were two lads of African decent playing. I handed out the bibs randomly and said 'red team you spread about and you're shooting that way', I was goin to say the same to the black team but the two lads were on it so I stopped in my tracks, would it be racist to call them the black team I asked myself.
I looked around and told the kids that the teams weren't fair so I swapped a few of them around, including the two black lads over to the red team. This solved an awful conundrum I had gotten myself into but what if a referee finds himself in a similar sticky situation? What if a coloured lad drags down a fella in a match and deserves a black card? Will the ref feel a bit racist doing this and give him a red instead?
was your act of 'swapping a few of them around' racially motivated?
Quote from: Dont Matter on April 14, 2014, 06:07:46 PM
I took an underage training session before and it was time to pick teams to play a match, I had red and black bibs. There were two lads of African decent playing. I handed out the bibs randomly and said 'red team you spread about and you're shooting that way', I was goin to say the same to the black team but the two lads were on it so I stopped in my tracks, would it be racist to call them the black team I asked myself.
I looked around and told the kids that the teams weren't fair so I swapped a few of them around, including the two black lads over to the red team. This solved an awful conundrum I had gotten myself into but what if a referee finds himself in a similar sticky situation? What if a coloured lad drags down a fella in a match and deserves a black card? Will the ref feel a bit racist doing this and give him a red instead?
Jesus.
Can you not just stick to ranting about Dublin and their millions?
Dont Matter gets nothing but abuse around here. It's all will you shut up about the money or shut up about this and get back to the money. Speaking of money, you know Dont Matter doesn't get paid to post here? You all get the pearls of wisdom for free. A bit of gratitude would be nice, saving the GAA takes time.
This is like the time of Jesus, they all thought he was a bit mad so they hammered his onto some wood. Will ya loosen the nails on me lads? You're going to be raging when you find out I was the voice of God all along. God could that fella Alan, just to keep our Muslim readers happy.
Quote from: Dont Matter on April 15, 2014, 09:57:03 AM
Dont Matter gets nothing but abuse around here. It's all will you shut up about the money or shut up about this and get back to the money. Speaking of money, you know Dont Matter doesn't get paid to post here? You all get the pearls of wisdom for free. A bit of gratitude would be nice, saving the GAA takes time.
This is like the time of Jesus, they all thought he was a bit mad so they hammered his onto some wood. Will ya loosen the nails on me lads? You're going to be raging when you find out I was the voice of God all along. God could that fella Alan, just to keep our Muslim readers happy.
I was wondering whether you and Black Card were two sides of the same coin. But since he thinks there is no God and you think you are Jesus, I can probably rule that one out.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 14, 2014, 07:42:35 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 14, 2014, 12:26:05 PM
From my experience of the black card in yesterdays club game, it was a complete disaster.
This has always been my biggest worry about the new rules, how they work when having to be implemented by referees at ALL levels.
The new rules do NOTHING to improve the game as a spectacle.
They encourage a player to take the ball into contact and then go down with the slightest of contact.
I know i will get loads of replies saying ' oh but thats nothing to do with the rules' but in my opinion it is.
There is alot more to gain now from 'going down easily' or 'diving' or whatever way you want to put it.
There is a huge grey area over what is a black card foul and what is not, its ok arguing the wording of the rulebook on here, but when it comes to referees making that distinction in real time during games confusion & inconsistency reign.
we had a player yesterday get a black card in the first 5 minutes or so for a foul that im pretty sure last season wouldnt have recieved a yellow even.
the ref went on to give out 5 more black cards, all of which where very debatable. (not to mention another clear bodycheck off the ball, for which he awarded a free but NO black card)
I can see there being huge controversy over this throughout the year, especially in club football.
be careful what you wish for lads.
That's what I'd be worried about alright.
But in terms of grey areas, I can't agree. It's as black and white as it can be. All the ref has to decide is was it deliberate or not. Of course some refs will make the wrong call there, and that's a flaw but ultimately all refereeing is flawed.
Refereed my second football game on Sunday, no black cards shown at all, in fairness both teams are not noted for cynical type football so all tackles (in my opinion, which on the day is the one that matters lol) seemed fair, and there was no calls for black cards by either the players or management teams. Can't see that lasting as the season hot's up and championship games kick in.
As a referee I'm not a fan of the black card rule only for the slobbering at the referee, deliberate pull downs/trips should be a yellow and followed by another should same player do it again. A home referee yesterday watching the game viewed 3 black cards in his opinion so it shows you the difference of how the rules are going to be applied
And there in lies the problem
So the consensus it that the message is good it's the messenger i.e th refs that are the problem. We have the same reffing inconsistencies for yellow and red cards.
Let it play out, we know there will be bad calls in the championship and most will bash the rule but there will also be good calls and things that don't happen that will improve the games.
Time will tell
Quote from: sligoman2 on April 15, 2014, 05:00:36 PM
So the consensus it that the message is good it's the messenger i.e th refs that are the problem. We have the same reffing inconsistencies for yellow and red cards.
Let it play out, we know there will be bad calls in the championship and most will bash the rule but there will also be good calls and things that don't happen that will improve the games.
Time will tell
i would rather someone 'got away with' a yellow for a challenege that could be deemed a black card than a player having trained all year for the championship getting a very harsh black card early on and having to watch from the line.
I am also still to be convinced that the rules do ANYTHING to actually improve the game as a spectacle
Quote from: muppet on April 15, 2014, 01:47:20 PM
I was wondering whether you and Black Card were two sides of the same coin. But since he thinks there is no God and you think you are Jesus, I can probably rule that one out.
Think? I never think, I just know.
Had a briefing last night from referee's about the Black Card which was quite interesting.
The thing they highlighted most and said the key to the rule is 'deliberate' and '100% certainty'. The referee must be 100% certain that the act was deliberate otherwise a black card will not be shown. It explains why a few I thought to be Black Cards haven't been.
The other thing is that for the pull down black card 'there must be a clear pulling DOWN motion in the tackle'. Therefore pulling someone and them losing their footing or going to ground is not a black card!!
Quote from: screenexile on April 16, 2014, 11:25:56 AM
Had a briefing last night from referee's about the Black Card which was quite interesting.
The thing they highlighted most and said the key to the rule is 'deliberate' and '100% certainty'. The referee must be 100% certain that the act was deliberate otherwise a black card will not be shown. It explains why a few I thought to be Black Cards haven't been.
The other thing is that for the pull down black card 'there must be a clear pulling DOWN motion in the tackle'. Therefore pulling someone and them losing their footing or going to ground is not a black card!!
the referee we had at the weekend must have missed that meeting.
By that definition there should have been 1 black card in the game.
he issued 6
Quote from: screenexile on April 16, 2014, 11:25:56 AM
Had a briefing last night from referee's about the Black Card which was quite interesting.
The thing they highlighted most and said the key to the rule is 'deliberate' and '100% certainty'. The referee must be 100% certain that the act was deliberate otherwise a black card will not be shown. It explains why a few I thought to be Black Cards haven't been.
The other thing is that for the pull down black card 'there must be a clear pulling DOWN motion in the tackle'. Therefore pulling someone and them losing their footing or going to ground is not a black card!!
That would have been my interpretation as well. A ref should be 100% sure before he makes any decision,not just black cards. The clear pulling down motion part of the interpretation is exactly correct and addresses the issue of diving.
Quote from: Zulu on April 16, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
Quote from: screenexile on April 16, 2014, 11:25:56 AM
Had a briefing last night from referee's about the Black Card which was quite interesting.
The thing they highlighted most and said the key to the rule is 'deliberate' and '100% certainty'. The referee must be 100% certain that the act was deliberate otherwise a black card will not be shown. It explains why a few I thought to be Black Cards haven't been.
The other thing is that for the pull down black card 'there must be a clear pulling DOWN motion in the tackle'. Therefore pulling someone and them losing their footing or going to ground is not a black card!!
That would have been my interpretation as well. A ref should be 100% sure before he makes any decision,not just black cards. The clear pulling down motion part of the interpretation is exactly correct and addresses the issue of diving.
If thats the case then great, lets hope thats the way that the rules are actually applied by referess.
I would imagine if those guidelines are followed there will be very few black cards
My view was always that if the sanction for certain fouls is severe enough then players will stop committing those fouls, which is why I was also strongly in favour of bringing the ball forward 40m for blocking quick frees etc. The black card proves that to be the case and is working tremendously well. Of course poor refs will make a hames of it but they're making a hames of everything. Part of the process has to be improving refereeing standards but that will only come when people are confident they won't get abused to high heaven by all and sundry, something the black cards will help with too.
Quote from: screenexile on April 16, 2014, 11:25:56 AM
Had a briefing last night from referee's about the Black Card which was quite interesting.
The thing they highlighted most and said the key to the rule is 'deliberate' and '100% certainty'. The referee must be 100% certain that the act was deliberate otherwise a black card will not be shown. It explains why a few I thought to be Black Cards haven't been.
The other thing is that for the pull down black card 'there must be a clear pulling DOWN motion in the tackle'. Therefore pulling someone and them losing their footing or going to ground is not a black card!!
That's exactly how the vast majority of refs are doing it, and that's why it is a success. You need to pretty much rubgy tackle a lad to the ground or deliberately trip up his legs to get the black card. They are hard to get and easy to avoid and do not impact on the art of defending one iota. Personally I thought it was all very clear from the info and diagrams the GAA issued on the black card.
Lads who say they were afraid to tackle an onrushing attacker because of the black card are ignorant of the rules.
Quote from: Zulu on April 16, 2014, 11:59:34 AM
My view was always that if the sanction for certain fouls is severe enough then players will stop committing those fouls, which is why I was also strongly in favour of bringing the ball forward 40m for blocking quick frees etc. .
That despicable act is probably now the most cynical of them all and really fcuks up the team trying to get some advantage from a free.
Should the black one be introduced for this or should it be automatically a yellow?
Quote from: Hound on April 16, 2014, 01:02:25 PM
Quote from: screenexile on April 16, 2014, 11:25:56 AM
Had a briefing last night from referee's about the Black Card which was quite interesting.
The thing they highlighted most and said the key to the rule is 'deliberate' and '100% certainty'. The referee must be 100% certain that the act was deliberate otherwise a black card will not be shown. It explains why a few I thought to be Black Cards haven't been.
The other thing is that for the pull down black card 'there must be a clear pulling DOWN motion in the tackle'. Therefore pulling someone and them losing their footing or going to ground is not a black card!!
That's exactly how the vast majority of refs are doing it, and that's why it is a success. You need to pretty much rubgy tackle a lad to the ground or deliberately trip up his legs to get the black card. They are hard to get and easy to avoid and do not impact on the art of defending one iota. Personally I thought it was all very clear from the info and diagrams the GAA issued on the black card.
Lads who say they were afraid to tackle an onrushing attacker because of the black card are ignorant of the rules.
No, they are afraid from recent experience of the referee's interpretation of the... despite what every official's presentation says.
The opening weekend of club leagues in Armagh was a mixture of calamity and confusion
While taking the toss in our reserve game at the weekend the ref said that he was only going to use the black card for mouthing at him. Both teams only had a handful of subs so common sense prevailed.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2014, 01:27:44 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 16, 2014, 11:59:34 AM
My view was always that if the sanction for certain fouls is severe enough then players will stop committing those fouls, which is why I was also strongly in favour of bringing the ball forward 40m for blocking quick frees etc. .
That despicable act is probably now the most cynical of them all and really fcuks up the team trying to get some advantage from a free.
Should the black one be introduced for this or should it be automatically a yellow?
I think it should be brought up the 40m as that would turn almost any free into a score-able one. That would put a stop to it immediately even late in the game.
Quote from: Zulu on April 16, 2014, 01:55:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2014, 01:27:44 PM
Quote from: Zulu on April 16, 2014, 11:59:34 AM
My view was always that if the sanction for certain fouls is severe enough then players will stop committing those fouls, which is why I was also strongly in favour of bringing the ball forward 40m for blocking quick frees etc. .
That despicable act is probably now the most cynical of them all and really fcuks up the team trying to get some advantage from a free.
Should the black one be introduced for this or should it be automatically a yellow?
I think it should be brought up the 40m as that would turn almost any free into a score-able one. That would put a stop to it immediately even late in the game.
Why not just come up with a new sport with the rules that you would like?
Ridiculous comment. All sports have changed fundamental aspects of their games to address issues, the GAA should be no different. What does three or four players grappling for the ball off an opponent to kick their free add to our games?
Quote from: Zulu on April 16, 2014, 02:16:06 PM
Ridiculous comment. All sports have changed fundamental aspects of their games to address issues, the GAA should be no different. What does three or four players grappling for the ball off an opponent to kick their free add to our games?
Ah ffs if we are changing rules for small things like that then we'd never please everyone and the game would be nothing like our game. Adding more rules isnt always the answer you know!
I accept that but how do you propose to stop the daft and frustrating things that happen in a game if we don't punish them appropriately? If that 40m rule was brought in then a player fouled would never again have lads slowing it down so defenders could filter back and make a score more difficult. I don't see how that rule would in anyway alter the game bar cut out some of the shite we see around taking frees. If that was brought in I'd be happy to leave it at that but I'd never rule out more changes if it can help the game.
Some oul style bucks just want to go back to non stop foulin it seems.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2014, 09:34:28 PM
Some oul style bucks just want to go back to non stop foulin it seems.
Some of these young bucks want to change the rules every time a high profile foul occurs it seems.
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 16, 2014, 11:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2014, 09:34:28 PM
Some oul style bucks just want to go back to non stop foulin it seems.
Some of these young bucks want to change the rules every time a high profile foul occurs it seems.
You still seem to be unaware that the black card was passed by Congress
before Seaneen Cavanagh did his best Paul O'Connell impression on Conor McManus.
Quote from: Syferus on April 17, 2014, 12:18:48 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 16, 2014, 11:52:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 16, 2014, 09:34:28 PM
Some oul style bucks just want to go back to non stop foulin it seems.
Some of these young bucks want to change the rules every time a high profile foul occurs it seems.
You still seem to be unaware that the black card was passed by Congress before Seaneen Cavanagh did his best Paul O'Connell impression on Conor McManus.
Ok, so what about bringing the ball up 40m? Have I missed something or has that been passed? Once we start tinkering with the rules to get perfection then we run the risk of creating a game we didn't want.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdwAkWvWMw
Yes, because punishing the shitehawkery that can occur around frees would transform football into a vastly different sport ::) Bear in mind too that the 40m punishment isn't a new rule just a more severe version of an existing one. But your probably right, if that was voted in the manliness would be taken out and the underage coaches and sandwich makers would walk away in droves bemoaning what had become of our great game.
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 12:47:32 AM
Yes, because punishing the shitehawkery that can occur around frees would transform football into a vastly different sport ::) Bear in mind too that the 40m punishment isn't a new rule just a more severe version of an existing one. But your probably right, if that was voted in the manliness would be taken out and the underage coaches and sandwich makers would walk away in droves bemoaning what had become of our great game.
I have never once mentioned anything to do with manliness. But you, of course, as always are right, the spectacle of stopping the game every 3 mins (because there's so many rules) moving the ball 40m into the scoring area, waiting until the dead ball specialist (probably the goalkeeper) sets themselves to take a free pot shot a goal would have the turnstiles ticking and the TV audiences enthralled. There'd be mountains of scores and everyone would be happy. But someone would moan (probably Joe Brolly) that half the game is just watching keepers kick frees, but you'd introduce a new rule to ban keepers kicking frees, then most likely another new rule to put a 30 second clock on free takers, etc etc until perfection in the game was achieved and we had the most regulated game in modern sport.
All I'm arguing is, keep it as simple as possible and enforce the rules as they stand. The problem was never really the rules, it was the implementation of the rules - introducing more rules doesn't solve that problem.
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 17, 2014, 07:33:16 AM
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 12:47:32 AM
Yes, because punishing the shitehawkery that can occur around frees would transform football into a vastly different sport ::) Bear in mind too that the 40m punishment isn't a new rule just a more severe version of an existing one. But your probably right, if that was voted in the manliness would be taken out and the underage coaches and sandwich makers would walk away in droves bemoaning what had become of our great game.
I have never once mentioned anything to do with manliness. But you, of course, as always are right, the spectacle of stopping the game every 3 mins (because there's so many rules) moving the ball 40m into the scoring area, waiting until the dead ball specialist (probably the goalkeeper) sets themselves to take a free pot shot a goal would have the turnstiles ticking and the TV audiences enthralled. There'd be mountains of scores and everyone would be happy. But someone would moan (probably Joe Brolly) that half the game is just watching keepers kick frees, but you'd introduce a new rule to ban keepers kicking frees, then most likely another new rule to put a 30 second clock on free takers, etc etc until perfection in the game was achieved and we had the most regulated game in modern sport.
All I'm arguing is, keep it as simple as possible and enforce the rules as they stand. The problem was never really the rules, it was the implementation of the rules - introducing more rules doesn't solve that problem.
Here here.
QuoteI have never once mentioned anything to do with manliness. But you, of course, as always are right,
You sound like a child arguing with a sibling now. The point of a discussion board is to discuss.debate points of viewing it not?
Quotethe spectacle of stopping the game every 3 mins (because there's so many rules)
That makes absolutely no sense, the rules are there and what's been discussed is a rule that already exists.
Quotemoving the ball 40m into the scoring area, waiting until the dead ball specialist (probably the goalkeeper) sets themselves to take a free pot shot a goal would have the turnstiles ticking and the TV audiences enthralled.
Sounds exactly like the doomsday merchants whenever a change is suggested. Once this rule was brought in, you'd be lucky to see it used once every 2 or 3 games as lads would know it isn't worth fannying about with a free a risk turning it into a score-able one.
QuoteAll I'm arguing is, keep it as simple as possible and enforce the rules as they stand. The problem was never really the rules, it was the implementation of the rules - introducing more rules doesn't solve that problem.
The rules aren't fine though, that's the problem. It's easy for lads, me included, to say refs should dish out yellows or reds etc. but giving a guy a yellow early in a game for that type of thing is harsh and giving it late might be no deterrent. This was a good deterrent which is why it would have worked brilliantly.
Anyway it's not in so I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 09:28:26 AM
The rules aren't fine though, that's the problem. It's easy for lads, me included, to say refs should dish out yellows or reds etc. but giving a guy a yellow early in a game for that type of thing is harsh and giving it late might be no deterrent. This was a good deterrent which is why it would have worked brilliantly.
What has the timing of giving a yellow card got to do with the harshness of it? Would it be less harsh to give a yellow after 50 minutes rather than 5 minutes if the relevant penalty is a yellow card?
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 09:28:26 AM
QuoteI have never once mentioned anything to do with manliness. But you, of course, as always are right,
You sound like a child arguing with a sibling now. The point of a discussion board is to discuss.debate points of viewing it not?
This is in response to the sarcastic and doomsday nature of your post earlier.
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 12:47:32 AM
Yes, because punishing the shitehawkery that can occur around frees would transform football into a vastly different sport ::) Bear in mind too that the 40m punishment isn't a new rule just a more severe version of an existing one. But your probably right, if that was voted in the manliness would be taken out and the underage coaches and sandwich makers would walk away in droves bemoaning what had become of our great game.
Your dismissive comments throughout this thread, (I've picked a few egs just from the past few pages such as; "that's a ridiculous comment", " that makes absolutely no sense") and even dismissing the comments of Kevin Cassidy, not to mention the siblings comment display a side to your debating skills which are hardly parliamentarian, so I too will leave it at that.
QuoteWhy not just come up with a new sport with the rules that you would like?
Benny, you seem to be taking a moral ground discussing this when the above was your first contribution to my comment on the 40m punishment. I'd regard that as dismissive as anything I've said.
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 10:27:34 AM
QuoteWhy not just come up with a new sport with the rules that you would like?
Benny, you seem to be taking a moral ground discussing this when the above was your first contribution to my comment on the 40m punishment. I'd regard that as dismissive as anything I've said.
That's a ridiculous comment! ;)
On the whole i would agree with Benny, we dont need more rules, we just need a clarification of some of the existing ones and consistent implementation of them.
I agree that body checking off the ball had become widespread, but the issue was that in general, referees weren't issuing yellows for them, not that we needed a new sanction.
I would have instructed refferees to be stricter in handing out yellows for this to see if it stopped it, before i brought in something as drastic as the black card.
The pull down 'sean cavanagh ' tackle was a very rare occurance, and in the situatons where is does occur, the black car will be no deterrent at all.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 17, 2014, 11:55:47 AM
On the whole i would agree with Benny, we dont need more rules, we just need a clarification of some of the existing ones and consistent implementation of them.
I agree that body checking off the ball had become widespread, but the issue was that in general, referees weren't issuing yellows for them, not that we needed a new sanction.
I would have instructed refferees to be stricter in handing out yellows for this to see if it stopped it, before i brought in something as drastic as the black card.
The pull down 'sean cavanagh ' tackle was a very rare occurance, and in the situatons where is does occur, the black car will be no deterrent at all.
Ah here... if the Black Card was in place there was no way Cavanagh would have made the tackle in the first place!! Big players do not want to sit on the bench and there's no way Cavanagh would have taken one for the team with 22 minutes left and Tyrone only winning by 2 points!
i disagree.
In a club game at the weekend,we were a point down with time almost up and pushing for an equaliser, we were breaking forward when an oposition player hauled down the man on the ball in the middle of the field.
The fact he knew he was going to get a black card made NO difference whatsoever.
If its earlier in the game, maybe the player would think twice, but then a player is less likely to do it then anyway as there is usually enough time to get the score back.
The sean cavanagh incident is a very rare one and we seem to feel we need to reinvent the rules in order to deal with it.
People keep talking about dragging lads down to stop a score, and I think that's a very narrow definition of cynicism. In my view, the main benefit is to stop exactly what blewuporstuffed talks about. This tactic of the deliberate foul in midfield, or even more often in the forwards, was what was most annoying to me. I don't think a machine gun would have stopped Sean Cavanagh doing what he had to do v Monaghan, and if the same situation occurs this year towards the end of a game, I'd expect the exact same thing to happen.
No, to me the major benefit is the cheap foul. The easy drag down in the forwards when you turn the ball over so that your defence can 'get set' and everyone can funnel back. Kerry gave an exhibition of this type of foul v Cavan last year, and while they are obviously not the only ones who perfected it, that day was exhibit A.
If the black card does nothing else but eradicate this sort of thing, at least in the majority of the game, then it will have served us well. You will always have the risk/reward factor where a lad might take a hit for the team, but even at that at least the rest of the game should have been free of that sort of foul.
Exactly, if the punishment was knee capping for dragging a guy down with a minute left fellas would still do it. As AZ said, it's the cheap foul that the black card has eliminated and I'd agree with Screen, with 22 minutes left I don't think Cavanagh would commit that foul this year, if there is 2 minutes left he will but I'd doubt he'd do it with 22 minutes left.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 17, 2014, 12:52:03 PM
People keep talking about dragging lads down to stop a score, and I think that's a very narrow definition of cynicism. In my view, the main benefit is to stop exactly what blewuporstuffed talks about. This tactic of the deliberate foul in midfield, or even more often in the forwards, was what was most annoying to me. I don't think a machine gun would have stopped Sean Cavanagh doing what he had to do v Monaghan, and if the same situation occurs this year towards the end of a game, I'd expect the exact same thing to happen.
No, to me the major benefit is the cheap foul. The easy drag down in the forwards when you turn the ball over so that your defence can 'get set' and everyone can funnel back. Kerry gave an exhibition of this type of foul v Cavan last year, and while they are obviously not the only ones who perfected it, that day was exhibit A.
If the black card does nothing else but eradicate this sort of thing, at least in the majority of the game, then it will have served us well. You will always have the risk/reward factor where a lad might take a hit for the team, but even at that at least the rest of the game should have been free of that sort of foul.
Going by the rulebook, would this have been a yellow card offence last year? Or only a free kick? Cavanagh got a yellow for his I think
Quote from: take_yer_points on April 17, 2014, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 17, 2014, 12:52:03 PM
People keep talking about dragging lads down to stop a score, and I think that's a very narrow definition of cynicism. In my view, the main benefit is to stop exactly what blewuporstuffed talks about. This tactic of the deliberate foul in midfield, or even more often in the forwards, was what was most annoying to me. I don't think a machine gun would have stopped Sean Cavanagh doing what he had to do v Monaghan, and if the same situation occurs this year towards the end of a game, I'd expect the exact same thing to happen.
No, to me the major benefit is the cheap foul. The easy drag down in the forwards when you turn the ball over so that your defence can 'get set' and everyone can funnel back. Kerry gave an exhibition of this type of foul v Cavan last year, and while they are obviously not the only ones who perfected it, that day was exhibit A.
If the black card does nothing else but eradicate this sort of thing, at least in the majority of the game, then it will have served us well. You will always have the risk/reward factor where a lad might take a hit for the team, but even at that at least the rest of the game should have been free of that sort of foul.
Going by the rulebook, would this have been a yellow card offence last year? Or only a free kick? Cavanagh got a yellow for his I think
If it happened way up in the forwards, you might *,might* see a yellow card, but more often than not it was a 'tick' or else just a free. Teams knew this which is why they did it.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 17, 2014, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on April 17, 2014, 01:15:44 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 17, 2014, 12:52:03 PM
People keep talking about dragging lads down to stop a score, and I think that's a very narrow definition of cynicism. In my view, the main benefit is to stop exactly what blewuporstuffed talks about. This tactic of the deliberate foul in midfield, or even more often in the forwards, was what was most annoying to me. I don't think a machine gun would have stopped Sean Cavanagh doing what he had to do v Monaghan, and if the same situation occurs this year towards the end of a game, I'd expect the exact same thing to happen.
No, to me the major benefit is the cheap foul. The easy drag down in the forwards when you turn the ball over so that your defence can 'get set' and everyone can funnel back. Kerry gave an exhibition of this type of foul v Cavan last year, and while they are obviously not the only ones who perfected it, that day was exhibit A.
If the black card does nothing else but eradicate this sort of thing, at least in the majority of the game, then it will have served us well. You will always have the risk/reward factor where a lad might take a hit for the team, but even at that at least the rest of the game should have been free of that sort of foul.
Going by the rulebook, would this have been a yellow card offence last year? Or only a free kick? Cavanagh got a yellow for his I think
If it happened way up in the forwards, you might *,might* see a yellow card, but more often than not it was a 'tick' or else just a free. Teams knew this which is why they did it.
I'd agree with that. My issue with the rules is that there is nothing in the rulebook about where the foul happens on the pitch having an impact on the sanction - Cavanagh got a yellow, but up the field it probably wouldn't have been as you said. If the rules were followed and yellow cards were issued for all instances of that type of foul then a black card wouldn't have been needed.
Zulu mentioned a few posts back about a yellow being harsh for a type of foul early in the game and we've all seen the early hits not penalised the same as they are later in the game. If the rules were applied consistently no matter about the number of minutes into the match, the area on the pitch the foul happens, the level of the game, the team playing, the referee on duty or any other variable in a match - the rules would have been fine without the black card. The inconsistent implementation of them was, is and will be the problem.
QuoteIf it happened way up in the forwards, you might *,might* see a yellow card, but more often than not it was a 'tick' or else just a free. Teams knew this which is why they did it.
But this is exactly my point, why not try and stop this thing by enforcing teh rules that are there first rather than bringing in a whole new sanction?
The fact the game is refereed completely differently in the 'attacking' and the 'defending' half of the field is an equally frustrating thing, but slightly off topic.
But that's all well and good TYP but you can be sure if refs applied the letter of the law from first minute to last most of them would be lucky to get out of a ground alive. Lads, including yourself, would be on here giving out yards about 'joke' yellows and taking the physicality out of the game. Now a player can get a yellow for a poor or mistimed tackle but a fella who makes no attempt to tackle the ball and simply drags a player down gets punished accordingly with a black card. Whatever about the debates before it was introduced we can see lads are not taking blacks for the team, the way they took yellows. It has undoubtedly improved the game by ridding the game of some of the more cynical and negative behaviour of previous years.
The game is fine in the main but we shouldn't allow stopping your opponents through fouling flourish and I think that was the case over the past few years.
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 01:52:53 PM
But that's all well and good TYP but you can be sure if refs applied the letter of the law from first minute to last most of them would be lucky to get out of a ground alive. Lads, including yourself, would be on here giving out yards about 'joke' yellows and taking the physicality out of the game. Now a player can get a yellow for a poor or mistimed tackle but a fella who makes no attempt to tackle the ball and simply drags a player down gets punished accordingly with a black card. Whatever about the debates before it was introduced we can see lads are not taking blacks for the team, the way they took yellows. It has undoubtedly improved the game by ridding the game of some of the more cynical and negative behaviour of previous years.
The game is fine in the main but we shouldn't allow stopping your opponents through fouling flourish and I think that was the case over the past few years.
You've no idea about me so you've know idea what I'd be on here giving out yards about. I certainly wouldn't be giving out about consistent application of the rules as opposed to the absolute lottery we currently have. What I did give out about and will continue to is increasing the complexity of the rules for referees who already don't apply the rules consistently in the same game (different application of rules in the first 5 minutes of the game when compared to the rest of the game), never mind in different games and with different referees. Obviously total consistency is virtually impossible with different personalities involved in officiating, but some semblance of it would be a start.
I'll also give out about the introduction of untried and untested rules at the highest level of the game without so much as a trial. There's already been stories on here about clubs and a ref coming to an agreement about not using black cards because the teams only have 15 or 16 players each. I haven't seen this myself yet but it was predicted on here when the black card was announced
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 01:52:53 PM
But that's all well and good TYP but you can be sure if refs applied the letter of the law from first minute to last most of them would be lucky to get out of a ground alive. Lads, including yourself, would be on here giving out yards about 'joke' yellows and taking the physicality out of the game. Now a player can get a yellow for a poor or mistimed tackle but a fella who makes no attempt to tackle the ball and simply drags a player down gets punished accordingly with a black card. Whatever about the debates before it was introduced we can see lads are not taking blacks for the team, the way they took yellows. It has undoubtedly improved the game by ridding the game of some of the more cynical and negative behaviour of previous years.
The game is fine in the main but we shouldn't allow stopping your opponents through fouling flourish and I think that was the case over the past few years.
That is completely your own opinion, no 'undoubtedly' about it.
The games i have seen so far it has made very little difference, or has made them worse due to more refereeing inconsistency.
QuoteYou've no idea about me so you've know idea what I'd be on here giving out yards about.
Well maybe your unlike ever other person in the world who doesn't give out about refs but I'd doubt it.
QuoteI certainly wouldn't be giving out about consistent application of the rules as opposed to the absolute lottery we currently have.
That's not going to happen for a whole host of reasons. Consistency in refereeing will never have consistency while human beings are doing it.
QuoteI'll also give out about the introduction of untried and untested rules at the highest level of the game without so much as a trial.
I'd have agreed with that point prior to it's introduction but now that we've seen it in action it hasn't had any negative impact and if it was on trial most would want it continued.
QuoteThere's already been stories on here about clubs and a ref coming to an agreement about not using black cards because the teams only have 15 or 16 players each. I haven't seen this myself yet but it was predicted on here when the black card was announced
See nothing wrong with that. That has happened for as long as the GAA has been around, striking or attempting to strike is a red in Croke Park but not on many junior pitches.
QuoteThat is completely your own opinion, no 'undoubtedly' about it.
While it is my opinion it is shared by the vast majority as best we can tell. I certainly don't know a single person who wants the black card rule reversed.
???
Something unclear?
You have spent most of the morning disagreeing with two posters that clearly dont want the black card rule yet:
QuoteI certainly don't know a single person who wants the black card rule reversed.
???
Quote from: Zulu on April 17, 2014, 02:17:17 PM
QuoteYou've no idea about me so you've know idea what I'd be on here giving out yards about.
Well maybe your unlike ever other person in the world who doesn't give out about refs but I'd doubt it.
QuoteI certainly wouldn't be giving out about consistent application of the rules as opposed to the absolute lottery we currently have.
That's not going to happen for a whole host of reasons. Consistency in refereeing will never have consistency while human beings are doing it.
QuoteI'll also give out about the introduction of untried and untested rules at the highest level of the game without so much as a trial.
I'd have agreed with that point prior to it's introduction but now that we've seen it in action it hasn't had any negative impact and if it was on trial most would want it continued.
QuoteThere's already been stories on here about clubs and a ref coming to an agreement about not using black cards because the teams only have 15 or 16 players each. I haven't seen this myself yet but it was predicted on here when the black card was announced
See nothing wrong with that. That has happened for as long as the GAA has been around, striking or attempting to strike is a red in Croke Park but not on many junior pitches.
QuoteThat is completely your own opinion, no 'undoubtedly' about it.
While it is my opinion it is shared by the vast majority as best we can tell. I certainly don't know a single person who wants the black card rule reversed.
I'll agree to differ. I'd agree with you on very little I think
I said I don't know anyone, I don't know the two boys. Of course there are people who disagree with the black card but there are people who think Elvis is alive or Daniel O'Donnell is a great entertainer, that doesn't mean they're right.
From checking twitter, Facebook, the internet, newspapers, TV and other GAA discussion boards I have hardly seen a negative opinion on the black cards bar a few lads here. Not everyone is singing their praises but I don't get any impression that there is anything like a majority or even a large minority of people who think the black card should be scrapped.
The reality is, it wont be scrapped , so we are stuck with it. That doesnt mean we all have to think its a good thing.
I am hoping the way i say it applied in the last club game is an anomaly and it will settle down over time, but if it continues like that, we are in for a long and controversial year.
Fair enough. I think we all hope it will prove to be a positive and if it's not I think most would be glad to scrap it. We probably can't definitively comment either way until at least the end of the year.
I'm really enjoying this conversation so I decided to add a poll to this thread to see which way the majority are leaning.
I just voted yes ;) ;) ;)
Twice as many in favour sligoman2, the people have spoken so you can close the poll now!
Looks like the anti blacks are winning at this point
Any word on when this is coming in for club matches. ;)
Seen a right few club league matches and only 2 black cards, yellow cards been handed out a lot more though.
Quote from: Bingo on May 12, 2014, 10:46:51 AM
Any word on when this is coming in for club matches. ;)
Seen a right few club league matches and only 2 black cards, yellow cards been handed out a lot more though.
its a lottery at club level.
I have seen referees giving black cards for challenges that were not a black card offence by any stretch of the imagination and also seen referees give yellow cards (or even nothing) for blatant black card offences.
As a ex-forward who used to love watching good football I was glad to see the black card come in. I was shocked at Mickey Harte's resistance to it but I think Mickey is smart enough to use that to his advantage.
Personally I was embarrassed when Sean Cavanagh did "that tackle" last year but as he and many others have said , if you were the manager and you just let the man run through for the goal then you would say are you mad?
I think it was the way he did it SO cynically as in rugby style tackle as opposed to others like the Cork lad v Dublin last year (was it Shields) who tripped the lad but made it look almost like an accident.
Personally I am glad to see something being done about that type of cynical foul and think that the black card goes some way to dealing with that,
Saying that if Dublin are beating Kerry by 2 points in the final 5 mins and Kieran Donaghy catches the ball above O'Carroll turns and is about to shoot for goal. I can still see Carroll or Clucko taking him down and taking the card.
To me though it really only should be used for very obvious cynical fouls and not marginal yellow card calls. Refs jobs are hard enough I think without now having to decide in a second was that an intentional pull down or trip or block the man off his road or was it not.
Obviously for club games it's much much harder to police but I think for BIG intercounty championships games which are on live TV there should be some TV support for refs.
Just like the rugby if there is controversial foul the ref should have the option to go to the TV guy to ask him to make the call with the aid of slow motion replay. Then there would be less scope for error and less chance of people trying to trick the ref by diving or pulling a man's arm down with him .
I forsee a lot of teams who don't have good forwards to rely on a shootout style game to play like Cavan and go back to getting numbers back packed in the defence. Then even if yer man beats you there are several others there to cover your mistake and so no need to pull him down.
Going into the first big game of the championship this Sunday with Tyrone hosting Down, I would say Down will want to curb Tyrone's attacking forwards from the start and so I'll be very surprised if they don't play 2 of their half forwards back in their own 40. I hope they don't and I hope we don't play a sweeper either as I hate the type of game it usually leads to with short kick outs and slow ponderous build ups from the back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PUAgnrJR_4
Davy Coldrick looks like he might need a refresher course on the use of the black card. In all fairness, Davy was always going to be under the spotlight when reffing the first big game live on TV.
So he has my sympathy.
Refs will always get one or two things wrong but when a ref gets big decisions wrong, especially an easy one like the Tyrone penalty, they deserve little sympathy IMO.
Give respect
Get respect
Earn respect .... the two most important words missing from the sleeve of the referees jerseys.
The complete inconsistency yesterday was the reason opponents of the black card were fearful from the outset.
It couldn't have been any clearer, confirmed by the referee awarding a penalty. A definite black card offence - and an incorrect decision not to play advantage and award the goal.
The fun is only starting.
At a club game over the weekend; a ref yellow carded and then black carded a player - but allowed him be substituted...
These decisions are going to decide the outcome of some championship games this summer. Teams who have slogged through the winter, trained like professionals are going to lose games because of the wrong application of these rules. Players are going to be totally frustrated and I can see players eventually turning their back on the game.
The game has become a farce under the direction of Corporate Park (The people in Croke Park give the impression they have the same knowledge of the game as the Gift Grub crew!); best epitomised by this skit on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Lw23aHSNI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Lw23aHSNI).
Again the inconsistency of the ref was the problem, not the rule itself. You have the same argument with yellow and red cards.
Personally I thought this was one of the best ulster championship games I have seen in a long time with the exception of donegal v Monaghan last year. I think the fear of a black card eliminated a lot of the pulling and dragging, off the ball crap and intentional fouling that had become a feature of many ulster (and other) games. That was a good game of open football in terrible conditions and I have no doubt the black card played a part in that.
Quote from: Catch and Kick on May 19, 2014, 11:34:35 AM
Give respect
Get respect
Earn respect .... the two most important words missing from the sleeve of the referees jerseys.
The complete inconsistency yesterday was the reason opponents of the black card were fearful from the outset.
It couldn't have been any clearer, confirmed by the referee awarding a penalty. A definite black card offence - and an incorrect decision not to play advantage and award the goal.
The fun is only starting.
At a club game over the weekend; a ref yellow carded and then black carded a player - but allowed him be substituted...
These decisions are going to decide the outcome of some championship games this summer. Teams who have slogged through the winter, trained like professionals are going to lose games because of the wrong application of these rules. Players are going to be totally frustrated and I can see players eventually turning their back on the game.
The game has become a farce under the direction of Corporate Park (The people in Croke Park give the impression they have the same knowledge of the game as the Gift Grub crew!); best epitomised by this skit on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Lw23aHSNI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Lw23aHSNI).
If Tyrone had have taken their chances in the first half, they would have won easily; if Down had have taken their chances in the second half, they would have won. Simple as that.
Although there were mistakes, it has feck all to do with the referee (even though I hollered at him a few times!).
Gaelic Football will always be around. If players turn their back on it because of a few refereeing decisions, the GAA is better off without them.
Quote from: sligoman2 on May 19, 2014, 05:30:25 PM
Again the inconsistency of the ref was the problem, not the rule itself. You have the same argument with yellow and red cards.
Personally I thought this was one of the best ulster championship games I have seen in a long time with the exception of donegal v Monaghan last year. I think the fear of a black card eliminated a lot of the pulling and dragging, off the ball crap and intentional fouling that had become a feature of many ulster (and other) games. That was a good game of open football in terrible conditions and I have no doubt the black card played a part in that.
But this was the problem with the rules pre-black card. Now we just have more rules so a greater chance of inconsistencies. Coldrick was one of the men who put together the video explaining the rules - if he can't fathom them out in a game then what hope has the average club ref.
Fair point but open football with some inconsistencies is better than pulling and dragging and cynical fouling in my opinion
Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.
Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.
Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.
Quote from: Hound on May 20, 2014, 09:44:44 AM
Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.
Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.
Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.
Fair enough, but does that not further prove the argument that the introduction of these new rule have made it even harder to referee the game?
Even coldrick who is regarded as one of the top referees in the country couldnt aplly them all correctly and consistently.
Quote from: Hound on May 20, 2014, 09:44:44 AM
Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.
Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.
Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.
That middle paragrtaph is exactly why have too many rules makes the job even more difficult. Coldrick is supposed to be our top ref and you are saying he got a bit rattled because he made a mistake with the new rules?
Quote from: Catch and Kick on May 19, 2014, 11:34:35 AM
Give respect
Get respect
Earn respect .... the two most important words missing from the sleeve of the referees jerseys.
The complete inconsistency yesterday was the reason opponents of the black card were fearful from the outset.
It couldn't have been any clearer, confirmed by the referee awarding a penalty. A definite black card offence - and an incorrect decision not to play advantage and award the goal.
The fun is only starting.
At a club game over the weekend; a ref yellow carded and then black carded a player - but allowed him be substituted...
Surely anyone brave enough to go out and do that job has earned respect already.Are u saying u can hammer a ref when he starts out until u c if he's good enough.Nonsense.
The reaction to this incident has been way ott imo.Black card death merchants were queuing up for this with great delight with as per usual the main protagonists coming from the North.
These decisions are going to decide the outcome of some championship games this summer. Teams who have slogged through the winter, trained like professionals are going to lose games because of the wrong application of these rules. Players are going to be totally frustrated and I can see players eventually turning their back on the game.
The game has become a farce under the direction of Corporate Park (The people in Croke Park give the impression they have the same knowledge of the game as the Gift Grub crew!); best epitomised by this skit on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Lw23aHSNI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Lw23aHSNI).
"It's the end of the GAA as we kinow it "
And if Mickey Harte is annoyed it has to be a good thing.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 20, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
I see he still won't co operate with RTE th'oul grumpy ******.
Time for him to cop on.
If RTE joked about the death of your daughter, you'd be grumpy too. :(
Quote from: cornafean on May 20, 2014, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 20, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
I see he still won't co operate with RTE th'oul grumpy ******.
Time for him to cop on.
If RTE joked about the death of your daughter, you'd be grumpy too. :(
Aye but sure he's wile holy should he not be forgiving them at this stage??!! They did apologise in fairness!
Quote from: cornafean on May 20, 2014, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 20, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
I see he still won't co operate with RTE th'oul grumpy ******.
Time for him to cop on.
If RTE joked about the death of your daughter, you'd be grumpy too. :(
I don't recall that. I understood it was about Brian Carty not getting promoted by RTE ???
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 20, 2014, 11:01:27 AM
Quote from: Hound on May 20, 2014, 09:44:44 AM
Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.
Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.
Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.
That middle paragrtaph is exactly why have too many rules makes the job even more difficult. Coldrick is supposed to be our top ref and you are saying he got a bit rattled because he made a mistake with the new rules?
But we don't have many rules at all. In terms of what a ref has to deal with in a game it isn't that bad, Coldrick just made an awful mistake they same way as O'Hare did with the free or both managers may have made with their team selections. I really don't understand how lads are still questioning the black card. It hasn't had a negative impact on games as refs have been slow to dish it out but it has definitely had a positive impact on the cynical fouling and off the ball blocking. There isn't any change we can make to the game or it's competition structures that won't have some negative aspects, the only question is whether the changes have more positives than negatives and the black card certainly seems to have more positives.
Quote from: Zulu on May 20, 2014, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 20, 2014, 11:01:27 AM
Quote from: Hound on May 20, 2014, 09:44:44 AM
Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.
Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.
Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.
That middle paragrtaph is exactly why have too many rules makes the job even more difficult. Coldrick is supposed to be our top ref and you are saying he got a bit rattled because he made a mistake with the new rules?
But we don't have many rules at all. In terms of what a ref has to deal with in a game it isn't that bad, Coldrick just made an awful mistake they same way as O'Hare did with the free or both managers may have made with their team selections. I really don't understand how lads are still questioning the black card. It hasn't had a negative impact on games as refs have been slow to dish it out but it has definitely had a positive impact on the cynical fouling and off the ball blocking. There isn't any change we can make to the game or it's competition structures that won't have some negative aspects, the only question is whether the changes have more positives than negatives and the black card certainly seems to have more positives.
People are questioning it because the best ref in the country who was used in the video explaining the black card made a balls of his decision, in a big championship game, where the player who should have received the black card went on and had a major baring on the game by scoring the goal that very nearly put a team out of the championship. I really don't see what it added to Sundays game other than controversy and confusion.
Quote from: hardstation on May 20, 2014, 12:55:26 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 20, 2014, 12:33:47 PM
Quote from: cornafean on May 20, 2014, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 20, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
I see he still won't co operate with RTE th'oul grumpy ******.
Time for him to cop on.
If RTE joked about the death of your daughter, you'd be grumpy too. :(
I don't recall that. I understood it was about Brian Carty not getting promoted by RTE ???
Tyrone stance has decency on its side
EAMONN SWEENEY – UPDATED 05 MAY 2013 04:06 AM
I'm glad to see that Tyrone footballers will be boycotting RTE coverage for the third championship summer in a row. Not because I've anything against the RTE sports department but because it's good to see people sticking by their principles.
We're talking about respect. Back in August 2011, only a few months after Tyrone manager Mickey Harte's daughter had been murdered in Mauritius, RTE's John Murray Show broadcast a sketch which lampooned Harte as a kind of idiot for going to see the Dalai Lama and included the song, 'Pretty Little Girl From Omagh In The County Of Tyrone'.
It was horrible stuff. But the worst thing about it was the ignoble motivation behind the skit. Harte was, at the time, one of a number of inter-county managers who had criticised RTE management for not promoting GAA correspondent Brian Carthy.
So the sketch smacked of sycophants having a go at Harte in order to ingratiate themselves with their bosses.
Or, worse again, of Mickey Harte being taught a lesson about what happened to people who dared cross the national broadcaster. Gotcha Mickey.
It took RTE three days before they decided to furnish an apology, an apology which you'd have to say didn't exactly reek of wholeheartedness
Actually, it's unbelievable stuff. A group of people decided to take the piss out of a Tyrone man whose daughter had been murdered by playing a song about a girl from Tyrone.
Think about it. Murray continues to purvey his brand of wacky fun on RTE Radio. Meanwhile, Mickey Harte and his family have had to get on with their lives.
So it's strange to see the Tyrone boycott being portrayed as something surprising or even unreasonable. In reality, the team and the county can do nothing else. Respect for Mickey Harte and the memory of Michaela McAreavey leaves them no choice.
The RTE boycott, far from being an infringement of press freedom, is actually a tribute to the integrity and spirit of the Tyrone footballers which says a lot about the kind of people they are.
There are more important things in life than a few post-match interviews.
Thanks HS.
Don't recall it all. Must have been out of the Country at the time. Amended my original post.
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 20, 2014, 03:28:51 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 20, 2014, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 20, 2014, 11:01:27 AM
Quote from: Hound on May 20, 2014, 09:44:44 AM
Its nothing to do with inconsistency! If that's the case people are implying he shouldn't have given a black card to Morgan to be consistent. That's nonsense.
Coldrick made a mistake (or two mistakes in the same penalty incident). My view is that he was a bit rocked knowing that he'd made a howler in not allowing the advantage, but that once he'd blown the whistle he couldnt change his mind and had to give the penalty. And with that going through his mind and the Tyrone lads asking him why he didnt play advantage, that he just forgot about penalising the tackler further which just compounded his mistake.
Coldrick is still one of the best refs in the country. He is not an inconsistent ref. But like any of us he can make the odd mistake.
That middle paragrtaph is exactly why have too many rules makes the job even more difficult. Coldrick is supposed to be our top ref and you are saying he got a bit rattled because he made a mistake with the new rules?
But we don't have many rules at all. In terms of what a ref has to deal with in a game it isn't that bad, Coldrick just made an awful mistake they same way as O'Hare did with the free or both managers may have made with their team selections. I really don't understand how lads are still questioning the black card. It hasn't had a negative impact on games as refs have been slow to dish it out but it has definitely had a positive impact on the cynical fouling and off the ball blocking. There isn't any change we can make to the game or it's competition structures that won't have some negative aspects, the only question is whether the changes have more positives than negatives and the black card certainly seems to have more positives.
People are questioning it because the best ref in the country who was used in the video explaining the black card made a balls of his decision, in a big championship game, where the player who should have received the black card went on and had a major baring on the game by scoring the goal that very nearly put a team out of the championship. I really don't see what it added to Sundays game other than controversy and confusion.
But we've had red and yellow card controversies and massive debates about whether game winning frees were frees or not for years so I don't see how this is much different. Anyway, he would have been replaced so who is to say his replacement or another Down player wouldn't have made that run for the goal anyway?
Coldrick mustn't have done his job right becasue neither team got close to 20 scores.
QuoteBut we've had red and yellow card controversies and massive debates about whether game winning frees were frees or not for years so I don't see how this is much different. Anyway, he would have been replaced so who is to say his replacement or another Down player wouldn't have made that run for the goal anyway?
So it wouldn't really have been much of a disadvantage to Down, him having to be replaced?
Then what is the discouragement for him doing it? I thought the black card was supposed to penalise teams for being cynical?
Just because there has been refereeing controversies in the past doesnt mean we should introduce more rules that increase this happening.
If anything , rule changes should allow simplification of the rules so we can get them consistently applied.
The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.
I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.
Quote from: Zulu on May 21, 2014, 08:47:15 AM
The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.
I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.
yes, new punishments that referees need to make a decision between, and from what i have seen so far have been hugely inconsistent in doing so.
Before the black card came in, the only major issue i seen that needed addressed was the off the ball body checking. The main issue here was, not that we needed a new sanction for it, but that the existing one (the yellow card) was rarely being used.
Before the black card was introduced, a period should have been tried where referees were instructed to clamp down on it and issue yellow cards to see if this stamped it out.
This wasn't even attempted, rather a new sanction, that introduced a new set of decisions for referees was introduced.
The other 'drag down' or sean cavanagh tackle was a very rare occurrence in my experience and again i dont think it needed a separate sanction introduced.
What we have now created i feel is that players are more likely to go to ground when tackled in order for it to look like a black card offence.i.e. more of the most cynical act of all in sport- diving.
The 'black card' sanction (player sent off but can be replaced) for verbal abuse of an official, i actually have no issue with.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on May 21, 2014, 08:57:26 AM
Quote from: Zulu on May 21, 2014, 08:47:15 AM
The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.
I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.
yes, new punishments that referees need to make a decision between, and from what i have seen so far have been hugely inconsistent in doing so.
Before the black card came in, the only major issue i seen that needed addressed was the off the ball body checking. The main issue here was, not that we needed a new sanction for it, but that the existing one (the yellow card) was rarely being used.
Before the black card was introduced, a period should have been tried where referees were instructed to clamp down on it and issue yellow cards to see if this stamped it out.
This wasn't even attempted, rather a new sanction, that introduced a new set of decisions for referees was introduced.
The other 'drag down' or sean cavanagh tackle was a very rare occurrence in my experience and again i dont think it needed a separate sanction introduced.
What we have now created i feel is that players are more likely to go to ground when tackled in order for it to look like a black card offence.i.e. more of the most cynical act of all in sport- diving.
The 'black card' sanction (player sent off but can be replaced) for verbal abuse of an official, i actually have no issue with.
Totally agree.
Zulu, you stated in your post "cynically foul and you are off the pitch." That's not correct as we witnessed on Sunday - the cynical foul is only the first step - the ref then has to make his decision and we've seen that refs aren't capable of distinguishing between an orindary foul, a tick foul, a black card foul, a yellow card foul and a red card foul. The penalty incident was a text book black card foul. It came from a dead ball incident (Cavanagh kicking in the sideline ball) so the referee was up with play - you can see on the TV coverage he was about 15 yards away and was looking straight at it. Coldrick has been mooted here as the best ref in the country and even he can't get that one right. Somone said he was put off by the Tyrone players complaining about not playing advantage - what chance is there in club matches where half of both teams are in the ref's face about a foul and half the crowd trying to get in at him too (I'm assuming a club match in Tyrone here of course).
My difficulty with it is the yellow card sanction was already there and wasn't applied correctly. If it was, whether in the first minute, 10th minute, or 70th minute, then I think there would be a lot less fouling without the need for the black card. There'd also be a lot less complaints about consistency when discussing the implementation of the rules. I'd agree the black card seems to have eliminated some of the cynical fouling (though it's very early in the Championship), but I think the same could have been achieved by implementing the yellow card sanction as per the rule book - that didn't happen and now we're seeing the same with the black card.
EDIT:
Here's a still image from RTE player (it's not as sharp an image as on TV but you can see the ref on the edge of the square just past McVeigh) - one of the top refs in the country can't get that one right 10 or 15 yards away from the incident with an unobstructed view.
(http://s11.postimg.org/dyhnkcn4j/ref.png)
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on May 21, 2014, 08:57:26 AM
Quote from: Zulu on May 21, 2014, 08:47:15 AM
The black card provides discouragement is for the player themselves which is exactly the purpose of it, cynically foul and you are off the pitch.
I agree rules should simplify things for refs but all the black card has done is change the punishment for fouls that already existed. There's no new rules, just new punishments for 3 clear enough types of fouls. Refs should, at all levels, be able to handle the black card easily enough, though there will still be mistakes as refs are human.
yes, new punishments that referees need to make a decision between, and from what i have seen so far have been hugely inconsistent in doing so.
Before the black card came in, the only major issue i seen that needed addressed was the off the ball body checking. The main issue here was, not that we needed a new sanction for it, but that the existing one (the yellow card) was rarely being used.
Before the black card was introduced, a period should have been tried where referees were instructed to clamp down on it and issue yellow cards to see if this stamped it out.
This wasn't even attempted, rather a new sanction, that introduced a new set of decisions for referees was introduced.
The other 'drag down' or sean cavanagh tackle was a very rare occurrence in my experience and again i dont think it needed a separate sanction introduced.
What we have now created i feel is that players are more likely to go to ground when tackled in order for it to look like a black card offence.i.e. more of the most cynical act of all in sport- diving.
The 'black card' sanction (player sent off but can be replaced) for verbal abuse of an official, i actually have no issue with.
That's it, pretty much exactly. The only modification I'd make to your summary is that I would have introduced a (real) deterrent for the drag down offence - a fourteen metre free for such a foul committed anywhere on the pitch, or a penalty if committed inside 20 metres. The black card will do absolutely nothing to eliminate the very offence it was introduced to address - the game-saving last-minute rugby tackle.
I said in the debate before the introduction of the black card that, apart from its sensible provisions for advantage and its sanctions for trash talking, all it would achieve would be to provide more things for referees to get wrong. I think we're seeing that in spades.
One aspect of this that I haven't seen debated is the introduction of a raft of situations where the referee must adjudicate on intent. Until now, if, for instance, one player tripped another, it was a foul and a free, whether it was an accidental entanglement of legs or a deliberate trip. For the most part, a foul was a foul, regardless of intent.
The word was mentioned only once in the pre-black card Official Guide, and then only in the hurling rules – in the rule about intentionally dropping the hurley. The words "deliberate" and "deliberately" occurred only in rules about time-wasting and leaving the field to gain an advantage.
Now, the referee must mind-read the players in real time and make an instant decision (well, OK – a five second decision in some cases, unless he's David Coldrick). All we've achieved is gratuitous complication, more opportunities for game-changing errors, the wrong solution to a second-order problem and, worst of all, actually worsening the biggest problem in the game, diving and cheating.
Maginn would probably have been replaced by Ryan Johnston or maybe Benny. Maginn had a great game but so did those two when they came on. The black card may or may not have had a big bearing on the game if it had happened. So even if the ref had called it right it doesn't mean things would definitely have got worse for Down.
However the black card for the goalkeeper did indeed have a huge bearing on the game. Tyrone were punished for a cynical trip by the penalty and the forced replacement of the keeper with one that was clearly less efficient at kick outs.
So does the black card work? Still a big debate. Is it meant to punish an individual, or punish a team by weakening them a little when the commit a cynical offence? I assume it is the second scenario that is intended.
Clearly when it was awarded to the keeper it certainly did work. Even if Maginn had got one it may not have worked. My opinion is that it depends on the player. There are some players you can afford to lose to a substitution and some that are vital to have on the field. The rule can't account for that and so at best it is a small improvement but can't be considered to be achieving its aim as it's impact is uneven depending in the player removed.
Personally I think it is a poor rule and the GAA should just have accepted the vastly superior approach of rugby by implementing a sin-bin and, for county matches, a video referee. (though even the video referee doesn't work always, as Ulster were robbed on Saturday night because the referee refused arrogantly to even look at the replay!!!)
Jesus, I wish people would stop saying we need a video ref.
There would be an hour of extra-time with all the stoppages.
There would not be an extra hour. In every game there are no more than a few controversial incidents. The simple evidence of this is the slow-motion replays we get on TV. The vast majority are based on scoring or passing. There are never more than a few for serious offences or controversial scores. I can think of only three from the match on Sunday - Maginn black card (or not!!), Morgan Black card, and Laverty strike on Cavanagh. Each of those incidents had 2 minute stoppages anyway so there would be no real additional time added. Your argument is completely non-existent.
Where would this extra hour of stoppage come from? A rugby match doesn't go on for an extra hour does it? Rugby has far more stoppages for injury and even then the elapsed time is only increased by about 10 minutes.
But the video replay is nothing more than a sensible bonus in advancing our sport. The main point is that the black card rule is vastly inferior to sin-bins in punishing teams for cynical play.
Hardy
Agree entirely that the best way to "punish" a cynical foul is to move the free to within a scoring distance. The drag down foul epitomised by Sean Cavanagh and Conor Maginn are reasonably rare, but the body checks and cynical fouls further down the field are much more common especially in the latter stages of games when a team is holding onto a lead. Dublin and Donegal are masters of fouling out the field to slow up the play. By punishing these fouls with a 21 yd free would certainly make offenders think twice, particularly in a close game.
"What do i think of the black card now?" - I understand that cynical fouling needs to be tackled but I think I wouldn't want to be a defender. Sure you'll have people saying that if you tackle correctly you'll be alright but what is this correct tackle? Quite often the defender can barely touch the forward particularly if that forward is of the small nippy variety.
What if a forward is powering through the middle and I step in front of him arms spread out in the normal tackle position - he then charges through\over me. Should the forward be black carded?
No, because him charging over you is not a cynical foul, as clearly defined in the new rules. However it should be a free out, and if it is construed as deliberately foul play, then he is open to a yellow or red card as well.
That was probably a poor example on my part, I guess if I'm the defender I might consider it cynical - however I do take you're point.
What I was really trying to show was that forwards tend to get more of the benefit of the doubt. What about the scenario where the forward grabs the backs arm and simulates a take down - this goes on all the time and I understand its difficult for a referee to spot but I'd definitely consider that cynical. Should the forward get black carded?
Yes, I agree with you. Any diving or faking of fouls to get other players in trouble should be a black card. Also, any jersey pulling where the intent is obviously to stop the man illegally should be the same. I think it's ridiculous they added the 'to the ground' wording.
I also feel that the problem in football was not necessarily defenders doing cynical fouls, it was the midfield, half forwards and full forwards, who were deliberately stopping counter attacks at source. That was the main problem with the spectacle. A foul 40 metres in tends to be punished with a score anyway, and yellow and red cards where also there to be used.
I think the black card is helping to get rid of those bullshit 'small' cynical fouls, and that''s a good thing.
All that being said, I'd actually prefer the lads' suggestions above re an automatic 13 metre free or whatever, rather than dismissing the player. Would have the same effect.
I'd be against the 13m free idea. That would encourage diving far more than any other rule that's come in.
Quote from: Hound on May 22, 2014, 12:50:06 PM
I'd be against the 13m free idea. That would encourage diving far more than any other rule that's come in.
Not if there was a 13m free for diving too.
Quote from: Hound on May 22, 2014, 12:50:06 PM
I'd be against the 13m free idea. That would encourage diving far more than any other rule that's come in.
I would as well and for the same reason. I think the black card has been a resounding success so far. I felt the sin bin was the best solution but I was willing to see how the black card panned out and on the evidence so far I can't see merit in any anti-black card arguments. We were told it would encourage diving but it hasn't. We were told games would be ruined but that hasn't happened. We were told defenders would be afraid to tackle but that hasn't happened. It has eliminated off the ball blocking to a large degree, it has reduced attackers pulling down defenders to prevent a counter attack getting momentum (which was a serious problem), it has played a part in increasing scoring returns, it has forced defenders to tackle properly rather than to fling themselves at an attacker arms swinging like a kid running down a hill. I'm not saying the case is closed, we'll wait until the championship is over but I think it is quite clear that it has had a positive impact and hasn't heralded the negative aspects we were told would come with it.
Those saying the yellow card should be used properly just aren't being realistic and anyway, the yellow wasn't a deterrent. You could have 30 black card offences per game without one player seeing the line if you only got a yellow card. With the black card at least the offender knows his game is over if he commits the foul and it is clear that has been a deterrent.
Its not the resultant penalty that is the problem ie a black card or 13m free, its the rules themselves and how hard it is for everyone to apply them.
Like all other rules, its the refs interpretation that is the problem or rather in some cases they are reluctant to use them.
Video ref is far from the answer as well.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 22, 2014, 12:53:53 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 22, 2014, 12:50:06 PM
I'd be against the 13m free idea. That would encourage diving far more than any other rule that's come in.
Not if there was a 13m free for diving too.
I prefer the Tutu suggesion.
Quote from: Zulu on May 22, 2014, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 22, 2014, 12:50:06 PM
I'd be against the 13m free idea. That would encourage diving far more than any other rule that's come in.
I would as well and for the same reason. I think the black card has been a resounding success so far. I felt the sin bin was the best solution but I was willing to see how the black card panned out and on the evidence so far I can't see merit in any anti-black card arguments. We were told it would encourage diving but it hasn't. We were told games would be ruined but that hasn't happened. We were told defenders would be afraid to tackle but that hasn't happened. It has eliminated off the ball blocking to a large degree, it has reduced attackers pulling down defenders to prevent a counter attack getting momentum (which was a serious problem), it has played a part in increasing scoring returns, it has forced defenders to tackle properly rather than to fling themselves at an attacker arms swinging like a kid running down a hill. I'm not saying the case is closed, we'll wait until the championship is over but I think it is quite clear that it has had a positive impact and hasn't heralded the negative aspects we were told would come with it.
Those saying the yellow card should be used properly just aren't being realistic and anyway, the yellow wasn't a deterrent. You could have 30 black card offences per game without one player seeing the line if you only got a yellow card. With the black card at least the offender knows his game is over if he commits the foul and it is clear that has been a deterrent.
well its seems we just completely disagree then!
I cant see how you can possibly say its been a resounding success when we have incidents like the Tyrone penalty incident involving one of the best referees in ireland.
The black card rule is all very well in theory, but when you have referees in the heat of a game trying to implement it, its leads to inconsistency and controversy.
The only thing out of that which i agree with, is that it has cut out a lot of the body checking, but my point was , maybe we should have tried getting referees to implement the rule that was already there (the yellow card) for this to see what effect that had first.
its easy to say, ah sure that would be no deterrent, when we dont know as its never been applied properly.
QuoteI cant see how you can possibly say its been a resounding success when we have incidents like the Tyrone penalty incident involving one of the best referees in ireland.
The black card rule is all very well in theory, but when you have referees in the heat of a game trying to implement it, its leads to inconsistency and controversy.
But that's true of every single aspect of the game, in fact it's true of every sport the world over. Coldrick gave a free to Tyrone when the full back fell over with no contact and Down's first score came from a free when their full forward tripped himself while running. If a criticism of the black card is refs won't get it right 100% of the time, then giving any free is an issue.
QuoteThe only thing out of that which i agree with, is that it has cut out a lot of the body checking, but my point was , maybe we should have tried getting referees to implement the rule that was already there (the yellow card) for this to see what effect that had first.
its easy to say, ah sure that would be no deterrent, when we dont know as its never been applied properly.
I'm absolutely positive it wouldn't and I'm absolutely positive you wouldn't get referees apply the yellow consistently game in game out so I think there was no option but to introduce something else. I don't know how you can disagree with my statement that diving for black cards hasn't happened, I don't know how you can say the black card hasn't played a part in more scores, I don't know how you can disagree it hasn't reduced attackers pulling down players to halt counter attacks. These are all as clear as day.
QuoteI'm absolutely positive it wouldn't and I'm absolutely positive you wouldn't get referees apply the yellow consistently game in game out so I think there was no option but to introduce something else.
This bit makes absolutely no sense to me.
so the referees arent capable of consistently implementing the rules we have, so the solution is to introduce another level of sanction that further complicates the decision process???
I am not just basing my view on seeing one or two county games since the rules came in but also in club games i have played in and i can honestly say they the black card rule has had very little if any positive influence in the way the game was played, but has resulted in numerous contentious calls and inconsistencies.
I think we must come from completely different view point to what constitutes a good game of football. Just because something leads to more scores doesn't mean it has improved the game.
If that was the case, sure why not just make the goals bigger and then we will have a fantastic sport.
I was watching the live coverage on Sunday and Colm O'Rourke bought up a point that I had been discussing a few weeks ago with a few mates about the advantage rule. Now my argument, as it turns out, was similar to O'Rourkes, at what point does an advantage occur. For example, if a lad is running through and a defender tries to take him down and a free would be given but the attacker breaks free, gets through to a one on one situation and smacks the ball off the cross bar. Will the play be taken back for the free? Or is getting the shot away an advantage? Is it irrelevant if the player scores or not as they had a shot at goal?
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
QuoteThis bit makes absolutely no sense to me.
so the referees arent capable of consistently implementing the rules we have, so the solution is to introduce another level of sanction that further complicates the decision process???
I don't agree it complicates it, on the contrary, it simplifies it. I ref a bit and I know exactly what is a black card now I still might miss one in a game due to being unsighted a bit or not 100% sure it was deliberate but I've no doubt as to what is or isn't a black card.
QuoteI am not just basing my view on seeing one or two county games since the rules came in but also in club games i have played in and i can honestly say they the black card rule has had very little if any positive influence in the way the game was played, but has resulted in numerous contentious calls and inconsistencies.
Don't see this in games I've reffed, played in or seen. Not a single player I know of has suggested it has had any negative impact and I would get feedback from all the clubs in our county through my involvement in the county board.
QuoteI think we must come from completely different view point to what constitutes a good game of football. Just because something leads to more scores doesn't mean it has improved the game.
If that was the case, sure why not just make the goals bigger and then we will have a fantastic sport.
I'd say we'd probably agree on what constitutes good football unless you don't like hard, physical football but I don't think a high scoring games means scores are too easy to come by either. I certainly don't need to see a 4 -14 to 3-16 game to think it is good but I don't think pulling a dragging fellas down is a mark of a good game either. You can have a high scoring physical game of football as well as a cracking low scoring game. I enjoyed last Sundays game, second half in particular and I also enjoyed the league semi finals, Dublin/Cork, Kildare/Mayo, Derry/Cork, Dublin/Mayo etc. in the league. I'm not in favour of anything that takes the physicality out of football, the opposite in fact but I'm 100% in favour of punishing lads severely for cynical fouling like just dredging down lads. I think we can have a very physical game while also taking out the horrible sight of forwards simply pulling down lads just so they can allow their teammates race back to set up the defence.
But look, we clearly have opposite views on this and we won't convince each other as we've both seen the evidence and have come to opposite conclusions so I'll leave it at that!
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 22, 2014, 03:01:27 PM
I was watching the live coverage on Sunday and Colm O'Rourke bought up a point that I had been discussing a few weeks ago with a few mates about the advantage rule. Now my argument, as it turns out, was similar to O'Rourkes, at what point does an advantage occur. For example, if a lad is running through and a defender tries to take him down and a free would be given but the attacker breaks free, gets through to a one on one situation and smacks the ball off the cross bar. Will the play be taken back for the free? Or is getting the shot away an advantage? Is it irrelevant if the player scores or not as they had a shot at goal?
This is where i have issues with the advantage rule as well.
Again, it is good in theory, but in reality when is letting play go one EVER an advantage when its in a scoring position?
surely its always an advantage to stop the play and let the free taker kick it over the bar rather than allowing the man in possesion and extra few seconds to break free of the foul, steady himself and get the shot away, and as yous ay, if he misses can the referee bring it back?
Its maybe different if he has gotten free and is now through on goal, but other than that, i would say most teams would take the freekick 9 times out of 10.
Further out the field it maybe has more advantages as it stops teams deliberately fouling just to slow the game down and get bodies back behind the ball.
Quote from: Jinxy on May 22, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.
Quote from: Jinxy on May 22, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
Im not sure thats what the rule is here though, O'Rourke was saying - why should the attacker get two shots at goal? The advantage surely is to enable him to have the opportunity to score - not actually ensure he scores?
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 22, 2014, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on May 22, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.
The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to score. So my example was that the player has the advantage of a goalscoring opportunity. The fact he missed is irrelevant. Or alternatively - coming out of defence, the defender breaks free from a foul and looks up, within 5 seconds hits a long ball which a forward fails to gather and the opposition picks it up. Do we bring that back and let him hit a free?
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 22, 2014, 03:24:20 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 22, 2014, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on May 22, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.
The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to score. So my example was that the player has the advantage of a goalscoring opportunity. The fact he missed is irrelevant. Or alternatively - coming out of defence, the defender breaks free from a foul and looks up, within 5 seconds hits a long ball which a forward fails to gather and the opposition picks it up. Do we bring that back and let him hit a free?
In your first example he has hit the bar and the team has presumably lost possession within the 5 seconds of the foul. That is not an advantage in my book. In the other example they have also lost possession within the 5 seconds so yes it should be brought back. Maybe 5 seconds is too generous, that's another argument.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 22, 2014, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on May 22, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.
I agree with this. It used to do my f**king head in when a ref would say 'I gave you the chance to score' when a lad was hanging off you. The reason you missed might have something to do with the ape on your back no? That was before the official advantage rule, but I'm sure the same applies. I like a brief period (maybe 5 seconds is too long) and if a clear advantage doesn't accrue, then award the free. In rugby you have to demonstrate clear advantage. As Jinxy says, a missed drop goal will be brought back for the penalty, but if you get a penalty in your own 22 and drive it all the way up to the opposition 5 metre line you're not going to get to go back and kick the penalty if you knock on in there. Because you have gained a clear advantage in the flow of the game.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 22, 2014, 03:53:14 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 22, 2014, 03:24:20 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 22, 2014, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on May 22, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
That's entirely logical. I couldn't believe O'Rourke and what he was suggesting the other day. Massive difference between shooting under pressure and a free kick from the same position. If no advantage or score within the 5 seconds, pull it back.
The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to score. So my example was that the player has the advantage of a goalscoring opportunity. The fact he missed is irrelevant. Or alternatively - coming out of defence, the defender breaks free from a foul and looks up, within 5 seconds hits a long ball which a forward fails to gather and the opposition picks it up. Do we bring that back and let him hit a free?
In your first example he has hit the bar and the team has presumably lost possession within the 5 seconds of the foul. That is not an advantage in my book. In the other example they have also lost possession within the 5 seconds so yes it should be brought back. Maybe 5 seconds is too generous, that's another argument.
But 5 seconds is part of the argument. A play can move on significantly in that time. A player can have regained composure and got a shot away in that space of time, he isn't necessarily shooting with an ape on his back.
Quote from: Jinxy on May 22, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Well, using the rugby example of drop goals in particular, if a scoring attempt fails during the advantage period then the ref is entitled to revert to the initial penalty.
In the rules they state - "
The referee shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the initial foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued."
So dead simple the referees should count five seconds in every situation from when a foul occurs. Five seconds is an enormous amount of time when the ball is in play. You could move the ball from the fifty to the square in two passes and have a shot and still just about be under five seconds. Advantage is a great rule and I think the five seconds is a fair amount though perhaps 3 would be less disruptive.
The problem is that from every game I have seen there isn't a referee in the country that can't count to five seconds. I have never seen an advantage go beyond 2 seconds and then be called back. If you don't get called back almost immediately then the referee isn't doing it.
As for a shot being an advantage it depends on the free. If it is 13m free dead centre and the team get a shot away at goals then I still do not consider that an advantage. In my opinion a 13m free is a near defo point so to get an advantage you don't just need a chance at a score you would actually have to score. A free beyond 30m, or very wide is a different matter. But I think close frees should always be pulled back. Similarly I think losing possession within 5 seconds should always be pulled back.
It's not five seconds. It's up to five seconds. When the ref takes down his hand, normal play is in effect. If the advantage is established in two seconds and the ref takes down his hand, if the fouled player then shoots and misses, hard luck. If he fouls the ball, it's a free against him, etc. It's all down to when the referee decides advantage has or hasn't accrued and either takes down his hand to let play resume or blows the whistle for the original foul.
Quote from: Hardy on May 22, 2014, 05:25:25 PM
It's not five seconds. It's up to five seconds. When the ref takes down his hand, normal play is in effect. If the advantage is established in two seconds and the ref takes down his hand, if the fouled player then shoots and misses, hard luck. If he fouls the ball, it's a free against him, etc. It's all down to when the referee decides advantage has or hasn't accrued and either takes down his hand to let play resume or blows the whistle for the original foul.
Ok, that makes sense. So, just to clarify then, if in my example, the player takes the shot whilst the ref still has his hand up then, if he misses, the play will be bought back. If the ref has taken his hand down before he shoots (as he thinks an advantage has been gained) then, the advantage is over and he will not get a free and play continues from the ball coming off the bar.
I think that's how it's meant to work OK.
Davy Coldrick last week. Joe Mc Quillan this week. Refs are finding it difficult to sort out this black card.
God help the mere mortal referees.
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2014, 12:27:10 AM
Davy Coldrick last week. Joe Mc Quillan this week. Refs are finding it difficult to sort out this black card.
God help the mere mortal referees.
In my opinion, the obvious lesson for the mere mortal refs is to only give the black card when absolutely certain the offender's main objective was to pull the attacker to the ground. If there's any doubt, you shouldn't give the black card.
I think McQuillan did fine. Kielt's was blatant a black card, but there were doubts over the earlier ones. A couple were borderline, but borderline shouldnt be enough to get black.
I find it really annoying the amount of fans, and now media, calling for more black cards. The refs are doing largely a really good job in the 4 or 5 months this has been in, but all this hoohah is likely to make a ballix of it and we could see far more black cards as the championship progresses. But hopefully the refs stay strong.
Kielt deliberately tried to trip the Donegal guy but in no way did his action cause him to fall. The Donegal guy should have been booked for diving but was rewarded instead by his opponent having to leave the field.
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2014, 12:27:10 AM
Davy Coldrick last week. Joe Mc Quillan this week. Refs are finding it difficult to sort out this black card.
God help the mere mortal referees.
We need Marty Duffy to take this whole black card situation by the scruff of the neck.
Quote from: Jinxy on May 26, 2014, 01:04:29 PM
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2014, 12:27:10 AM
Davy Coldrick last week. Joe Mc Quillan this week. Refs are finding it difficult to sort out this black card.
God help the mere mortal referees.
We need Marty Duffy to take this whole black card situation by the scruff of the neck.
Don't tempt fate he is refereeing Armagh and Cavan. Hope he has a good game and only books those in blue!
I don't know why anyone would ref these days. So much pressure. They really need help somehow.
These guys making mistakes are the good ones. Just wait on duffy like someone says!
Quote from: Throw ball on May 26, 2014, 09:43:11 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on May 26, 2014, 01:04:29 PM
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2014, 12:27:10 AM
Davy Coldrick last week. Joe Mc Quillan this week. Refs are finding it difficult to sort out this black card.
God help the mere mortal referees.
We need Marty Duffy to take this whole black card situation by the scruff of the neck.
Don't tempt fate he is refereeing Armagh and Cavan. Hope he has a good game and only books those in blue!
Noooooooooooooooo
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 12:38:03 PM
Kielt deliberately tried to trip the Donegal guy but in no way did his action cause him to fall. The Donegal guy should have been booked for diving but was rewarded instead by his opponent having to leave the field.
But is it not the intention that counts?
Quote from: Hound on May 26, 2014, 09:11:17 AM
...
I find it really annoying the amount of fans, and now media, calling for more black cards. The refs are doing largely a really good job in the 4 or 5 months this has been in, but all this hoohah is likely to make a ballix of it and we could see far more black cards as the championship progresses. But hopefully the refs stay strong.
To be fair I think fans want to see black cards just for the novelty of it. That novelty will wear off. But from the tone of voices used when calling for a black card on the terraces it is less about wanting to see the team or player punished and more about complaining about the referee's clear ineptitude at implementing the rule.
It is like, if you can't get that right then how can we trust you to get anything right?I don't think too many fans would care if the black card rule was thrown away. It is just that if the rule is there, then why is it being so badly implemented by so many ref's. After all, the writers expected several black cards a game, hence the three substitution rule. So that alone tells me that the referees are not seeing what the rule writers saw.
The over carrying rule is always getting cat calls from the terraces, the advancing or frees by the kicker, free kicks where the receiver is less than 13m. All these are really simple rules and so badly implemented by so many top referees. I hate the phrase "Let the game flow". If it means letting someone away with breaking the rules then no- do not let the game flow.
Now we have a new fairly simple rule that the referees are doing a god awful job of implementing - The black card. It is a poor rule (sin bin was the obviously more correct punishment) and being even more poorly implemented.
Spot on Paul. The rules change but the referees continue to run the games their own way. Everyone gets sanctioned, lectured, threatened, suspended, disciplined - except referees.
Quote from: From the Bunker on May 27, 2014, 09:27:04 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 26, 2014, 12:38:03 PM
Kielt deliberately tried to trip the Donegal guy but in no way did his action cause him to fall. The Donegal guy should have been booked for diving but was rewarded instead by his opponent having to leave the field.
But is it not the intention that counts?
Good question, but the rule says "deliberately trip an opponent", not "deliberately try to trip an opponent", so if the attempt failed and the opponent fell for some other reason, it wasn't a trip.
Of course, referees' reasoning in this situation will be the usual lottery.
Paddy Heaney had an interesting article on the tackle in today's IN... anybody else concerned about the fact that less and less tackles are actually on the ball anymore?!
Quote from: PAULD123 on May 27, 2014, 10:07:54 AM
[The over carrying rule is always getting cat calls from the terraces, the advancing or frees by the kicker, free kicks where the receiver is less than 13m. All these are really simple rules and so badly implemented by so many top referees.
+1.
I recall a game on TG4 some years ago where a ref pulled some team up for a five yard free and the commentator agus an anáilísi were totally mystified.
If the overcarrying rule was implemented at least the defender/tackler would have an even playing field so no need to be glaumin all over the guy with the ball. When ball carriers would get the message the foul count would likely drop by 40% in the average game.
Here's one for you. We had a match on Sunday morning, and our goalie was pulled up for a quick kickout that he took to the corner back, but the corner back was inside the 13m line. (But a lot further than 13m from the kickout). He was over near the sideline.
Was the ref right? I'm not sure to be honest, because it was a kickout rather than a free.
Quote from: screenexile on May 27, 2014, 10:32:26 AM
Paddy Heaney had an interesting article on the tackle in today's IN... anybody else concerned about the fact that less and less tackles are actually on the ball anymore?!
Frank McGlynn gave a few text book examples of the tackle being carried out properly in the second half on Sunday, maybe he could make a few bob coaching others to do the same rather than the lazy bear hug.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2014, 10:54:35 AM
Here's one for you. We had a match on Sunday morning, and our goalie was pulled up for a quick kickout that he took to the corner back, but the corner back was inside the 13m line. (But a lot further than 13m from the kickout). He was over near the sideline.
Was the ref right? I'm not sure to be honest, because it was a kickout rather than a free.
My understanding is the corner back has to be outside the 13m line when the kick is taken. But can go inside to collect it once the ball is kicked and has travelled 13m. So the ref was probably right (assuming the back was the wrong side of the line when the kick was taken).
Quote from: Hound on May 27, 2014, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2014, 10:54:35 AM
Here's one for you. We had a match on Sunday morning, and our goalie was pulled up for a quick kickout that he took to the corner back, but the corner back was inside the 13m line. (But a lot further than 13m from the kickout). He was over near the sideline.
Was the ref right? I'm not sure to be honest, because it was a kickout rather than a free.
My understanding is the corner back has to be outside the 13m line when the kick is taken. But can go inside to collect it once the ball is kicked and has travelled 13m. So the ref was probably right (assuming the back was the wrong side of the line when the kick was taken).
Beat me to it Hound. Think everyone is supposed to be outside the 20m line (and exclusion zone/"D") when the kickout is taken.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2014, 10:54:35 AM
Here's one for you. We had a match on Sunday morning, and our goalie was pulled up for a quick kickout that he took to the corner back, but the corner back was inside the 13m line. (But a lot further than 13m from the kickout). He was over near the sideline.
Was the ref right? I'm not sure to be honest, because it was a kickout rather than a free.
2.7 (a) When the ball is played over the endline by
the Team attacking that end, or after a score
is made, play is restarted by a kick-out off the
ground from the 13m line and within the large
rectangle.
If the goalkeeper is not taking the kick-out, he
shall stay in the small rectangle, and all other
players, except the player taking the kick-out,
shall be outside the 20m line and 13m from
the ball, until it has been kicked.
The player taking a kick-out may kick the
ball more than once before any other player
touches it but may not take the ball into his
hands.
The ball shall travel 13m before being played
by another player of the defending team.
Ref was right so. Fair play to him.
Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2014, 10:54:35 AM
Here's one for you. We had a match on Sunday morning, and our goalie was pulled up for a quick kickout that he took to the corner back, but the corner back was inside the 13m line. (But a lot further than 13m from the kickout). He was over near the sideline.
Was the ref right? I'm not sure to be honest, because it was a kickout rather than a free.
2.7 (a) When the ball is played over the endline by
the Team attacking that end, or after a score
is made, play is restarted by a kick-out off the
ground from the 13m line and within the large
rectangle.
If the goalkeeper is not taking the kick-out, he
shall stay in the small rectangle, and all other
players, except the player taking the kick-out,
shall be outside the 20m line and 13m from
the ball, until it has been kicked.
The player taking a kick-out may kick the
ball more than once before any other player
touches it but may not take the ball into his
hands.
The ball shall travel 13m before being played
by another player of the defending team.
This bit sounds strange to me!!
To cover a miskick where the ball rolls a few feet????
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 11:30:51 AM
To cover a miskick where the ball rolls a few feet????
I suppose so but, by the rule, there's nothing to stop him dribbling it all they way up the field, as far as I can see (other than having it taken away from him, of course).
Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:44:26 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 11:30:51 AM
To cover a miskick where the ball rolls a few feet????
I suppose so but, by the rule, there's nothing to stop him dribbling it all they way up the field, as far as I can see (other than having it taken away from him, of course).
Tactical genius Hardy. Next time the juniors are stuck for a goalie I son't need to worry about getting a buck to kick it out, just get him the dribble out thefield, draw a man and lay it off. Overlap created, certain goal!!!
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2014, 04:33:05 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:44:26 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 11:30:51 AM
To cover a miskick where the ball rolls a few feet????
I suppose so but, by the rule, there's nothing to stop him dribbling it all they way up the field, as far as I can see (other than having it taken away from him, of course).
Tactical genius Hardy. Next time the juniors are stuck for a goalie I son't need to worry about getting a buck to kick it out, just get him the dribble out thefield, draw a man and lay it off. Overlap created, certain goal!!!
Keep up boys:
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19181.msg956649#msg956649 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19181.msg956649#msg956649)
I'd also love to see from a kick-out, a keeper kick the ball more than once before another player touches it or even dribble the ball out to hear the reactions in the crowd... its perfectly legal so long as they don't lift the ball.
Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:07:22 AM
...The player taking a kick-out may kick the
ball more than once before any other player
touches it but may not take the ball into his
hands.
The ball shall travel 13m before being played
by another player of the defending team.
I would love to see a goalie decide to soccer the ball off the tee and dribble out until a few opposition players were drawn in. He could then kick it to whatever defender was free. But it would be far too high risk as the attackers can pick it up but he can't. I wonder how far he woudl get before anyone caught on.
Niall Morgan could be the man for it he loves soloing out from goals for Tyrone
How many Refs would give an free against him I wonder??
A possible solution to help the ref:
Have the black card printed with the offences. Ref must consult the card on every foul and tell the player which offence has been committed as he shows the black card. The ref can also just put the card away after reading it if a black card offence has not been committed.
Is this all there is to print?
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.
Panic in Croke Park.
Refs summoned to emergency meeting
27 May 2014
The GAA's top football referees have been asked to attend an emergency meeting in Croke Park tomorrow night.
The move comes after the game's leading match officials have found themselves at the centre of a number of high-profile controversies in the opening two weekends of the championship.
The Ulster SFC in particular has been blighted by inconsistent refereeing, with incorrect handling of both the black-card and advantage rules evident in the three matches played so far.
The GAA opted to put its most prominent refs into the spotlight first, confident that the likes of David Coldrick, Joe McQuillan and Cormac Reilly would lay down markers for the summer.
But they have failed to do so and the 16-strong championship referees panel will all attend the extraordinary meeting in GAA HQ on Wednesday night, where they will again be briefed on the correct application of the new rules.
Quote from: Ball Hopper on May 28, 2014, 05:33:20 AM
A possible solution to help the ref:
Have the black card printed with the offences. Ref must consult the card on every foul and tell the player which offence has been committed as he shows the black card. The ref can also just put the card away after reading it if a black card offence has not been committed.
Is this all there is to print?
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.
I don't think you need to write those down. I think it isn't that hard to remember, simply a two tier offence:
- If you give guff to anyone
- If you trip, rugby tackle or barge someone
Is that really difficult to remember?
Quote from: Lecale2 on May 28, 2014, 07:48:43 AM
Panic in Croke Park.
Refs summoned to emergency meeting
27 May 2014
The GAA's top football referees have been asked to attend an emergency meeting in Croke Park tomorrow night.
The move comes after the game's leading match officials have found themselves at the centre of a number of high-profile controversies in the opening two weekends of the championship.
The Ulster SFC in particular has been blighted by inconsistent refereeing, with incorrect handling of both the black-card and advantage rules evident in the three matches played so far.
The GAA opted to put its most prominent refs into the spotlight first, confident that the likes of David Coldrick, Joe McQuillan and Cormac Reilly would lay down markers for the summer.
But they have failed to do so and the 16-strong championship referees panel will all attend the extraordinary meeting in GAA HQ on Wednesday night, where they will again be briefed on the correct application of the new rules.
refs have been the problem all along, didn't implement the rules before, and are not implementing the new ones either. Refs are not doing their jobs for a long time, and remember they are the ones getting paid, which is more than the players.
I doubt any of them are doing it for the high salary :-\
Getting paid? Catch yourself on.
lads don't get carried away by the paid bit, did it for a laugh, so don't let the thread get side tracked. But I stand over my main point. The refs are and have been the problem
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 06:21:25 PM
How many Refs would give an free against him I wonder??
Most would make them take it again or give a free against I reckon.
Quote from: Knock Yer Mucker In on May 28, 2014, 10:56:43 AM
Quote from: Lecale2 on May 28, 2014, 07:48:43 AM
Panic in Croke Park.
Refs summoned to emergency meeting
27 May 2014
The GAA's top football referees have been asked to attend an emergency meeting in Croke Park tomorrow night.
The move comes after the game's leading match officials have found themselves at the centre of a number of high-profile controversies in the opening two weekends of the championship.
The Ulster SFC in particular has been blighted by inconsistent refereeing, with incorrect handling of both the black-card and advantage rules evident in the three matches played so far.
The GAA opted to put its most prominent refs into the spotlight first, confident that the likes of David Coldrick, Joe McQuillan and Cormac Reilly would lay down markers for the summer.
But they have failed to do so and the 16-strong championship referees panel will all attend the extraordinary meeting in GAA HQ on Wednesday night, where they will again be briefed on the correct application of the new rules.
refs have been the problem all along, didn't implement the rules before, and are not implementing the new ones either. Refs are not doing their jobs for a long time, and remember they are the ones getting paid, which is more than the players.
Players get paid a lot more than refs at intercounty level but yes, and I have said it all along - the rules are ok if they were consistently applied. Referees are not doing their job for whatever reason and this has to be addressed.
Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 12:16:55 PM
Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
This is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.
QuoteFootball is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it.
I wouldn't say extreme is the correct phrase. It's only as difficult as the refs allow it to be. The current standard of refs are very poor. I've seen club games reffed better than the opening championship games.
The man in charge McAneany doesn't instill confidence that any improvement will be made. Going public and calling in a big meeting isn't exactly the wisest thing to be doing. He should have had a separate private meeting with the 2 refs that made the bad calls lately and left it at that. Then again Pat likes the aul publicity.
QuoteThe reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
Zulu thats baulliks and you know it. Stop making up nonsense.
Read the rule book highorlow, you are only allowed tackle the ball, not the man.
QuoteThe man in charge McAneany doesn't instill confidence that any improvement will be made. Going public and calling in a big meeting isn't exactly the wisest thing to be doing. He should have had a separate private meeting with the 2 refs that made the bad calls lately and left it at that. Then again Pat likes the aul publicity.
And then you'd have lads giving out there's nothing being done to deal with it. He is dead right to public call a meeting.
QuoteI wouldn't say extreme is the correct phrase.
It's absolutely the correct phrase, especially if you want this consistency people keep demanding. Go out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly and see how consistent you are.
QuoteThis is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.
Exactly muppet but the rule book is a farce, I was at a refs course recently and the main point made to us was that it was our interpretation that mattered. All of us could watch the same tackle/foul and view it differently but if questioned you could refer to how you interpreted the rule to justify your view. In other words, if me and you viewed it differently nobody could clarify which of us was definitely right and which wrong. That's why refs can ref games differently.
QuoteThe Tackle
The Tackle is re-defined as:
"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."
ZULU, I posted the above definition in the HUG tackle thread. Nowhere does it state that you cannot touch the opponent, in fact it states that ' the tackler may use his body to confront the opponent '
Get your facts correct the next time.
So even though you've read it you don't understand it?
- The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. (Just like I said)
- 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. (So I can hold my ground but if you go past me and I put my hand on your shoulder or upper arm which is very common before coming across with my other arm to tackle the ball I'm fouling - arm holding. If I attempt to knock the ball out of your possession but hit your arm, hand, or anything else bar the ball, and only the ball, I'm fouling - slapping).
I'll grant you, that's a very strict interpretation of the rules but they are the rules. How you can't see that despite posting the rule is odd.
Quote from: muppet on May 28, 2014, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 12:16:55 PM
Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
This is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.
This happens in rugby all the time and yet their referees are held up as a shining example to every other sport.
I'd suggest that's because most of us don't know the rules Jinxy. I get the impression most real rugby folk have a good degree of frustration with how refs manage games while the day trippers think they walk on water.
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 01:11:50 PM
So even though you've read it you don't understand it?
- The tackle is aimed at the ball, not the player. (Just like I said)
- 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. (So I can hold my ground but if you go past me and I put my hand on your shoulder or upper arm which is very common before coming across with my other arm to tackle the ball I'm fouling - arm holding. If I attempt to knock the ball out of your possession but hit your arm, hand, or anything else bar the ball, and only the ball, I'm fouling - slapping).
I'll grant you, that's a very strict interpretation of the rules but they are the rules. How you can't see that despite posting the rule is odd.
so not only is refereeing almost impossible, so is defending within the rules!
one thing i think everyone can agree on is that the rule books needs a major overhaul with a lot of things clarified to try and eliminate as much of the inconsistency as possible.
As the referees & players are human , we will never get it perfect, but we are along way off that at the minute
blewuporstuffed, I'd suggest tackling strictly as per the rule book is impossible. I agree entirely that the rule book should be overhauled, as I said, after that refs course I took it that I could ref as I liked and nobody could show I was wrong bar the technical fouls which is a crazy situation.
Quote from: Jinxy on May 28, 2014, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 28, 2014, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 12:16:55 PM
Football is an extremely difficult game to referee and anybody calling for consistency has never done it. That and the fact that most players, managers and supporters haven't a clue of the rules all makes it a bit of a mess. The black card has been a god send for refs and despite there being some mistakes it has done its job as a deterrent to certain types of fouls. The reality is, if refs went out a reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
This is correct but this therefore is the fundamental problem. Refs apply their own individual twist on the rules and that is a terrible problem.
This happens in rugby all the time and yet their referees are held up as a shining example to every other sport.
Rugby refs generally know the rules and usually apply some of them at least.
Quoteyou can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering
ZULU, you wrote that yet you don't want to admit your wrong.
Point to me where it says in the definition (not rule) where you can't touch a player?
Most of what has been said is correct regarding the rules etc. That doesn't stop a referee interpreting them in a consistent fashion. And in fact with all the courses, assessing and training they get, the interpretation shouldn't vary between refs all that much - certainly at the top level.
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 01:25:09 PM
blewuporstuffed, I'd suggest tackling strictly as per the rule book is impossible. I agree entirely that the rule book should be overhauled, as I said, after that refs course I took it that I could ref as I liked and nobody could show I was wrong bar the technical fouls which is a crazy situation.
I wouldn't say tackling according to the rules is impossible. In Gaelic (unlike soccer) you can obstruct. So you can use your body to obstruct the runner, you can obstruct him with your arms, and you can swipe at the ball so he can't bounce, solo, or pass it. What you can't do is push him, strike his body, or charge into him.
I think that is very possible providing one thing - Oh yeah, isn't there some rule about only having 4 steps or the equivalent time? Now if we forget that rule, and the vast majority of referees do, then yes it is impossible to defend to the rules. One rule depends on another and the rules for clean defending relies on an over-carrying forward being penalised.
Quote from: highorlow on May 28, 2014, 02:23:08 PM
Quoteyou can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering
ZULU, you wrote that yet you don't want to admit your wrong.
Point to me where it says in the definition (not rule) where you can't touch a player?Quote
Ahh Jesus highorlow, what are you talking about? It's in black and white - " deliberate bodily contact is forbidden. The only deliberate physical contact can be a Fair Charge" Or as I put it - "you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering." Now I'm looking a both those sentences and trying to figure out what your issue is, can anyone else see a difference?
I'm not sure what you mean by definition and not rule but 'deliberate physical contact' can be anything from touching a players shoulder/chest/arm/leg to grabbing their jersey. It's there in the rule book, now nobody strictly adheres to this interpretation but a ref could do so and be deemed right as per rule book.
Quote from: PAULD123 on May 28, 2014, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 01:25:09 PM
blewuporstuffed, I'd suggest tackling strictly as per the rule book is impossible. I agree entirely that the rule book should be overhauled, as I said, after that refs course I took it that I could ref as I liked and nobody could show I was wrong bar the technical fouls which is a crazy situation.
I wouldn't say tackling according to the rules is impossible. In Gaelic (unlike soccer) you can obstruct. So you can use your body to obstruct the runner, you can obstruct him with your arms, and you can swipe at the ball so he can't bounce, solo, or pass it. What you can't do is push him, strike his body, or charge into him.
I think that is very possible providing one thing - Oh yeah, isn't there some rule about only having 4 steps or the equivalent time? Now if we forget that rule, and the vast majority of referees do, then yes it is impossible to defend to the rules. One rule depends on another and the rules for clean defending relies on an over-carrying forward being penalised.
But it is about interpretation of the rules. If you take the rule book literally then you can't obstruct (no deliberate physical contact) but of course we don't use that interpretation as it would make the sports non-contact. The problem is refs can have their own shade of grey and if anyone questions a decision then they can point to the rule book.
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 28, 2014, 02:23:28 PM
Most of what has been said is correct regarding the rules etc. That doesn't stop a referee interpreting them in a consistent fashion. And in fact with all the courses, assessing and training they get, the interpretation shouldn't vary between refs all that much - certainly at the top level.
Exactly MS, there is a lot of grey in the rule book and it should be tidied up immediately before we can ever hope to get consistent interpretations of rules.
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 28, 2014, 02:23:28 PM
Most of what has been said is correct regarding the rules etc. That doesn't stop a referee interpreting them in a consistent fashion. And in fact with all the courses, assessing and training they get, the interpretation shouldn't vary between refs all that much - certainly at the top level.
Exactly MS, there is a lot of grey in the rule book and it should be tidied up immediately before we can ever hope to get consistent interpretations of rules.
We either go Aussie Rules or soccer on it.
Well I wouldn't like to see us do either but you're right we're betwixt and between at the moment. In saying that I love to see brilliant tackling as it is currently allowed it's just that it is very hard to know what degree of physicality should be permitted without pulling and dragging ensuing. I wonder would a limit on the number of tacklers help? I use that with the kids we couch sometimes and it certainly helps prevent swarming of the player, perhaps a max of two tackling simultaneously?
would a time period such as 3 or 4 seconds be any easier for referees to keep track of rathe rthan number of steps?
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 03:03:58 PM
Well I wouldn't like to see us do either but you're right we're betwixt and between at the moment. In saying that I love to see brilliant tackling as it is currently allowed it's just that it is very hard to know what degree of physicality should be permitted without pulling and dragging ensuing. I wonder would a limit on the number of tacklers help? I use that with the kids we couch sometimes and it certainly helps prevent swarming of the player, perhaps a max of two tackling simultaneously?
i think that only a player on his feet should be able to be tackled.
we often see a player going to ground in possession before being mobbed by a group of defenders and ends up with no possible way of getting out of it.
If a defender knew that, right we have to let him back on his feet before we can tackle him, it might eliminate some of the scrums we get at the minute. particularly after a player takes a catch in the middle of the field and ends up on the ground.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on May 28, 2014, 03:05:56 PM
would a time period such as 3 or 4 seconds be any easier for referees to keep track of rathe rthan number of steps?
Could be, I find steps hard enough to keep track of especially on an absolutely consistent basis.
Quotei think that only a player on his feet should be able to be tackled.
Agree entirely, though obviously I guy can't go to ground and not be tackled.
ZULU, i'm not here arguing with you on a point scoring mission. Can ye Dubs not admit it when yer wrong though?
The parts you extracted say deliberate. That means you can touch a player as long as it's not deliberate, which completely contradicts your earlier stance of having the game strictly a non contact sport (bar shouldering), which it isn't. We were punished against Donegal in the AI when the ref must have thought the contact on Cillian O'Connor wasn't deliberate enough to merit a free in.
PAULD123 spelt out above where a large part of the problem is (overcarrying) and which isn't consistently brought to task.
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 12:50:21 PMGo out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly ...
I see this quoted all the time as justification for referees allowing players to take extra steps. It's nonsense and another example of referees failing or refusing to apply the rules properly and/or making up their own rules.
There's no provision in the rules for referees to allow players to take extra steps because they're being fouled. None.
The referee has two options if the player in possession is being fouled. Give him a free or apply the advantage rule. If applying the advantage rule, he must hold up his hand to indicate that's what he is doing. *
In how many cases of extra steps or holding the ball too long do you see the referee indicating he's playing advantage? My own estimate - about 5%. The rest of the time he's applying either his own made-up advantage procedure or some unwritten convention that does not exist in the rules, along the lines of, "sure how could he play the ball with yer man hanging out of him?"
The problem is that, much of the time, yer man is not hanging out of him, but trying to tackle him legitimately, but unable to because he won't play the ball and knows the referee will let him away with a few more steps to get away from this pesky defender trying to tackle him. This is one of the most frustrating things in the game and leads to much of the talk about the problem of definition of the tackle.
As far as I can see, there's no big problem with the definition of the tackle. The problem is with the failure/refusal of referees to referee in accordance with the rules. Though we could improve interpretation by issuing a directive to clarify in detail what is and isn't allowed and to remove nonsense like highorlow pointed out elsewhere, saying you can only tackle the ball, then saying one or more players can tackle the player.
*Edit - I meant to say that even if the advantage rule is being applied, there's no provision for the player receiving the advantage to commit a foul (e.g. overcarry) and continue to receive the advantage.
Quote from: highorlow on May 28, 2014, 03:11:12 PM
ZULU, i'm not here arguing with you on a point scoring mission. Can ye Dubs not admit it when yer wrong though?
The parts you extracted say deliberate. That means you can touch a player as long as it's not deliberate, which completely contradicts your earlier stance of having the game strictly a non contact sport (bar shouldering), which it isn't. We were punished against Donegal in the AI when the ref must have thought the contact on Cillian O'Connor wasn't deliberate enough to merit a free in.
PAULD123 spelt out above where a large part of the problem is (overcarrying) and which isn't consistently brought to task.
Well if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -
The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?
Quote from: Hardy on May 28, 2014, 03:20:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 12:50:21 PMGo out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly ...
I see this quoted all the time as justification for referees allowing players to take extra steps. It's nonsense and another example of referees failing or refusing to apply the rules properly and/or making up their own rules.
There's no provision in the rules for referees to allow players to take extra steps because they're being fouled. None.
The referee has two options if the player in possession is being fouled. Give him a free or apply the advantage rule. If applying the advantage rule, he must hold up his hand to indicate that's what he is doing. *
In how many cases of extra steps or holding the ball too long do you see the referee indicating he's playing advantage? My own estimate - about 5%. The rest of the time he's applying either his own made-up advantage procedure or some unwritten convention that does not exist in the rules, along the lines of, "sure how could he play the ball with yer man hanging out of him?"
The problem is that, much of the time, yer man is not hanging out of him, but trying to tackle him legitimately, but unable to because he won't play the ball and knows the referee will let him away with a few more steps to get away from this pesky defender trying to tackle him. This is one of the most frustrating things in the game and leads to much of the talk about the problem of definition of the tackle.
As far as I can see, there's no big problem with the definition of the tackle. The problem is with the failure/refusal of referees to referee in accordance with the rules. Though we could improve interpretation by issuing a directive to clarify in detail what is and isn't allowed and to remove nonsense like highorlow pointed out elsewhere, saying you can only tackle the ball, then saying one or more players can tackle the player.
*Edit - I meant to say that even if the advantage rule is being applied, there's no provision for the player receiving the advantage to commit a foul (e.g. overcarry) and continue to receive the advantage.
It isn't nonsense Hardy. I'm telling you that from my experience of reffing, I
do find it hard to repeatedly judge steps while also trying to judge whether the tackler is fouling.
My philosophy when I ref a game is that I won't guess if it's a foul, I'll blow if I'm 100% sure and if not I don't. I doubt anybody could go out and get the steps right every time, all of the time so I tend to only look for those who take 6 or 7 steps and if you have your hand(s) on the attacker I'll give them a bit of leeway. Now I understand some of the points you make but if refs reffed strictly by the rule book they'd be slated for taking the physicality out of football.
This discussion could go around another lap or two but while refereeing standards are definitely a factor in this mess I'd ask lads to go out and ref 20 or 30 games and reflect on whether they were consistent and got all decisions right. I've definitely found myself looking on as the ref and thinking I could really let this go, give team A a free or team B a free and be correct (or wrong depending on your POV) whatever I do. The rule book IMO doesn't help refs.
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: Hardy on May 28, 2014, 03:20:19 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 12:50:21 PMGo out and try and keep a count of steps while also adjudicating on whether the tackler is fouling the man in possession repeatedly ...
I see this quoted all the time as justification for referees allowing players to take extra steps. It's nonsense and another example of referees failing or refusing to apply the rules properly and/or making up their own rules.
There's no provision in the rules for referees to allow players to take extra steps because they're being fouled. None.
The referee has two options if the player in possession is being fouled. Give him a free or apply the advantage rule. If applying the advantage rule, he must hold up his hand to indicate that's what he is doing. *
In how many cases of extra steps or holding the ball too long do you see the referee indicating he's playing advantage? My own estimate - about 5%. The rest of the time he's applying either his own made-up advantage procedure or some unwritten convention that does not exist in the rules, along the lines of, "sure how could he play the ball with yer man hanging out of him?"
The problem is that, much of the time, yer man is not hanging out of him, but trying to tackle him legitimately, but unable to because he won't play the ball and knows the referee will let him away with a few more steps to get away from this pesky defender trying to tackle him. This is one of the most frustrating things in the game and leads to much of the talk about the problem of definition of the tackle.
As far as I can see, there's no big problem with the definition of the tackle. The problem is with the failure/refusal of referees to referee in accordance with the rules. Though we could improve interpretation by issuing a directive to clarify in detail what is and isn't allowed and to remove nonsense like highorlow pointed out elsewhere, saying you can only tackle the ball, then saying one or more players can tackle the player.
*Edit - I meant to say that even if the advantage rule is being applied, there's no provision for the player receiving the advantage to commit a foul (e.g. overcarry) and continue to receive the advantage.
It isn't nonsense Hardy. I'm telling you that from my experience of reffing, I do find it hard to repeatedly judge steps while also trying to judge whether the tackler is fouling.
My philosophy when I ref a game is that I won't guess if it's a foul, I'll blow if I'm 100% sure and if not I don't. I doubt anybody could go out and get the steps right every time, all of the time so I tend to only look for those who take 6 or 7 steps and if you have your hand(s) on the attacker I'll give them a bit of leeway. Now I understand some of the points you make but if refs reffed strictly by the rule book they'd be slated for taking the physicality out of football.
This discussion could go around another lap or two but while refereeing standards are definitely a factor in this mess I'd ask lads to go out and ref 20 or 30 games and reflect on whether they were consistent and got all decisions right. I've definitely found myself looking on as the ref and thinking I could really let this go, give team A a free or team B a free and be correct (or wrong depending on your POV) whatever I do. The rule book IMO doesn't help refs.
I think you've missed my point, Zulu. If you're giving the attacker a few extra steps because you deem he's being fouled, you're inventing your own rules.
By the way, it's interesting that you use the term "attacker". I think this betrays the widespread attitude that forwards should be given some extra assistance in their battle with those blasted nuisance defenders. Surely, if you think a player being fouled deserves some unofficial leeway, this philosophy should apply to all players, not just forwards?
Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back. I'm sure by 'attacker' Zulu means the person with the ball. After all, a defender coming out is launching an attack himself. In my experience, ANY player in possession is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steps if they are under pressure. If they are being fouled, the refs simply ignore the steps count I think.
As AZ says Hardy I just meant the man in possession rather than forwards.
QuoteI think you've missed my point, Zulu. If you're giving the attacker a few extra steps because you deem he's being fouled, you're inventing your own rules.
I agree to a point but if I applied the rules strictly then any contact you make with the attacker is a foul and if you blew that all the time then you'd accused of taking the physicality out of football. IMO, both football and (in particular) hurling are riddled with fouls but if you blew them all the games would be very different and poorer spectacles.
I don't know what the solution is but I do think reffing is a bit of a no win situation.
If reffing to the rules takes the physicality out of football then the problem is with the rules, not the refs.
The ones who get shafted here are the refs. They've a set of rules that they can't enforce (because the result wouldn't be football) and instead have to find some fabled sweet-spot where the game flows, there is plenty of physicality and both traditionalists and modernists are happy. ::)
Quote from: Hardy on May 27, 2014, 11:44:26 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2014, 11:30:51 AM
To cover a miskick where the ball rolls a few feet????
I suppose so but, by the rule, there's nothing to stop him dribbling it all they way up the field, as far as I can see (other than having it taken away from him, of course).
This was brought up at a referees convention I was at in Croke Park, and yes as you say could dribble it the whole way up the pitch lol
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 28, 2014, 05:25:35 PM
Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back. I'm sure by 'attacker' Zulu means the person with the ball. After all, a defender coming out is launching an attack himself. In my experience, ANY player in possession is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steps if they are under pressure. If they are being fouled, the refs simply ignore the steps count I think.
I'd like to think that's true, AZ and I'm not just getting at Zulu, but I've said here before, and I'm not the only one, that the black-card stuff came in on a current of opinion that's anti-defending. There's a misguided belief that high scoring means good football. Witness all the guff about the hugely increased scoring rate in the league being "proof" that the black card was working.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 28, 2014, 05:25:35 PM
Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back.
I meant to respond to this slur. I was an all-rounder - equally bad in all positions.
Quote from: Hardy on May 28, 2014, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 28, 2014, 05:25:35 PM
Jaysus Hardy, you must have been a back. I'm sure by 'attacker' Zulu means the person with the ball. After all, a defender coming out is launching an attack himself. In my experience, ANY player in possession is given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steps if they are under pressure. If they are being fouled, the refs simply ignore the steps count I think.
I'd like to think that's true, AZ and I'm not just getting at Zulu, but I've said here before, and I'm not the only one, that the black-card stuff came in on a current of opinion that's anti-defending. There's a misguided belief that high scoring means good football. Witness all the guff about the hugely increased scoring rate in the league being "proof" that the black card was working.
I think I've been consistent in my belief that the benefit of the black card down the field. Forwards pulling down backs coming out with the ball. That's the benefit of it that I see. A pull down 30 yards out is a score anyway. A pull down 90 yards out removes the chance to build a score.
Quote from: Zulu on May 28, 2014, 05:35:06 PM
As AZ says Hardy I just meant the man in possession rather than forwards.
QuoteI think you've missed my point, Zulu. If you're giving the attacker a few extra steps because you deem he's being fouled, you're inventing your own rules.
I agree to a point but if I applied the rules strictly then any contact you make with the attacker is a foul and if you blew that all the time then you'd accused of taking the physicality out of football. IMO, both football and (in particular) hurling are riddled with fouls but if you blew them all the games would be very different and poorer spectacles.
I don't know what the solution is but I do think reffing is a bit of a no win situation.
But the problem there is that if the attacker was required to take his solo or bounce every 3-4steps as required then the defender would be able to tackle without having contact on the player. But now you're lucky to see a solo or bounce every 6-7 steps on average, which in my opinion is causing more defenders to tackle the body in an attempt to slow players down as disposing a forward on the run at present can be virtually impossible legally.
I mean taking it down to the basics, to tackle the ball at the minute you have to tackle open handed and attempt to flick the ball away. AFAIR the closed fist tackle has been clamped down on so realistically you are only looking at being able to dispose the ball when the attacker is taking either a solo or bounce, as a good forward with be virtually impossible to get the ball of in between without a closed fist tackle. Currently that means an attacker is only really open to be tackled every 6-7 steps at present. To me that's too much in favour to the attacker.
I know it's a bit chicken or egg in what's the best thing to do. Do you enforce the 3-4 steps rigidly, which will be a nightmare at the start while people readjust. And then enforce the minimised contact as well so that any contact to the body bar the shoulder is penalised. Or do you leave it as is regarding the steps but try and redefine the tackle to allow for more contact (This wouldn't be easy). Because at the minute we've a system that is allowing attackers the leeway in attack, but that isn't allowing defenders any leeway in the tackle. And I don't think that's a better spectacle.
QuoteWell if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -
The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?
You still haven't pointed to me where it says anywhere in GAA rules or definitions where players cannot touch each other. Until you do this you lose the argument.
QuoteI'm telling you that from my experience of reffing, I do find it hard to repeatedly judge steps while also trying to judge whether the tackler is fouling.
Ah now FFS they let you ref matches. That says it all, enough said. :o
I don't agree at all that observing the rules correctly would take physicality out of football. As I said before What you can't do to an attacking player is push him (with your hands), strike his body, grab him with your hands, or charge into him. You can still obstruct and block him with your body, he can be held up physically with your body and arms.
So blocking a player, getting close, bearing down on him, harrying him by pushing him a bit with your chest into his back (from standing not charging run), and wrapping your arms around (so long as you don't grab him and "hold him with the hands") are all legal physicality. All that makes it really awkward for an attacking player to get the ball to the bounce or toe tap. But all that is wasted if the attacker is allowed to take 6 steps or hold the ball for more than 3-4 seconds.
I have described good defending and it should be rewarded, not considered borderline. I don't agree that it is that difficult to differentiate between that and - a push with the hands, a charge in the back, a grab of the shirt, or a strike on the body. I don't think there is a withdrawal of physicality and I still think the steps rule should be policed a lot more to improve both fast attacking passing/shooting and cleaner defending.
It's a bit chicken and egg. Attackers (man in possession) take 6 steps or more under pressure, and are let away with it, because defenders don't defend like that by and large Paul. But defenders don't defend like that because as you said, attackers are allowed take 6 steps or more.
Quote from: highorlow on May 29, 2014, 09:39:32 AM
QuoteWell if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -
The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?
You still haven't pointed to me where it says anywhere in GAA rules or definitions where players cannot touch each other. Until you do this you lose the argument.
Right, I've figured this out, you're on holidays and are spending it drinking or else your just an ignorant individual?
You've been illogically aggressive and confrontational on this from the get go so I'm not going to engage you any longer. However, if there is anyone on this board who agrees with you I'll discuss it with them. So for the saner posters here, this was my original post -
QuoteThe reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
So I said IF refs went BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW in the rule book you couldn't touch any player in possession bar shouldering them.
Now here is the rule -
QuoteThe 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."
I've highlighted the bit that supports my point.
So highorlow is saying I'm wrong to claim a ref could go out and give a foul for any physical contact when tackling under the above rule, NOT THAT HE SHOULD OR THAT THEY CURRENTLY DO BUT THAT HE
COULD. If anyone agrees with highorlow can they please come on and explain to me how that is wrong because this guy hasn't made an ounce of sense and I'm sick of the tone of his posts on an issue that shouldn't arouse too much anger.
Quote from: Zulu on May 29, 2014, 11:48:20 AM
Quote from: highorlow on May 29, 2014, 09:39:32 AM
QuoteWell if you're not point scoring then you haven't read my post, I ain't a Dub either! This is what I said -
The reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
I never said the game was non contact, to satisfy the rather strange point you're making if I inserted the word 'deliberate' then you'd have no problem? If I try to tackle you then any contact I make is surely deliberate bar standing there with my arms by my side and you running into me. The point I was making and I think everyone bar you understands this is the rule book isn't well worded and if, IF, a ref decided to go out and ref as per the rule book he could give a free against any player that raises their hand out and touches another player. Do you think I'm saying that's the way it is or should be?
You still haven't pointed to me where it says anywhere in GAA rules or definitions where players cannot touch each other. Until you do this you lose the argument.
Right, I've figured this out, you're on holidays and are spending it drinking or else your just an ignorant individual?
You've been illogically aggressive and confrontational on this from the get go so I'm not going to engage you any longer. However, if there is anyone on this board who agrees with you I'll discuss it with them. So for the saner posters here, this was my original post -
QuoteThe reality is, if refs went out and reffed games in both hurling and football as per the rule book then there would be a holy heap of frees per game until players realised you can't actual touch another player bar when shouldering.
So I said IF refs went BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW in the rule book you couldn't touch any player in possession bar shouldering them.
Now here is the rule -
QuoteThe 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."
I've highlighted the bit that supports my point.
So highorlow is saying I'm wrong to claim a ref could go out and give a foul for any physical contact when tackling under the above rule, NOT THAT HE SHOULD OR THAT THEY CURRENTLY DO BUT THAT HE COULD. If anyone agrees with highorlow can they please come on and explain to me how that is wrong because this guy hasn't made an ounce of sense and I'm sick of the tone of his posts on an issue that shouldn't arouse too much anger.
Interesting line of argument Zulu - classy!
Well Benny, highorlow has engaged with me in an aggressive manner right from the start and has repeatedly replied with an insulting and confrontational tone. I've tried to elaborate and explain my point but this guy hasn't managed to do that at any point so I've addressed him the way he has been addressing me. Perhaps not the right thing to do but considering my point was only the rule book can be interpreted in a certain way his 'panties in twist' attitude has become quite annoying.
Quote from: Zulu on May 29, 2014, 12:00:54 PM
Well Benny, highorlow has engaged with me in an aggressive manner right from the start and has repeatedly replied with an insulting and confrontational tone. I've tried to elaborate and explain my point but this guy hasn't managed to do that at any point so I've addressed him the way he has been addressing me. Perhaps not the right thing to do but considering my point was only the rule book can be interpreted in a certain way his 'panties in twist' attitude has become quite annoying.
Zulu, This is an interesting discussion that is getting disrupted by your argument with highorlow. In this instance highorlow is being needlessly confrontational. I think his comments to you were unfair but could I ask you to join in the rest of us and ignore him.
I read your quote regarding the rules of the tackle. You are right tat it was worded badly in it's clarification (actually made it much worse). But tat quote isn't actually in the rule book is it? The actual rules allow for a fair amount of physicality as I described earlier, don't they? The instances mentioned in your quote are all the same as the ones I stated were illegal. But the physical contact I suggest is allowed is surely still ok?
I am interested in your opinion as you are a ref
ZULU, It's your aggressive tone that is coming out as bad form. You cannot admit that your wrong.
You still choose to neglect my direct question. You won't deal with it because you know your wrong.
Where in any of the GAA rules or definitions does it say that you cannot touch an opponent player?
Your out of control with your accusations in your last post and if you cannot control what your are writing in an internet forum then you shouldn't be let near refereeing a match because it's doubtful you would be able to remain in control. This is my last comment on the thread and I will leave it to others to comment back on what is a good discussion (as you have requested).
Quote from: PAULD123 on May 29, 2014, 01:38:53 PM
Quote from: Zulu on May 29, 2014, 12:00:54 PM
Well Benny, highorlow has engaged with me in an aggressive manner right from the start and has repeatedly replied with an insulting and confrontational tone. I've tried to elaborate and explain my point but this guy hasn't managed to do that at any point so I've addressed him the way he has been addressing me. Perhaps not the right thing to do but considering my point was only the rule book can be interpreted in a certain way his 'panties in twist' attitude has become quite annoying.
Zulu, This is an interesting discussion that is getting disrupted by your argument with highorlow. In this instance highorlow is being needlessly confrontational. I think his comments to you were unfair but could I ask you to join in the rest of us and ignore him.
I read your quote regarding the rules of the tackle. You are right tat it was worded badly in it's clarification (actually made it much worse). But tat quote isn't actually in the rule book is it? The actual rules allow for a fair amount of physicality as I described earlier, don't they? The instances mentioned in your quote are all the same as the ones I stated were illegal. But the physical contact I suggest is allowed is surely still ok?
I am interested in your opinion as you are a ref
PaulD123, the rule quoted is the new definition of the tackle from the FRC and is meant to be a clarification on what is and isn't allowed when tackling. At the black card review meeting we had, the referee tutor made the point that by definition no physical contact was allowed when tackling, bar a shoulder, but nobody (correctly IMO) adheres to that as to do so would make tackling impossible.
I agree with a lot of what you said in an earlier post -
QuoteSo blocking a player, getting close, bearing down on him, harrying him by pushing him a bit with your chest into his back (from standing not charging run), and wrapping your arms around (so long as you don't grab him and "hold him with the hands") are all legal physicality.
Insofar as much of the above is allowed, though wrapping two arms around a guy is a foul for me, in most games. However, by definition, any contact would be a foul.
I like to allow defenders a good deal of leeway in how physical they can be when tackling so as long as they are aiming an open hand at the ball then they can be quite physical in doing so. If they leave the hand in, pull the jersey, push in the back or grab at the attackers arm or hand I'll probably give a free. By the same token, I give the attacker a bit of leeway on the steps as I probably leave defenders 'half foul' at times so it'd be harsh on the attacker to blow him for 5 steps.
The problem for me is that refereeing in football is totally about interpretation. I like to allow teams get on with it and play a physical brand of football, I don't give too many frees or dish out cards easily but if lads are getting out of hand I'll crack down. If I see a man go to ground he won't get a free unless I can see why he went to ground, i.e. he was pushed, tripped or dragged down but if defenders are simply swinging at him and not attempting to tackle the ball then he will get leeway to do something or get his free. Bottom line for me is that I only give a free if I know why and if you ask me I can tell you, none of this 'you know why Sean stuff!!'. However, you could ref a game after me in a very different way and be just as good/bad simply by having a different interpretation. That shouldn't be the way and I don't think the definition of a tackle should include the phrase "no deliberate physical contact" because it isn't even remotely close to what's going on in games.
Pat Mc Enaney didn't do a great job on the Sunday Game last night. Referees do get it tough and it's hard to referee but so many of the heads of the refs committee are simply apologists.
Some wildly varying applications of the black card in the tyrone club championship this weekend.
A few fells can rightly feel very hard done by for getting shown black cards.
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Anthony Nolan.
He was dire. From Wicklow.
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Footblock was not even close to a footblock.First bc was touch and go but the goalie I honestly felt pushed the player as opposed to pulled him down.Think this was refs reading of it judging by his actions.As for the Sunday game debate,it was fairly harmless,McEnaney did well I thought and his logic made sense,there has been a vast overreaction to a few incidents.Dessie Dolan was an embarrassment.He didn't seem to have prepared his argument at all.Can't understand why someone from Ulster wasn't brought in to speak against it seeding as this is where most of the opposition comes from.
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Absolutely nowhere near a foot block. does anyone else think that most of the problems we are complaining about re football would be resolved by going back to the old rule whereby only one player at a time is allowed to tackle an opponent. When I played and was tackling an opponent if one of my teammates came in to help out a free was almost always awarded. Going back to this rule would be a lot easier for referees and would make the game a whole lot better to watch. It would cut out the horrible situations where a player is surrounded by 7 or 8 opponents and finds it impossible to play the ball.
Quote from: Collie Brolly on June 04, 2014, 11:43:53 AM
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Footblock was not even close to a footblock.First bc was touch and go but the goalie I honestly felt pushed the player as opposed to pulled him down.Think this was refs reading of it judging by his actions.As for the Sunday game debate,it was fairly harmless,McEnaney did well I thought and his logic made sense,there has been a vast overreaction to a few incidents.Dessie Dolan was an embarrassment.He didn't seem to have prepared his argument at all.Can't understand why someone from Ulster wasn't brought in to speak against it seeding as this is where most of the opposition comes from.
I remember Dessie speaking on the radio about the Black Card when it came in first, and he has been consistently against it. He was stuttery on Sunday evening, but what he was actually saying was it's too hard for refs to adjudge whether a pull down is 'deliberate' or not, especially if some players are trying it on. He's got a point in that. It is difficult, and this is where you hope the refs only award them where they are sure.
I felt the one v Tipp was very harsh. I don't think he deliberately pulled down the man. He tried to put him off his shot, and the player fell down. I don't think it was a deliberate pull down.
The foot block was just atrocious. Must have been near 5 yards before the ball hit the defender. Good job it wasn't a close game.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 04, 2014, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Collie Brolly on June 04, 2014, 11:43:53 AM
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Footblock was not even close to a footblock.First bc was touch and go but the goalie I honestly felt pushed the player as opposed to pulled him down.Think this was refs reading of it judging by his actions.As for the Sunday game debate,it was fairly harmless,McEnaney did well I thought and his logic made sense,there has been a vast overreaction to a few incidents.Dessie Dolan was an embarrassment.He didn't seem to have prepared his argument at all.Can't understand why someone from Ulster wasn't brought in to speak against it seeding as this is where most of the opposition comes from.
I remember Dessie speaking on the radio about the Black Card when it came in first, and he has been consistently against it. He was stuttery on Sunday evening, but what he was actually saying was it's too hard for refs to adjudge whether a pull down is 'deliberate' or not, especially if some players are trying it on. He's got a point in that. It is difficult, and this is where you hope the refs only award them where they are sure.
I felt the one v Tipp was very harsh. I don't think he deliberately pulled down the man. He tried to put him off his shot, and the player fell down. I don't think it was a deliberate pull down.
The foot block was just atrocious. Must have been near 5 yards before the ball hit the defender. Good job it wasn't a close game.
This would be my main issue with it as well.
Quote from: lenny on June 04, 2014, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Absolutely nowhere near a foot block. does anyone else think that most of the problems we are complaining about re football would be resolved by going back to the old rule whereby only one player at a time is allowed to tackle an opponent. When I played and was tackling an opponent if one of my teammates came in to help out a free was almost always awarded. Going back to this rule would be a lot easier for referees and would make the game a whole lot better to watch. It would cut out the horrible situations where a player is surrounded by 7 or 8 opponents and finds it impossible to play the ball.
There is not and never was such a rule.
Quote from: Hardy on June 04, 2014, 03:36:01 PM
Quote from: lenny on June 04, 2014, 12:28:58 PM
[ going back to the old rule whereby only one player at a time is allowed to tackle an opponent. When I played and was tackling an opponent if one of my teammates came in to help out a free was almost always awarded. Going back to this rule would be a lot easier for referees and would make the game a whole lot better to watch. It would cut out the horrible situations where a player is surrounded by 7 or 8 opponents and finds it impossible to play the ball.
There is not and never was such a rule.
I was trying to remember thqat one alright.
Another rule which seems to be confined to Galway is "Two turns Ref" which is regularly shouted by Herrins at games.
Quote from: Hardy on June 04, 2014, 03:36:01 PM
Quote from: lenny on June 04, 2014, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Absolutely nowhere near a foot block. does anyone else think that most of the problems we are complaining about re football would be resolved by going back to the old rule whereby only one player at a time is allowed to tackle an opponent. When I played and was tackling an opponent if one of my teammates came in to help out a free was almost always awarded. Going back to this rule would be a lot easier for referees and would make the game a whole lot better to watch. It would cut out the horrible situations where a player is surrounded by 7 or 8 opponents and finds it impossible to play the ball.
There is not and never was such a rule.
Are you sure? When I played in the 80s and 90s it was applied in the way I've stated. I'm not sure if it was in the rule book but even if it wasn't I'm putting it forward as a suggestion to make the game (a) more enjoyable for spectators and (b) much easier to referee.
How would that work? One man tackle doesn't stop players being surrounded and crowded.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 08, 2014, 07:52:08 PM
Monaghan accumulated a grand total of 0 black cards in the 7 league games.
That's what's known as a miracle
Quote from: lenny on June 04, 2014, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 04, 2014, 03:36:01 PM
Quote from: lenny on June 04, 2014, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Absolutely nowhere near a foot block. does anyone else think that most of the problems we are complaining about re football would be resolved by going back to the old rule whereby only one player at a time is allowed to tackle an opponent. When I played and was tackling an opponent if one of my teammates came in to help out a free was almost always awarded. Going back to this rule would be a lot easier for referees and would make the game a whole lot better to watch. It would cut out the horrible situations where a player is surrounded by 7 or 8 opponents and finds it impossible to play the ball.
There is not and never was such a rule.
Are you sure? When I played in the 80s and 90s it was applied in the way I've stated. I'm not sure if it was in the rule book but even if it wasn't I'm putting it forward as a suggestion to make the game (a) more enjoyable for spectators and (b) much easier to referee.
I'm sure. But I don't doubt what you say. As I keep saying, referees make up their own rules all the time and many seem to subscribe to rules that are no more than myth or legend - rolling ball, third man tackle, etc.
As far as I can tell, many, even inter-county referees, have never read the rule book but just referee in accordance with the way they see it done by others. That may seem an outlandish claim, but otherwise it's very had to account for some simple observations like:
- A player who plays the ball away on the ground with his hand after falling in possession is nearly always
penalised for touching on the ground. (Feckit, always - I can't remember ever seeing otherwise.) That's despite the clear rule that allows this. It's on the very first page of the Official Guide. The second rule in the whole book.
- Many (most?) referees penalise anyone who tackles the goalie in the small square; many penalise a tackle on the goalie anywhere. They seem to have a vague inkling that the goalie has a special privilege. If they'd ever read the rule book, they couldn't be unaware that there's nothing in it about tackling the goalie. They'd know you can't shoulder-charge the goalie in the small square - that's all.
- I've only once ever seen a referee apply the penalty for feigning, despite the wholesale infestation of the game with diving, rolling, collapsing, face-clutching and the rest. Do they know the penalties (free, caution, red card for second offence) exist?
That's only a few. There are loads. So it's no surprise that, if referees are largely refereeing by doing what they see other referees do, local custom and practice take root to the extent that refs and players swear by rules that don't exist.
Quote from: J70 on June 04, 2014, 06:27:00 PM
How would that work? One man tackle doesn't stop players being surrounded and crowded.
When a player is surrounded he is usually being tackled by 2 or 3 men at least. In my opinion that should be given as a foul. That would stop the surrounding and crowding.
QuoteWhen a player is surrounded he is usually being tackled by 2 or 3 men at least. In my opinion that should be given as a foul. That would stop the surrounding and crowding.
You may aswell have no defense at all then.
The black card isn't as bad as I thought it would be. The refs are the problem.
When Pat McEnaney was on the SG apologizing for mistakes its proves that aspects don't work. He was trying to say that a 75% success rate was a success. It isn't when it might concern a match changing decision.
I'd say from this weekend onwards things will improve.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 04, 2014, 01:31:36 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 04, 2014, 12:56:28 PM
Quote from: Collie Brolly on June 04, 2014, 11:43:53 AM
Quote from: Itchy on June 02, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
Does anyone know who referreed the Tipp v Limerick football match yesterday and what rule book he was using. Black carded a player who barely touched his opponent, who didn't even go to ground. A yellow card for a goalie who rugby tackled a forward and the saved a penalty and then another extremely harsh peno for a foot block. And they were only the 60 second highlights.
Footblock was not even close to a footblock.First bc was touch and go but the goalie I honestly felt pushed the player as opposed to pulled him down.Think this was refs reading of it judging by his actions.As for the Sunday game debate,it was fairly harmless,McEnaney did well I thought and his logic made sense,there has been a vast overreaction to a few incidents.Dessie Dolan was an embarrassment.He didn't seem to have prepared his argument at all.Can't understand why someone from Ulster wasn't brought in to speak against it seeding as this is where most of the opposition comes from.
I remember Dessie speaking on the radio about the Black Card when it came in first, and he has been consistently against it. He was stuttery on Sunday evening, but what he was actually saying was it's too hard for refs to adjudge whether a pull down is 'deliberate' or not, especially if some players are trying it on. He's got a point in that. It is difficult, and this is where you hope the refs only award them where they are sure.
I felt the one v Tipp was very harsh. I don't think he deliberately pulled down the man. He tried to put him off his shot, and the player fell down. I don't think it was a deliberate pull down.
The foot block was just atrocious. Must have been near 5 yards before the ball hit the defender. Good job it wasn't a close game.
This would be my main issue with it as well.
You won't have seen this on the 2 nano-second highlights on the Sunday Game but Antrim picked up two black cards on Sunday against Fermanagh. On the first Conor Murray had both his arms round the Fermanagh player, there was a bit of two way wrestling and then, it seemed to me, the Fermanagh player fell to the ground. Whether it was a drag to the ground was debatable never mind deliberate. Murray was playing well at the time.
Most people I spoke to thought the second was harsh but it seemed to me that James Laverty dived in front of the Fermanagh player deliberately to use his body to trip him.
I suppose that's why we have a ref...to be the arbiter on these decisions?
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
And they have castrated it.
Based on the rules, McCurry's black and Mone's yellow were IMHO correct. Which was cynical?
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
Very bad ref again today. Rules not implemented. Didnt effect result.
The SG lads should get eugene mcgee in to explain himself.
Quote from: screenexile on June 15, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
That may be, but the black card is not even close to a solution to cynical fouling.
That's the second black Darren Hughes has received; another and it's a one match ban.
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
Based on the rules, McCurry's black and Mone's yellow were IMHO correct. Which was cynical?
Both were cynical, but where there is an element of physicality it gives the Ref the option of going for the yellow.
Quote from: screenexile on June 15, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
Waiting on TSG now but at the time I thought Cavanagh was fouled each time, he "made sure" it was seen for the Hughes one
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 15, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
Waiting on TSG now but at the time I thought Cavanagh was fouled each time, he "made sure" it was seen for the Hughes one
I've just watched the game (Sky+) - Cavanagh very clearly pulled Hughes down and both Brolly and Spillane pointed it out after the game. Once again, Hughes is cheated by Cavanagh and there's a card and a free in when it should have been a free out.
Quote from: highorlow on June 15, 2014, 10:09:07 PM
Very bad ref again today. Rules not implemented. Didnt effect result.
The SG lads should get eugene mcgee in to explain himself.
are you sure you would want that?I think I would prefer to bore a hole in my head than listen to Eugene MC Gee drone on about anything.
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:14:04 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
Based on the rules, McCurry's black and Mone's yellow were IMHO correct. Which was cynical?
Both were cynical, but where there is an element of physicality it gives the Ref the option of going for the yellow.
It doesn't. Mone's didn't fit into the list of black card offences; McCurry's did. A year ago, McCurry would have been very unlucky to receive a yellow.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 15, 2014, 10:18:13 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 15, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
Waiting on TSG now but at the time I thought Cavanagh was fouled each time, he "made sure" it was seen for the Hughes one
I've just watched the game (Sky+) - Cavanagh very clearly pulled Hughes down and both Brolly and Spillane pointed it out after the game. Once again, Hughes is cheated by Cavanagh and there's a card and a free in when it should have been a free out.
Still waiting but I am not denying it, though I thought Hughes was fouling him at the time. The only black card should have been Cavanaghs, he should have got his foul and moved on. Penrose got away with a more obvious one in the first half.
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 10:22:52 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:14:04 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:55:24 PM
Based on the rules, McCurry's black and Mone's yellow were IMHO correct. Which was cynical?
Both were cynical, but where there is an element of physicality it gives the Ref the option of going for the yellow.
It doesn't. Mone's didn't fit into the list of black card offences; McCurry's did. A year ago, McCurry would have been very unlucky to receive a yellow.
Depending on whether we was accidentally clumsy or not. I think the Ref got it right but am reluctant to give Mone the benefit if the doubt.
We have to many cards. Referees use the yellow as an excuse not to use a black. The game is too fast and players/coaches are too cute for most referees. The sin bin was the answer like the Ladies game. But us lads have to complicate things.
Let there be no confusion. The reason the sin bin is not in our game is because the managers whinged and bitched about that back then too. That was probably the best solution of all.
I thought the ref today did ok, now the ref last week was shocking. We can complain about today's ref but look at all the debate on here for black cards and we have slow motion replays. What hope has a ref of getting them all right? The rule us destined to fail for that reason and also because more players will follow Sean Cavanaghs lead and buy a black card for an opponent. When it happens to a dub on all Ireland final day the rule will be binned.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 15, 2014, 10:37:15 PM
Let there be no confusion. The reason the sin bin is not in our game is because the managers whinged and bitched about that back then too. That was probably the best solution of all.
Very true. Simple solution. Old rules but a yellow card gets you 10 mins in the sin bin.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 15, 2014, 10:37:15 PM
Let there be no confusion. The reason the sin bin is not in our game is because the managers whinged and bitched about that back then too. That was probably the best solution of all.
And foremost of that gallant band was Harte from south Tyrone.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 15, 2014, 10:37:15 PM
Let there be no confusion. The reason the sin bin is not in our game is because the managers whinged and bitched about that back then too. That was probably the best solution of all.
This was the best solution. But the powers that be declined to stand up for themselves after criticism from a few high profile managers.
Waterford - Clare highlights there. Maurice Deegan appears not to understand the rules. First black was never a black. Second was though.
Can you imagine that game today with the sin bin in the closing minutes? Monaghan would have been under serious pressure if they had players Sin binned rather than black carded and replaced with fresh lungs. Just wondering - has the tick in the book gone completely from the game?
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 15, 2014, 10:18:13 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 15, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
Waiting on TSG now but at the time I thought Cavanagh was fouled each time, he "made sure" it was seen for the Hughes one
I've just watched the game (Sky+) - Cavanagh very clearly pulled Hughes down and both Brolly and Spillane pointed it out after the game. Once again, Hughes is cheated by Cavanagh and there's a card and a free in when it should have been a free out.
Still waiting but I am not denying it, though I thought Hughes was fouling him at the time. The only black card should have been Cavanaghs, he should have got his foul and moved on. Penrose got away with a more obvious one in the first half.
Fairly clear-cut Leo, no?
Thought this was quite witty!
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/the-top-10-unofficial-rules-of-the-gaa-that-referees-must-observe-1.1834021
Quote
With the recent advent of Sky Sports covering GAA matches, we've noticed (even more) puzzlement with some refereeing decisions. The problem is many of the rules of hurling and football are not in the official rulebook. They are handed from generation to generation.
Here are 10 of the most important unofficial rules of the game that GAA referees traditionally observe.
1 If any team breaks a deadlock by scoring as time runs out, the referee shall give the losing side a chance to square the match. Should the winning team gain possession from the puck/ kick-out, it is okay to blow the full-time whistle. But it is seen as considered bad form to end the match if the losing side has the ball.
Known as the . . . One for the road rule.
2 It is, of course, a foul for a player going up for a high ball to knee an opposing player in the back or elbow them in the face . . . unless they catch it. Then, well, fair play.
Known as the . . . Machiavelli rule.
3 player is not fouling the ball if an opposing player is fouling them at the same time. Therefore, a referee will not start counting steps a player takes with the ball in hand until the opposing player has let go of their jersey.
Known as the . . . What's good for the goose rule.
3A Subsection to the above rule: The more likely a player is to score a goal, the more steps the referee will allow them to take with ball in hand.
Known as the . . . Forwards rule! rule.
4 One-on-one fights are the responsibility of the referee. However anything involving more than two or three players can be construed as a melee and the referee only has to note its occurrence for a later committee.
Known as the . . . One death is a tragedy, 30 is a statistic rule.
5 The only thing on the ref's mind when throwing in a sliotar is not getting hit himself. Where it goes, or who else gets hit, is not his problem.
Known as the . . . Every man for himself rule.
6 Players should try not to get on the wrong side of the umpires. Apart from them possibly having to make a 50-50 call later in the game, one of them is probably the referee's lift home.
Known as the . . . My mate's the boss rule.
7 Umpires can change their minds at any time. They may for example, put their hand up to draw the referee's attention to an off-the-ball incident . However, if the referee doesn't notice the signal inside a minute, it's perfectly acceptable to put their arm down and forget the incident ever happened.
Known as the . . . My arm is getting sore rule.
8 If the crowd loudly complains that a free-taker has stolen a few extra yards before placing the ball, the referee will insist the player retreats even if he didn't see it happen. GAA referee's trust the crowd more than the player.
Known as the . . . Home town benefits rule.
9 After awarding a free, the ref may bring the ball forward 13 metres for dissent. However, no referee is expected to know how far 13 metres is – anywhere between five metres and half the length of the pitch is considered acceptable. Unlike soccer, no magic spray needed.
Known as the . . . A piece of string rule.
It's funny because they are nearly all true. James McGrath ran half the length of Semple Stadium yesterday bringing a free up for Cork after some dissent. I do love the one where the umpire leaves his arm up, starts to feel maybe it wasn't a big deal, oh Jaysus the crowd are looking at me and giving out, Oh no, now they are laughing because the ref hasn't seen me. What'll I do? Ah f**k it, take down the arm and forget about it.
i think yesterday AGAIN showed the failings of the black card rule.
1. it doesn't discourage cynical play in the slightest when it counts (i.e. a team trying to close a game out in the last 10 minutes)
2. Referees are getting as many of these black card calls wrong as they are right, which simply isnt good enough.
3.Players are now encouraged to go to ground under almost every challenge and there is still no discouragement of diving, or the grabbing of the arm to simulate a black card offense and get a player sent off (as with the sean cavanagh/ darren hughes incident)
The past number of weeks has proved that football in particular has got to the stage where it is virtually impossible to referee.
Refs are under so much pressure and the black card has not made it easier to ref - rather it has made it much, much more difficult to ref.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
i think yesterday AGAIN showed the failings of the black card rule.
1. it doesn't discourage cynical play in the slightest when it counts (i.e. a team trying to close a game out in the last 10 minutes)
It won't stop someone trying to take one for the team, as they say, but I think it has discouraged the cynical fouling out the field which was far more damaging to the game as a spectacle.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
2. Referees are getting as many of these black card calls wrong as they are right, which simply isnt good enough.
Agreed. Referees interpretation is still vital, especially because 'deliberate' is key and they have to get better at judging that.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
3.Players are now encouraged to go to ground under almost every challenge and there is still no discouragement of diving, or the grabbing of the arm to simulate a black card offense and get a player sent off (as with the sean cavanagh/ darren hughes incident)
This was my greatest worry. I don't think it's been too bad thus far, but I would be worried about it alright. Maybe deliberate diving should be added to the list.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 16, 2014, 02:12:02 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
i think yesterday AGAIN showed the failings of the black card rule.
1. it doesn't discourage cynical play in the slightest when it counts (i.e. a team trying to close a game out in the last 10 minutes)
It won't stop someone trying to take one for the team, as they say, but I think it has discouraged the cynical fouling out the field which was far more damaging to the game as a spectacle.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
2. Referees are getting as many of these black card calls wrong as they are right, which simply isnt good enough.
Agreed. Referees interpretation is still vital, especially because 'deliberate' is key and they have to get better at judging that.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
3.Players are now encouraged to go to ground under almost every challenge and there is still no discouragement of diving, or the grabbing of the arm to simulate a black card offense and get a player sent off (as with the sean cavanagh/ darren hughes incident)
This was my greatest worry. I don't think it's been too bad thus far, but I would be worried about it alright. Maybe deliberate diving should be added to the list.
i will agree AZ that it has eliminated a lot of the body checking off the ball we used to get, which is certainly a good thing.
It has a absolutely no other redeeming features though, it is difficult to referee, leads to very inconsistent calls and as i said, does nothing to discourage the slowing down of teh game when a team are trying to see it out.
Quote from: orangeman on June 16, 2014, 02:09:33 PM
The past number of weeks has proved that football in particular has got to the stage where it is virtually impossible to referee.
Refs are under so much pressure and the black card has not made it easier to ref - rather it has made it much, much more difficult to ref.
I agree with this orangeman, any new rules or rule changes should be to try and simplify the rules, not add further layers of complexity, its a tough enough job as it is.
I'm not sure it was ever going to do anything about the 'closing a game out' scenario. Of course the punishment is a bit severe, especially if you have used all your subs or something, but I think at the end of the day people will still do whatever they can to win, and if that means taking a black card they will do it.
But I do think it has been successful in eliminating the sort of cynical behaviour which was going on all throughout the game, and usually by forwards or midfielders acting on instructions to foul quickly to allow their defence to get set.
The game I keep harking back to in this regard is the Kerry- Cavan game last year. It was a game Kerry were comfortably on top in, yet great forwards like Colm Cooper, Declan O'Sullivan and others were quite deliberately and systematically fouling Cavan defenders coming out with the ball after a turnover. This was even in the first half. I don't think Kerry would approach the game in the same manner under threat of a black card this year.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 16, 2014, 02:12:02 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
i think yesterday AGAIN showed the failings of the black card rule.
1. it doesn't discourage cynical play in the slightest when it counts (i.e. a team trying to close a game out in the last 10 minutes)
It won't stop someone trying to take one for the team, as they say, but I think it has discouraged the cynical fouling out the field which was far more damaging to the game as a spectacle.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
2. Referees are getting as many of these black card calls wrong as they are right, which simply isnt good enough.
Agreed. Referees interpretation is still vital, especially because 'deliberate' is key and they have to get better at judging that.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
3.Players are now encouraged to go to ground under almost every challenge and there is still no discouragement of diving, or the grabbing of the arm to simulate a black card offense and get a player sent off (as with the sean cavanagh/ darren hughes incident)
This was my greatest worry. I don't think it's been too bad thus far, but I would be worried about it alright. Maybe deliberate diving should be added to the list.
i will agree AZ that it has eliminated a lot of the body checking off the ball we used to get, which is certainly a good thing.
It has a absolutely no other redeeming features though, it is difficult to referee, leads to very inconsistent calls and as i said, does nothing to discourage the slowing down of teh game when a team are trying to see it out.
It has also stopped a lot of the cynical fouling from early in matches which was becoming endemic in the game. No player wants to have to go off after a few minutes of a match so we are seeing more open football and goal chances in the first half of matches.
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 15, 2014, 11:30:06 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 15, 2014, 10:18:13 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 15, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
Waiting on TSG now but at the time I thought Cavanagh was fouled each time, he "made sure" it was seen for the Hughes one
I've just watched the game (Sky+) - Cavanagh very clearly pulled Hughes down and both Brolly and Spillane pointed it out after the game. Once again, Hughes is cheated by Cavanagh and there's a card and a free in when it should have been a free out.
Still waiting but I am not denying it, though I thought Hughes was fouling him at the time. The only black card should have been Cavanaghs, he should have got his foul and moved on. Penrose got away with a more obvious one in the first half.
Fairly clear-cut Leo, no?
(http://www.dmcaphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IMG_2248a.jpg)
Still think Hughes might be fouling him. Do you still think it is a free out?
Quote from: LeoMc on June 17, 2014, 08:42:12 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 15, 2014, 11:30:06 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:25:03 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 15, 2014, 10:18:13 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on June 15, 2014, 10:15:47 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 15, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: Champion The Wonder Horse on June 15, 2014, 09:43:00 PM
It should be abundantly clear now that those who invented, proposed, championed and voted for the black card have absolutely no understanding how modern-day Gaelic football is played.
Once Cavanagh retires hopefully fewer refs will be conned into giving black cards!!
Waiting on TSG now but at the time I thought Cavanagh was fouled each time, he "made sure" it was seen for the Hughes one
I've just watched the game (Sky+) - Cavanagh very clearly pulled Hughes down and both Brolly and Spillane pointed it out after the game. Once again, Hughes is cheated by Cavanagh and there's a card and a free in when it should have been a free out.
Still waiting but I am not denying it, though I thought Hughes was fouling him at the time. The only black card should have been Cavanaghs, he should have got his foul and moved on. Penrose got away with a more obvious one in the first half.
Fairly clear-cut Leo, no?
(http://www.dmcaphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IMG_2248a.jpg)
Still think Hughes might be fouling him. Do you still think it is a free out?
Sean applies clear double sided sticky tape to his jersey before matches. The left arm of poor Hughes is clearly suck to the tape, there is nothing he can do - this is blatent cheating and should be a black card offence.
*Edit: Please note that this accusation may not be true unless verified by an RTE pundit.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 16, 2014, 02:12:02 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
i think yesterday AGAIN showed the failings of the black card rule.
1. it doesn't discourage cynical play in the slightest when it counts (i.e. a team trying to close a game out in the last 10 minutes)
It won't stop someone trying to take one for the team, as they say, but I think it has discouraged the cynical fouling out the field which was far more damaging to the game as a spectacle.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
2. Referees are getting as many of these black card calls wrong as they are right, which simply isnt good enough.
Agreed. Referees interpretation is still vital, especially because 'deliberate' is key and they have to get better at judging that.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 16, 2014, 02:04:09 PM
3.Players are now encouraged to go to ground under almost every challenge and there is still no discouragement of diving, or the grabbing of the arm to simulate a black card offense and get a player sent off (as with the sean cavanagh/ darren hughes incident)
This was my greatest worry. I don't think it's been too bad thus far, but I would be worried about it alright. Maybe deliberate diving should be added to the list.
i will agree AZ that it has eliminated a lot of the body checking off the ball we used to get, which is certainly a good thing.
It has a absolutely no other redeeming features though, it is difficult to referee, leads to very inconsistent calls and as i said, does nothing to discourage the slowing down of teh game when a team are trying to see it out.
The correct use of the rule in the high profile AI club final where the lad got the black card early on for the body check probably reinforced this rule and made it abundantly clear that it was not acceptable.
The pulling down is now back to a grey area where some get off with it and some get punished. The intent aspect of it is always going to make it hard for referees.
The black card as expected has had some good aspects to in and also some poor aspects to it, its the GAA way.
The sin bin was the answer but GAA officialdom give in to the likes of Mickey Harte and Brian Cody who were very vocally against it.
I can't believe there are edjits out there still in favour of the black card. We no longer talk about the game, red cards etc. It is all about the freaking black card. It will kill gaelic football among even it's most ardent fans. I know of lots of people who find this bastardised game hard to watch.
I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule. We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.
Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.
If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field. In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.
Quote from: sligoman2 on June 18, 2014, 02:06:13 AM
I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule. We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.
Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.
If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field. In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.
Take a look at the poll at the top of the page
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 18, 2014, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on June 18, 2014, 02:06:13 AM
I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule. We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.
Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.
If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field. In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.
Take a look at the poll at the top of the page
Tis a reliable poll alright with its 26 participants!!
Quote from: screenexile on June 18, 2014, 09:39:19 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 18, 2014, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on June 18, 2014, 02:06:13 AM
I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule. We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.
Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.
If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field. In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.
Take a look at the poll at the top of the page
Tis a reliable poll alright with its 26 participants!!
Well its certainly more reliable than one person saying 'for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game' with no evidence that this is the view at all.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 18, 2014, 09:41:55 AM
Quote from: screenexile on June 18, 2014, 09:39:19 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 18, 2014, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on June 18, 2014, 02:06:13 AM
I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule. We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.
Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.
If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field. In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.
Take a look at the poll at the top of the page
Tis a reliable poll alright with its 26 participants!!
Well its certainly more reliable than one person saying 'for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game' with no evidence that this is the view at all.
Nope - neither of those things is more reliable than the other. Without any kind of detailed sample nobody can say anything about "most people this or that" it's all a matter of opinion!
I don't see it as the ref being incompetent. The ref doesn't have the benefit of replays like the viewer does. Players are going out to get lads black carded now. Call it cheating, being cute or simulation or whatever but the players and coaches have moved on. Some counties and players are working at getting the opposition sent off. Some counties like Dublin are working hard to keep their players on the pitch.
The rule changes have worked to some degree but can't be hailed as a complete success.
In Monaghan and Tyrone match on Sunday you had loads of lads, big strong lads, who were more like Bambi than footballers. There was no ice in Clones on Sunday - lads weren't great at staying on their feet and that goes for both counties.
It's a good thing for the game and has improved it. It didn't go far enough in removing cynical play but it's a process.
The question should be: why the constant focus on referees and not on those who try to cheat or commit the fouls? Refs make mistakes with the most obvious one so far by David Coldrick in Omagh and not giving McGinn a black card for the penalty. Most of the rest have been correct. The hysteria comes because many people at games don't actually know the new rules.
Watching the world cup, players diving is absolutely endemic in soccer. It's actually part of the culture of that game now and it's horrible. It's so bad that it's tolerated by commentators with a mild 'harsh' or 'not much in that' comment when it's clear that a player is deliberately trying to get another booked or sent off.
It makes soccer unwatchable for me and it's something which needs constant focus in our game.
Quote from: screenexile on June 18, 2014, 09:44:33 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 18, 2014, 09:41:55 AM
Quote from: screenexile on June 18, 2014, 09:39:19 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 18, 2014, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on June 18, 2014, 02:06:13 AM
I don't agree, the level of cynical fouling has gone down significantly and the scoring and free flowing football has increased.
I repeat, the problem is not the black card rule, the problem is the incompetence of the refs to enforce the rule. We have the same problem with the red and yellow cards.
Some people will fight any change no matter what, but I think for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game (maybe not as good as the sin bin but better than nothing.
If I was in charge, I would insist on two refs to one for each half as there is no way one ref can handle the amount of action that is happening on the field. In basketball there are three refs for only 10 players on an area about one 25th the size of a football pitch and they still mess up many calls.
Take a look at the poll at the top of the page
Tis a reliable poll alright with its 26 participants!!
Well its certainly more reliable than one person saying 'for most people the black card is viewed as an improvement to the game' with no evidence that this is the view at all.
Nope - neither of those things is more reliable than the other. Without any kind of detailed sample nobody can say anything about "most people this or that" it's all a matter of opinion!
i was just trying to point out some of the rubbish that is trotted out in support of the black card that has no basis in any fact.
'it has improved the game'
'there is more free flowing football'
'there is less cynical fouling'
'most people are in favour of the black card'
I havent seen any evidence of any of this.
I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.
We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.
We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?
We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!
Has anyone done a statistical analysis? I'm in favour of the black card, as I do think it has cut down on the insidious fouling way out the field that just broke up the rhythm of the game. I've also noticed a serious lack of body checks, or 'third man tackles' in the games.
I am worried about the diving, and I am also worried about referees being inconsistant.
In the interests of objectivity, with a very small sample size, here are some match stats from 2013 versus 2014.
Monaghan v Tyrone (august 2013, AIQF, Croke Park)
Frees - 49. Tyrone 23, Monaghan 26.
Yellow Cards - 10, Tyrone 5, Monaghan 5.
Red Cards - 2, Tyrone 1, Monaghan 1.
Score - Monaghan 0-12, Tyrone 0-14.
Monaghan v Tyrone (June 2014, UQF, Clones
Frees - 43. Tyrone 17, Monaghan 26.
Yellow Cards - 6, Tyrone 4, Monaghan 2.
Black Cards - 3, Tyrone 1, Monaghan 2.
Red Cards 0.
Score: Monaghan 1-12, Tyrone 0-14.
Very little difference between the two Monaghan Tyrone games, other than Monaghan fouled 6 times fewer. Tyrone had exactly the same amount of fouls, and the same amount of cards received. Tyrone even scored the same amount. Monaghan fouled 6 times fewer, scored a goal more, and got 1 fewer card than last year.
Are there other repeat games so far we could take a look at?
Quote from: Hardy on June 18, 2014, 10:09:49 AM
I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.
We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.
We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?
We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!
Hardy, I'm going to have to take you up on this a bit, because I am a proponent of at least giving the black card a chance, and I'm not sure you have captured my argument in that summary above. In fact I think that's a bit of a straw man so you can say 'I told you so'.
1 - I never expected the black card to stop the last ditch drag down to stop scores, especially goals. In fact I remember arguing when Joe Brolly was going Armageddon on Sean Cavanagh last year that the Sean Cavanagh tackle was not the issue, it was the Declan O'Sullivan v Cavan, and countless other low profile systemic fouls that were the real cynicism in the game. A lad dragging a forward down is going to concede a score from the free, more than likely, and in the old rules would have gotten a yellow. The forward dragging down a defender breaking out is just cynically breaking up play, allowing his defence to get set, and slowing the whole game down. He was, in the old rules, getting a 'tick' and that was it, if even that. I believe that there is far less of this type of strategic fouling in general, and that has been a good thing. I also believe the 'third man tackle' has effectively been eradicated from the game. Also a good thing.
2 - I agree on both counts. There would probably not have been a reason for the black card in the first place if refs were sending forwards off for the fouls I'm talking about. However, imagine the outcry from affronted managers if their star forward got two yellows for 'harmless' (sic) fouls out the field. It would be an outcry. A big reason we have issues with regard to discipline in the GAA is because our managers seem unable to accept the fact that you have to play by the rules. Every time a clampdown is tried on cynical fouling (Sin Bin, Black Card, whatever) there's an outcry to mirror the protests in Rio. Imagine if lads were being red carded if the referees applied the old rules? But yes, if they were applying them, then we'd not need the black card. Now that we are in a situation where something else is attempted, our referees are making a hames of the most important thing, which is consistency. If the key word is deliberate, and you are not sure, then it's not a black card. If you are sure, and it's one of the cited fouls, then give the f**king thing.
3 - Agree on this. It was my big worry. I even gave it a name, the divers' charter, but I hoped the referees would be better at spotting it (see point 2). I would add diving to the list of black card offences if I had my way, and send a message. It's cynical to pull a lad down when he's going forward with possession, but it's just as cynical to engineer a black card for an innocent opponent.
I don't think our views are 180 degrees apart to be honest, but I do believe that something had to be done about the cynical, low profile, fouling and to a large extent I think it has helped in that area.
Quote from: Hardy on June 18, 2014, 10:09:49 AM
I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.
We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.
We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?
We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!
I agree with this post (Obviously the Sean Cavanagh bit was uncalled for! ;)) and I agree we are seeing a development of increased cynicism of trying to get lads black carded, this unwanted side effect was one of my big concerns. We are only a few weeks in an im afraid as the games get even more important we will see even more pressure on the refs and even more problems. I'm also sick of the type of arrogant phrase trotted out by the like of Sheamy there, that anyone who doesn't agree with the black card obviously doesnt understand the rules.
Quote from: BennyHarp on June 18, 2014, 10:46:54 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 18, 2014, 10:09:49 AM
I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.
We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.
We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?
We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!
I agree with this post (Obviously the Sean Cavanagh bit was uncalled for! ;)) and I agree we are seeing a development of increased cynicism of trying to get lads black carded, this unwanted side effect was one of my big concerns. We are only a few weeks in an im afraid as the games get even more important we will see even more pressure on the refs and even more problems. I'm also sick of the type of arrogant phrase trotted out by the like of Sheamy there, that anyone who doesn't agree with the black card obviously doesnt understand the rules.
I pretty much agree with that all aswell hardy.
The one thing i would say, is that the black card has almost completely gotten rid of teh 3rd man tackle/body check type foul which is a good thing. However, as i said at the time, how about we started issuing yellow cards for these and instructing the linesmen/ umpires to look out for the off the ball ones and clamp down that way before we introduce a completely new system.
To my mind the black card has been successful in its main aim, to cut out the systematic fouling that had crept in which would stop a team at the opposite end of the pitch.
Now that this has all but stopped, the remaining (and always existing) issue of diving to get players booked and sent off has become more noticeable.
I'm going to pick on our nearest and dearest red arse neighbours a bit here, Peter Canavan and Brian Dooher had the dark art of diving down to perfection. In Sean Cavanagh's defence, he came into that side when these players were at their peak and this is what they were doing, so of course he's going to mimic his betters. He's just doing what he's been taught to do. He's not the only one at it, every team does it if they can, Tyrone (and to a lesser extent Donegal) are particularly good at it.
If we can get the diving cut out we are nearly there.
As for referees, even taking the black card out of it, they are a joke. Inconsistency, non-application of the rules, lack of knowledge of the rules in some cases and for a handful a bad case of "small man syndrome" where they have to be centre of attention.
That's the single biggest issue I believe at the minute. There's not one referee on the panel of refs at the minute who I would consider consistent in their application of the rules.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 18, 2014, 10:59:54 AM
[However, as i said at the time, how about we started issuing yellow cards for these and instructing the linesmen/ umpires to look out for the off the ball ones and clamp down that way before we introduce a completely new system.
Not much point dragging that up now is there?
As for polls on GAABoard ::) most of them have been totally at odds with the real world - Martin McGuinness for Uachtarán and so on.
Could the black card please be extended to the gobsh1tery of stopping a player taking a quick free or refusing to hand over the ball when it's a free against you? Both of those scenarios are melee inducers.
Quote from: screenexile on June 16, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
Thought this was quite witty!
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/the-top-10-unofficial-rules-of-the-gaa-that-referees-must-observe-1.1834021
Quote
2 It is, of course, a foul for a player going up for a high ball to knee an opposing player in the back or elbow them in the face . . . unless they catch it. Then, well, fair play.
Known as the . . . Machiavelli rule. Aussie Rules rule.
Brilliant but I'd have had one change. Machiavellianism is a real foreign sport whereas Aussie Rules is a local foreign sport.
As for the black card I don't think it has been a success. Most refs just ignore it since the championship started and we have games that resemble any other year as far as I can see. In the League some refs stuck to the letter of the law (fair enough from their pov) and we had games with very little tackling. The subsequent high scores were used as proof of the revolutionary success of the rule. That argument seems to have died a death lately as no matter which side of the argument you are on, a single League campaign was hardly going to prove the case either way.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 18, 2014, 10:29:10 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 18, 2014, 10:09:49 AM
I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.
We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.
We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?
We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!
Hardy, I'm going to have to take you up on this a bit, because I am a proponent of at least giving the black card a chance, and I'm not sure you have captured my argument in that summary above. In fact I think that's a bit of a straw man so you can say 'I told you so'.
1 - I never expected the black card to stop the last ditch drag down to stop scores, especially goals. In fact I remember arguing when Joe Brolly was going Armageddon on Sean Cavanagh last year that the Sean Cavanagh tackle was not the issue, it was the Declan O'Sullivan v Cavan, and countless other low profile systemic fouls that were the real cynicism in the game. A lad dragging a forward down is going to concede a score from the free, more than likely, and in the old rules would have gotten a yellow. The forward dragging down a defender breaking out is just cynically breaking up play, allowing his defence to get set, and slowing the whole game down. He was, in the old rules, getting a 'tick' and that was it, if even that. I believe that there is far less of this type of strategic fouling in general, and that has been a good thing. I also believe the 'third man tackle' has effectively been eradicated from the game. Also a good thing.
2 - I agree on both counts. There would probably not have been a reason for the black card in the first place if refs were sending forwards off for the fouls I'm talking about. However, imagine the outcry from affronted managers if their star forward got two yellows for 'harmless' (sic) fouls out the field. It would be an outcry. A big reason we have issues with regard to discipline in the GAA is because our managers seem unable to accept the fact that you have to play by the rules. Every time a clampdown is tried on cynical fouling (Sin Bin, Black Card, whatever) there's an outcry to mirror the protests in Rio. Imagine if lads were being red carded if the referees applied the old rules? But yes, if they were applying them, then we'd not need the black card. Now that we are in a situation where something else is attempted, our referees are making a hames of the most important thing, which is consistency. If the key word is deliberate, and you are not sure, then it's not a black card. If you are sure, and it's one of the cited fouls, then give the f**king thing.
3 - Agree on this. It was my big worry. I even gave it a name, the divers' charter, but I hoped the referees would be better at spotting it (see point 2). I would add diving to the list of black card offences if I had my way, and send a message. It's cynical to pull a lad down when he's going forward with possession, but it's just as cynical to engineer a black card for an innocent opponent.
I don't think our views are 180 degrees apart to be honest, but I do believe that something had to be done about the cynical, low profile, fouling and to a large extent I think it has helped in that area.
AZ, it wasn't my purpose to capture your argument. (Though my "straw man" did a fairly substantial job if he got you to agree with most of what he said.) I was referring to the three main reasons I/we were against the black card.
I thinks it's accepted that the drag-down rugby tackle (and, more importantly, of course, The Sunday Game's reaction to a single incidence of it) was the impetus for the black card's introduction. They added other stuff when they were at it – tripping, impeding a runner, trash talking, mouthing to referees.
I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.
Though I've noticed no reduction in the level of verbals, I haven't seen any cards yet for it. I'll be surprised if there are any in the Championship. But I'm willing to bet that, if we see one, we'll see several. It will mostly depend on whether the Sunday Game picks on some incident where some lad should have got a card for mouthing and makes a big deal out of it.
Quote from: Hardy on June 19, 2014, 10:35:05 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 18, 2014, 10:29:10 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 18, 2014, 10:09:49 AM
I know it's bad form to say, "we told you so", but we scaremongers, enemies of "free-flowing football" and apostles of "cynicism" took enough nonsense here when we said three things would happen. They've happened. To hell with bad form. We told you so.
We said it would do nothing to eliminate the problem it was specifically introduced to eliminate - the score-saving drag-down. It wouldn't be an effective deterrent.
- It hasn't. It isn't. We've actually seen more of it in the first three weeks of the Championship than in the whole season last year. I didn't expect that. I expected it be a neutral measure in that regard but it seems to have encouraged the behaviour it sought to stop. Maybe all the focus on it has reminded defenders that it's an option available to them. And that there's no real deterrent, so what the hell.
We said the problem was not rules, it was refereeing and this would just provide more things for refs to get wrong.
- I didn't really expect the good old refs to confirm this in quite such spectacular fashion, but I should have known. By the way, just as an illustration of the farcical nature of the whole enterprise, the pre-yellow "tick" has mysteriously disappeared. Who authorised this? What a silly question. Nobody, of course. Referees are just not doing it anymore. Does anybody care that referees are making it up as they go along? What do you think?
We said that, not only would it completely fail to eliminate the "cynicism" it was designed to eradicate, it would, in fact encourage the real cynicism and the biggest problem in the game - diving and systematic cheating to get opponents penalised. (And a special mention here to our old friend, Seán Cavanagh.)
- Voila!
Hardy, I'm going to have to take you up on this a bit, because I am a proponent of at least giving the black card a chance, and I'm not sure you have captured my argument in that summary above. In fact I think that's a bit of a straw man so you can say 'I told you so'.
1 - I never expected the black card to stop the last ditch drag down to stop scores, especially goals. In fact I remember arguing when Joe Brolly was going Armageddon on Sean Cavanagh last year that the Sean Cavanagh tackle was not the issue, it was the Declan O'Sullivan v Cavan, and countless other low profile systemic fouls that were the real cynicism in the game. A lad dragging a forward down is going to concede a score from the free, more than likely, and in the old rules would have gotten a yellow. The forward dragging down a defender breaking out is just cynically breaking up play, allowing his defence to get set, and slowing the whole game down. He was, in the old rules, getting a 'tick' and that was it, if even that. I believe that there is far less of this type of strategic fouling in general, and that has been a good thing. I also believe the 'third man tackle' has effectively been eradicated from the game. Also a good thing.
2 - I agree on both counts. There would probably not have been a reason for the black card in the first place if refs were sending forwards off for the fouls I'm talking about. However, imagine the outcry from affronted managers if their star forward got two yellows for 'harmless' (sic) fouls out the field. It would be an outcry. A big reason we have issues with regard to discipline in the GAA is because our managers seem unable to accept the fact that you have to play by the rules. Every time a clampdown is tried on cynical fouling (Sin Bin, Black Card, whatever) there's an outcry to mirror the protests in Rio. Imagine if lads were being red carded if the referees applied the old rules? But yes, if they were applying them, then we'd not need the black card. Now that we are in a situation where something else is attempted, our referees are making a hames of the most important thing, which is consistency. If the key word is deliberate, and you are not sure, then it's not a black card. If you are sure, and it's one of the cited fouls, then give the f**king thing.
3 - Agree on this. It was my big worry. I even gave it a name, the divers' charter, but I hoped the referees would be better at spotting it (see point 2). I would add diving to the list of black card offences if I had my way, and send a message. It's cynical to pull a lad down when he's going forward with possession, but it's just as cynical to engineer a black card for an innocent opponent.
I don't think our views are 180 degrees apart to be honest, but I do believe that something had to be done about the cynical, low profile, fouling and to a large extent I think it has helped in that area.
AZ, it wasn't my purpose to capture your argument. (Though my "straw man" did a fairly substantial job if he got you to agree with most of what he said.) I was referring to the three main reasons I/we were against the black card.
I thinks it's accepted that the drag-down rugby tackle (and, more importantly, of course, The Sunday Game's reaction to a single incidence of it) was the impetus for the black card's introduction. They added other stuff when they were at it – tripping, impeding a runner, trash talking, mouthing to referees.
I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.
Though I've noticed no reduction in the level of verbals, I haven't seen any cards yet for it. I'll be surprised if there are any in the Championship. But I'm willing to bet that, if we see one, we'll see several. It will mostly depend on whether the Sunday Game picks on some incident where some lad should have got a card for mouthing and makes a big deal out of it.
I don't think that's true Hardy. I think the black card was brought in before the Cavanagh incident. Joe just used it as his showpony to talk about the black card, which was ridiculous. Nonetheless the rule was already in and accepted. Passed in April 2013. So I think your prejudice against it (:) ) is based on a false assumption that it's as a result of joe Brolly's rant.
I maintain Joe Brolly's rant is irrelevant (in fact worse than irrelevant, it was a needless distraction) and was aimed at something that the black card was never going to eradicate, so claiming this justifies your skepticism is a red herring I think.
Do you think we have seen less of the fouls which I believe the black card was brought in to target? Namely the momentum breakers, usually at the other end of the field, committed by forwards and midfielders after a turnover. Committed to slow down the counter attack. Do you think we have less of these now?
You're right. It was last year's Congress that approved it, I think. I think I was confused by the memory that most of the talk about it was about the suggestion that it would put an end to "cynical play" and when most people think "cynical play" they think about the drag-down, especially in the wake of the Cavanagh tackle last year. In fact, think it was yourself who, from the beginning (rightly) placed more emphasis on what it would do for blocking.
Edit:
Ah wait. You edited your post after I posted the paragraph above. I never claimed that Joe Brolly's rant justified my scepticism. I was sceptical on my own account, from first principles, for the reasons I went to all that trouble to point out above.
Brolly has as much influence on my opinions as the droppings of an undernourished gnat would have on the water level of the Grand Coulee Dam. (With apologies to J.B. Keane.)
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:36:37 AM
Do you think we have seen less of the fouls which I believe the black card was brought in to target? Namely the momentum breakers, usually at the other end of the field, committed by forwards and midfielders after a turnover. Committed to slow down the counter attack. Do you think we have less of these now?
Jazes you did it again. I can't keep up with your edits!
Anyway, your question: Would ya read my third paragraph?
Quote from: Hardy on June 19, 2014, 10:46:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:36:37 AM
Do you think we have seen less of the fouls which I believe the black card was brought in to target? Namely the momentum breakers, usually at the other end of the field, committed by forwards and midfielders after a turnover. Committed to slow down the counter attack. Do you think we have less of these now?
Jazes you did it again. I can't keep up with your edits!
Anyway, your question: Would ya read my third paragraph?
If your third paragraph is "I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.", then that's just part of my point. The fouls I'm talking about are the deliberate pull downs that forwards were doing to stop attacks building from the back. The body check one is a different issue in my view.
So, do you think we've seen less of forwards dragging down defenders when the defender is coming out with the ball?
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:55:56 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 19, 2014, 10:46:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:36:37 AM
Do you think we have seen less of the fouls which I believe the black card was brought in to target? Namely the momentum breakers, usually at the other end of the field, committed by forwards and midfielders after a turnover. Committed to slow down the counter attack. Do you think we have less of these now?
Jazes you did it again. I can't keep up with your edits!
Anyway, your question: Would ya read my third paragraph?
If your third paragraph is "I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.", then that's just part of my point. The fouls I'm talking about are the deliberate pull downs that forwards were doing to stop attacks building from the back. The body check one is a different issue in my view.
So, do you think we've seen less of forwards dragging down defenders when the defender is coming out with the ball?
Yes - the same point applies. The black card is an effective deterrent for this, as it is for the block but isn't for the score-saving rugby tackle.
It wasn't worth the wholesale farce, many elements of which I've pointed out, that has accompanied the new rules, to achieve these improvements. Never mind the more serious consequence that is the exacerbation of the diving/cheating/simulation culture by providing a much enhanced incentive for it.
Quote from: Hardy on June 19, 2014, 11:33:46 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:55:56 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 19, 2014, 10:46:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:36:37 AM
Do you think we have seen less of the fouls which I believe the black card was brought in to target? Namely the momentum breakers, usually at the other end of the field, committed by forwards and midfielders after a turnover. Committed to slow down the counter attack. Do you think we have less of these now?
Jazes you did it again. I can't keep up with your edits!
Anyway, your question: Would ya read my third paragraph?
If your third paragraph is "I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.", then that's just part of my point. The fouls I'm talking about are the deliberate pull downs that forwards were doing to stop attacks building from the back. The body check one is a different issue in my view.
So, do you think we've seen less of forwards dragging down defenders when the defender is coming out with the ball?
Yes - the same point applies. The black card is an effective deterrent for this, as it is for the block but isn't for the score-saving rugby tackle.
It wasn't worth the wholesale farce, many elements of which I've pointed out, that has accompanied the new rules, to achieve these improvements. Never mind the more serious consequence that is the exacerbation of the diving/cheating/simulation culture by providing a much enhanced incentive for it.
My take on it is that it is a worthwhile initiative if it stops that behaviour. the very fact that people feel it's not worth taking a black card for such a foul, but would have no problem doing it (as we've seen in the past) were such a deterrent not there is reason enough in itself for some form of significant punishment to be there.
My position is that the black card *has* addressed in large part that problem, and that is a good thing.
The question I suppose would be of the baby/bathwater variety. I'm worried about consistency of refs (but was worried about that in the old rules) and I'm worried about diving to 'earn' black cards. No argument for from me. If I were to do up and old Pros and Cons diagram it would probably look like:
Pros : Minimises 'tactical' fouling out the pitch, minimises body checks on runners and therefore allows for greater flow in the game.
Cons : Potentially encourages diving, referees not consistent in enforcement (from ref to ref certainly but ALSO from the same ref in the same game!),
Moot: Minimal change to stopping goal scoring opportunities (people will still take a card, not unexpected in my view), Minimal change to teams closing out games with tactical fouling and taking a few black cards to seal the deal if they have them spare, List of fouls covered incomplete or nonsensical. If #11 drags down #6 to stop a counter attack, he gets a black card. If he simply wraps his arms around him and holds on to him, he gets no black card. Why the difference?
So all in all, it's an imperfect solution in my eyes, but the benefit with regard to the tactical fouling that went on all throughout a game is certainly a worthy one. However there are problems, no doubt about it.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:55:56 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 19, 2014, 10:46:28 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 19, 2014, 10:36:37 AM
Do you think we have seen less of the fouls which I believe the black card was brought in to target? Namely the momentum breakers, usually at the other end of the field, committed by forwards and midfielders after a turnover. Committed to slow down the counter attack. Do you think we have less of these now?
Jazes you did it again. I can't keep up with your edits!
Anyway, your question: Would ya read my third paragraph?
If your third paragraph is "I'd agree with you that, so far, we're seeing a reduction in the taking out of runners. That's not surprising. The card is an effective deterrent for that. Nobody is going to take a sending off just to block a run. Everybody will take one to prevent a goal or a crucial point.", then that's just part of my point. The fouls I'm talking about are the deliberate pull downs that forwards were doing to stop attacks building from the back. The body check one is a different issue in my view.
So, do you think we've seen less of forwards dragging down defenders when the defender is coming out with the ball?
In the League this was so dramatic that there was very little tackling at all by forwards. We saw a kind of basketball without any 'press' and teams just brought the ball upfield unopposed. However I can't make my mind up regarding the Championship this year. So far it looks much the same as any year. For example Mayo forwards pressed Ros very high up the pitch just like last year.
'forwards dragging down defenders' was supposed to be dealt with by the 'tick' along with other 'pulling and dragging' offences around the pitch. Where is that now?
Don't know, but the 'tick' was obviously ineffective. However, I think this metric should be one of the main ones we measure when talking about the black card. As I said back last summer, Joe Brolly's rant just clouded the issue that was actually being addressed. Not for the first time, Joe's bluster managed to overtake the point he thought he was making.
I'm not calling it a success yet, nor am I calling it a failure. I think we need to objectively analyse it, in a complete manner, at the end of the season. I'm not talking about 'higher scoring games' as a barometer of success. Defending is as much part of the game as attacking, and therefore I'm not saying this is a success if every game ends 4-20 to 3-19. However, if the experience is that the games are flowing well, and we can see statistics that show there are less fouls by forwards/midfielders more than 45 metres from their own goals, then that aspect of it will be successful.
If we see an increase in diving incidents, then that would need to be addressed.
The very fact that you think Mayo pressed high up the pitch, but didn't accrue black cards shows that you can do that still, without the cynical drag downs. I just think that the media and the GAA have muddied the waters in what the black card was supposed to do, and the evidence of my eyes tells me that so far, it seems to be doing what it was actually supposed to do, not what Joe Brolly was shouting about.
The evidence of my own eyes also tells me that referees are struggling with it, and that some players are trying to (ironically) cynically use it to get opponents in trouble. If those persist, then they would be serious counterweights on the scales of the argument.
QuotePros : Minimises 'tactical' fouling out the pitch, minimises body checks on runners and therefore allows for greater flow in the game.
Cons : Potentially encourages diving, referees not consistent in enforcement (from ref to ref certainly but ALSO from the same ref in the same game!),
Moot: Minimal change to stopping goal scoring opportunities (people will still take a card, not unexpected in my view), Minimal change to teams closing out games with tactical fouling and taking a few black cards to seal the deal if they have them spare, List of fouls covered incomplete or nonsensical. If #11 drags down #6 to stop a counter attack, he gets a black card. If he simply wraps his arms around him and holds on to him, he gets no black card. Why the difference?
I would pretty much agree with your summary of the pros and cons but i do think the two cons are major ones and out way any benefit we have gained. Getting rid of the body checks is a good thing, but the tactical fouling is still there , the black card has only gotten rid of a small minority of the offences (ie when a player is dragged down to the ground early in the game, which wasnt that common anyway!)
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 20, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
QuotePros : Minimises 'tactical' fouling out the pitch, minimises body checks on runners and therefore allows for greater flow in the game.
Cons : Potentially encourages diving, referees not consistent in enforcement (from ref to ref certainly but ALSO from the same ref in the same game!),
Moot: Minimal change to stopping goal scoring opportunities (people will still take a card, not unexpected in my view), Minimal change to teams closing out games with tactical fouling and taking a few black cards to seal the deal if they have them spare, List of fouls covered incomplete or nonsensical. If #11 drags down #6 to stop a counter attack, he gets a black card. If he simply wraps his arms around him and holds on to him, he gets no black card. Why the difference?
I would pretty much agree with your summary of the pros and cons but i do think the two cons are major ones and out way weigh[/color] any benefit we have gained. Getting rid of the body checks is a good thing, but the tactical fouling is still there , the black card has only gotten rid of a small minority of the offences (ie when a player is dragged down to the ground early in the game, which wasnt that common anyway!)
Spotted your deliberate error there ;)
So because the black card hasn't solved everything .... do you want to get rid of it?
The yellows and reds havent solved everything either.
Damn it having referees hasn't stopped fouling either so should we get rid of them too ?
the fact that the black card hasn't solved everything isn't the issue, its the fact that it has CAUSED as many issues as it has solved ( and if not caused , then certainly made worse instances of diving & referee inconsistency)
I just feel the trade off we have had for a reduction in a small number of cynical fouls isnt worth it.
So with one game to go, I wondered if people's opinion had changed for better or worse on the black card rule.
I wonder if this year being one of the highest scoring years in history is related to the introduction Of this rule.
It was until referees had a chat amongst themselves and decided to ignore 90% of iron-clad black card offences and switch back to the good ol' ineffectual yellow. The application of the rule has been beyond a joke since the league, when it seemed like the referees were at least trying to apply it.
Quote from: Syferus on September 07, 2014, 03:04:23 AM
It was until referees had a chat amongst themselves and decided to ignore 90% of iron-clad black card offences and switch back to the good ol' ineffectual yellow. The application of the rule has been beyond a joke since the league, when it seemed like the referees were at least trying to apply it.
+1 The black card has been effectively ignored since the quarter finals and we have found out in the semi finals what we suspected all along, that there's not much wrong with the game as it is.
It has largely eliminated off the ball blocking and has proved an effective deterrent to pulling lads to the ground. There has been issues with its application but it has proved to be an undoubted success over all. It was never going to be a perfect success but it has been an improvement on what's gone before.
Quote from: Zulu on September 07, 2014, 10:01:37 AM
It has largely eliminated off the ball blocking and has proved an effective deterrent to pulling lads to the ground. There has been issues with its application but it has proved to be an undoubted success over all. It was never going to be a perfect success but it has been an improvement on what's gone before.
I would tend to agree with this. It has seen a better style of football. It does create frustration sometimes when it is not implemented correctly but so do all rules. After year 1 I think it is a success and as we get used to it we will see it working out better again.
I'd be thinking along similar lines, but a bit worried that refs will keep rowing back on it until the players and coaches decide it's not going to be enforced.
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 07, 2014, 07:16:06 AM
Quote from: Syferus on September 07, 2014, 03:04:23 AM
It was until referees had a chat amongst themselves and decided to ignore 90% of iron-clad black card offences and switch back to the good ol' ineffectual yellow. The application of the rule has been beyond a joke since the league, when it seemed like the referees were at least trying to apply it.
+1 The black card has been effectively ignored since the quarter finals and we have found out in the semi finals what we suspected all along, that there's not much wrong with the game as it is.
There were 2 black cards in the Donegal Dublin game & one in the Mayo Kerry game so I can't agree that it has been effectively ignored.
Also to say that there was nothing wrong with the game as it was, doesn't take into account the deterrent effect. The late blocking of runners alone has disappeared from the game & for that alone we have a lot to be grateful to the black card for.
I agree that the referees need to man up a bit when it comes to handing cards out but that is another issue altogether & not the fault of the idea itself.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on September 07, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 07, 2014, 07:16:06 AM
Quote from: Syferus on September 07, 2014, 03:04:23 AM
It was until referees had a chat amongst themselves and decided to ignore 90% of iron-clad black card offences and switch back to the good ol' ineffectual yellow. The application of the rule has been beyond a joke since the league, when it seemed like the referees were at least trying to apply it.
+1 The black card has been effectively ignored since the quarter finals and we have found out in the semi finals what we suspected all along, that there's not much wrong with the game as it is.
There were 2 black cards in the Donegal Dublin game & one in the Mayo Kerry game so I can't agree that it has been effectively ignored.
Also to say that there was nothing wrong with the game as it was, doesn't take into account the deterrent effect. The late blocking of runners alone has disappeared from the game & for that alone we have a lot to be grateful to the black card for.
I agree that the referees need to man up a bit when it comes to handing cards out but that is another issue altogether & not the fault of the idea itself.
It is the fault of the idea as it's made it virtually impossible to ref as so many incidents that occur can, at quick glance could be black cards. Last weeks excellent semi finals had nothing to do with the black cards rule as the was as much cynicism as there ever was. I'm not criticising the game but the second half of ET in the Kerry game was riddled with black cards and thankfully the ref chose to ignore.
Yeah I think this is one of those rules that simply because it exists, rather than because it's implemented has cut down on a lot of what it was meant to prevent. It still does need tweaked though. The Emmet Bolton black card v Monaghan being a prime example. Letter of the law black card but clearly not why the rule was brought in.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on September 07, 2014, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Zulu on September 07, 2014, 10:01:37 AM
It has largely eliminated off the ball blocking and has proved an effective deterrent to pulling lads to the ground. There has been issues with its application but it has proved to be an undoubted success over all. It was never going to be a perfect success but it has been an improvement on what's gone before.
I would tend to agree with this. It has seen a better style of football. It does create frustration sometimes when it is not implemented correctly but so do all rules. After year 1 I think it is a success and as we get used to it we will see it working out better again.
+1.
Some Referees need to get some Training though.
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 07, 2014, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on September 07, 2014, 10:16:53 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on September 07, 2014, 07:16:06 AM
Quote from: Syferus on September 07, 2014, 03:04:23 AM
It was until referees had a chat amongst themselves and decided to ignore 90% of iron-clad black card offences and switch back to the good ol' ineffectual yellow. The application of the rule has been beyond a joke since the league, when it seemed like the referees were at least trying to apply it.
+1 The black card has been effectively ignored since the quarter finals and we have found out in the semi finals what we suspected all along, that there's not much wrong with the game as it is.
There were 2 black cards in the Donegal Dublin game & one in the Mayo Kerry game so I can't agree that it has been effectively ignored.
Also to say that there was nothing wrong with the game as it was, doesn't take into account the deterrent effect. The late blocking of runners alone has disappeared from the game & for that alone we have a lot to be grateful to the black card for.
I agree that the referees need to man up a bit when it comes to handing cards out but that is another issue altogether & not the fault of the idea itself.
It is the fault of the idea as it's made it virtually impossible to ref as so many incidents that occur can, at quick glance could be black cards. Last weeks excellent semi finals had nothing to do with the black cards rule as the was as much cynicism as there ever was. I'm not criticising the game but the second half of ET in the Kerry game was riddled with black cards and thankfully the ref chose to ignore.
I'm not sure I agree with you that the second half was "riddled" with black card offences.
There are only 5 offences that merit a black card.
1 Deliberate pull down.
2 Deliberate trip.
3 Deliberate body block.
4 Verbal abuse of another player.
5 Verbal abuse of an official.
I have yet to see anyone get a card for verbal abuse.
The deliberate body block, which was a real curse in the game, has all but disappeared though Neil McGee got one last Sunday.
Fionn Fitzgerald got a card for his deliberate trip but in truth you rarely saw that in the game anyway.
The deliberate pull down is the most contentious call & the one which referees seem slowest to make, but to say that the second half of extra time was "riddled" with them is over egging things a bit.
Where some are getting the black card wrong is that there has to be deliberate, cynical intent to commit the foul with no attempt made to play the ball for it to be handed out. Truth be told we don't see that many of those challenges any more & the threat of a black card has to be thanked for that.
It has definitely got rid of the 3rd man body check that was becoming a real issue in the game. You see players now with hands in the air as a player runs past just to make it clear they are not interfering with the run.
All in all I think it has worked well but like every rule the referees need to be consistent. People might disagree with how the rule is applied butas long as it's consistently applied players know what to expect.
Quote from: TabClear on September 07, 2014, 08:09:49 PM
You see players now with hands in the air as a player runs past just to make it clear they are not interfering with the run.
You say it like it's a good thing.
Quote from: Hardy on September 07, 2014, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: TabClear on September 07, 2014, 08:09:49 PM
You see players now with hands in the air as a player runs past just to make it clear they are not interfering with the run.
You say it like it's a good thing.
It is a good thing if the player making the run doesn't have the ball.
Quote from: Hardy on September 07, 2014, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: TabClear on September 07, 2014, 08:09:49 PM
You see players now with hands in the air as a player runs past just to make it clear they are not interfering with the run.
You say it like it's a good thing.
It is. It encourages running off the ball and a quicker game. If it cuts out cowardly checks designed to take out a player who's concentrating on getting a return pass or supporting an attack I'm all for it.
What's your problem with it?
Quote from: TabClear on September 07, 2014, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 07, 2014, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: TabClear on September 07, 2014, 08:09:49 PM
You see players now with hands in the air as a player runs past just to make it clear they are not interfering with the run.
You say it like it's a good thing.
It is. It encourages running off the ball and a quicker game. If it cuts out cowardly checks designed to take out a player who's concentrating on getting a return pass or supporting an attack I'm all for it.
What's your problem with it?
Ya see "cowardly checks designed to take out a player" are a bit of a Meath speciality.
(http://inpho.ie/cache/inpho/74/3f/6e/0f0f236de8e4f0b4cca602c7b8d9f6c580b40ad655/INPHO_00082696.jpg)
Quote from: trileacman on September 07, 2014, 11:13:19 PM
Quote from: TabClear on September 07, 2014, 10:38:43 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 07, 2014, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: TabClear on September 07, 2014, 08:09:49 PM
You see players now with hands in the air as a player runs past just to make it clear they are not interfering with the run.
You say it like it's a good thing.
It is. It encourages running off the ball and a quicker game. If it cuts out cowardly checks designed to take out a player who's concentrating on getting a return pass or supporting an attack I'm all for it.
What's your problem with it?
Ya see "cowardly checks designed to take out a player" are a bit of a Meath speciality.
(http://inpho.ie/cache/inpho/74/3f/6e/0f0f236de8e4f0b4cca602c7b8d9f6c580b40ad655/INPHO_00082696.jpg)
+1 ;D >:(
Good enough for the wee hoor
It's a man's game. The likes of that assault on a defenceless Brendan Reilly we take in our stride.
Tyrone papers please copy.
Not going to comment...
The lack of the black card was noticeable in yesterday's hurling final where the two tackles that led to the Tipperary penalties would have both been stone wall black cards in football.
Just saying like.....
Interesting article on hoganstand today
Black card rule=more scores
02 October
Statistics released by the GAA's Central Competitions Control Committee (CCCC) show that the average number of points scored per game in this year's football championship was 9.5 per cent higher than last year.
The CCCC's findings also show that there was an average of five less frees awarded per game in 2014 compared to previous years and that less than one black card per championship game was brandished on average.
The statement in full is:
• The 2014 Football Championships have set a record for the number of scores recorded in a single season.
• With the introduction of the black card, the average number of points per game in the 2014 championship is roughly 9.5% higher than in 2013; the number of points scored has increased by just shy of five points per game since 2010.
• There were over five less frees on average per game awarded in the 2014 championship in comparison with previous years.
• On average, slightly less than one black card per Championship game has been shown in 2014 – figures consistent with the numbers shown per game in this year's Allianz Football Leagues
• In keeping with the trend witnessed in the Allianz leagues, the total number of cards shown for disciplinary reasons has decreased dramatically with in the region of 40% less cards being shown for disciplinary reasons in 2014.
Cards per game: The number of disciplinary cards shown to players in this year's Championships has fallen dramatically with just 4.32 cards shown per game in 2014 (Black, Yellow and Red cards combined) as opposed to 7.35 per game in the 2013 Championship (Yellow & Red cards combined) and a high of eight per game in 2010.
The instance of black cards shown has been less than one per game played, while the number of yellow cards shown in 2014 was effectively half of the number shown during the 2014 Championship. All of these figures are consistent with the trends witnessed in the Allianz leagues since the introduction of the Black Card.
Scores per Game: The number of scores per championship game has increased by roughly 9.5% since the introduction of the new Black Card rule for cynical behaviour fouls. In the 2014 Championships, the total aggregate scores (goals and points combined) per game played was 34.92 – this represented an increase of three points per game from both this year's Allianz Leagues and from the 2013 Football Championships.
The instance of goals scored rose from 1.98 per game in the 2013 Championships to 2.34 per game in 2014 with the number of white flags being raised increasing by almost 2 per game.
The above stats may have an element of truth to them. But referees pretty much ignored the black card in the Championship. Thus it can hardly be lauded as a success. When rugby introduced the sin-bin, they meant it. We do things differently.
I think the card had an element of a deterrent effect this year, but as you say the refs basically bottled some decisions later in the year. I think that will mean players will try their luck in the league next year and see if this is another rule that's quietly being left to die off.
I do think it has almost completely eliminated the off the ball body check to take out a runner. That in itself was worth doing.
On paper it worked great....but when it mattered most, a certain referee bottled not one, but two stonewall black card decisions which essentially determined the outcome of this years championship.
I would think some of the bottling of decisions was down to several very vocal former players on twitter and in the media screaming about how the black card was bound to disastrously lead to big players being ejected early in big games at the end of the Championship, ruining games.
I always expected that this year the approach would be to avoid giving black cards in the Championship as far as possible and to get gradually stricter with it over the coming seasons as people got used to it.
A sensible way to bring it in from the POV of avoiding the sort of hysterical overreaction we got when the Sin Bin was tried out in the league a few years ago, but not exactly the bravest way to go about it.
Those stats are meaningless unless they identify the trends in the number of scores from play.
I'd rather see stats from a decent % of the games played rather than the high profile inter county championship games.
I see from the results in the Donegal championship at the weekend that they didn't lead to higher scoring! Or maybe that was for Donegal championship.
In vast majority of club games its been ignored. Think we got about 3 all year from minor to reserves to senior.
It's working lads.1 or 2 incidents high profile as they were won't change that.
Conor McManus s an interview in today's examiner slating it yet backing it.
Bizarre you might say but Ulster will oppose anything.
The media non-ending fixation with it is comical at this stage.
Quote from: Collie Brolly on October 03, 2014, 10:54:49 AM
It's working lads.1 or 2 incidents high profile as they were won't change that.
Conor McManus s an interview in today's examiner slating it yet backing it.
Bizarre you might say but Ulster will oppose anything.
The media non-ending fixation with it is comical at this stage.
;D ;D
It certainly has taken the illegal, off the ball, body check out of the game. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.
Has the scoring increased because of lob sided provincial championships as opposed to the black card. After quarter final stage it was barely used. Farcical.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 03, 2014, 11:01:48 AM
It certainly has taken the illegal, off the ball, body check out of the game. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.
I would agree, but this seems to have been replaced with the lad who makes his handpass, runs straight into the opponent and lets out a roar. I saw this from a few players in the Mayo county semi-finals, one guy in particular was doing it all the time. To be fair to refs, this might contribute to their reticence to issue a black card.
I'm struggling to think of any harsh black cards over the course of the year.
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Quote from: orangeman on October 03, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Here is
proof that 1 = 0:
x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y.
Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 03, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Here is proof that 1 = 0:
x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y.
Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.
After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.
Quote from: Jinxy on October 03, 2014, 01:02:03 PM
I'm struggling to think of any harsh black cards over the course of the year.
Richie Feeney....1st minute of Club Final for checking the run of a Vincent's player
Quote from: Jinxy on October 03, 2014, 01:02:03 PM
I'm struggling to think of any harsh black cards over the course of the year.
Ciaran McManus and Darren McCurry spring to mind. But they sort of stopped issuing after the quarter finals
Quote from: BennyHarp on October 03, 2014, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 03, 2014, 01:02:03 PM
I'm struggling to think of any harsh black cards over the course of the year.
Ciaran McManus and Darren McCurry spring to mind. But they sort of stopped issuing after the quarter finals
Both rescinded. Black card binned after that.
Quote from: BennyHarp on October 03, 2014, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 03, 2014, 01:02:03 PM
I'm struggling to think of any harsh black cards over the course of the year.
Ciaran McManus and Darren McCurry spring to mind. But they sort of stopped issuing after the quarter finals
Was there not one in the Kerry/Mayo semi?
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on October 04, 2014, 03:07:45 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on October 03, 2014, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 03, 2014, 01:02:03 PM
I'm struggling to think of any harsh black cards over the course of the year.
Ciaran McManus and Darren McCurry spring to mind. But they sort of stopped issuing after the quarter finals
Was there not one in the Kerry/Mayo semi?
There was, there was one in the final as well.
Quote from: whitey on October 03, 2014, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 03, 2014, 01:02:03 PM
I'm struggling to think of any harsh black cards over the course of the year.
Richie Feeney....1st minute of Club Final for checking the run of a Vincent's player
Which is a textbook black card offence.
Quote from: Collie Brolly on October 03, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 03, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Here is proof that 1 = 0:
x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y.
Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.
After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.
The excellent Spailpín nails the issue here I believe.
http://www.spailpin.blogspot.ie/
Have to say this made me laugh! I suppose Eugene would have to praise his own little baby! Stick on the Blinkers Eugene! http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=229457 (http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=229457)
Don't want to rehash this but I think overall it has been good. A lot of the nasty stuff is gone.
Quote from: From the Bunker on December 28, 2014, 06:16:05 PM
Have to say this made me laugh! I suppose Eugene would have to praise his own little baby! Stick on the Blinkers Eugene! http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=229457 (http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=229457)
Prize p***k. If his pet baby rule was taken seriously (even the old rules) in Limerick in August, the outcome of this years s championship could have been different. A bias gobshite like EMcG should not be involved in this and especially not a review of his own spawn.
f**k him.
Quote from: moysider on January 04, 2015, 01:39:25 AM
Quote from: From the Bunker on December 28, 2014, 06:16:05 PM
Have to say this made me laugh! I suppose Eugene would have to praise his own little baby! Stick on the Blinkers Eugene! http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=229457 (http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=229457)
Prize p***k. If his pet baby rule was taken seriously (even the old rules) in Limerick in August, the outcome of this years s championship could have been different. A bias gobshite like EMcG should not be involved in this and especially not a review of his own spawn.
f**k him.
Which incident are you referring to? A lot happened that day in limerick.
Quote from: sligoman2 on January 01, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
Don't want to rehash this but I think overall it has been good. A lot of the nasty stuff is gone.
This is another bollocksy statement that gets trotted out by the black card brigade and if repeated enough will become fact.
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 04, 2015, 07:38:29 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on January 01, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
Don't want to rehash this but I think overall it has been good. A lot of the nasty stuff is gone.
This is another bollocksy statement that gets trotted out by the black card brigade and if repeated enough will become fact.
My sincere apologies Benny, I forgot the law that says if a statement is true it can't be considered a fact because YOU don't agree with it. I'll try to remember that next time to cut down on the confusion levels.
Quote from: sligoman2 on January 04, 2015, 01:18:22 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 04, 2015, 07:38:29 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on January 01, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
Don't want to rehash this but I think overall it has been good. A lot of the nasty stuff is gone.
This is another bollocksy statement that gets trotted out by the black card brigade and if repeated enough will become fact.
My sincere apologies Benny, I forgot the law that says if a statement is true it can't be considered a fact because YOU don't agree with it. I'll try to remember that next time to cut down on the confusion levels.
It's not a fact.
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 04, 2015, 02:40:05 PM
Quote from: sligoman2 on January 04, 2015, 01:18:22 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on January 04, 2015, 07:38:29 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on January 01, 2015, 03:33:40 PM
Don't want to rehash this but I think overall it has been good. A lot of the nasty stuff is gone.
This is another bollocksy statement that gets trotted out by the black card brigade and if repeated enough will become fact.
My sincere apologies Benny, I forgot the law that says if a statement is true it can't be considered a fact because YOU don't agree with it. I'll try to remember that next time to cut down on the confusion levels.
It's not a fact.
Can anyone imagine any other trial, whereby the introduction of a new process was largely ignored, and then results produced from the period it was ignored to declare the trial a success? Ben Goldacre would rip this 'finding' to shreds.
Calling it a success is absurd.
Quote from: moysider on October 06, 2014, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: Collie Brolly on October 03, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 03, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Here is proof that 1 = 0:
x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.
After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.
The excellent Spailpín nails the issue here I believe.
http://www.spailpin.blogspot.ie/
Now in fairness I didnt listen too well during simultaneous equations but if x=y then x-y=0 and if you divide by zero you end up with 0=0
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 05, 2015, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: moysider on October 06, 2014, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: Collie Brolly on October 03, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 03, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Here is proof that 1 = 0:
x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.
After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.
The excellent Spailpín nails the issue here I believe.
http://www.spailpin.blogspot.ie/
Now in fairness I didnt listen too well during simultaneous equations but if x=y then x-y=0 and if you divide by zero you end up with 0=0
Close enough. ;)
You can't normally divide by zero.
Quote from: muppet on January 05, 2015, 03:28:08 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 05, 2015, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: moysider on October 06, 2014, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: Collie Brolly on October 03, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 03, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Here is proof that 1 = 0:
x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.
After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.
The excellent Spailpín nails the issue here I believe.
http://www.spailpin.blogspot.ie/
Now in fairness I didnt listen too well during simultaneous equations but if x=y then x-y=0 and if you divide by zero you end up with 0=0
Close enough. ;)
You can't normally divide by zero.
Yes I know. I was just pointing out that you didn't!
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 06, 2015, 10:26:37 AM
Quote from: muppet on January 05, 2015, 03:28:08 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 05, 2015, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: moysider on October 06, 2014, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: Collie Brolly on October 03, 2014, 07:16:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2014, 06:37:31 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 03, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
Statistically it's been a great success.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-claim-statistics-prove-success-of-black-card-1.1949901
Here is proof that 1 = 0:
x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 - y2 = xy - y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y. Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.
Thus 2 = 1, since we started with y nonzero.
Subtracting 1 from both sides,
1 = 0.
After 17509 posts your beginning to make sense.
The excellent Spailpín nails the issue here I believe.
http://www.spailpin.blogspot.ie/
Now in fairness I didnt listen too well during simultaneous equations but if x=y then x-y=0 and if you divide by zero you end up with 0=0
Close enough. ;)
You can't normally divide by zero.
Yes I know. I was just pointing out that you didn't!
Oh right. Thank God you came to rescue me.
Is it only me or does there seem to be more black card being shown now ?
The body checking one seems to be getting highlighted. I thought you had to step across your opponent to take him out in order for it to be black ?
http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/rules-and-regulations/
Quote from: orangeman on February 10, 2015, 12:05:50 PM
Is it only me or does there seem to be more black card being shown now ?
The body checking one seems to be getting highlighted. I thought you had to step across your opponent to take him out in order for it to be black ?
http://www.gaa.ie/about-the-gaa/rules-and-regulations/
Stevie from Killeavey on the AOS black card:
http://inagist.com/all/564441099532783616/ (http://inagist.com/all/564441099532783616/)
Has anyone anywhere at any level gotten a black for any of the last 2 offences.
If I was still reffing, I'd be using these all the time, to shut up player's mouthing/ acting the edjit.
Really don't know why refs are using these more (shut down the back whoever said/is thinking that too many refs don't understand the meaning of some of the words in these 2) I'd be using five a hell of a lot and force clubs/guilty players that their remonstrating wasn't aggressive.
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.
I would have preferred if they had added or to a match official in rule 4 dropped the aggressive manner from number 5 so that they read.
4. Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate or a Match Official.
5. Remonstrate in with a Match Official.
Basically there's no place from remonstrating on a field of play 99.9999% of the time.
Quote from: twohands!!! on February 10, 2015, 07:00:38 PM
Has anyone anywhere at any level gotten a black for any of the last 2 offences.
If I was still reffing, I'd be using these all the time, to shut up player's mouthing/ acting the edjit.
Really don't know why refs are using these more (shut down the back whoever said/is thinking that too many refs don't understand the meaning of some of the words in these 2) I'd be using five a hell of a lot and force clubs/guilty players that their remonstrating wasn't aggressive.
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.
I would have preferred if they had added or to a match official in rule 4 dropped the aggressive manner from number 5 so that they read.
4. Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate or a Match Official.
5. Remonstrate in with a Match Official.
Basically there's no place from remonstrating on a field of play 99.9999% of the time.
It would certainly improve things.
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2015, 05:56:35 PM
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Simple - scoring would be even lower if there weren't a black card.
Quote from: twohands!!! on April 02, 2015, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2015, 05:56:35 PM
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Simple - scoring would be even lower if there weren't a black card.
If high scoring 'proved' its success, then it can't have it cake and eat it with horrible low scoring this year:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/)
Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2015, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: twohands!!! on April 02, 2015, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2015, 05:56:35 PM
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Simple - scoring would be even lower if there weren't a black card.
If high scoring 'proved' its success, then it can't have it cake and eat it with horrible low scoring this year:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/)
With more & more teams adopting the blanket defence scores were bound drop. Black card can't do anything about that, I would say it would be even lower without the black card
Quote from: dublin7 on April 03, 2015, 09:18:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2015, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: twohands!!! on April 02, 2015, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2015, 05:56:35 PM
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Simple - scoring would be even lower if there weren't a black card.
If high scoring 'proved' its success, then it can't have it cake and eat it with horrible low scoring this year:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/)
With more & more teams adopting the blanket defence scores were bound drop. Black card can't do anything about that, I would say it would be even lower without the black card
Maybe the black card is part of the reason why more and more teams are adopting the blanket defence?
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 03, 2015, 09:27:03 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 03, 2015, 09:18:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2015, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: twohands!!! on April 02, 2015, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2015, 05:56:35 PM
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Simple - scoring would be even lower if there weren't a black card.
If high scoring 'proved' its success, then it can't have it cake and eat it with horrible low scoring this year:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/)
With more & more teams adopting the blanket defence scores were bound drop. Black card can't do anything about that, I would say it would be even lower without the black card
Maybe the black card is part of the reason why more and more teams are adopting the blanket defence?
hmmmm...... do we simply go back to non stop fouling and giving frees so??
Quote from: Rossfan on April 03, 2015, 09:59:50 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on April 03, 2015, 09:27:03 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on April 03, 2015, 09:18:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2015, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: twohands!!! on April 02, 2015, 06:01:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2015, 05:56:35 PM
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Simple - scoring would be even lower if there weren't a black card.
If high scoring 'proved' its success, then it can't have it cake and eat it with horrible low scoring this year:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/football/2014/1002/649559-stats/)
With more & more teams adopting the blanket defence scores were bound drop. Black card can't do anything about that, I would say it would be even lower without the black card
Maybe the black card is part of the reason why more and more teams are adopting the blanket defence?
hmmmm...... do we simply go back to non stop fouling and giving frees so??
Hmmmm.......Ah sure it's grand the way it is then so if those are the only options!
Quote from: muppet on April 02, 2015, 05:56:35 PM
Last year we were told that the high scoring seen in the League was all down to the Black Card and thus proved its success.
This year we still have the magnificent Black Card, but somehow we have muck. How can this be? Surely the Black Card was the messiah and saved us from cynicism! Maybe we need another card, or a book, or a tick, or a bin, or a committee, or a committee to hear appeals from that committee. Please someone introduce something!
Once it allowed replacement of players it was a dead duck. Ulster saw to the replacement of players
Now that the league is over I thought it might be worth seeing what the prevailing sentiment is. I even put up a new poll to test the water...
I just wish it was applied correctly.
Ruined the Down game with the sending off rather being Black carded. Especially galling as it was applied correctly on the Roscommon corner back in the second half.
But then even Pundits don't agree on how to implement it.
Down man sent off for 2nd yellow. If he'd got a black it would also mean a red and no replacement ;)
The black card was introduced, in my view, under the premise that the malaise of football was down to the cynicism of players and 'nasty northerner tactics'. We see after this years league campaign that teams have adopted even greater levels of defensive strategy. This is in contrast to predictions of pro black card advocates who claimed it would allow the skillful players to flourish.
The outstanding issues are still what they were before the black card introduction:
- The tackle is not clearly defined
Refereeing inconsistency (both between different referees and the same referee at different periods of a game)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 28, 2015, 10:38:40 AM
Down man sent off for 2nd yellow. If he'd got a black it would also mean a red and no replacement ;)
Jesus lads, every foul doesnt need a card. :-\
Sometimes a foul is just a foul. Freekick, move on.
I was at the Armagh game on Sat and Finn Mo got booked (yellow card), 5 mins afterwards he committed another foul to which the Ref showed him another yellow followed by a black and then a red...Why was this shown? I was under the impression two yellows equalled a red (simple) or if you already had a yellow and then received a black this equalled a red too but why get all 3? He showed that many cards I was waiting on a green or blue card too...lol
I'd say the ref got confused. He's probably lucky he didn't give him a good luck card. You are right. 2 yellow card fouls = Red. 1 yellow card followed by a black card = Red.
The last two posts alone show the farcical situation a new confusing sanction can create.
I also agree with the previous two posts.
Quote from: Rossfan on April 28, 2015, 10:38:40 AM
Down man sent off for 2nd yellow. If he'd got a black it would also mean a red and no replacement ;)
Just to confirm. if you receive a Yellow card and later receive a black card, does that equal a Red Card?
Quote from: Denn Forever on April 28, 2015, 12:12:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on April 28, 2015, 10:38:40 AM
Down man sent off for 2nd yellow. If he'd got a black it would also mean a red and no replacement ;)
Just to confirm. if you receive a Yellow card and later receive a black card, does that equal a Red Card?
Yes
Yes but it doesn't come with a game suspension or does it
Quote from: sligoman2 on April 28, 2015, 12:24:59 PM
Yes but it doesn't come with a game suspension or does it
No...but if you get so many they can tally up and you can get a 1 game ban
The only positive development that the black card, as is currently defined, has brought is the elimination of off the ball blocking of runs.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on April 28, 2015, 01:38:45 PM
The only positive development that the black card, as is currently defined, has brought is the elimination of off the ball blocking of runs.
I agree, and it is something i think strictly enforcing the Yellow card for would have done just as well.
You can have all the colours of the rainbow if you like but the only conclusion I can come to is that referees choose not to implement the rules as they are written because they know they would probably be left with only themselves and the goalkeepers on the field.
So what you get is the worst thing possible, referees making it up as they go, leading to inconsistency from ref to ref, game to game and even by the same ref within one game.
I dont know how it will ever change.
This is exactly it IMO. From the bit of refereeing I do I find that if I strictly interpreted the rule book then football would be a non-contact sport but as I want to allow lads play the game as a physical game then I allow fouling so when I do blow for a free it's easy for some players or managers to feel that I'm being inconsistent. It really is a very difficult to game to ref consistently when many incidents could be interpreted either way. Lads trying too win frees doesn't make it any easier. I think our referees are poor but it's incredibly hard to a good referee now when you have multiple tacklers, lads diving and a less physical interpretation of game.
Well said zulu.
Another problem is that so many players and supporters don't know the rules.
I'm not a referee, but refs get overly criticised by supporters. I was in croke park on sunday and one 'fan' behind me was blaming the referee for Down and Roscommon getting so many men behind the ball in the first half. I didn't engage with the man, but i'd loved to ask him what he expected the referee to do? Drag 6 forwards up the field by the collar to take up their forward positions??????
I'm not saying refs are perfect, but a lot of the problem is as Zulu said, that if the rule book was interpreted strictly, the number of frees in games would increase significantly and then refs would be criticised for being whistle happy!
It's a thankless job that I would never do!
Quote from: westbound on April 30, 2015, 09:43:42 AM
Well said zulu.
Another problem is that so many players and supporters don't know the rules.
I'm not a referee, but refs get overly criticised by supporters. I was in croke park on sunday and one 'fan' behind me was blaming the referee for Down and Roscommon getting so many men behind the ball in the first half. I didn't engage with the man, but i'd loved to ask him what he expected the referee to do? Drag 6 forwards up the field by the collar to take up their forward positions??????
I'm not saying refs are perfect, but a lot of the problem is as Zulu said, that if the rule book was interpreted strictly, the number of frees in games would increase significantly and then refs would be criticised for being whistle happy!
It's a thankless job that I would never do!
That'll stand to you come championship when all the day outers are out.
This is actually funny. Its the most stereotypical Irish attitude to problem that you could come up with.
The rules are there, literally in black and white.
But do ya know what I dont like them rules.
Ah sure we'll work it out as we go along. It'll be grand.
Instead it should be these are the rules this is how it goes.
If the rules are an ass then they will be changed.
Ah but sure.....that d be an awful lot of bother. Isnt it grand the way it is.
Thu, May 7, 2015
Leinster Council chairman John Horan has questioned the implementation of the black card in Gaelic football.
Introduced last year with the intention of reducing the level of cynical fouling, as the guilty player must be replaced, the problem of late seems to be the reluctance of referees to use this new tool.
"I've had numerous discussions with people over the course of the national league and they were all agreed that there seemed to be a reluctance over the use of the black card," said Horan at the Leinster championship launch in Farmleigh House.
"The card was introduced with a specific aim: to rid the game of cynical fouls and behaviour. And I'd encourage referees to produce the black card in these instances and maybe keep Joe Brolly from boring us on television," Horan said. There were instances where the black card, for fouls or even "provocative language", could have been shown during last Saturday's under-21 All-Ireland football final. Four yellow cards were shown.
"It is now becoming a source of debate," Horan said. "Is the black card being implemented? From seeing last Saturday's match there were incidents in that match that looked like a black cards. Certainly the fella [Richie Feeney] from Castlebar Mitchels must feel very aggrieved ... It was correct to send him off but he must be seeing the similar incidents and wondering.
"I don't know what's going on but I hate to think we have brought it in and are not going to use it. I think the support is in place [for referees]. I am quite mystified."
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/leinster-council-chairman-questions-reluctance-of-referees-to-use-black-card-1.2202710
He makes a very good point on the Richie Feeney incident.
Why should Richie Feeney feel aggrieved? He make a text book black card offence in the biggest club game of his career. He was an idiot. Like every other rule there will be timed when refs do and don't issue the black card but my experience to date is that most of the time they do get it right, particularly for the one that Feeney was called on.
QuoteWhy should Richie Feeney feel aggrieved? He make a text book black card offence in the biggest club game of his career. He was an idiot. Like every other rule there will be timed when refs do and don't issue the black card but my experience to date is that most of the time they do get it right, particularly for the one that Feeney was called on.
In the context of the article I think Horan is stating what has gone on since the Feeney incident his offence and punishment was not equitable, that is the main reason.
My take on it at the time is that I did not believe it to be a deliberate body check, the Vincent's lad was running towards Richie and his natural instinct was to protect himself. It was not a body check mastered by Donegal or Tyrone. Also why would anyone want to deliberately body check a man in his own half and out on the sideline.
Quotebut my experience to date is that most of the time they do get it right,
That is the problem. Most isn't good enough.
You must have been abroad and didn't experience the latter stages of last years championship, FFS!
I won't mention incidents as I'm still trying to come to terms with what happened.
(http://balls.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/feeneyblack.gif)
It's as clear a body check as you will see, a straight frontal shoulder into a man after the man has played the ball. This was never allowed in the game in any fashion and the black card did not outlaw this, it simply changed the punishment. Like anything different there will always be cases that are highlighted as being missed but refs are human as well (despite what many people believe!!) and they make mistakes on many occassions, as do managers, as do players, as do supporters in their interpretation of the rules. The black card is not ideal but if everyone accepts that it is part of the game then it will work. The problem is that managers/players/pundits/supporters all feel that they have a vested interest in seeing the rule done away with. Leave it as it is till everyone gets their head around it and balance will sort itself out
QuoteLeave it as it is till everyone gets their head around it
:-\
Quote from: highorlow on May 07, 2015, 04:15:06 PM
QuoteLeave it as it is till everyone gets their head around it
:-\
Not everyone accepts that the rules have changed and not everyone wants to accept it either and that includes refs.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 07, 2015, 04:12:14 PM
(http://balls.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/feeneyblack.gif)
It's as clear a body check as you will see, a straight frontal shoulder into a man after the man has played the ball. This was never allowed in the game in any fashion and the black card did not outlaw this, it simply changed the punishment. Like anything different there will always be cases that are highlighted as being missed but refs are human as well (despite what many people believe!!) and they make mistakes on many occassions, as do managers, as do players, as do supporters in their interpretation of the rules. The black card is not ideal but if everyone accepts that it is part of the game then it will work. The problem is that managers/players/pundits/supporters all feel that they have a vested interest in seeing the rule done away with. Leave it as it is till everyone gets their head around it and balance will sort itself out
In terms of the 3rd man tackle the black card has been a success I feel. The drag DOWN not so much as lads now make sure to pull the player back instead of down which is not a black card offence. The slagging off of referees and sledging I can't really comment on as I haven't played a game to see if it's going on but I'd say from any Club game I've been at it hasn't stopped too much.
I'm glad the 3rd man tackle part has been a success as it's a particular bug bear of mine seeing as I got flattened after I passed the ball and buckled my knee and haven't really played since. My own feeling on it is the drag/pull back should be included and a sin bin implemented for 10 minutes.
As well as giving lads a second chance to come back on should open the game up!
In terms of the sledging I have witnessed 2 black cards for verbal abuse of the ref this season. I saw a few last season but it also depends on the refs.
Truth been told I've seen very black cards unless they been obvious pull downs. Everything seems to be yellow cards now. Even last night at a Jun B game we had a player who checked a players run and put him down, very obvious black card. Ref put hand up to say he seen it, let play go on and then called player in when it was stopped. Was sure it was a black card but give him yellow. (Was delighted as I was the only sub on the bench!).
I'd not mind too much but this isn't the exception in what I've seen but the norm.
You must be getting the raw end BC1!
Quote from: Bingo on May 07, 2015, 04:38:57 PM
Truth been told I've seen very black cards unless they been obvious pull downs. Everything seems to be yellow cards now. Even last night at a Jun B game we had a player who checked a players run and put him down, very obvious black card. Ref put hand up to say he seen it, let play go on and then called player in when it was stopped. Was sure it was a black card but give him yellow. (Was delighted as I was the only sub on the bench!).
I'd not mind too much but this isn't the exception in what I've seen but the norm.
You must be getting the raw end BC1!
Funny for a change I was on the innocent end of things!!!
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 07, 2015, 04:23:58 PM
In terms of the sledging I have witnessed 2 black cards for verbal abuse of the ref this season. I saw a few last season but it also depends on the refs.
Was that not the gist of Horan's complaint?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on May 07, 2015, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: Bingo on May 07, 2015, 04:38:57 PM
Truth been told I've seen very black cards unless they been obvious pull downs. Everything seems to be yellow cards now. Even last night at a Jun B game we had a player who checked a players run and put him down, very obvious black card. Ref put hand up to say he seen it, let play go on and then called player in when it was stopped. Was sure it was a black card but give him yellow. (Was delighted as I was the only sub on the bench!).
I'd not mind too much but this isn't the exception in what I've seen but the norm.
You must be getting the raw end BC1!
Funny for a change I was on the innocent end of things!!!
I suppose its early in the year yet :)
QuoteIn terms of the sledging I have witnessed 2 black cards for verbal abuse of the ref this season. I saw a few last season but it also depends on the refs.
Was that not the gist of Horan's complaint?
Maybe some refs believe they are pricks when they are told it.
Re the third man tackle, I'm not sure if this was a Mayo only thing in league games, - where I've witnessed it but I'm sick to the back teeth of this one in all in approach to the 'minibrawls'. Happened quite a few times during our league games. Let the two players sort it out among themselves says I and not have all players running in and causing havoc for refs. Usually no card is given and the play resumes with a hop ball.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 12, 2015, 09:19:29 PM
Re the third man tackle, I'm not sure if this was a Mayo only thing in league games, - where I've witnessed it but I'm sick to the back teeth of this one in all in approach to the 'minibrawls'. Happened quite a few times during our league games. Let the two players sort it out among themselves says I and not have all players running in and causing havoc for refs. Usually no card is given and the play resumes with a hop ball.
Don't change the rules of the game any more.
Simply fine County Boards €100,000 for each brawl or fracas involving 2 or more players from their team.
Quote from: muppet on May 12, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 12, 2015, 09:19:29 PM
Re the third man tackle, I'm not sure if this was a Mayo only thing in league games, - where I've witnessed it but I'm sick to the back teeth of this one in all in approach to the 'minibrawls'. Happened quite a few times during our league games. Let the two players sort it out among themselves says I and not have all players running in and causing havoc for refs. Usually no card is given and the play resumes with a hop ball.
Don't change the rules of the game any more.
Simply fine County Boards €100,000 for each brawl or fracas involving 2 or more players from their team.
Sure why stop at 100k when you could fine them 100,000,000,000m?
It's pure fantasy to think that any county has that sort of cash around to pay fines. They'd all need an emergency payment from Central council.
It's also completely mental that you think an institution should be fined for the impulsive behaviour of a player. It's not like the county board could pass the fine onto the player. Meanwhile, 2 schools coaches are given the boot to pay your fine.
Think things out ffs.
Quote from: thewobbler on May 12, 2015, 09:31:28 PM
Quote from: muppet on May 12, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on May 12, 2015, 09:19:29 PM
Re the third man tackle, I'm not sure if this was a Mayo only thing in league games, - where I've witnessed it but I'm sick to the back teeth of this one in all in approach to the 'minibrawls'. Happened quite a few times during our league games. Let the two players sort it out among themselves says I and not have all players running in and causing havoc for refs. Usually no card is given and the play resumes with a hop ball.
Don't change the rules of the game any more.
Simply fine County Boards €100,000 for each brawl or fracas involving 2 or more players from their team.
Sure why stop at 100k when you could fine them 100,000,000,000m?
It's pure fantasy to think that any county has that sort of cash around to pay fines. They'd all need an emergency payment from Central council.
It's also completely mental that you think an institution should be fined for the impulsive behaviour of a player. It's not like the county board could pass the fine onto the player. Meanwhile, 2 schools coaches are given the boot to pay your fine.
Think things out ffs.
Firstly, this is what happens in real organisations. If a McDonalds employee hits me, I will sue McDonalds and I will most likely win.
Secondly, are you mad? Are you aware that there is money spent by CBs on players whether it is expenses, meals or holidays?
Think things out yourself ffs.
Due to our knockout competition and tradition of playing potential champions against minnows, frustration can lead to such brawls. Penalising the players with suspensions etc is futile, as banning a player for a match is a punishment that varies wildly from being a 1st round backdoor match to an All Ireland Final.
McDonalds is a profit making organisation in which every employee is paid, registered and trained - then insured against such behaviour. There is no form of recourse or recompense if a player steps out of line though, which is why you are a mentaller.
County boards don't have two shillings to run together, and those expensive trips you talk of are either funded by donors, or are already putting the couny in its knees.
I've a very serious question for you - from what source (apart from donors) would a county board accumulate €100k? If you think gate receipts you've genuinely no idea how GAA money works.
You've been spending too long reading soccer columns.
Quote from: thewobbler on May 13, 2015, 07:08:53 AM
McDonalds is a profit making organisation in which every employee is paid, registered and trained - then insured against such behaviour. There is no form of recourse or recompense if a player steps out of line though, which is why you are a mentaller.
County boards don't have two shillings to run together, and those expensive trips you talk of are either funded by donors, or are already putting the couny in its knees.
I've a very serious question for you - from what source (apart from donors) would a county board accumulate €100k? If you think gate receipts you've genuinely no idea how GAA money works.
You've been spending too long reading soccer columns.
Oh grow up ffs.
If you (the one who quoted the figure 100,000,000,000m) think the figure was a bit high then just say so.
The point is still valid. If we are serious about ending the problem then fine them viciously and it would end rapido.
As for 'how would a CB accumulate 100k'? Seriously? You don't think county boards don't take in €100k in a year?
You're tying yourself up in knots muppet.
It's not about turnover it's about ability to pay.
Fines, as a form of punishment, are used as a deterrent. They should only disable the function of an organisation when it is guilty of malicious malpractice.
A potential fine of €1k is enough for a county board to make a clear statement to players that some things are unacceptable.
But a player in the heat of a battle is going to forget or ignore this request, regardless of consequence. Ultimately this form of punishment has no direct impact on them unless they are suspended.
The utterly ridiculous figure you have recommended won't change this one iota.
Yet you'd see fit to cripple a county board, and therefore all the clubs and structures within its county, as a result of the indiscretion.
Insane.
Sadly and to be perfectly blunt about it alot and I mean alot of players would laugh at the fact that their antics caused their club or county to be fined heavily. A badge of honour for some.
Was at a club game last year when a referee handled a massive "hold me back/ pushing and shoving " incident. Yellow card for the two lads initially involved. Dramatically then called the first in from each club and redcarded them both. The looks on their faces was priceless.
Brilliant game of football afterwards.
QuoteMeanwhile, 2 schools coaches are given the boot to pay your fine.
Are school coaches on €50000 a year or do you mean one of the consequences of the €100000 fine will be to lose 2 coaches?
If it's the latter, I could think of better ways to cover the €100000 rather than making people redundant.
Quote from: thewobbler on May 13, 2015, 10:54:50 AM
You're tying yourself up in knots muppet.
It's not about turnover it's about ability to pay.
Fines, as a form of punishment, are used as a deterrent. They should only disable the function of an organisation when it is guilty of malicious malpractice.
A potential fine of €1k is enough for a county board to make a clear statement to players that some things are unacceptable.
But a player in the heat of a battle is going to forget or ignore this request, regardless of consequence. Ultimately this form of punishment has no direct impact on them unless they are suspended.
The utterly ridiculous figure you have recommended won't change this one iota.
Yet you'd see fit to cripple a county board, and therefore all the clubs and structures within its county, as a result of the indiscretion.
Insane.
Either you have a worthwhile penalty or forget it.
Suspensions have been tried and have had no impact whatsoever.
Imposing a serious fine on the authority responsible might have a better impact. We can debate the figure if you want. But a €1,000 is going to be no where near effective enough. And as for crippling a county board, you completely miss the point that it would be the offenders that would do that.
How do I not have a worthwhile point?
What suspensions have been tried?
Has there ever been a clear mandate to referees to send off the 3rd / 4th / 5th man to enter a scrap? This simple rule works remarkably well in ice hockey. Doesn't prevent mass brawls, but goes a long way towards it.
Has any player ever been retroactively punished for entering a scrap? If so, I can't remember it happening.
So from what I've seen with my eyes, unless you're the unlucky one who the referee randomly chooses from a line-up to send off after a melee, or unless you show the levels of wanton violence in a melee that makes you unmistakeably known to the red, then players almost always get off scot free.
That's the root of the problem.
--
Regarding your other mad theory on the value of fines, let's leave it here, as you clearly have no concept of how little spare cash is available to county boards, and even less understanding that the player(s) who cause the problems get completely off, but the entire county suffers.
Quote from: thewobbler on May 13, 2015, 05:43:30 PM
How do I not have a worthwhile point?
What suspensions have been tried?
Has there ever been a clear mandate to referees to send off the 3rd / 4th / 5th man to enter a scrap? This simple rule works remarkably well in ice hockey. Doesn't prevent mass brawls, but goes a long way towards it.
Has any player ever been retroactively punished for entering a scrap? If so, I can't remember it happening.
So from what I've seen with my eyes, unless you're the unlucky one who the referee randomly chooses from a line-up to send off after a melee, or unless you show the levels of wanton violence in a melee that makes you unmistakeably known to the red, then players almost always get off scot free.
That's the root of the problem.
--
Regarding your other mad theory on the value of fines, let's leave it here, as you clearly have no concept of how little spare cash is available to county boards, and even less understanding that the player(s) who cause the problems get completely off, but the entire county suffers.
That is the point of the deterrent.
Maybe they could use the money they don't spend on managers?
The manager then might be inclined to make it clear to his squad that mass brawls wouldn't be tolerated. How much does the squad holiday in La Manga cost? I think it was your own county that pioneered this trend. It must cost €60,000 to send a squad and officials. No one worries that 'the entire county suffers' in that case do they?
I think they are one of the better rule changes.
People are bleating on about them not being applied correctly but they've only recently been brought in. A rule that we learn from day 1 (over carrying) is still not being applied consistently.
Quote from: Denn Forever on June 29, 2015, 02:27:34 PM
I think they are one of the better rule changes.
People are bleating on about them not being applied correctly but they've only recently been brought in. A rule that we learn from day 1 (over carrying) is still not being applied consistently.
What's still shocking is the huge number of people who have a very hazy idea of what's an actual black card offence, especially some of the pundits.
There's a whole bunch of GAA folk I'd love to doorstep with a camera crew and ask them to what the rule-book actually defines as a tackle.
If you are a manager, coach, pundit or player and you don't know what the rule-book says is a tackle, they don't be surprised when a ref blows for a foul against you/your player.
To me there seems to be a serious chunk of GAA folk who have either never read the rules or havent read them in decades or if they have read them their reading comprehension must be so low as being close to being non-existent.
Quote from: twohands!!! on June 29, 2015, 06:25:11 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on June 29, 2015, 02:27:34 PM
I think they are one of the better rule changes.
People are bleating on about them not being applied correctly but they've only recently been brought in. A rule that we learn from day 1 (over carrying) is still not being applied consistently.
What's still shocking is the huge number of people who have a very hazy idea of what's an actual black card offence, especially some of the pundits.
There's a whole bunch of GAA folk I'd love to doorstep with a camera crew and ask them to what the rule-book actually defines as a tackle.
If you are a manager, coach, pundit or player and you don't know what the rule-book says is a tackle, they don't be surprised when a ref blows for a foul against you/your player.
To me there seems to be a serious chunk of GAA folk who have either never read the rules or havent read them in decades or if they have read them their reading comprehension must be so low as being close to being non-existent.
So what if it takes time to get a grasp of the black card rule? It's not a simple rule and leaves room for interpretation by the ref.
It might take a few more seasons to get a good overview.
One of the big positives from the black card rule I'd say (imo) is the reduction in the incidents of cynical dragging down an opponent who's trying to break out of his own half, on the counter attack.
For want of a better place to post this. An excellent article from Dick Clerkin...
Put physicality back into football
Friday, August 21, 2015Dick Clerkin
When it come to the physical side there needs to be an acceptance that the lines can be crossed at times without the game being called into disrepute. It's accepted in hurling, so why not in football, asks Dick Clerkin
I'VE seldom enjoyed an hour in front of the TV as much as I did last Sunday night watching the Tipp Galway highlights on the Sunday Game. The absorbing contest was complemented by the engaging post-game analysis from Donal Óg Cusack, Anthony Daly and Henry Shefflin.
Passion, intellect, insight, and humour exuded seamlessly from the panel. At one stage, I thought Henry was going to get up and swing a hurl at Des Cahill, he was so involved in the analysis. The best game of the championship to date needed to be celebrated and the pundits played their part in talking the game up to the optimum. Let's face it, this year's hurling championship badly needed it.
However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the drastically different approaches that have been taken when assessing our national sports. The last two weekends' action has provided the best examples of this. In that regard, I found it hard to believe how everyone casually glossed over an incident that effectively cost Tipperary a place in this year's All-Ireland final, never mind nearly seriously injuring a player who gave one of the finest exhibitions ever witnessed in Croke Park.
After all previous efforts to stop Seamus Callanan had failed miserably, John Hanbury was left with no option in the closing stages but to execute what WWE fans would call a 'Tombstone'. Based on his form that day, it is fair to say that Callanan was odds-on to plunder his fourth goal and likely push Tipperary on to victory.
Callanan probably had to get his upper vertebrae checked out on Monday morning, yet, in relative terms, this incident barely got a mention. Three years ago, in very similar circumstances, Seán Cavanagh became enemy number one after dragging down Conor McManus in almost the exact same location. The uproar provided a catalyst for a reaction that eventually led us to the 'black card'. Regrettably so.
You can't blame the three lads for not allowing incidents like Hanbury's pile-driver override the thrilling battle that took place last Sunday. Don't get me wrong; I'm not looking to have the hurlers hauled over the coals for their misdemeanours. Far from it. All I am asking is that football is allowed to be played along similar lines.
We have arrived at a point now that a mistimed shoulder tackle in Gaelic football could get you sent off the pitch, while we allow our hurlers to stay on the field after committing acts that in other circumstances might get you a criminal conviction. Let's be honest, that is where we currently are.
From day one, I knew that the black card would be a regrettable introduction to Gaelic football. Hard case makes bad law and, instead of dealing with the specific instances that initiated its inception, a one-hat-fits-all approach was taken. The unforeseen impact has left us in a much worse place than when we started, and only its most blinkered proponents could honestly say the game is better since the introduction of the black card.
Freakonomics, a great book I might have referenced here before, explores the real and often hidden underlying causes for changes in societal behaviour. In one chapter, it explores the unforeseen behaviour of parents collecting their children from daycare. To curb the growing instance of parents arriving late to collect their children, they introduced a fine system. What happened? The 'late pick-up' incidents increased. Doubled even!
The moral incentive to pick up their kids on time was replaced with a financial transaction that the parents were happy to pay, for the extra few minutes free time in the afternoon. A not dissimilar pattern has emerged since the introduction of the black card. Without the stats in front of me, I would chance a bet on there being an actual increase in 'cynical' fouls of the drag-down variety, rather than a decrease, since the black card's introduction. At the very least, it hasn't acted as an effective deterrent. The moral disincentive against perpetrating a black card offence has been replaced with a legitimate transaction that many players are continually happy to pay. Equally, offences that would never have raised the ire of anyone in the past have seen the offenders sent to the stand, simply because a referee now feels he is obliged to.
A further example that illustrates how poorly thought out the black card solution was, is the recent prevalence of neck-high challenges. Instead of now attempting to stop a player with a direct shoulder charge or strong tackle, the likes of which we cheer in hurling, players won't commit for fear of being led into 'black card territory'.
The low-risk option now is to take the player high by the neck, but make sure you don't go to ground with him. A yellow card is all that can be shown here, yet it is unquestionably a more dangerous and equally cynical tackle than anything on the black card menu. The whole thing is a mess.
Another regressive symptom of the black card is the continued erosion of physicality from our game, which is now being replaced with cynicism, largely borne out of frustration. For fear of mistiming a physical challenge out the field, players are now more inclined to retreat and tackle in numbers than put themselves in line for an early shower. This isn't the case in hurling, as players like Iarla Tannion, Padraic Maher and Jackie Tyrrell ferociously fling their bodies into collisions. As Cyril Farrell says 'tis great manly shtuff'.
We celebrate the physicality and intensity witnessed in hurling matches, yet implement rules that curb the same in football. That a player should be sent off for a single infraction, some of which are on the low side of cynical, continues to be an embarrassment to our game and an injustice to its players. I know of no other field sport in the world where a similar rule applies.
In nearly every game I play in these days, there are countless examples of players pulling out of challenges for fear of being a fraction of a second late and ending up in a referee's book. Instead we retreat, and retreat until the risk reward is so low all is left is an unsightly, yet effective, mass defence approach. Managers are recognising this, and subsequently coaching the same.
Supporters and commentators alike relish the physicality in games and want to see more. I can guarantee you players want to see more of it also. In my opinion, a lot of the cynicism we are currently witnessing is borne out of frustration through the lack of physicality permitted. A few body checks and mistimed shoulder charges never caused anyone too many sleepless nights. God knows there were plenty of them back in the alleged golden days of yore. This is the small price we need to be willing to pay in order to encourage more honest physicality back into our game.
At the end of the day, our games are sold on the basis that they are physical contact sports. With that, there has to be an acceptance that the lines can be crossed at times without the game being called into disrepute. That philosophy has been afforded to hurling, and it is the better for it. It is time we return the same to football.
Hits a few nails on the head there with that article.
The lawmakers wouldn't concede that our rules are an embarrassment.
Great article by the Big Dick there actually.
Tho I think that its more than just the black card. Teams are playing percentages now adays. Standing a man up is seen as a more effective method of stifling an attack than hitting him a good shoulder. Going for a shoulder is risky, you might miss, you might get a card, give away a free, you could end up out of position, there is a multitude of things that could go wrong, so players dont do it
I get what he's saying that the players want it and supporters want it but in the percentage game we play now a days we actually have to find a way of rewarding it if teams are gonna incorporate it.
Well said Dick Clerkin.
Excellent analysis by Dick. It makes plain the total wrong-headedness of the concerted campaign, that has been going on now for the best part of twenty years, to remove physicality from the game. "Cleaning up the game", became the catchphrase of the Mary Poppins tendency that took it upon themselves to decide that the game was dirty.
Dick hit the nail on the head and said in another way what we've been saying here forever. They kept introducing new rules, when all that was needed was to implement the old ones. The game wasn't dirty. It was manly. The rules were adequate to deal with any individual instance where manly turned into dirty, as it will in any contact game. There was no systemic problem. But there sure is now. And it has been caused by a combination of the new rules and the refusal to implement any of the rules properly.
I don't particularly like the practice of making comparisons with hurling. The case that football is being ruined stands on its own merits. But it has now got to the stage where the comparison is unavoidable. There has been an amazing divergence in the cultures of the two sports over a small number of years. There is now a glaring difference in the way the two games are regulated. And there is only one reason for it - nobody decided that hurling was dirty or needed cleaning up.
We often talk about unforeseen consequences, but many of the consequences of this unmanning of football were obvious and pointed out here in advance of the implementation of the various waves of rule changes. Even if they couldn't figure them out for themselves, the perpetrators of these ridiculous rules only had to look at soccer, which has been made unwatchable for many by the systematic removal of all physical contact from the game.
Dick has listed most of them very clearly, but has inexplicably neglected to mention the biggest one (and the one that was the most predictable - see soccer again) - the inevitable rise of simulation. When you increase the penalties for physical contact, you increase the incentives for simulating it. And, of course, when you fail even to acknowledge that simulation is a problem and fail to implement your own rules that punish it, you compound the blunder and you end up with what we saw last week.
Brilliant article Dick.
Intelligent lad, Dick. Good article.
Although it would be interesting to see the stats on the effects, if any, of the black card's introduction.
Just after watching the butchers of Meath kick Tyrone round the field in 1996. That was no one man team either with Cush, Canavan, Devlins, Cavlan and Dooher. They systematically smashed us and with that our chances of a first all Ireland. Brutality first football second was the dark arts of the time not to be confused with manliness.. dirty hits should never be regarded as manly. We all knew after 1996 that removing thuggery from our game was important and not to be confused with physicality. Unfortunately removing physicality from our game encourages other forms of aggression and simulation. If teams had maintained a manly physicality instead of dirty hits then the rule makers would not have tampered so much with our game rules. Its.interesting to note how the results of some counties since indicate they haven't adapted to the aftermath of the 90s. We all know the era of the broken jaw had to be left behind - but they have gone way too far. How do we get the balance back?
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 21, 2015, 11:25:59 PM
For want of a better place to post this. An excellent article from Dick Clerkin...
Put physicality back into football
Friday, August 21, 2015Dick Clerkin
When it come to the physical side there needs to be an acceptance that the lines can be crossed at times without the game being called into disrepute. It's accepted in hurling, so why not in football, asks Dick Clerkin
I'VE seldom enjoyed an hour in front of the TV as much as I did last Sunday night watching the Tipp Galway highlights on the Sunday Game. The absorbing contest was complemented by the engaging post-game analysis from Donal Óg Cusack, Anthony Daly and Henry Shefflin.
Passion, intellect, insight, and humour exuded seamlessly from the panel. At one stage, I thought Henry was going to get up and swing a hurl at Des Cahill, he was so involved in the analysis. The best game of the championship to date needed to be celebrated and the pundits played their part in talking the game up to the optimum. Let's face it, this year's hurling championship badly needed it.
However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the drastically different approaches that have been taken when assessing our national sports. The last two weekends' action has provided the best examples of this. In that regard, I found it hard to believe how everyone casually glossed over an incident that effectively cost Tipperary a place in this year's All-Ireland final, never mind nearly seriously injuring a player who gave one of the finest exhibitions ever witnessed in Croke Park.
After all previous efforts to stop Seamus Callanan had failed miserably, John Hanbury was left with no option in the closing stages but to execute what WWE fans would call a 'Tombstone'. Based on his form that day, it is fair to say that Callanan was odds-on to plunder his fourth goal and likely push Tipperary on to victory.
Callanan probably had to get his upper vertebrae checked out on Monday morning, yet, in relative terms, this incident barely got a mention. Three years ago, in very similar circumstances, Seán Cavanagh became enemy number one after dragging down Conor McManus in almost the exact same location. The uproar provided a catalyst for a reaction that eventually led us to the 'black card'. Regrettably so.
You can't blame the three lads for not allowing incidents like Hanbury's pile-driver override the thrilling battle that took place last Sunday. Don't get me wrong; I'm not looking to have the hurlers hauled over the coals for their misdemeanours. Far from it. All I am asking is that football is allowed to be played along similar lines.
We have arrived at a point now that a mistimed shoulder tackle in Gaelic football could get you sent off the pitch, while we allow our hurlers to stay on the field after committing acts that in other circumstances might get you a criminal conviction. Let's be honest, that is where we currently are.
From day one, I knew that the black card would be a regrettable introduction to Gaelic football. Hard case makes bad law and, instead of dealing with the specific instances that initiated its inception, a one-hat-fits-all approach was taken. The unforeseen impact has left us in a much worse place than when we started, and only its most blinkered proponents could honestly say the game is better since the introduction of the black card.
Freakonomics, a great book I might have referenced here before, explores the real and often hidden underlying causes for changes in societal behaviour. In one chapter, it explores the unforeseen behaviour of parents collecting their children from daycare. To curb the growing instance of parents arriving late to collect their children, they introduced a fine system. What happened? The 'late pick-up' incidents increased. Doubled even!
The moral incentive to pick up their kids on time was replaced with a financial transaction that the parents were happy to pay, for the extra few minutes free time in the afternoon. A not dissimilar pattern has emerged since the introduction of the black card. Without the stats in front of me, I would chance a bet on there being an actual increase in 'cynical' fouls of the drag-down variety, rather than a decrease, since the black card's introduction. At the very least, it hasn't acted as an effective deterrent. The moral disincentive against perpetrating a black card offence has been replaced with a legitimate transaction that many players are continually happy to pay. Equally, offences that would never have raised the ire of anyone in the past have seen the offenders sent to the stand, simply because a referee now feels he is obliged to.
A further example that illustrates how poorly thought out the black card solution was, is the recent prevalence of neck-high challenges. Instead of now attempting to stop a player with a direct shoulder charge or strong tackle, the likes of which we cheer in hurling, players won't commit for fear of being led into 'black card territory'.
The low-risk option now is to take the player high by the neck, but make sure you don't go to ground with him. A yellow card is all that can be shown here, yet it is unquestionably a more dangerous and equally cynical tackle than anything on the black card menu. The whole thing is a mess.
Another regressive symptom of the black card is the continued erosion of physicality from our game, which is now being replaced with cynicism, largely borne out of frustration. For fear of mistiming a physical challenge out the field, players are now more inclined to retreat and tackle in numbers than put themselves in line for an early shower. This isn't the case in hurling, as players like Iarla Tannion, Padraic Maher and Jackie Tyrrell ferociously fling their bodies into collisions. As Cyril Farrell says 'tis great manly shtuff'.
We celebrate the physicality and intensity witnessed in hurling matches, yet implement rules that curb the same in football. That a player should be sent off for a single infraction, some of which are on the low side of cynical, continues to be an embarrassment to our game and an injustice to its players. I know of no other field sport in the world where a similar rule applies.
In nearly every game I play in these days, there are countless examples of players pulling out of challenges for fear of being a fraction of a second late and ending up in a referee's book. Instead we retreat, and retreat until the risk reward is so low all is left is an unsightly, yet effective, mass defence approach. Managers are recognising this, and subsequently coaching the same.
Supporters and commentators alike relish the physicality in games and want to see more. I can guarantee you players want to see more of it also. In my opinion, a lot of the cynicism we are currently witnessing is borne out of frustration through the lack of physicality permitted. A few body checks and mistimed shoulder charges never caused anyone too many sleepless nights. God knows there were plenty of them back in the alleged golden days of yore. This is the small price we need to be willing to pay in order to encourage more honest physicality back into our game.
At the end of the day, our games are sold on the basis that they are physical contact sports. With that, there has to be an acceptance that the lines can be crossed at times without the game being called into disrepute. That philosophy has been afforded to hurling, and it is the better for it. It is time we return the same to football.
Hmmm. Some good points no doubt but he is wrong to say the black card hasn't worked and while it isn't perfect it has served the game well in my opinion. The issue here though is the attitude of referees, players and, indeed, supporters. Lets take the McCann incident -
Player(s) - disgraceful dive that has nothing to do with, black, yellow or red cards and simply a mindset we shouldn't tolerate. In addition, why was the Monaghan player touching McCann at all? Too much sly, cowardly, sledging of opponents going on.
Referee - How can you be an inter county referee and send someone off for something you didn't see? This isn't the first time a top (??) inter county football referee seemed to issue a card while only guessing at what happened. If you don't know what happened you can make a decision - end of.
Supporters - Not many defended McCann in fairness, but some did and I've seen plenty defend other dives or exaggerated reactions on the basis there was some contact. This attitude only encourages lads and is bizarrely justified on the 'winning is all that matters' platform.
Diving is now accepted in soccer but if we don't watch ourselves there'll be a generation of players, coaches and supporters in football who'll see nothing wrong with diving either.
I do agree with Dick on his general point though. I see shoulder after shoulder in hurling that is a foul by the book and some are even bookings being let go while in football if it isn't strictly by the book it's a foul and worse again, a text book shoulder that injures or puts a guy on his arse is often deemed a foul.
Look at last years Kerry/Mayo semi final, the ref was abused to high heaven by Mayo supporters when in the main he was brilliant and let a physical brand of football go. If that was the norm then we'd have a much better game. Going down easy pays in football while it doesn't in hurling. Mind you hurling referees ignore so many blatant fouling that I wouldn't be lauding them either.
There are positives to the black card, Dick's opinions are valid and refreshingly honest but they're anecdotal in the scheme of things, not fact. The cynical fouling to stop the counterattack has diminished and the spectre of players queueing in the last 10 minutes to take their yellow card fouls, is much less evident. That other cynical activities have emerged as part of a team's strategy is not the fault of the black card but arise partly as a response to the black card rule and partly to a creeping culture of cynicism. Once upon a time such cynical antics were called 'soccer style' but not anymore, now it's 'GAA style' and nothing to do with the spillover from soccer.
The day will come when it's said that "it's part of the game, what can you do?"
Kerry man before the Tyrone penalty should got one, compare that tackle to the rightly given black card in the Derry - Kerry minor game.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on August 23, 2015, 05:31:20 PM
Kerry man before the Tyrone penalty shoudl got one, compare that tackle to the rightly given black card in the Derry - Kerry minor game.
That was as clear a black card for Enright as the one he should have got in last year's semi-final replay. Is there a rule that he can't be shown a black card?
What do you think of the black card now?
Still wondering how did Shane enright get an exemption.
Not a thing wrong with the black card, a simple concept with very few conditions attached to it.
The fact that the top referees in the country can't administer it is what gets me.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 23, 2015, 07:13:55 PM
Not a thing wrong with the black card, a simple concept with very few conditions attached to it.
The fact that the top referees in the country can't administer it is what gets me.
And there in lies the problem, it's virtually impossible to apply with consistency. This has be proven time and time again over the past two years.
It's impossible for our refs to apply ANYTHING with consistency it seems.
The black card is not the problem, nor is it the solution to all the games ills. In my view however it has done a lot of good, and people are criticising it for not doing something it was never intended to do.
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 23, 2015, 07:36:55 PM
It's impossible for our refs to apply ANYTHING with consistency it seems.
The black card is not the problem, nor is it the solution to all the games ills. In my view however it has done a lot of good, and people are criticising it for not doing something it was never intended to do.
They are consistently inconsistent. I would give my arm away to discuss one on one with cor Mac Reilly the debacle that was Limerick last year. If only to watch the video with him and then ask him why ? But it runs deeper than just mistakes when it comes to Kerry but if you start that debate you're just classed as some sort of GAA Jim corr .
If you who is some sort of Kerry sympathiser from Offaly can explain to me today how Shane enright again escaped a black card , I would be very greatful.
Because Maurice Deegan made a balls of it. End of Story. It was a black card all day, and twice on Sundays.
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 23, 2015, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 23, 2015, 07:13:55 PM
Not a thing wrong with the black card, a simple concept with very few conditions attached to it.
The fact that the top referees in the country can't administer it is what gets me.
And there in lies the problem, it's virtually impossible to apply with consistency. This has be proven time and time again over the past two years.
If we apply that logic there wouldn't be a rule left.
Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 23, 2015, 08:16:54 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 23, 2015, 07:27:36 PM
Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 23, 2015, 07:13:55 PM
Not a thing wrong with the black card, a simple concept with very few conditions attached to it.
The fact that the top referees in the country can't administer it is what gets me.
And there in lies the problem, it's virtually impossible to apply with consistency. This has be proven time and time again over the past two years.
If we apply that logic there wouldn't be a rule left.
That overcarrying rule is making a complete bollix of the game now that you mention it
The Black Card is a joke. Pure farce. It makes competent referees look incompetent. It turns "Can't believe that is amateur game" into "Easy know that's an amateur game". Sure look if Dublin win next Sunday, the wheel turns and we can talk about the great games of the 2 team 70s and all will be right in GAA world.
black card needs to be scrapped. it's a joke at this stage.
GAA just needs to have a 'professional foul' like they have in soccer - if a player is through on goal (like the time conor mcmanus was against tyrone in 2013) and is fouled then it should be a red card for the offender.
So do we scrap every rule that's not implemented properly??
As I posted in the Tyrone/ Kerry thread I don't think the black card has been a success.
Its too open to interpretation and leads to confusion for everyone.
This is the thing. It's not supposed to be open to interpretation. the only interpretation is 'was it deliberate'. the two questions are "Is it one of the 5 fouls, Is it deliberate". It's only a black if the answer to both is yes.
I don't understand the confusion to be honest.
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.
I think its obvious at this stage that referees are allowed to interpret this as they wish. It can suit the masterplan.
Quote from: rrhf on August 24, 2015, 10:20:45 AM
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!!!
Quote from: rrhf on August 24, 2015, 10:20:45 AM
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on August 24, 2015, 11:29:24 AM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 24, 2015, 11:14:39 AM
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.
Begone you agent of ambiguity!
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 24, 2015, 11:39:43 AM
Begone you agent of ambiguity!
Begone the authors of the RuleBook.
The black card add the extra questions for the referee. The incorrect calls on the black cards has a bigger impact on the games than yellows would. The black cards have added this problem.
The black card introduction lead to a lot workshops and training on the new rules. If this training had to be given on the yellows instead there would have been a lot less need for the black card introduction.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on August 24, 2015, 11:59:21 AM
The black card add the extra questions for the referee. The incorrect calls on the black cards has a bigger impact on the games than yellows would. The black cards have added this problem.
The black card introduction lead to a lot workshops and training on the new rules. If this training had to be given on the yellows instead there would have been a lot less need for the black card introduction.
Maybe. I'm obviously not going to convince you. I think it's actually one of the clearer cut definitions we have, despite Muppet validly picking holes in it. The real problem is, has been, and will continue to be the standard of refereeing and the state of the rulebook.
I just think the less decisions the referees need to make the better (less to get wrong). We agree it is mainly a refereeing issue, but the black card made their job harder. The easier we make it to referee a game, the better the standard of refereeing will become.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 11:11:07 AM
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?
I agree with all of this to be fair. But the problem arises when the ref makes a decision like that with McNamee and we could justify it based on what is said above, but minutes later makes a decision like with Enright and we are left scratching our heads.
Also, how Darren O'Sullivan didn't get a black in the last few seconds is odd too, does it not count in the last 10 seconds and the ref feels the game is won anyway?
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 24, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 11:11:07 AM
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?
I agree with all of this to be fair. But the problem arises when the ref makes a decision like that with McNamee and we could justify it based on what is said above, but minutes later makes a decision like with Enright and we are left scratching our heads.
Also, how Darren O'Sullivan didn't get a black in the last few seconds is odd too, does it not count in the last 10 seconds and the ref feels the game is won anyway?
I actually thought with the Darren O'Sullivan one that it should have been a free in (i.e. a foul by the tyrone man). BUT, if the ref judged it as a foul by O'Sullivan then I agree it should have been a black card. I'm guessing that the ref knew he had booked him earlier and decided that he didn't want to send him off at that stage in the game!
But I agree with you, if it's a foul/black card/ red card offence then regardless of time in the game or consequences for suspension/missing the final etc. then the punishment should be given!
Although, it'd probably be overturned on appeal anyway!!!!!!!!
The Darran O'Sullivan where he caught the Tyrone lad in the chest? A black card?? Do ye even look at what the rules actually say at all? ::)
Quote from: Ciarrai_thuaidh on August 26, 2015, 12:46:53 AM
The Darran O'Sullivan where he caught the Tyrone lad in the chest? A black card?? Do ye even look at what the rules actually say at all? ::)
No the incident after that on Conor Clarke.
Whelo ( and the rest ) don't think much of the black card after today's game. Funny that.
Not the fault of the black card but the inability of the refs to enforce them. I'm not a religious man but I am praying that the gaa will wake up to the need for more than one ref very soon.
It seems to me that the players, managers and team prep has moved on a lot in the past 10 years but the administration is light years behind in introducing common sense changes like 2 refs and a stop clock and many other rules.
if all referees are unable to enforce a rule then then the Rule is bad.
Refs have far to many option when calling a free /
no further action
a talking to
a Ticking
yellow vcard
Black card
Red Card
Vey hard to be consistent with such a vast array. I would have it as red and yellow only .
and another thing it should take about 10 seconds . where as now how many games end up killed off with the last 5 - 10 mins spent main dishing out cards and a litany of substitutions
I say call a time out with 5 minutes to go and last of the subs brought I and no more allowed under any Circumstances, Okay the had you dealt
If we are going to get rid of the black card because people are either too thick, or deliberately obtuse, to enforce it correctly or understand it, then at least have the balls to award yellow and red cards for the same behaviour. How likely is that though, or how likely is it that lads will go back to the sneaky drag down to allow defences get set up?
The rule book needs rewriting, and we're saying that for 10 years at least.
Quote from: sligoman2 on August 31, 2015, 02:16:06 AM
Not the fault of the black card but the inability of the refs to enforce them. I'm not a religious man but I am praying that the gaa will wake up to the need for more than one ref very soon.
It seems to me that the players, managers and team prep has moved on a lot in the past 10 years but the administration is light years behind in introducing common sense changes like 2 refs and a stop clock and many other rules.
It is the black card rules fault that the refs can't enforce them. There are far too many variables that occur to be able to make a cut and dry decision like is prescribed in the black card offences. It is making a complete hash of the game at the minute, just like many, many people said it would. There is something seriously wrong with the rules in a high octane, full blooded, contact sport where a player is asked to leave the field of play for one incident such as Mchael Darragh MacAuley or Denis Bastic yesterday, or Marc O'Se and Conor Meyler the week before, or many other examples of clumsy mistimed tackles that by the letter of the law are black card offences but are not worthy in my view of ending a persons involvement in the game. Yet, a tackle found the neck gets a yellow and the lad stays on the pitch. I can't believe we never fully give a chance to the sin bin, where at least any genuine referee mistakes doesn't completely righti off a players involvement in the match. The refs are only part of the problem, we have to make the rules enforceable in as consistent a way as possible, currently as they stand, they don't allow this to happen.
Edit. I fully agree AZ we need to sit down and rewrite the whole rule book, sanctions etc and tie up any loop holes etc.
Quote from: orangeman on August 30, 2015, 11:55:57 PM
Whelo ( and the rest ) don't think much of the black card after today's game. Funny that.
No, Whelan was equally as scathing of it after the Tyrone match, much to Brolly's annoyance.
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 31, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on August 31, 2015, 02:16:06 AM
Not the fault of the black card but the inability of the refs to enforce them. I'm not a religious man but I am praying that the gaa will wake up to the need for more than one ref very soon.
It seems to me that the players, managers and team prep has moved on a lot in the past 10 years but the administration is light years behind in introducing common sense changes like 2 refs and a stop clock and many other rules.
It is the black card rules fault that the refs can't enforce them. There are far too many variables that occur to be able to make a cut and dry decision like is prescribed in the black card offences. It is making a complete hash of the game at the minute, just like many, many people said it would. There is something seriously wrong with the rules in a high octane, full blooded, contact sport where a player is asked to leave the field of play for one incident such as Mchael Darragh MacAuley or Denis Bastic yesterday, or Marc O'Se and Conor Meyler the week before, or many other examples of clumsy mistimed tackles that by the letter of the law are black card offences but are not worthy in my view of ending a persons involvement in the game. Yet, a tackle found the neck gets a yellow and the lad stays on the pitch. I can't believe we never fully give a chance to the sin bin, where at least any genuine referee mistakes doesn't completely righti off a players involvement in the match. The refs are only part of the problem, we have to make the rules enforceable in as consistent a way as possible, currently as they stand, they don't allow this to happen.
Benny, who railed against the sinbin? The same people railing against the black card. People don't want to be punished severely for cynical play, because it's a lot easier to be cynical than to learn to defend properly.
So f**k out the black card, but next year when lads are back doing the old drag down, slow the game down, fouls 80 yards from their own goals, I don't want to hear the whinging.
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 31, 2015, 09:57:54 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 31, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on August 31, 2015, 02:16:06 AM
Not the fault of the black card but the inability of the refs to enforce them. I'm not a religious man but I am praying that the gaa will wake up to the need for more than one ref very soon.
It seems to me that the players, managers and team prep has moved on a lot in the past 10 years but the administration is light years behind in introducing common sense changes like 2 refs and a stop clock and many other rules.
It is the black card rules fault that the refs can't enforce them. There are far too many variables that occur to be able to make a cut and dry decision like is prescribed in the black card offences. It is making a complete hash of the game at the minute, just like many, many people said it would. There is something seriously wrong with the rules in a high octane, full blooded, contact sport where a player is asked to leave the field of play for one incident such as Mchael Darragh MacAuley or Denis Bastic yesterday, or Marc O'Se and Conor Meyler the week before, or many other examples of clumsy mistimed tackles that by the letter of the law are black card offences but are not worthy in my view of ending a persons involvement in the game. Yet, a tackle found the neck gets a yellow and the lad stays on the pitch. I can't believe we never fully give a chance to the sin bin, where at least any genuine referee mistakes doesn't completely righti off a players involvement in the match. The refs are only part of the problem, we have to make the rules enforceable in as consistent a way as possible, currently as they stand, they don't allow this to happen.
Benny, who railed against the sinbin? The same people railing against the black card. People don't want to be punished severely for cynical play, because it's a lot easier to be cynical than to learn to defend properly.
So f**k out the black card, but next year when lads are back doing the old drag down, slow the game down, fouls 80 yards from their own goals, I don't want to hear the whinging.
Jeez, AZ that's some generalisation to say that those who railed against the sin bin are now the same people who are railing against the black cards. I for one, was keen on the sin bin and remember it wasn't bought in particularly to deal with cynical play at the time. I think those who may have argued against it then and seeing the black card as an alternative might just be prepared to give it a go. Or we could just use the yellow and red cards properly and two cynical offences (yellows) and your gone. I don't think there'd be too many complaints from MDM for example if he got a yellow for yesterday's offence, did it again and was sent off! (Or sent off for 10mins if the sin bin was used)
I agree if the yellow and red cards were used properly, there'd be no need for anything else. But Refs didn't, and won't in future, give yellows for the little ticky tack cynical stuff which was driving us all nuts. The Black sledgehammer to crack the nut came in, and a lot of that behaviour is gone from the game.
I just think people are blaming the black card for stuff it wasn't designed to deal with. Like Cian O'Sullivan yesterday, that pull back was NOT a black card, but twitter went nuts with people saying it should have been.
I don't accept it's that complicated, but I do accept, now, that people are either deliberately or otherwise, finding it very difficult to understand. This is not helped by analysts and pundits who haven't the slightest clue and can't be bothered learning it either.
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 31, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on August 31, 2015, 02:16:06 AM
Not the fault of the black card but the inability of the refs to enforce them. I'm not a religious man but I am praying that the gaa will wake up to the need for more than one ref very soon.
It seems to me that the players, managers and team prep has moved on a lot in the past 10 years but the administration is light years behind in introducing common sense changes like 2 refs and a stop clock and many other rules.
It is the black card rules fault that the refs can't enforce them. There are far too many variables that occur to be able to make a cut and dry decision like is prescribed in the black card offences. It is making a complete hash of the game at the minute, just like many, many people said it would. There is something seriously wrong with the rules in a high octane, full blooded, contact sport where a player is asked to leave the field of play for one incident such as Mchael Darragh MacAuley or Denis Bastic yesterday, or Marc O'Se and Conor Meyler the week before, or many other examples of clumsy mistimed tackles that by the letter of the law are black card offences but are not worthy in my view of ending a persons involvement in the game. Yet, a tackle found the neck gets a yellow and the lad stays on the pitch. I can't believe we never fully give a chance to the sin bin, where at least any genuine referee mistakes doesn't completely righti off a players involvement in the match. The refs are only part of the problem, we have to make the rules enforceable in as consistent a way as possible, currently as they stand, they don't allow this to happen.
Edit. I fully agree AZ we need to sit down and rewrite the whole rule book, sanctions etc and tie up any loop holes etc.
Clumsy mistimed tackles are not black card offences by the latter of the law! Deliberate is the key word in the laws!
Quote from: westbound on August 31, 2015, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 31, 2015, 09:55:26 AM
Quote from: sligoman2 on August 31, 2015, 02:16:06 AM
Not the fault of the black card but the inability of the refs to enforce them. I'm not a religious man but I am praying that the gaa will wake up to the need for more than one ref very soon.
It seems to me that the players, managers and team prep has moved on a lot in the past 10 years but the administration is light years behind in introducing common sense changes like 2 refs and a stop clock and many other rules.
It is the black card rules fault that the refs can't enforce them. There are far too many variables that occur to be able to make a cut and dry decision like is prescribed in the black card offences. It is making a complete hash of the game at the minute, just like many, many people said it would. There is something seriously wrong with the rules in a high octane, full blooded, contact sport where a player is asked to leave the field of play for one incident such as Mchael Darragh MacAuley or Denis Bastic yesterday, or Marc O'Se and Conor Meyler the week before, or many other examples of clumsy mistimed tackles that by the letter of the law are black card offences but are not worthy in my view of ending a persons involvement in the game. Yet, a tackle found the neck gets a yellow and the lad stays on the pitch. I can't believe we never fully give a chance to the sin bin, where at least any genuine referee mistakes doesn't completely righti off a players involvement in the match. The refs are only part of the problem, we have to make the rules enforceable in as consistent a way as possible, currently as they stand, they don't allow this to happen.
Edit. I fully agree AZ we need to sit down and rewrite the whole rule book, sanctions etc and tie up any loop holes etc.
Clumsy mistimed tackles are not black card offences by the latter of the law! Deliberate is the key word in the laws!
I know, but players are getting black cards for it. That's the problem!
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 31, 2015, 10:29:04 AM
I agree if the yellow and red cards were used properly, there'd be no need for anything else. But Refs didn't, and won't in future, give yellows for the little ticky tack cynical stuff which was driving us all nuts. The Black sledgehammer to crack the nut came in, and a lot of that behaviour is gone from the game.
I just think people are blaming the black card for stuff it wasn't designed to deal with. Like Cian O'Sullivan yesterday, that pull back was NOT a black card, but twitter went nuts with people saying it should have been.
I don't accept it's that complicated, but I do accept, now, that people are either deliberately or otherwise, finding it very difficult to understand. This is not helped by analysts and pundits who haven't the slightest clue and can't be bothered learning it either.
I think the referees would gave the yellows if the black card went. The black card introduction resulted in a lot education of the black card rules (Brolly even went to a seminar about it). The GAA public and referees are more aware now of the black card/cynical fouls than pre introduction of the black card (granted some people don't know what is a black card offence).
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on August 31, 2015, 11:26:17 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 31, 2015, 10:29:04 AM
I agree if the yellow and red cards were used properly, there'd be no need for anything else. But Refs didn't, and won't in future, give yellows for the little ticky tack cynical stuff which was driving us all nuts. The Black sledgehammer to crack the nut came in, and a lot of that behaviour is gone from the game.
I just think people are blaming the black card for stuff it wasn't designed to deal with. Like Cian O'Sullivan yesterday, that pull back was NOT a black card, but twitter went nuts with people saying it should have been.
I don't accept it's that complicated, but I do accept, now, that people are either deliberately or otherwise, finding it very difficult to understand. This is not helped by analysts and pundits who haven't the slightest clue and can't be bothered learning it either.
I think the referees would gave the yellows if the black card went. The black card introduction resulted in a lot education of the black card rules (Brolly even went to a seminar about it). The GAA public and referees are more aware now of the black card/cynical fouls than pre introduction of the black card (granted some people don't know what is a black card offence).
They didn't do it before now, what makes you think they would (maybe apart from a brief 'focus on it' period at the start of the league) if we went back that way?
It is easier to award a yellow that black as it doesn't carry as harsh it a penalty. Cynical fouls are more in the conscious now and more likely to be called and carded.
For a brief period, then there'll be giving out about a 'harmless auld foul' on the opposition 20 metre line, and then there'll be lads giving out about getting the line for 'nothing' after they get a second yellow. After a period, refs will slowly stop giving the 'soft' yellows and then players and management will cotton on to it, and start fouling high up the field to break up counter attacks again, and we'll be back where we started.
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 31, 2015, 11:38:18 AM
For a brief period, then there'll be giving out about a 'harmless auld foul' on the opposition 20 metre line, and then there'll be lads giving out about getting the line for 'nothing' after they get a second yellow. After a period, refs will slowly stop giving the 'soft' yellows and then players and management will cotton on to it, and start fouling high up the field to break up counter attacks again, and we'll be back where we started.
That will be the job of the referees assessors to keep them honest and not to fall back into old habits, by punishing them for lack of cards. And also the job of the paid staff in Croke Park to run courses to keep the GAA public (especially the refs up to date on the rules).
Was Seamie O'Shea correctly black carded today ?.
Quote from: orangeman on September 05, 2015, 10:24:11 PM
Was Seamie O'Shea correctly black carded today ?.
NO. One of the very few incorrect calls from that ref today, that was a yellow.
Yes, it was a black. Can't understand why people saying it wasn't. Deliberate take down.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on September 05, 2015, 11:37:49 PM
Yes, it was a black. Can't understand why people saying it wasn't. Deliberate take down.
That's not the rule, there was no cynicism in it, it was a straight yellow (it was completely off the ball).
Read the Oul Treoir Oifigiuil ;)
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 05, 2015, 11:46:05 PM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on September 05, 2015, 11:37:49 PM
Yes, it was a black. Can't understand why people saying it wasn't. Deliberate take down.
That's not the rule, there was no cynicism in it, it was a straight yellow (it was completely off the ball).
That's exactly the rule, Fear. No mention of cynicism in the rule either.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 06, 2015, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 05, 2015, 11:46:05 PM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on September 05, 2015, 11:37:49 PM
Yes, it was a black. Can't understand why people saying it wasn't. Deliberate take down.
That's not the rule, there was no cynicism in it, it was a straight yellow (it was completely off the ball).
That's exactly the rule, Fear. No mention of cynicism in the rule either.
Agree that there's no explicit mention of 'cynicism'
per se, but that was the whole
raison d'etre of the black card's introduction, and this was completely off the ball, which kind of changes the interpretation I'd say.
Buy hey! The CCCC, CHC, CAC & DRA have difficulties with the interpretation, so we can cut ourselves a wee bit of slack! ;)
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 06, 2015, 12:27:49 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 06, 2015, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 05, 2015, 11:46:05 PM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on September 05, 2015, 11:37:49 PM
Yes, it was a black. Can't understand why people saying it wasn't. Deliberate take down.
That's not the rule, there was no cynicism in it, it was a straight yellow (it was completely off the ball).
That's exactly the rule, Fear. No mention of cynicism in the rule either.
Agree that there's no explicit mention of 'cynicism' per se, but that was the whole raison d'etre of the black card's introduction, and this was completely off the ball, which kind of changes the interpretation I'd say.
Buy hey! The CCCC, CHC, CAC & DRA have difficulties with the interpretation, so we can cut ourselves a wee bit of slack! ;)
The rule is "a deliberate pull down". It can't be much clearer no mention of on or off the ball... Should it matter? Kinsella was very good today I thought fair play!
Quote from: screenexile on September 06, 2015, 12:49:55 AM
The rule is "a deliberate pull down". It can't be much clearer no mention of on or off the ball... Should it matter? Kinsella was very good today I thought fair play!
Agreed, he was very good. Don't agree with the rest though, and I'm sure I'd have the DRA on my side; absolutely cast iron. And yes, of course it matters (that it was nowhere near the in-play ball).
that ain't a pull down, that was a manhandle and a throw down, a yellow card offence, bet it ain't covered under the black card rule, Refs seem to make these decisions up as they go along.
If the recently introduced black card didn't exist, would there still have been a sanction for Séamus O'Shea? Of course there would, a yellow card.
The black card is not there to replace any penalty, sin é.
Quote from: screenexile on September 06, 2015, 12:49:55 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 06, 2015, 12:27:49 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 06, 2015, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 05, 2015, 11:46:05 PM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on September 05, 2015, 11:37:49 PM
Yes, it was a black. Can't understand why people saying it wasn't. Deliberate take down.
That's not the rule, there was no cynicism in it, it was a straight yellow (it was completely off the ball).
That's exactly the rule, Fear. No mention of cynicism in the rule either.
Agree that there's no explicit mention of 'cynicism' per se, but that was the whole raison d'etre of the black card's introduction, and this was completely off the ball, which kind of changes the interpretation I'd say.
Buy hey! The CCCC, CHC, CAC & DRA have difficulties with the interpretation, so we can cut ourselves a wee bit of slack! ;)
The rule is "a deliberate pull down". It can't be much clearer no mention of on or off the ball... Should it matter? Kinsella was very good today I thought fair play!
He was very good and got this decision correct under the letter of the law. Under the spirit of the law he should have given a yellow card but that is the fault of the law makers. The black card was brought in so that we would have a rule to combat cynical play. What SOS did was not cynical play, it was retaliation to a dirty shoulder in the back from johnny cooper. Both players should have been yellow carded in the spirit of the rules of the game. again I'm not blaming the ref who had a great game. The unfortunate thing was that it was big turning point in the match as SOS was a big loss.
If O'Se deserved a black card for a pull down then surely Cooper deserved one for the deliberate body check which instigated the incident? Was that not a deliberate attempt to stop him getting involved in the play?
CHC have been busy.
It would be interesting to see how many black cards have been rescinded ( and yellows and reds as ell of course ) in this year's championship.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 06, 2015, 12:27:49 AM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on September 06, 2015, 12:20:31 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on September 05, 2015, 11:46:05 PM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on September 05, 2015, 11:37:49 PM
Yes, it was a black. Can't understand why people saying it wasn't. Deliberate take down.
That's not the rule, there was no cynicism in it, it was a straight yellow (it was completely off the ball).
That's exactly the rule, Fear. No mention of cynicism in the rule either.
Agree that there's no explicit mention of 'cynicism' per se, but that was the whole raison d'etre of the black card's introduction, and this was completely off the ball, which kind of changes the interpretation I'd say.
Buy hey! The CCCC, CHC, CAC & DRA have difficulties with the interpretation, so we can cut ourselves a wee bit of slack! ;)
The raison d'etre of the rule has nothing to do with it. That is only creating grey areas that are not needed and the deliberate part of the rule already does enough of that.
I'd guess there is no one who knows the raison d'etre for the introduction of every rule in the rule book. It is hard enough for players/referees to know what that actual rules are, never mind the reason for their introduction.
I think we can all he agree he deliberately fouled Cooper (retaliating on Cooper's foul) and he also pulled him down.
He didn't pull him down though, he threw him to the floor.
Was it not a pull and a throw? I must have a look at it again.
It was a straight yellow, no need for the black aspect.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on September 07, 2015, 03:35:24 PM
Was it not a pull and a throw? I must have a look at it again.
It was actually pretty dangerous, in that he grabbed him by the neck/face and forcefully threw him to the ground. 2 yellows. And the linesman looking straight at them. ::)
(http://giant.gfycat.com/CoordinatedArtisticDouglasfirbarkbeetle.gif)
What Cooper did was feck all. A little annoying shoulder into the back. Boyle did the very same to Connolly after Connolly had picked himself off the ground after losing the ball in the corner of the Hill/Cusack part of the pitch. And I'm sure there were a few similar instances too. Worthy of a noting, not a yellow card.
I would have given SOS a yellow or red (probably yellow) not black.
Of course Mayo would not have got the goal at that time had the black not happened. But in hindsight that might not have been a bad thing for them and anyone's guess how the game would have played out. I thought Seamie was poor the first day but was doing much better in the replay.
Quote from: Hound on September 07, 2015, 04:13:36 PM
What Cooper did was feck all. A little annoying shoulder into the back. Boyle did the very same to Connolly after Connolly had picked himself off the ground after losing the ball in the corner of the Hill/Cusack part of the pitch. And I'm sure there were a few similar instances too. Worthy of a noting, not a yellow card.
I would have given SOS a yellow or red (probably yellow) not black.
Of course Mayo would not have got the goal at that time had the black not happened. But in hindsight that might not have been a bad thing for them and anyone's guess how the game would have played out. I thought Seamie was poor the first day but was doing much better in the replay.
Agree not much in it and O Shea shouldn't have reacted but once you book one for off the ball shenanigans then you should book the other. Especially given he instigated it and it was right under the nose of the linesman who made a hames of the decision.
Yeah, Mayo probably pushed for home too soon.
Red, Yellow, Black - it's gas all three Cards have been mentioned and this with the benefit of hindsight and multiple replays. God our game is in a mess.
Red card, its not a red card offences, Jesus did half you`s play any Gaelic football at all in your time, cant believe some of the calls in reference to certain tackles. Coopers in the first game was a red card offence just like the Galways hurlers yesterday
It's a yellow.
O Shea shouldn t have reacted of course. But you could argue that Cooper deliberately shunting into O Shea well after he released the ball was the cynical 'black card' challenge. If that was from the front rather than back it would have been a nailed on black. So what's the difference? The hit still interfered with O Shea's momentum and contribution at that time and was deliberate. A cheap shot and I have to say Cooper was brilliant how he reacted when O Shea turned on him. He got a great result.
I d argue that Cooper should have been given the black because he took player out off the ball and Seamie a yellow for his retaliation.
If Mayo had won I don t think SOS had enough cards to keep him out of final but if he did decide to appeal that card ( I actually think he should anyway), he would get off. He got wrong card. If he got a yellow - it was a yellow. If he got a red - harsh. But black was introduced fouling that interfered with the the flow of the game. Unfortunately another ref. and his assistants cobble up decisions. The game is a mess. At this stage it's like a magician doing card tricks. Guess the card.
Read Rule 5.10.
Jimmy's in agreement.
"It should be acknowledged that Saturday's match was a marvellous game of football. The referee, Eddie Kinsella, officiated really well, except for the black card he issued to Seamus O'Shea. I felt that it was a wrong interpretation of the rule and that it ought to have been a yellow card. In my opinion, he didn't cynically take the Dublin player to the ground. He threw him aside after an off-the ball altercation. It robbed Mayo of a critically important midfield figure and it is a shame that the black card, which has been prone to consistently problematic interpretations, can have such major bearing on a match of this magnitude."
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/jim-mcguinness-mayo-s-game-plan-came-up-short-at-crucial-moment-1.2343465 (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/jim-mcguinness-mayo-s-game-plan-came-up-short-at-crucial-moment-1.2343465)
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on September 08, 2015, 02:49:27 PM
Jimmy's in agreement.
"It should be acknowledged that Saturday's match was a marvellous game of football. The referee, Eddie Kinsella, officiated really well, except for the black card he issued to Seamus O'Shea. I felt that it was a wrong interpretation of the rule and that it ought to have been a yellow card. In my opinion, he didn't cynically take the Dublin player to the ground. He threw him aside after an off-the ball altercation. It robbed Mayo of a critically important midfield figure and it is a shame that the black card, which has been prone to consistently problematic interpretations, can have such major bearing on a match of this magnitude."
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/jim-mcguinness-mayo-s-game-plan-came-up-short-at-crucial-moment-1.2343465 (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/jim-mcguinness-mayo-s-game-plan-came-up-short-at-crucial-moment-1.2343465)
And I would agree with Jimmy
Yellow and red is all there should be, this black card nonsense is unnecessary, simplify things for these referees not complicate them by giving them more options upon which to decide a players fate!
Quote from: stew on September 08, 2015, 08:16:17 PM
Yellow and red is all there should be, this black card nonsense is unnecessary, simplify things for these referees not complicate them by giving them more options upon which to decide a players fate!
If that's the case, then enforce the rules. The reason the black card came in was because those pissy drag downs out the field were getting ticks or nothing at all. Give a yellow and it might stop it.
Would a sin bin not be a better solution for the black than sending a player off? It means the player / team will still get punished for cynical play but also leaves that should the referee make a mistake with his decision then it is not a permanent punishment. Its hard to not to feel sorry for somebody that genuinely makes a clumsy challenge and gets a black card. Possibly having trained for months on end to have his season ended by one stupid mistake.
I don't think there is any other sport in the world where the rules are tinkered with so much. And as if the rules weren't hard enough for the referees they introduce, in my opinion, a very blurry rule that again leaves it up to the referees discretion. The black card has caused referees more and more hassle since it has been introduced and their job has become an even more thankless one.
The GAA democratically threw out sin bin proposals some years ago.
I suspect one reason for that would be the difficulty of implementing it in a U14 Div 4 League game on a wet Tuesday in Ballinameen when you'd be lucky to get a Ref never mind a neutral Sideline official.
I do remember it being discussed alright, but if there's a ref with a stopwatch then in my opinion its a better solution than the current one. In saying that, anything is a better solution than the current one.
Being more lenient is no solution at all. A black that ends the player's game and prevents a sub being introduced for ten minutes might cut a lot of the abuse of the system we currently see.
Some interesting interpretations of the carta dubh today in the club semi finals today in particular the Clonmel game.
:o
Quote from: orangeman on February 13, 2016, 10:13:34 PM
Some interesting interpretations of the carta dubh today in the club semi finals today in particular the Clonmel game.
:o
But Cassidy was referee so interesting interpretations are the norm!
SIN BIN.
Quote from: Syferus on September 10, 2015, 04:29:08 AM
Being more lenient is no solution at all. A black that ends the player's game and prevents a sub being introduced for ten minutes might cut a lot of the abuse of the system we currently see.
That's still doesn't solve the huge inconsistencies of the application of the black card.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on February 15, 2016, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: Syferus on September 10, 2015, 04:29:08 AM
Being more lenient is no solution at all. A black that ends the player's game and prevents a sub being introduced for ten minutes might cut a lot of the abuse of the system we currently see.
That's still doesn't solve the huge inconsistencies of the application of the black card.
I think the problem this year is that referees have been listening to the pundits too much. A black card should be hard to get, but pundits continuously moan (mostly wrongly) that various incidents should have seen additional black cards.
Apart from third man tackles to take a man out of the game, which I think are obvious enough and now quite rare, the primary way to get a black card is to deliberately take a man to the ground. So the ref has to be happy that the defender is not making an attempt to play the ball, but only has the intention of bringing his man to the ground. That's a high enough bar to get over, and I thought in the main it was reffed very well last year.
But this year a lot of the refs seem to have lowered that bar.
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2016, 09:25:41 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on February 15, 2016, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: Syferus on September 10, 2015, 04:29:08 AM
Being more lenient is no solution at all. A black that ends the player's game and prevents a sub being introduced for ten minutes might cut a lot of the abuse of the system we currently see.
That's still doesn't solve the huge inconsistencies of the application of the black card.
I think the problem this year is that referees have been listening to the pundits too much. A black card should be hard to get, but pundits continuously moan (mostly wrongly) that various incidents should have seen additional black cards.
Apart from third man tackles to take a man out of the game, which I think are obvious enough and now quite rare, the primary way to get a black card is to deliberately take a man to the ground. So the ref has to be happy that the defender is not making an attempt to play the ball, but only has the intention of bringing his man to the ground. That's a high enough bar to get over, and I thought in the main it was reffed very well last year.
But this year a lot of the refs seem to have lowered that bar.
I would agree with all of that (apart from the fact I don't think it has ever been well refereed)
There just seems to be this ever fuzzier between a yellow card and a black card.
We also seem to have fallen into this trap of thinking every foul now deserves a card of some colour.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on February 15, 2016, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2016, 09:25:41 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on February 15, 2016, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: Syferus on September 10, 2015, 04:29:08 AM
Being more lenient is no solution at all. A black that ends the player's game and prevents a sub being introduced for ten minutes might cut a lot of the abuse of the system we currently see.
That's still doesn't solve the huge inconsistencies of the application of the black card.
I think the problem this year is that referees have been listening to the pundits too much. A black card should be hard to get, but pundits continuously moan (mostly wrongly) that various incidents should have seen additional black cards.
Apart from third man tackles to take a man out of the game, which I think are obvious enough and now quite rare, the primary way to get a black card is to deliberately take a man to the ground. So the ref has to be happy that the defender is not making an attempt to play the ball, but only has the intention of bringing his man to the ground. That's a high enough bar to get over, and I thought in the main it was reffed very well last year.
But this year a lot of the refs seem to have lowered that bar.
I would agree with all of that (apart from the fact I don't think it has ever been well refereed)
There just seems to be this ever fuzzier between a yellow card and a black card.
We also seem to have fallen into this trap of thinking every foul now deserves a card of some colour.
Listen to the managers, subs, crowds when a foul occurs. There are shouts of black, yellow or red - no one knows.
Quote from: orangeman on February 15, 2016, 11:32:49 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on February 15, 2016, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2016, 09:25:41 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on February 15, 2016, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: Syferus on September 10, 2015, 04:29:08 AM
Being more lenient is no solution at all. A black that ends the player's game and prevents a sub being introduced for ten minutes might cut a lot of the abuse of the system we currently see.
That's still doesn't solve the huge inconsistencies of the application of the black card.
I think the problem this year is that referees have been listening to the pundits too much. A black card should be hard to get, but pundits continuously moan (mostly wrongly) that various incidents should have seen additional black cards.
Apart from third man tackles to take a man out of the game, which I think are obvious enough and now quite rare, the primary way to get a black card is to deliberately take a man to the ground. So the ref has to be happy that the defender is not making an attempt to play the ball, but only has the intention of bringing his man to the ground. That's a high enough bar to get over, and I thought in the main it was reffed very well last year.
But this year a lot of the refs seem to have lowered that bar.
I would agree with all of that (apart from the fact I don't think it has ever been well refereed)
There just seems to be this ever fuzzier between a yellow card and a black card.
We also seem to have fallen into this trap of thinking every foul now deserves a card of some colour.
Listen to the managers, subs, crowds when a foul occurs. There are shouts of black, yellow or red - no one knows.
That bugs the life out of me. I was in front of a vociferous Castlebar boy the other day and every foul was met with 'where's the black card ref?'. I was tempted to give him a black card up the hole but the kids were with me!
Never occur to such eejits to read the playing rules once a year ::)
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 14, 2016, 04:19:55 PM
SIN BIN.
The Black Card, the refs or the Rule Book?
Can any knowledgable person here please explain to me why Quinlivan's tackle was a Black Card? I saw it once on the box and it just looked like a slightly aggressive hit but no more. What did I miss?
Quote from: muppet on February 15, 2016, 08:00:31 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 14, 2016, 04:19:55 PM
SIN BIN.
The Black Card, the refs or the Rule Book?
Can any knowledgable person here please explain to me why Quinlivan's tackle was a Black Card? I saw it once on the box and it just looked like a slightly aggressive hit but no more. What did I miss?
I have to say I thought the same.only seen it once. But to me it was never a black card.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on February 15, 2016, 11:49:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on February 15, 2016, 08:00:31 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on February 14, 2016, 04:19:55 PM
SIN BIN.
The Black Card, the refs or the Rule Book?
Can any knowledgable person here please explain to me why Quinlivan's tackle was a Black Card? I saw it once on the box and it just looked like a slightly aggressive hit but no more. What did I miss?
I have to say I thought the same.only seen it once. But to me it was never a black card.
That was a terrible call by the Ref, it sucked the life out of Clonmel. It was barely a free imo.
after watching Mayo and monaghan and Kerry Donegal you have to come to the conclusion Black card has become totally discredited. Fair enough aidan o se got a black Card early and if that was the ref Laying down the guidelines for the game I have no problem . but for the redt of the game the Exact same tackle was either not punished or received a ticking of equally meaning less yellow card.
again I have no problem with Keegans card exactly the type of foul it was introduced for but MAyo wer subject to several identical tackle and no black card.
and how Donegal received no Black card to Kerrys 2 is an absolute mystery.
I think Croke Park should accept the fact the ref's are incapable to implementing the rule (as they are of the advantage Rule) and Scrap It completely
Wait till you see the balls the Like of Kinsella and Mc quillian will make of the Mark
What did Aidan o'Shea do to get his black card? (I didn't see the game)
I was there but my view was obstructed looks likE a rugby tackle which is a black card if that's what happened though how a tacked on a surrounded back can be construed as cynical is beyond me. but thems the Rules.
Deliberate pull down is black card rule (if that's what he did?).
It wasn't a black card, if anything it should have been a yellow (possibly red by some refs). It was a high tackle, arm swung around the neck.
I am not arguing O Sheas card at all . Just why the rule was not applied to all such incidences
though I had to laugh at RTE saying it was a controversial card and then just showing him being given the card and not the incident?
Quality analysis
I'm convinced RTE have some transition year student on work experience putting the highlights packages together for League Sunday.
If one of the goalkeepers spontaneously combusted as he was about to take a kick-out, there's a good chance it wouldn't make the cut.
Quote from: Jinxy on March 07, 2016, 03:27:01 PM
I'm convinced RTE have some transition year student on work experience putting the highlights packages together for League Sunday.
If one of the goalkeepers spontaneously combusted as he was about to take a kick-out, there's a good chance it wouldn't make the cut.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Jinxy on March 07, 2016, 03:27:01 PM
I'm convinced RTE have some transition year student on work experience putting the highlights packages together for League Sunday.
+1.
From some rubby playing school no doubt >:(
Black card - great rule. At times its badly implemented. Its not doing anything to punish the blocking of the quick free or the jersey pull. The punishment for these 2 cynical fouls remains inadequate.
It looking at the rules there needs to a clearer link between the new rule and the problem it is trying to address. The mark ruling is ok. High fielding is a tremendous skill and it is drifting out of the game. But I'm not sure the mark will work on its own as a lot of kicks will still be aimed short or to a free player who receives it after it has bounced. The mark will nothing to address the issue of packed defences.
A ruling that a team must have 6 forwards inside their attacking 45 at kick outs might work. A trial to see how much it delays restarts would be required.
This rule could work in tandem with the mark.
I know this will trigger the usual "leave the game alone" response but the game is worth salvaging and lets do that now.
itss a shit rule , Kerrys ounishment for a black Card was to be forced to play the Gooch
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2016, 08:51:32 AM
Black card - great rule. At times its badly implemented. Its not doing anything to punish the blocking of the quick free or the jersey pull. The punishment for these 2 cynical fouls remains inadequate.
It looking at the rules there needs to a clearer link between the new rule and the problem it is trying to address. The mark ruling is ok. High fielding is a tremendous skill and it is drifting out of the game. But I'm not sure the mark will work on its own as a lot of kicks will still be aimed short or to a free player who receives it after it has bounced. The mark will nothing to address the issue of packed defences.
A ruling that a team must have 6 forwards inside their attacking 45 at kick outs might work. A trial to see how much it delays restarts would be required.
This rule could work in tandem with the mark.
I know this will trigger the usual "leave the game alone" response but the game is worth salvaging and lets do that now.
I was against the Black card from the start and I haven't seen anything since to make me think that its ' a great rule'
I do agree though that it is badly implemented (which was always likely to be the case and one of the reasons i was against it in the first place)
Quote from: smelmoth on March 08, 2016, 08:51:32 AM
Black card - great rule. At times its badly implemented. Its not doing anything to punish the blocking of the quick free or the jersey pull. The punishment for these 2 cynical fouls remains inadequate.
It looking at the rules there needs to a clearer link between the new rule and the problem it is trying to address. The mark ruling is ok. High fielding is a tremendous skill and it is drifting out of the game. But I'm not sure the mark will work on its own as a lot of kicks will still be aimed short or to a free player who receives it after it has bounced. The mark will nothing to address the issue of packed defences.
A ruling that a team must have 6 forwards inside their attacking 45 at kick outs might work. A trial to see how much it delays restarts would be required.
This rule could work in tandem with the mark.
I know this will trigger the usual "leave the game alone" response but the game is worth salvaging and lets do that now.
Totally agree about the quick free one. Tyrone and Donegal in particular get a man in front of the taker immediately every time and they simply don't mind losing a few yards when the ref moves it forward because they have all their defenders back in place. If they are ever turned over you can guarantee there will be a cynical foul within a few seconds if possible and someone will get in front of the taker to start a pushing match and allow their teammates to get back in position. It should be the responsibility of the offending team to clear the area immediately and if they are deliberately obstructing the free it should be a black card. This would be one area of the game which should be simple to police and it would clean up many of the current problems in the game.
So it seems a few more people are coming to realise the issues with the black card after another weekend of controversial decisions.
I would love to see stats of all the black cards issued in the championship since its inception and how man of those decisions where actually correct, I would say the percentage might only be 50-60 % if that.
And thats with the countries top referees trying to apply the rules, what hope has club football got of getting these calls correct?
I read Eugene McGee yesterday giving out about the defensive play in the Ulster Final and giving out in general on defensive set ups.
He is one of the people who dreamed up this fad. Defenders can no longer defend in the old fashioned sense due to the black card and attackers particularly running attackers have a huge advantage. Managers are left to have non-conformist formations in part due to the black card.
It is no coincidence that all of the country went sweeper mad around the same time this card was introduced.
Conor Gormley was saying something similar on newstalk last night. He wants rid of it now. It appears to me that the majority of the recently retired players want it gone.
So we go back to just continuously fouling forwards?
I laughed reading McGee's article where he complained about the lack of big hits in the Ulster final.
I thought there was a few big shoulders and the biggest hit ended in Mattie Donnelly getting a black card.
It has made the job of the referee even harder I think as it gives them another decision to make and there is a lot of ambiguity now with what is yellow and what is black.
The BBC panel talked about the black card for verbals to the umpire but nobody has even been black carded for that before and so why should they now. I think they wanted to address two main incidents and that was the taking the man out of play (like a third man tackle) or blocking off the run of someone which I agree was creeping more and more into the game but a yellow was suffice I think. The other was the very cynical pulling a man down or tripping him just to stop their progress, especially in the closing stages of a match. This seems to still happen so again I don't think the black card has solved this problem though maybe prevented it from happening earlier in the game.
I think Donegal's style of ultimate defensive football was there before the black card but definitely more teams use it now as a way around being left one on one with a good player and so avoiding a black card situation.
Mayo fans obviously love it Colm Boyle got a standing ovation the other night ;D
Magee thinks the card is working well and now wants professional referees as it's not the rule it's the referee.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 19, 2016, 10:33:50 AM
So we go back to just continuously fouling forwards?
Are there less frees in the game now than there was before the black card?
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Sadly, I'm a beaten man with regards the black card. I still think as a rule it was a noble idea, and I also think it could have, and should have, been a much more successful one. However, in large part to media stupidity, there is a serious lack of understanding about what should and should not be a black card. I don't think it's that complicated, the rule says
Cynical Behaviour Fouls
Deliberately pull down an opponent.
Deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
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.
Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate.
Remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
I mean, they are fairly clear and unambiguous. And while there are undoubtedly cynical fouls that are MISSING from that list, the list itself is fairly concise and clear in my view. And as somebody said, the key word in there is DELIBERATE.
That, in my view, is what is causing the inconsistency among referees, because something being deliberate or not is Subjective. Whether it was a trip, or a pull down, or a body collision is a matter of fact. But whether it was deliberate is where we are asking the referee to make a judgment call. And as Zulu says, he should be as convinced as he can be that it was a deliberate foul before he issues a black card.
So, in its simplest terms a ref sees a piece of action, where a foul has been committed. He must ask himself two questions.
1 - Is it one of the listed fouls?
and if it was
2 - Is it deliberate.
Only then should it be a black card. I cannot see how that can be confusing, or complicated. Of course refs will differ in 'deliberate' judgments, but that's hardly a reason for all this controversy.
And then I hear Tommy Tom Carr talking and I despair. Other media are as bad, but Tommy is just cat malojeon. He literally has no clue of what constitutes a black card foul, and he also seems to have no understanding of deliberate.
The black card will probably have to go, because the media have made such a balls of commenting on incidents, and I've been really surprised that Joe Brolly hasn't been hammering pundits who make a balls of informing viewers about what is/isn't, should/shouldn't be a black card.
So while I think the black card was a good idea in principle, and I would have expanded it to include Diving or feigning injury as a black card offence. But I have to accept that the media have clouded the waters so much, and the refs have been so inconsistent in their determination of deliberate or not, that it is probably not salvageable at this stage.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.
I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey. And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.
This is the sort of nonsense that annoys me, if the referees are getting it wrong as often as they are getting it right, then of course there is an issue.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.
I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey. And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.
It's not complicated on paper but the interpretation of it is complicated. How on earth can a third party decide intention? I've heard discussions about whether a player has taken a step towards an oncoming player therefore it's definitely intentional or he should have dived out of the way therefore it was intentional. These things happen in a split second, sometimes the player himself may not even be sure why he did something as it's such a reactionary thing. I personally think it is the most complicated rule to try and implement although it does look simple when written down on paper.
Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.
Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.
There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.
You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.
It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.
Agree the muppets (no offence muppet 8)) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on July 19, 2016, 12:24:07 PM
It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.
Agree the muppets (no offence muppet 8)) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.
Ffs, now we are judging intention by whether the player acts guilty afterwards!! Matty was steaming towards the player and in the instant it took for the play to unfold he collided with McHugh. Now id be very surprised if Matty had time to intentionally say to himself, "right, I'm doing him here, I'm happy to consider the consequences and feel that the benefit of thumping into McHugh outweighs the cost of being sent off" Whatever about intent or not, the greyness of so many of these instances mean that a player leaving the field for good is not justified, in my view!
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:16:49 PM
Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.
Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.
There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.
You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.
the worst thing about the black card i it does nothing to solve the problem it was brought in to fix.
Last minute of a game, 2 points down, your shooting for goal when sean cavanagh(colm boyle?) come flying through the air with a rugby tackle. cavanagh black carded Goal chance gone , cavanagh wins you lose, Black cards just takes up time you could be looking for an equaliser.
As for the other reason for the Black card they were all yellow or reds under the old system anyway. any one who abuses a ref or deliberately trips should get red anyway
Quote from: rosnarun on July 19, 2016, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:16:49 PM
Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.
Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.
There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.
You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.
the worst thing about the black card i it does nothing to solve the problem it was brought in to fix.
Last minute of a game, 2 points down, your shooting for goal when sean cavanagh(colm boyle?) come flying through the air with a rugby tackle. cavanagh black carded Goal chance gone , cavanagh wins you lose, Black cards just takes up time you could be looking for an equaliser.
As for the other reason for the Black card they were all yellow or reds under the old system anyway. any one who abuses a ref or deliberately trips should get red anyway
It wasn't brought in to address that. In fact when it came in I remember saying that that would still happen, and as a player I'd still do that and take the card.
It was brought in to try and address cynical fouling, all through the game and all through the pitch. The shitty corner forward dragging down a back after a turnover, to kill the break, and allow his team get set. Those incidents don't look sexy and weren't on any video, but that is what the black card was primarily aimed at, and has been relatively successful at doing.
Quote from: BennyHarp on July 19, 2016, 12:32:08 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on July 19, 2016, 12:24:07 PM
It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.
Agree the muppets (no offence muppet 8)) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.
Ffs, now we are judging intention by whether the player acts guilty afterwards!! Matty was steaming towards the player and in the instant it took for the play to unfold he collided with McHugh. Now id be very surprised if Matty had time to intentionally say to himself, "right, I'm doing him here, I'm happy to consider the consequences and feel that the benefit of thumping into McHugh outweighs the cost of being sent off" Whatever about intent or not, the greyness of so many of these instances mean that a player leaving the field for good is not justified, in my view!
Ball was well gone before he landed and carried himself into McHugh. For me there wasn't enough deliberate action to confirm a black card offence but there was enough to force the referee into making a decision. Unfortunately for Matty he came out the wrong end of it but if he tries to pull out he takes away that decision from the ref and probably clips McHugh as well for good measure.
I didn't see the Donnelly incident, but I saw the other two.
In my view mcshane did trip the Dongal player, and it was deliberate. - Black.
In my view Murphy did collide with McCann, but it was not a deliberate collision. - Not Black.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:37:03 PM
It was brought in to try and address cynical fouling, all through the game and all through the pitch. The shitty corner forward dragging down a back after a turnover, to kill the break, and allow his team get set. Those incidents don't look sexy and weren't on any video, but that is what the black card was primarily aimed at, and has been relatively successful at doing.
Cynical is the important word here and defining what is a cynical foul and what isn't is proving to be a bit difficult.
I agree with AZ above and whilst McShane's contact was very slight, he did reach out his hand and touch the defenders foot/leg and so stopped his progress from clearing the ball. Was it intentional? Hard to be 100% sure but it looked like it otherwise he was protecting himself from being stood on.
Personally I think ONLY the VERY clear cut cynical fouls should result in black cards and so any where there is an element of doubt over the intentional aspect should result in a yellow. A guy who definitely pulls a man down clearly to stop a scoring chance etc should be a black but if you pull a man back or down where there are lots of other players around then I don't see that as being that cynical.
The verbal abuse part of the rule seems to have been totally ignored.
Refs used to be reluctant to issue cards now the throw them out without thinking.
A card should be a last resort for a referee.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.
I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey. And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.
Couldn't agree more with this!
So many people are clueless on what is/isn't a black card. And you are 100% correct that it's coming from the media not having a clue. Tom Carr shouldn't be let near a microphone again until he learns the rules!
Like you say, it's not that complicated, there are only 5 possible black card offences!!
Quote from: westbound on July 19, 2016, 01:18:04 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.
I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey. And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.
Couldn't agree more with this!
So many people are clueless on what is/isn't a black card. And you are 100% correct that it's coming from the media not having a clue. Tom Carr shouldn't be let near a microphone again until he learns the rules!
Like you say, it's not that complicated, there are only 5 possible black card offences!!
Obviously we all know the shortcomings with how the black card offences were defined, but in reality any pull of a jersey should be a black card.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on July 19, 2016, 12:38:56 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on July 19, 2016, 12:32:08 PM
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on July 19, 2016, 12:24:07 PM
It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.
Agree the muppets (no offence muppet 8)) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.
Ffs, now we are judging intention by whether the player acts guilty afterwards!! Matty was steaming towards the player and in the instant it took for the play to unfold he collided with McHugh. Now id be very surprised if Matty had time to intentionally say to himself, "right, I'm doing him here, I'm happy to consider the consequences and feel that the benefit of thumping into McHugh outweighs the cost of being sent off" Whatever about intent or not, the greyness of so many of these instances mean that a player leaving the field for good is not justified, in my view!
Ball was well gone before he landed and carried himself into McHugh. For me there wasn't enough deliberate action to confirm a black card offence but there was enough to force the referee into making a decision. Unfortunately for Matty he came out the wrong end of it but if he tries to pull out he takes away that decision from the ref and probably clips McHugh as well for good measure.
Agree, even though I wanted Tyrone to win, thought he had ample opportunity to attempt to pull out of tackle. He was also having a poor game, gave away one stupid free(point) and then did not pass to open man during a prior attack. May have played into it a bit.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 12:10:51 PM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 12:00:36 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on July 19, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: Canalman on July 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM
Black card is working fine imo.
Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.
Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.
At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.
I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.
Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.
This is the sort of nonsense that annoys me, if the referees are getting it wrong as often as they are getting it right, then of course there is an issue.
I don't think the referees are getting it wrong that often. Like all decisions people agree or disagree on them but even after multiple viewings and days to consider it the posters on this board can't agree on Donnelly's black for a start. Of the black cards I saw over the weekend, both the Roscommon ones were correct, Colm Boyle's was correct and both the Tyrone ones were incorrect IMO but I can see why they could be deemed black cards. That's a pretty good strike rate for refs and a pretty bad reflection on our players.
Quote from: rosnarun on July 19, 2016, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:16:49 PM
Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.
Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.
There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.
You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.
the worst thing about the black card i it does nothing to solve the problem it was brought in to fix.
Last minute of a game, 2 points down, your shooting for goal when sean cavanagh(colm boyle?) come flying through the air with a rugby tackle. cavanagh black carded Goal chance gone , cavanagh wins you lose, Black cards just takes up time you could be looking for an equaliser.
As for the other reason for the Black card they were all yellow or reds under the old system anyway. any one who abuses a ref or deliberately trips should get red anyway
Rugby and soccer have the same issue.
How do you stop someone taking a yellow/black for the team?
They're doing it to prevent a score, so the obvious thing is to increase the likelihood that the attacking team WILL score as a result of the offence.
I think a black card conceded within the defending team's half should also result in the automatic awarding of a 21 yard free.
Quote from: Fuzzman on July 19, 2016, 01:08:04 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:37:03 PM
It was brought in to try and address cynical fouling, all through the game and all through the pitch. The shitty corner forward dragging down a back after a turnover, to kill the break, and allow his team get set. Those incidents don't look sexy and weren't on any video, but that is what the black card was primarily aimed at, and has been relatively successful at doing.
Cynical is the important word here and defining what is a cynical foul and what isn't is proving to be a bit difficult.
I agree with AZ above and whilst McShane's contact was very slight, he did reach out his hand and touch the defenders foot/leg and so stopped his progress from clearing the ball. Was it intentional? Hard to be 100% sure but it looked like it otherwise he was protecting himself from being stood on.
Personally I think ONLY the VERY clear cut cynical fouls should result in black cards and so any where there is an element of doubt over the intentional aspect should result in a yellow. A guy who definitely pulls a man down clearly to stop a scoring chance etc should be a black but if you pull a man back or down where there are lots of other players around then I don't see that as being that cynical.
The verbal abuse part of the rule seems to have been totally ignored.
I agree Fuzzman, a ref should only award a free or issue a card when they are 100% sure of what happened. However, as others point out, you'll have clowns like Tomas O'Se saying they ducked out of giving black cards if they give yellows when unsure if it was deliberate. My main gripe with referees is the guessing many seem to do which results is frees for nothing and players incorrectly carded. A guy can't be blamed for missing a foul but he can be justifiably criticised for giving a free/card for presuming something happened that he didn't see.
I agree with that. He has to go back to the 2 questions I keep referring to. He will have to make a call on deliberate or not, but if he is sure it's deliberate in his view, then it's black. If it's not, he can't give one.
Quote from: Jinxy on July 19, 2016, 01:38:38 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on July 19, 2016, 12:32:24 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 12:16:49 PM
Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.
Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.
There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.
You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that
I think a black card conceded within the defending team's half should also result in the automatic awarding of a 21 yard free.
You could take it a step farther and award a penalty regardless of where the offence is. Actually you could apply that to straight reds as well. Be interesting to see how that would impact on players behaviour.
It would certainly encourage diving even more ! :)
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 19, 2016, 01:50:54 PM
It would certainly encourage diving even more ! :)
Diving brought in as a black card offence. Just to really give the refs something to think about. 8 to 10 goals per game with specialist penalty takers brought on like NFL field goal kickers!
I think my idea is really good.
Bernard Flynn isn't a fan....
Bernard Flynn finds Jarlath Burns' defence of the black card rather unpalatable.
The former Meath attacker is adamant that the controversial third card has to go and insists that his fellow county man David Gough was right to keep it in his pocket during Sunday's classic All-Ireland semi-final between Dublin and Kerry.
Referring in rather colourful terms to the chairman of the Standing Rules Committee, Flynn told RTE:
"Jarlath Burns came out this week and I nearly got sick and threw up on top of the paper when I read it, with all due respect, and he said the black card is doing its job – it is not doing its job.
"It has to be got rid of ASAP. Everyone is saying it, managers and players alike. A good referee will use the yellow and red and that's all you need.
"David Gough... in his mind, he said, 'there's no black card in my game today'. That's what made it a great game. The way he refereed it was one of the main reasons we got a great game.
"I thought the referee tried his best to let it go. The Kerry people won't be too happy with one or two decisions, a few 50-50 calls went against them. I just thought it was something special.
"He did everything he could to say, get rid of the black card and he refereed the game the way it should be refereed."
Never mind the Standing Rules Committee, we need a Manly Rules Committee.
So Bernard Flynn is a mind reader now!
On the broader picture if,as being alleged, Gough decided not to implement some rules and thereby allegedly made the game better - is it not time to abolish a scatter of rules??
Generally the over carrying and handpass rules are seldom implemented for a start.
Bernard Flynn is a dope.
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 30, 2016, 12:23:49 PM
Bernard Flynn isn't a fan....
Bernard Flynn finds Jarlath Burns' defence of the black card rather unpalatable.
The former Meath attacker is adamant that the controversial third card has to go and insists that his fellow county man David Gough was right to keep it in his pocket during Sunday's classic All-Ireland semi-final between Dublin and Kerry.
Referring in rather colourful terms to the chairman of the Standing Rules Committee, Flynn told RTE:
"Jarlath Burns came out this week and I nearly got sick and threw up on top of the paper when I read it, with all due respect, and he said the black card is doing its job – it is not doing its job.
"It has to be got rid of ASAP. Everyone is saying it, managers and players alike. A good referee will use the yellow and red and that's all you need.
"David Gough... in his mind, he said, 'there's no black card in my game today'. That's what made it a great game. The way he refereed it was one of the main reasons we got a great game.
"I thought the referee tried his best to let it go. The Kerry people won't be too happy with one or two decisions, a few 50-50 calls went against them. I just thought it was something special.
"He did everything he could to say, get rid of the black card and he refereed the game the way it should be refereed."
Uummm...
Great, another champion of the UFC-isation of our games.
'Let the game flow' = let's keep moving towards no rules.
He's got a point though, David Gough clearly didn't want to use the black card in that game. Off the top of my head he gave a yellow to Fenton for a clearly third man block away from play and to McMahon for screaming abuse at the umpire following Kerry's second goal. I'm not being a Tymoanie here but we had two players black carded in an ulster final that weren't as obvious as the two in the semi. Would love to see an analysis of the average amount of black cards given in AI semi/finals versus first round games since it's inception. Maybe I am wrong but the only one standing out for me in the AI county/club final was Ritchie Feeney a few years back.
BTW, I think Gough reffed the game fantastically on Sunday and he contributed greatly to the development of the spectacle.
Quote from: BennyHarp on August 30, 2016, 12:23:49 PM
Bernard Flynn isn't a fan....
Bernard Flynn finds Jarlath Burns' defence of the black card rather unpalatable.
The former Meath attacker is adamant that the controversial third card has to go and insists that his fellow county man David Gough was right to keep it in his pocket during Sunday's classic All-Ireland semi-final between Dublin and Kerry.
Referring in rather colourful terms to the chairman of the Standing Rules Committee, Flynn told RTE:
"Jarlath Burns came out this week and I nearly got sick and threw up on top of the paper when I read it, with all due respect, and he said the black card is doing its job – it is not doing its job.
"It has to be got rid of ASAP. Everyone is saying it, managers and players alike. A good referee will use the yellow and red and that's all you need.
"David Gough... in his mind, he said, 'there's no black card in my game today'. That's what made it a great game. The way he refereed it was one of the main reasons we got a great game.
"I thought the referee tried his best to let it go. The Kerry people won't be too happy with one or two decisions, a few 50-50 calls went against them. I just thought it was something special.
"He did everything he could to say, get rid of the black card and he refereed the game the way it should be refereed."
Exaggerate much Bernanrd? Since when did he become a spokeperson for the GAA fraternity.
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Great, another champion of the UFC-isation of our games.
'Let the game flow' = let's keep moving towards no rules.
C'mon Muppet, hardly UFC-isation. There wasn't a dirty/nasty stroke pulled in that entire game but some other refs would have sucked the life out of it. The McMenamin challenge was a result of a dub player crossing Gough's view at the moment of impact and I think he gave the tackler the benefit of the doubt. A wrong decision but entirely understandable one.
Quote from: omagh_gael on August 30, 2016, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Great, another champion of the UFC-isation of our games.
'Let the game flow' = let's keep moving towards no rules.
C'mon Muppet, hardly UFC-isation. There wasn't a dirty/nasty stroke pulled in that entire game but some other refs would have sucked the life out of it. The McMenamin challenge was a result of a dub player crossing Gough's view at the moment of impact and I think he gave the tackler the benefit of the doubt. A wrong decision but entirely understandable one.
Did you notice the any of the scraps out of camera shot, as the ball went up and down the field, particularly near the end? Players will do what they get away with, and in that game they could get away with anything. The 'Gough viewpoint' for McManamon is pointed to by lots of people, but I wouldn't accept that as definite. And anyway what about the nearby linesman?
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:17:20 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on August 30, 2016, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Great, another champion of the UFC-isation of our games.
'Let the game flow' = let's keep moving towards no rules.
C'mon Muppet, hardly UFC-isation. There wasn't a dirty/nasty stroke pulled in that entire game but some other refs would have sucked the life out of it. The McMenamin challenge was a result of a dub player crossing Gough's view at the moment of impact and I think he gave the tackler the benefit of the doubt. A wrong decision but entirely understandable one.
Did you notice the any of the scraps out of camera shot, as the ball went up and down the field, particularly near the end? Players will do what they get away with, and in that game they could get away with anything. The 'Gough viewpoint' for McManamon is pointed to by lots of people, but I wouldn't accept that as definite. And anyway what about the nearby linesman?
Muppet, did you think that McManamon's tackle should have been a black card?
Yellow card if not shoulder to shoulder, red card if Ref considered it dangerous play.
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:17:20 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on August 30, 2016, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Great, another champion of the UFC-isation of our games.
'Let the game flow' = let's keep moving towards no rules.
C'mon Muppet, hardly UFC-isation. There wasn't a dirty/nasty stroke pulled in that entire game but some other refs would have sucked the life out of it. The McMenamin challenge was a result of a dub player crossing Gough's view at the moment of impact and I think he gave the tackler the benefit of the doubt. A wrong decision but entirely understandable one.
Did you notice the any of the scraps out of camera shot, as the ball went up and down the field, particularly near the end? Players will do what they get away with, and in that game they could get away with anything. The 'Gough viewpoint' for McManamon is pointed to by lots of people, but I wouldn't accept that as definite. And anyway what about the nearby linesman?
Those sort of scraps will always break out when approaching the climax of a hugely significant game regardless of the referee, IMO. To be fair to Gough he tried his best to give it room to breathe and I think he found the balance as best he could. Perfection is impossible in his trade. If Tyrone were in Kerry's shoes i'd find it hard to agree, regarding Gough, as my emotion would cloud any rationality but as a neutral I really feel he should be applauded.
Quote from: Esmarelda on August 30, 2016, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:17:20 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on August 30, 2016, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 30, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Great, another champion of the UFC-isation of our games.
'Let the game flow' = let's keep moving towards no rules.
C'mon Muppet, hardly UFC-isation. There wasn't a dirty/nasty stroke pulled in that entire game but some other refs would have sucked the life out of it. The McMenamin challenge was a result of a dub player crossing Gough's view at the moment of impact and I think he gave the tackler the benefit of the doubt. A wrong decision but entirely understandable one.
Did you notice the any of the scraps out of camera shot, as the ball went up and down the field, particularly near the end? Players will do what they get away with, and in that game they could get away with anything. The 'Gough viewpoint' for McManamon is pointed to by lots of people, but I wouldn't accept that as definite. And anyway what about the nearby linesman?
Muppet, did you think that McManamon's tackle should have been a black card?
No I didn't think it was a black card. Debatable whether it was even a yellow, though I would lean towards that colour card. But it was definitely a free, that is all I am saying.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/pat-mcenaney-black-card-is-doing-its-job-421875.html
"That tackle by Shane Enright, even the crowd knew that was a black card. The commentators knew it too but David Gough didn't show it.
Irish News analyst said yesterday that no one knows what colour is coming out of the ref's pocket anymore and it is time to bin the black card.
I get the feeling a lot of people are coming round to the conclusion that the black card is a complete mess.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 20, 2016, 11:58:38 AM
I get the feeling a lot of people are coming round to the conclusion that the black card is a complete mess.
We need another rule change championed by Magee and Brolly. Cleary the last knee-jerk isn't working.
If the best referees in the country are making a hames of the black card rule, then the ordinary refs up and down the country can be forgiven for doing the same. Tomas Se said tonight that football has become impossible to referee. Few would argue with him.
Quote from: orangeman on October 02, 2016, 12:15:08 AM
If the best referees in the country are making a hames of the black card rule, then the ordinary refs up and down the country can be forgiven for doing the same. Tomas Se said tonight that football has become impossible to referee. Few would argue with him.
Football has always been impossible to referee 'fairly'. The black card should have helped if referees if they did what they are supposed to do. As usual referees choose to use their own interpretation of the rules and that is where the problem is. The most obvious black card today went unpunished. I read it that the ref. had already given a free and ignored the later hand trip. But with advantage law, the player that was initially fowled recovered and could have had a run on goal before being hand tripped. The ref. messed up between 2 rules.
I think from where he was, the ref mightn't have seen it. But if he had, I agree, it was a nailed-on black card.
But there were a few such from both sides over the two games that were missed.
Reffing infrastructure hasn't kept up with the semi professional nature of the game. Breaches have to be clearly definable and clearly sanctioned. 0 to 10 on the Cavanagh scale with 7 and up punished. Because you can't have a system where "if that was Tyrone" it would be a case
Obviously the GPA is also f**king useless on this.
The GAA specialises in vagueness . So you end up with "I thought it was x" They are getting decent money from TV so they can afford to change. The status quo is not good enough any more. It is not about faith or that's the why. It isn't even good for refs. They are asked to do the impossible.
They need a video ref like in rugby for the big matches. And independent timekeepers like ice hockey. Matches should not hinge on processes that do not work. Club stuff is a different issue.
It's a good idea being implemented badly.
How Deegan didn't black card Small yesterday, I'll never know.
I support the rule but it is not used correctly. Small was defo black, Coppers bit harsh, Keegans I don't think was and there were defo one or two more borderline. Saying that I think the ref was fine, I won't criticise them as the job is tough.
Quote from: T Toatler on October 02, 2016, 08:36:53 AM
I support the rule but it is not used correctly. Small was defo black, Coppers bit harsh, Keegans I don't think was and there were defo one or two more borderline. Saying that I think the ref was fine, I won't criticise them as the job is tough.
Here's where the rule presents problems. Even with the benefit of hindsights and replays, we still cannot determine what we're definite black card offences. Maurice Devaney is one of the very best referees and he can't say either and his band of linesmen and umpires can't help him.
And reffing is a very tough job but I don't think the black card has made their job any easier at all.
Maurice Devanney may be a good ref but I'm afraid Maurice Deegan is not. Agree with the basic point though, the rule is almost impossible to implement and would need an eye in the sky like in rugby to make the call. Even at that the rule would have to be expanded in terms of the detail of what a foul and what is not. For me only hanleys was a black card.
I've always preferred the idea of a sin bin myself.
Small managed to avoid a blatant black and a straight red. However the red card was the linesman on the hogan side of the fields fault. He bottled it. Just because the punch didn't land doesn't mean it wasn't a straight red. Lucky lucky boy and he knew it.
Quote from: yellowcard on October 02, 2016, 10:53:20 AM
Small managed to avoid a blatant black and a straight red. However the red card was the linesman on the hogan side of the fields fault. He bottled it. Just because the punch didn't land doesn't mean it wasn't a straight red. Lucky lucky boy and he knew it.
Is that what happened Parson's eye ?.
Quote from: orangeman on October 02, 2016, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 02, 2016, 10:53:20 AM
Small managed to avoid a blatant black and a straight red. However the red card was the linesman on the hogan side of the fields fault. He bottled it. Just because the punch didn't land doesn't mean it wasn't a straight red. Lucky lucky boy and he knew it.
Is that what happened Parson's eye ?.
No it was O'Connor he swung at. The fact it didn't connect is neither here nor there. After the long talking too, most presumed it was going to be a red but the officials bottled it. This was the single biggest bad decision of the evening. Cooper and Keegan also got blacks for lesser offences than Smalls previous foul. Black card rule is a complete nonsense, have always argued for a sin bin and yesterday was another reminder of how ludicrous the rule is.
I'm glad most people are starting to come round to what I have said from the start, the black card is a complete nonsense.
It's just a pity it has take a couple of seasons of farce and inconsistency for the penny to drop.
It was worth trying but the common sense solution to persistent cynical fouling would be the introduction of a sin-bin.
The biggest problem with the black card is that the yellloe card still exists, thereby allowing referees to cop out of big decisions.
Remove the yellow card and our game won't be long cleaning up its act.
Quote from: orangeman on October 02, 2016, 11:09:32 AM
Is that what happened Parson's eye ?.
Does anyone know what happened that? Strange that there was nothing about it.
Refs will always cop out of the black card. Why? Because of the rose-tinted hurlers on the ditch of Spillane and O'Rourke giving out to them for sending lads off for black card offences like McCarthy last week or O'Se v Tyrone last year. They're fucked if they do and fucked if they don't and so they will just do nothing and hope no-one notices.
That's why the black card rule won't work. Either implement it as it falls under the rules or don't. It's typical Irish mentality marked in your approach to any legislation. Pub closing times, tax law, drink driving limits, water bills, black cards are all just guidelines not strict rules and are open to your own half-arsed interpretation.
This country would drive you up the walls at times.
The black card was a ridiculous implementation based onhalf arsed logic. Sending someone from the field of play was always a far too big of a punishment for some of the black card offences and refs could see the craziness of this at times when big calls were needed. Cooper should have gone by the letter of the law but in any sane contact, fast paced field sport, it's utterly ridiculous that it is a sending off offence. A yellow card, implemented effectively is enough for all the offences currently listed as black card. At least when the offence occurs everyone will know what card is coming, rather than the fecking lottery of the current system. I had a degree of sympathy with Deegan yesterday for his non issuing of the black to Small, for such a silly infraction, a lad shouldn't be leaving the pitch. The fact that it was an all I reland final magnifies the situation. Also, mistakes are too easy made, Keegan's was not a black card, however he really should have picked up more than one or two yellows over the course of the two games.
Make the game more simple to ref and the refereeing standard will improve. I am fecking dreading the "mark"!
Get rid of this
Black card rules are fairly simple. Too hell with pundits and fans. Referees have no excuse for messing up and wussing out.
Referees have been using yellow cards now when it is neither a black or a yellow. A yellow is dangerous play - not for a garden foul.
The penalty for most fouls is a free and a ticking if it is deliberate. Persistent deliberate fouling/ticking is a yellow. Yellow and another deliberate foul is a red.
Blacks are for dragging a player down deliberately but not for a jersey tug or an incidental foul. Also for a deliberate hand trip or foot trip or taking a runner out or third man tackle. Also for sledging/verbal abuse.
Not rocket science but as usual referees bring their own interpretation to the table and that is where the problem is
Your right Moysider ,its a fairly simple rule but its not helped by pundits like O Rourke saying the ref should leave his cards in the dressing room before the drawn all ireland and JIM McGuinness stating that McCarthy should not have been black carded when it was a text book case of the use of the black card.
It's the punishments that are all wrong. Like I've said a few dozen times, frees in front of the goal would be more appropriate for most offences.
Take Bernard Brogan on Saturday for example. Right near the end he commited a text book black card foul to disrupt a potential attack. Deegan didn't even bother carding him as it would have suited Dublin even more to do so.
Surely in that instance the prospect of conceding a tap over free would have been a more real deterant?
My 2nd biggest gripe with the black card is the arrogant, high handed way it was imposed on the association by Liam O'Neill. Despite it already been deemed a failure a decade ago.
I think all referees should be Protestant. That would cut out an awful lot of shite.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on October 03, 2016, 03:46:09 AM
It's the punishments that are all wrong. Like I've said a few dozen times, frees in front of the goal would be more appropriate for most offences.
Nail on head.
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on October 03, 2016, 03:46:09 AM
My 2nd biggest gripe with the black card is the arrogant, high handed way it was imposed on the association by Liam O'Neill. Despite it already been deemed a failure a decade ago.
O'Neill's arrogance as President knew no bounds. Everything he touched was diminished by it.
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on October 02, 2016, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 02, 2016, 11:09:32 AM
Is that what happened Parson's eye ?.
Does anyone know what happened that? Strange that there was nothing about it.
Anyone ? I didn't see any after match stuff
Quote from: Dire Ear on October 03, 2016, 02:35:05 PM
Quote from: Kuwabatake Sanjuro on October 02, 2016, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: orangeman on October 02, 2016, 11:09:32 AM
Is that what happened Parson's eye ?.
Does anyone know what happened that? Strange that there was nothing about it.
Anyone ? I didn't see any after match stuff
there has been absolutely nothing about this anywhere, so I can only assume that it was just an accidental clash somewhere?
Or else the dublin media are doing a big cover up job!!!!!! :P :P :P :P
I think there's a campaign to get rid of the black card and it's been given momentum by the pure ignorance of some viewers, no more so than some of the pundits on RTE .
I'm not a major fan of the rule as it was never going to cut out cynical fouling in the last few minutes of a game when the result was in the balance.
However, the rule is there to stop intentional fouling. Every player knows that, in theory, if he tries to make a legitimate tackle he won't be black-carded. If he intentionally fouls a player then there's a good chance he'll see black.
I have no sympathy for Cooper yesterday as he got what he deserved. There was no need for the trip. Small should have got one but I think Keegan's was harsh as I don't think he actually dragged Connolly to the ground. Mistakes are made like any other type of foul but when a black card is given incorrectly then threads such as this rear their head.
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
The main issue with the sin bin is that it is very hard to implement at club or underage level when there is only one official
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 03, 2016, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
The main issue with the sin bin is that it is very hard to implement at club or underage level when there is only one official
Why so? It has long been in existence in ladies football with good success.
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
I think the sin bin is a better option.
In relation to your point about not being able to say definitively whether it's a black card or not; I'd say we can call it just as much as we can with a red card offence.
Lee Keegan got a red a few years ago for a petulant kick in the semi-final. I think it was rescinded on a technicality but there was uproar that a player should miss a semi-final for such a little kick. Are little kicks and open handed slaps to the face red cards or not? Is distinguishing between them any different than doing so on black card issues?
Like I said, the black card is the new controversial rule in town and every chance possible to run it out of town is jumped on.
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 03, 2016, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
I think the sin bin is a better option.
In relation to your point about not being able to say definitively whether it's a black card or not; I'd say we can call it just as much as we can with a red card offence.
Lee Keegan got a red a few years ago for a petulant kick in the semi-final. I think it was rescinded on a technicality but there was uproar that a player should miss a semi-final for such a little kick. Are little kicks and open handed slaps to the face red cards or not? Is distinguishing between them any different than doing so on black card issues?
Like I said, the black card is the new controversial rule in town and every chance possible to run it out of town is jumped on.
But the black card ones are occurring far more frequently within a game.
There are maybe 3-4 at least incidents in every single game and we are lucky if 50% are called correctly
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 03, 2016, 03:20:10 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
I think the sin bin is a better option.
In relation to your point about not being able to say definitively whether it's a black card or not; I'd say we can call it just as much as we can with a red card offence.
Lee Keegan got a red a few years ago for a petulant kick in the semi-final. I think it was rescinded on a technicality but there was uproar that a player should miss a semi-final for such a little kick. Are little kicks and open handed slaps to the face red cards or not? Is distinguishing between them any different than doing so on black card issues?
Like I said, the black card is the new controversial rule in town and every chance possible to run it out of town is jumped on.
Fair point in that sometimes there are grey areas between yellow/red card offences. However not near as often as yellow/black card offences which can have several within a single match.
No rule change will work until the inconsistencies of refs is dealt with
You might both have a point but the referees need to step up here and call them right. There was a linesman and two umpires relatively close to Small's trip on Saturday and a black should have been issued. We can't have this excuse of refs taking the easy way out when it comes to deciding on a rule.
Although I do like what the black card has done to remove cynical fouling I do agree that the ability or willingness to implement is dodgy at best. I would support the sin bin as a replacement for the black card but would not recommend getting fed of it without a form of replacement. Only problem is we will be having the same debate about whether x or y deserved a sinbinnning or not.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 03, 2016, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
The main issue with the sin bin is that it is very hard to implement at club or underage level when there is only one official
Ten minutes is ten minutes.
Get each club to volunteer someone, same as we do for linesmen etc. and give them a stopwatch and a folding chair.
If someone is "binned" with 5 minutes playing time left do they carry 5 minutes to the next game?
Will the TomTomtommy rule apply - can't sin bin anyone before the 10th minute or if their team hasn't been in a big game for ages?
Will referees still make up what's a bin offence rather than read the rule book?
Will Micky Harte ridicule it?
I am a big critic of the black card, but it is important to note that it did some good in dealing with the blocking of runners that was blighting the game.
Maybe if we scrap all the other offences and simply leave the black card as the punishment for that?
I liked the 50m penalty for cynical fouls mentioned earlier on newstalk by Michael quirke.....anywhere on the pitch would see the ball being moved 50m toward goal,often to a scorable position....Sin bin should apply for yellow card offences.
I've heard this is taken from aussie rules,but I admit I've never seen it there.
For a clear run through on goal the black card could be maintained....the concept of the professional foul works pretty well in soccer,I would say...i can't recall many contentious ones.
So rather than reinventing the wheel,we could take what has worked elsewhere.
Either way,Congress rules or not, we cannot sit through another season of this inconsistency...leaving aside the gross unfairness on many of the players
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2016, 07:01:07 PM
I am a big critic of the black card, but it is important to note that it did some good in dealing with the blocking of runners that was blighting the game.
Maybe if we scrap all the other offences and simply leave the black card as the punishment for that?
Is blocking a guys run on your own 21m line (sometimes by accident - often it's hard to tell) enough to justify a player leaving the field of play in a fast moving, contact sport where these collisions do happen? Does the punishment fit the crime when players who carry out clothesline neck high tackles or wrestle on the ground for 5 mins get away with a yellow and stay on the pitch?
If.....and this is a big if..... the yellow was dished out a bit more frequently, then we wouldn't need the black card at all. It would be significantly easier for the ref to manage. Jon Small would have received a yellow early on and probably have been red card (second yellow) later - deservedly so too. Keegan would have been yellow carded and stayed on the pitch - deservedly so. But the incidents of controversy for a ref would be easier to manage as it's a clear decision, yellow or red? and therefore would hopefully lead to more consistency. At the minute it a complete lottery.
I would however suggest a red card for a 'professional foul' type offence a la Cavanagh v Monaghan, where a clear goal / point scoring opportunity has been prevented.
Quote from: BennyHarp on October 03, 2016, 11:20:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on October 03, 2016, 07:01:07 PM
I am a big critic of the black card, but it is important to note that it did some good in dealing with the blocking of runners that was blighting the game.
Maybe if we scrap all the other offences and simply leave the black card as the punishment for that?
Is blocking a guys run on your own 21m line (sometimes by accident - often it's hard to tell) enough to justify a player leaving the field of play in a fast moving, contact sport where these collisions do happen? Does the punishment fit the crime when players who carry out clothesline neck high tackles or wrestle on the ground for 5 mins get away with a yellow and stay on the pitch?
If.....and this is a big if..... the yellow was dished out a bit more frequently, then we wouldn't need the black card at all. It would be significantly easier for the ref to manage. Jon Small would have received a yellow early on and probably have been red card (second yellow) later - deservedly so too. Keegan would have been yellow carded and stayed on the pitch - deservedly so. But the incidents of controversy for a ref would be easier to manage as it's a clear decision, yellow or red? and therefore would hopefully lead to more consistency. At the minute it a complete lottery.
I would however suggest a red card for a 'professional foul' type offence a la Cavanagh v Monaghan, where a clear goal / point scoring opportunity has been prevented.
Benny, the original problem was that the drag down was being committed systematically by players that weren't already on a yellow card.
Is the main problem bad referees, inconsistent referees, refs using the rulebook as a guideline and implementing their own version, or referees scared of implementing the rules?
How many black cards issued for aggressive verbal abuse of officials?
How much better and cleaner would the game be if the 4 step rule was rigidly enforced?
Anything to be said for taking a rule from the Hurley stuff limiting the amount of times a player can play the ball to himself?
The more the ball is free in play the less need for tackling/pulling/dragging and referee's interpretations.
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 03, 2016, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
The main issue with the sin bin is that it is very hard to implement at club or underage level when there is only one official
Why so? It has long been in existence in ladies football with good success.
It's also at every level of rugby from u13 - Pro. Never any problems. That's a smokescreen.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2016, 09:37:04 AM
Is the main problem bad referees, inconsistent referees, refs using the rulebook as a guideline and implementing their own version, or referees scared of implementing the rules?
How many black cards issued for aggressive verbal abuse of officials?
How much better and cleaner would the game be if the 4 step rule was rigidly enforced?
Anything to be said for taking a rule from the Hurley stuff limiting the amount of times a player can play the ball to himself?
The more the ball is free in play the less need for tackling/pulling/dragging and referee's interpretations.
The main problem is cultural.
the GAA is not interested in coherent change.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2016, 09:37:04 AM
Is the main problem bad referees, inconsistent referees, refs using the rulebook as a guideline and implementing their own version, or referees scared of implementing the rules?
How many black cards issued for aggressive verbal abuse of officials?
How much better and cleaner would the game be if the 4 step rule was rigidly enforced?
Anything to be said for taking a rule from the Hurley stuff limiting the amount of times a player can play the ball to himself?
The more the ball is free in play the less need for tackling/pulling/dragging and referee's interpretations.
Then you'd just have two lads running up the field playing pass the parcel.
Quote from: Jinxy on October 04, 2016, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2016, 09:37:04 AM
Is the main problem bad referees, inconsistent referees, refs using the rulebook as a guideline and implementing their own version, or referees scared of implementing the rules?
How many black cards issued for aggressive verbal abuse of officials?
How much better and cleaner would the game be if the 4 step rule was rigidly enforced?
Anything to be said for taking a rule from the Hurley stuff limiting the amount of times a player can play the ball to himself?
The more the ball is free in play the less need for tackling/pulling/dragging and referee's interpretations.
Then you'd just have two lads running up the field playing pass the parcel.
That would be an improvement on ten lads standing around in the middle of the field playing pass the parcel.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 04, 2016, 09:45:26 AM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 03, 2016, 03:09:59 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on October 03, 2016, 03:02:46 PM
What chance have the referee's if we can't definitively say which offences were black card offences and which weren't. Go to any match around the country now and you can often hear different supporters guessing whether it is going to be a yellow or a black card before the ref whips the card out of his pocket. It's like playing Russian roulette at times and the happy medium is to revisit the sin bin. The main reason it's abolition isn't being pushed forward in the media is because Brolly was intstrumental in getting it brought in and he won't accept that he was wrong and other pundits sat beside him are afraid to speak against it because of this reason. I would agree with Jim Gavin's post match comments in that the concept itself is fine, but the punishment for the player is often too excessive relative to the crime committed.
The main issue with the sin bin is that it is very hard to implement at club or underage level when there is only one official
Why so? It has long been in existence in ladies football with good success.
It's also at every level of rugby from u13 - Pro. Never any problems. That's a smokescreen.
If that is the case , then it would certainly be an improvement.
however, if used properly, i think the yellow card is a good enough deterrent for these fouls.
The problem is, the yellow card was never used properly before we decided to bring in the black card.
Quote from: Hardy on October 04, 2016, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 04, 2016, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2016, 09:37:04 AM
Is the main problem bad referees, inconsistent referees, refs using the rulebook as a guideline and implementing their own version, or referees scared of implementing the rules?
How many black cards issued for aggressive verbal abuse of officials?
How much better and cleaner would the game be if the 4 step rule was rigidly enforced?
Anything to be said for taking a rule from the Hurley stuff limiting the amount of times a player can play the ball to himself?
The more the ball is free in play the less need for tackling/pulling/dragging and referee's interpretations.
Then you'd just have two lads running up the field playing pass the parcel.
That would be an improvement on ten lads standing around in the middle of the field playing pass the parcel.
We need less 'pass the parcel' and more 'musical chairs', if you ask me.
Had to laugh at Eugene McGees reaction to Jim McGuinness call for the black card to be abolished.He said that if McGuinness was so good why did he not win a second all ireland.I would say that in the history of the GAA never has one man gained so much from winning 1 poxy all ireland 34 years ago
Not like Eugene to be giving out.
"If he was that good why didn't he win a second All-Ireland or a third All-Ireland?"
Where do you start with a line like that?
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 05, 2016, 10:53:35 AM
"If he was that good why didn't he win a second All-Ireland or a third All-Ireland?"
Where do you start with a line like that?
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: maigheo on October 05, 2016, 01:51:08 AM
Had to laugh at Eugene McGees reaction to Jim McGuinness call for the black card to be abolished.He said that if McGuinness was so good why did he not win a second all ireland.I would say that in the history of the GAA never has one man gained so much from winning 1 poxy all ireland 34 years ago
That wasn't a poxy All Ireland. That team had been getting progressively better year on year and made it count in 1982. Mayo could take a leaf out of their book. They also had one of the best players ever to play the game in Matt Connor. It's very disrespectful to call that team poxy.
This should be interesting. We know from history that Jimmy is not a man to bear a grudge!!!! Its anyone's guess as to what he makes of McGee's sly dig but I guess he'll have something to say back. If it helps highlight the problem with the black card then it can only be a good thing. McGee's comments were a cheap shot and a ridiculous one too.
Yeah I know it wasn't a poxy all ireland .That remark was aimed at MCgee who hands down has to be the worst journalist of all time.
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 05, 2016, 10:53:35 AM
"If he was that good why didn't he win a second All-Ireland or a third All-Ireland?"
Where do you start with a line like that?
Just shows the complete and utter ignorance of the man. Hardly surprising then that someone with such a backward mind like that is responsible for the black card - it all makes sense now. But seriously...... how on earth did this dinosaur get into a position of responsibility for implementing rule changes to the modern game? He only won one AI ffs, if he was that good he'd have won a second or third!!
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 05, 2016, 10:53:35 AM
"If he was that good why didn't he win a second All-Ireland or a third All-Ireland?"
Where do you start with a line like that?
If you were that good you'd know where to start.
Quote from: BennyHarp on October 05, 2016, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 05, 2016, 10:53:35 AM
"If he was that good why didn't he win a second All-Ireland or a third All-Ireland?"
Where do you start with a line like that?
Just shows the complete and utter ignorance of the man. Hardly surprising then that someone with such a backward mind like that is responsible for the black card - it all makes sense now. But seriously...... how on earth did this dinosaur get into a position of responsibility for implementing rule changes to the modern game? He only won one AI ffs, if he was that good he'd have won a second or third!!
First of all rules are changed by delegates at Congress.
Secondly why should GAA decisions only be made by people with 2 or more All Ireland medals?
To keep the Rossies well away from the decision-making process.
Look how a Ros man got ye €36m off the soccers and rubbys :P
That was all Seán Kelly's doing.
Only for Kilmore's finest Tommy Kenoy........ :) Kelly would still be a fairly unknown Kerry man.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 05, 2016, 01:21:42 PM
Quote from: BennyHarp on October 05, 2016, 12:19:49 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 05, 2016, 10:53:35 AM
"If he was that good why didn't he win a second All-Ireland or a third All-Ireland?"
Where do you start with a line like that?
Just shows the complete and utter ignorance of the man. Hardly surprising then that someone with such a backward mind like that is responsible for the black card - it all makes sense now. But seriously...... how on earth did this dinosaur get into a position of responsibility for implementing rule changes to the modern game? He only won one AI ffs, if he was that good he'd have won a second or third!!
First of all rules are changed by delegates at Congress.
Secondly why should GAA decisions only be made by people with 2 or more All Ireland medals?
First of all, yes the dinosaurs voted it in and secondly, why do people who criticise McGee need to have more than 2 AI medals?
If you're looking for a rule change to reduce the effectiveness of the blanket defence, how about making the ball 5-20% lighter. This would force the blanket to come out 5-10m leaving a little more space inside. It would also provide more options from the kickout.
While it might be difficult to get the weight right (you don't want to end up like hurling where you can score from your own 45), it's something that would be easily implementable at all grades and grounds.
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 05, 2016, 11:12:07 PM
If you're looking for a rule change to reduce the effectiveness of the blanket defence, how about making the ball 5-20% lighter. This would force the blanket to come out 5-10m leaving a little more space inside. It would also provide more options from the kickout.
While it might be difficult to get the weight right (you don't want to end up like hurling where you can score from your own 45), it's something that would be easily implementable at all grades and grounds.
This is the type of thinking that we need at the top level.
I'm not necessarily saying that this would solve the gaa's ills but this is at least something a bit from left field that might solve a problem.
Something to consider though, if we manage to get rid of the blanket defense, will that lead to Dublin (and the other top teams) giving lower level teams greater hidings because they can't set up a blanket to keep the score down?
Senior , Intermediate and Junior All Ireland Championships would sort out the heavy bearings.
You'd still have a few in the Provincials but you can't abolish them and you have to let all participate.
As for the sin bin ( and countdown clock) if it can work for the girleens surely the big professional GAA can get them to work too.
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 05, 2016, 11:12:07 PM
If you're looking for a rule change to reduce the effectiveness of the blanket defence, how about making the ball 5-20% lighter. This would force the blanket to come out 5-10m leaving a little more space inside. It would also provide more options from the kickout.
While it might be difficult to get the weight right (you don't want to end up like hurling where you can score from your own 45), it's something that would be easily implementable at all grades and grounds.
The ball being lighter wouldn't necessarily make it travel further. It needs a certain amount of weight to penetrate the wind and air resistance. A size 4 ball is a good bit lighter - does it travel a lot further? I'm not sure it does. Having said that I saw an Australian rugby league player doing an experiment with a ball filled with helium. They carried out the experiment on a soccer pitch and he was able to easily kick a conversion from one goal line to the opposite end of the pitch. So maybe filling the ball with mainly air but a little added helium would make it travel that bit further. We need all the physics experts to think about this one.
Quote from: lenny on October 06, 2016, 03:43:03 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 05, 2016, 11:12:07 PM
If you're looking for a rule change to reduce the effectiveness of the blanket defence, how about making the ball 5-20% lighter. This would force the blanket to come out 5-10m leaving a little more space inside. It would also provide more options from the kickout.
While it might be difficult to get the weight right (you don't want to end up like hurling where you can score from your own 45), it's something that would be easily implementable at all grades and grounds.
The ball being lighter wouldn't necessarily make it travel further. It needs a certain amount of weight to penetrate the wind and air resistance. A size 4 ball is a good bit lighter - does it travel a lot further? I'm not sure it does. Having said that I saw an Australian rugby league player doing an experiment with a ball filled with helium. They carried out the experiment on a soccer pitch and he was able to easily kick a conversion from one goal line to the opposite end of the pitch. So maybe filling the ball with mainly air but a little added helium would make it travel that bit further. We need all the physics experts to think about this one.
;D I think we have officially lost the run of ourselves. I can picture a GAA version of Tom Brady's deflategate, where a goalkeeper kicks a miraculous 100 yard equaliser off the ground to draw an All Ireland final. Months of investigation into the helium levels in the ball ensue for the CCCC.
Quote from: BennyHarp on October 06, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: lenny on October 06, 2016, 03:43:03 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 05, 2016, 11:12:07 PM
If you're looking for a rule change to reduce the effectiveness of the blanket defence, how about making the ball 5-20% lighter. This would force the blanket to come out 5-10m leaving a little more space inside. It would also provide more options from the kickout.
While it might be difficult to get the weight right (you don't want to end up like hurling where you can score from your own 45), it's something that would be easily implementable at all grades and grounds.
The ball being lighter wouldn't necessarily make it travel further. It needs a certain amount of weight to penetrate the wind and air resistance. A size 4 ball is a good bit lighter - does it travel a lot further? I'm not sure it does. Having said that I saw an Australian rugby league player doing an experiment with a ball filled with helium. They carried out the experiment on a soccer pitch and he was able to easily kick a conversion from one goal line to the opposite end of the pitch. So maybe filling the ball with mainly air but a little added helium would make it travel that bit further. We need all the physics experts to think about this one.
;D I think we have officially lost the run of ourselves. I can picture a GAA version of Tom Brady's deflategate, where a goalkeeper kicks a miraculous 100 yard equaliser off the ground to draw an All Ireland final. Months of investigation into the helium levels in the ball ensue for the CCCC.
;D ;D
I think all speeches should be made after inhaling helium.
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2016/1011/823229-colm-cooper-kerry-black-card/
It seems the Gooch is a fan of the black card...
I think most forwards, especially those who can take on a man and leave him in their wake would be in favour of the black card as it means their marker can't pull them down after they beat them. I'm probably thinking of those cases where a fast corner forward gets out in front of his man, turns him and goes to accelerate away but the defender grabs him around the waste and pulls him down. The black card really puts pressure on the defender to remain disciplined but as we saw with Connolly v Keegan the last day this can be exploited as the forward can feel some contact and then go down quite easily in the hope of the ref awarding a black card.
I think they should change the rule to ONLY award a black card when it's the very obvious cases like two hands around the player two stop his forward momentum or a very deliberate foot trip where the player has got away from his man. I think the idea was good but the wording of it needs to be tightened up.
In my opinion Johnny Coopers foot trip was a black but I'd like to see that being a yellow as there was no clear run through on goal and loads of other bodies around the player whereas if his man comes out and catches it and turns him and accelerated away and he then trips him purposely to stop a clear run on goal then yes that could be a black card.
I think that's a pretty good solution Fuzzman. I was in favour of giving the black card a go and I think it has been an improvement in some respects. The problem with any deterrent to fouling is that you have a human being (momst ref's are I think!) deciding on whether it's justified or not. That means you are going to get mistakes and with players trying to con refs and put pressure on him to issue the harshest punishment possible for any foul it becomes very difficult for referees to get it right all the time.
Retrospective bans for players diving would go some way to helping referees IMO.
One thing the black card seems to have helped eliminate, or at least curtail, was the cynical fouls way out the field. Those horrible game killers where half forwards and full forwards deliberately foul defenders after a turnover, to avoid being caught on a counter attack. Those were the fouls that were making the game unwatchable in some cases.
I was never really worried about the cynical fouls on a lad breaking through, as a yellow card and a pointed free was normally punishment enough.
Quote from: Fuzzman on October 12, 2016, 11:32:37 AM
I think most forwards, especially those who can take on a man and leave him in their wake would be in favour of the black card as it means their marker can't pull them down after they beat them. I'm probably thinking of those cases where a fast corner forward gets out in front of his man, turns him and goes to accelerate away but the defender grabs him around the waste and pulls him down. The black card really puts pressure on the defender to remain disciplined but as we saw with Connolly v Keegan the last day this can be exploited as the forward can feel some contact and then go down quite easily in the hope of the ref awarding a black card.
I think they should change the rule to ONLY award a black card when it's the very obvious cases like two hands around the player two stop his forward momentum or a very deliberate foot trip where the player has got away from his man. I think the idea was good but the wording of it needs to be tightened up.
In my opinion Johnny Coopers foot trip was a black but I'd like to see that being a yellow as there was no clear run through on goal and loads of other bodies around the player whereas if his man comes out and catches it and turns him and accelerated away and he then trips him purposely to stop a clear run on goal then yes that could be a black card.
I see your point but then we'll have arguments over whether the player was really through on goal. Cooper deserved his black as, knowing the rules, he deliberately tripped his opponent.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 12, 2016, 02:05:17 PM
One thing the black card seems to have helped eliminate, or at least curtail, was the cynical fouls way out the field. Those horrible game killers where half forwards and full forwards deliberately foul defenders after a turnover, to avoid being caught on a counter attack. Those were the fouls that were making the game unwatchable in some cases.
I was never really worried about the cynical fouls on a lad breaking through, as a yellow card and a pointed free was normally punishment enough.
The problem from day one with this was that the defensive team's mindset changes in the closing stages of a tight game when a black card is readily accepted in exchange for stopping one of these attacks. This is where the sin bin would be more appropriate as the team would be punished by having the play out the remainder of the game a man short with little between the teams.
That's true, but again, I think people are judging it against something it was not going to stop. People ALWAYS foul and have ALWAYS fouled in those scenarios. It would take something significantly game impacting to stop that practice, like an automatic 13m free or something.
However, my point is those frees were happening from minute 1, to allow defensive shapes to be put in place, and that has largely been eliminated.
Some good points being made. As an aside, I referee club games at a low enough level and the black card has been excellent in terms of 'mouthing' to the officals. Refs can give a black, yellow or even red for verbal abuse and I have found explaining to the captains before hand that a black could be dished out for any verbals to the ref has made it easier and enjoyable to ref. Now it would be a brave ref to give a black for this in an intercounty match - excuse the tangent :).
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 12, 2016, 02:49:47 PM
That's true, but again, I think people are judging it against something it was not going to stop. People ALWAYS foul and have ALWAYS fouled in those scenarios. It would take something significantly game impacting to stop that practice, like an automatic 13m free or something.
However, my point is those frees were happening from minute 1, to allow defensive shapes to be put in place, and that has largely been eliminated.
Maybe it was never going to stop it but I think the aim was to do just that. Like I said, reducing the number of players on the team via the sin bin would be a better punishment.
Quote from: Buttofthehill on October 12, 2016, 03:04:43 PM
Some good points being made. As an aside, I referee club games at a low enough level and the black card has been excellent in terms of 'mouthing' to the officals. Refs can give a black, yellow or even red for verbal abuse and I have found explaining to the captains before hand that a black could be dished out for any verbals to the ref has made it easier and enjoyable to ref. Now it would be a brave ref to give a black for this in an intercounty match - excuse the tangent :).
I've always wondered if/why not referees don't spell out certain things they won't tolerate to the two captains before a game. Seem logical.
Yeah, I know but just imagine the uproar from fans, media if CO'C or Philly etc etc etc was black carded for mouthing! Talk about ruining the game by playing by the rules!
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 12, 2016, 03:07:57 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 12, 2016, 02:49:47 PM
That's true, but again, I think people are judging it against something it was not going to stop. People ALWAYS foul and have ALWAYS fouled in those scenarios. It would take something significantly game impacting to stop that practice, like an automatic 13m free or something.
However, my point is those frees were happening from minute 1, to allow defensive shapes to be put in place, and that has largely been eliminated.
Maybe it was never going to stop it but I think the aim was to do just that. Like I said, reducing the number of players on the team via the sin bin would be a better punishment.
I don't agree the aim was to stop that. I think the aim was to stop the consistent, petty, time wasting and momentum killing fouling. I just think the proponents of it have been hoisted on their own petard, by sensationalising the incidents in the videos they showed to support the motion.
There's an image that sticks in my mind, from the Cavan Kerry quarter final a year or so before the rule came in. Declan O'Sullivan lost the ball in the Cavan full back line. As the defender came out with the ball, down near the corner flag, Declan deliberately tripped him up and brought him down. It was a game Kerry were well in control of, and was still in the first half. This was no 'desperation' or 'last ditch' foul to kill off a game or save a score, this was a calculated response to losing the ball, in order to stop any possible counter attack.
That is what I believe they were targetting.
I agree AZ and the black card has been effective in doing that, Mark McHugh was another such incident and those types of fouls were killing the game.
The sin bin is a better solution and always was. One of the problems in the GAA is we don't go with the best solution as that won't get through due to individual agendas so instead we come up with a halfway house that's often neither here nor there.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 12, 2016, 03:15:32 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 12, 2016, 03:07:57 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 12, 2016, 02:49:47 PM
That's true, but again, I think people are judging it against something it was not going to stop. People ALWAYS foul and have ALWAYS fouled in those scenarios. It would take something significantly game impacting to stop that practice, like an automatic 13m free or something.
However, my point is those frees were happening from minute 1, to allow defensive shapes to be put in place, and that has largely been eliminated.
Maybe it was never going to stop it but I think the aim was to do just that. Like I said, reducing the number of players on the team via the sin bin would be a better punishment.
I don't agree the aim was to stop that. I think the aim was to stop the consistent, petty, time wasting and momentum killing fouling. I just think the proponents of it have been hoisted on their own petard, by sensationalising the incidents in the videos they showed to support the motion.
There's an image that sticks in my mind, from the Cavan Kerry quarter final a year or so before the rule came in. Declan O'Sullivan lost the ball in the Cavan full back line. As the defender came out with the ball, down near the corner flag, Declan deliberately tripped him up and brought him down. It was a game Kerry were well in control of, and was still in the first half. This was no 'desperation' or 'last ditch' foul to kill off a game or save a score, this was a calculated response to losing the ball, in order to stop any possible counter attack.
That is what I believe they were targetting.
I agree in your example that O'Sullivan did what he did as there was little punishment.
However, the last five minutes of a tight game is where these fouls are most important. I don't think the powers that be gave it enough thought and they did believe it would sort out such fouls at all times of the game.
Quote from: Buttofthehill on October 12, 2016, 03:11:52 PM
Yeah, I know but just imagine the uproar from fans, media if CO'C or Philly etc etc etc was black carded for mouthing! Talk about ruining the game by playing by the rules!
I know. It's an awful pity for the game to lose such class players for such silly things. :)
Bring in the sin-bin specifically for the rugby tackle, trip and body check offences.
Use the black card for sledging and abuse of officials.
Thus, the whole team are punished for cynicism, while the individual is punished for being an eejit.
Am I right in saying that the majority here are in favour of keeping the ruling of the black card similar to what is currently is now, but changing the punishment?
i.e. the offences stay the same but the punishment is 10 minute sin-bin rather than sending off and replacement?
Is that what people in favour of the sin bin want?
As an aside to that question, which do people think would be a bigger punishment to your team?
2 x black cards (under the current system) and players replaced immediately
OR
2 x 10 minute sin bins (i.e. your team playing with 14 men for 20 minutes)?
Quote from: westbound on October 12, 2016, 03:33:35 PM
Am I right in saying that the majority here are in favour of keeping the ruling of the black card similar to what is currently is now, but changing the punishment?
i.e. the offences stay the same but the punishment is 10 minute sin-bin rather than sending off and replacement?
Is that what people in favour of the sin bin want?
As an aside to that question, which do people think would be a bigger punishment to your team?
2 x black cards (under the current system) and players replaced immediately
OR
2 x 10 minute sin bins (i.e. your team playing with 14 men for 20 minutes)?
Best punishment for cynical fouling is to hit teams on the scoreboard ie for a cynical foul/ black card type offence award a free from a designated spot say about 35 yards out from goal. A cynical foul denying a goal scoring chance should be penalised with the award of a penalty. This would be easier to police at all levels of the game and would definitely cut out the way teams can cynically run down the clock holding on to a few points lead. The sin bin would be very hard to police at club level with only one neutral official at most club league games. Imagine 2 or 3 players in the sin bin within a few minutes of each other. The ref would really struggle to cope with managing the timings.
The problem with all of these type rules is the temptation it offers to divers. Unless you have similar counter deterrents for diving, you are offering a free pass to try and get lads black-carded, win scoring frees and penalties.
At the end of the day, we are depending on our referees to make good decisions, and if they just did that today, the black card would be fine. And any other variation of the black card/sin bin/automatic scoring free will fail in exactly the same way if the refs get the high profile decisions wrong.
is the basic problem with the black card is it tries to turn Ref's into mind readers
what was the intention behind the tackle is the key question for black card tackles the is will include an examination of the character of the tackler and the dreaded 'is he that kind of player'
also every player is going to foul toward the end of a match to halt a goal scoring chance the only fit punishment for this is a penalty no matter if the player is inside or outside the box
sorry
lenny.. you beat me to it
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 12, 2016, 03:43:09 PM
The problem with all of these type rules is the temptation it offers to divers. Unless you have similar counter deterrents for diving, you are offering a free pass to try and get lads black-carded, win scoring frees and penalties.
At the end of the day, we are depending on our referees to make good decisions, and if they just did that today, the black card would be fine. And any other variation of the black card/sin bin/automatic scoring free will fail in exactly the same way if the refs get the high profile decisions wrong.
Sin bin for diving also.
The thing about the sin-bin is there would be far less sympathy for the fella who goes off for 10 minutes than there would be for the fella who gets a black card and his game is over.
A ref would be far more likely to bin a player for a cynical offence in the first 10 minutes than he would be to give him a black card.
Bizarrely, the sin bin is the greater punishment but it would be tolerated by the fans & players as the perpetrator gets another bite at the cherry (depending on when he gets it).
I think most people are happy enough with the black card rule WHEN it is implemented properly but most of the complaints this year has been when players have been wrongly sent to the line because the ref has got it wrong.
I was surprised to read that most intercounty refs like the rule and are happy for it to continue whereas I thought many would say it was too hard to judge the intent side of things.
The thing that amazes me the most is ref's decision NOT to punish more players for mouthing off. I think if this was a yellow card then refs would enforce it much more and cut out all that nonsense.
I'm not sure how effective a 10 min sin-bin punishment would be in today's defensive style games. I mean would it rather matter if you were down to 14 or even 13 when most of your team are behind the ball anyway. I think the black card punishment is a much more appropriate punishment but it's hard to take when one of your players is sent off wrongly.
As a matter of interest how many black cards were handed out from quarterfinal stage onwards and how many of them were proven to be incorrect?
Is this 10 minute length of time to serve in the sin bin, accepted without question as being a suitable length of time?
If your county's manager was given the choice of replacing a black carded player immediately or playing with a player down for 10 minutes while he serves out his time in the bin, which option do you think that manager would choose?
In team handball, 7 players, where there's 30 minutes of actual play each half (stoppages not counted), the sin bin time is 2 minutes for the sinner.
If a player is sin binned 3 times in the one game, then he's red carded but can be replaced after the 2 minutes has elapsed.
Quote from: Main Street on October 12, 2016, 05:56:19 PM
Is this 10 minute length of time to serve in the sin bin, accepted without question as being a suitable length of time?
If your county's manager was given the choice of replacing a black carded player immediately or playing with a player down for 10 minutes while he serves out his time in the bin, which option do you think that manager would choose?
In team handball, 7 players, where there's 30 minutes of actual play each half (stoppages not counted), the sin bin time is 2 minutes for the sinner.
If a player is sin binned 3 times in the one game, then he's red carded but can be replaced after the 2 minutes has elapsed.
That's why a sin bin would be a better deterrent.
Also losing a player in a 7 a side is worse than 15 a side so will leave the game too lop sided I'd imagine
I'd say most managers would chose to replace the player immediately rather than play 10 minutes a player down.
Somehow I have this fixed memory of the black card fiasco from the past and poor Mickey Harte driven demented.
I was perhaps mistaken in thinking that the people who were complaining about the black card were complaining that it was too draconian, 'the poor lad only pulled the leg a bit, has been training for years to achieve his AI final dream and then the ref sends him off for a black card offense, oh what a shame, so unfair'. And now those people are pumping for the sin bin as an addition or replacement for some black card crimes. Whereas imo, 10 minutes in the sin bin is more draconian.
I'd more see 10 minutes in the sin bin as a replacement for the red card offense.
(2 yellow cards, the straight red, the one yellow and one black).
There is a case for increasing punishment as a deterrent in some areas but that method does not work in most areas. There is a fixed belief that punishment works as a deterrent. I would see a greater positive to have 2 refs, discrete video ref assistance and and seeing as the standard of the refs' decisions is a permanent bugbear, there's an argument for having a panel of full time refs.
Is the problem not the inconsistent application of the rule rather than the punishment? To improve this, you either need to use video evidence or simplify the list of offences
I expect the black card to get the black card at some point shortly and also expect everyone to forget it ever happened. until another group of eejits put it to congress in 10 years or so.
It's your crowd's fault we ever had it to begin with.
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 12, 2016, 11:07:09 PM
Is the problem not the inconsistent application of the rule rather than the punishment? To improve this, you either need to use video evidence or simplify the list of offences
...And ironically the problem it was supposed to solve was caused by the inconsistent application of the rules.
I know the blanket defence came into force before the black card but does the black card add to the reason why more and more teams are happy to play with so many defenders behind the ball?
The skill of man to man defending seems to be disappearing year on year with more teams depending on getting men back in numbers to close off space with the risk of players getting a black card should they make a bad tackle.
So some would say the black card has led to more diving and more blanket defence, even for teams like Kerry, Mayo and Dublin.
It's definitely resulted in more diving but I don't think it's across the board.
There are about half a dozen high-profile divers that are constantly trying to manufacture cards of some colour or other.
I heard the president on the radio this morning, he said that the stats from first 3 years with the black card show that there were MORE scores and LESS frees than the previous 3 years without the black card!
Obviously, he would say that, but I assume his stats are accurate.
Quote from: westbound on October 13, 2016, 10:32:37 AM
I heard the president on the radio this morning, he said that the stats from first 3 years with the black card show that there were MORE scores and LESS frees than the previous 3 years without the black card!
Obviously, he would say that, but I assume his stats are accurate.
What about the stats for incorrect decisions?
Define an 'incorrect decision'?
Did James McCarthy deserve a black card in the drawn game against Mayo?
As far as I'm concerned, yes he did.
That didn't stop people having a go at the ref/linesman afterwards.
The correctness, or otherwise, of a black card decision is largely in the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: Jinxy on October 13, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Define an 'incorrect decision'?
Did James McCarthy deserve a black card in the drawn game against Mayo?
As far as I'm concerned, yes he did.
That didn't stop people having a go at the ref/linesman afterwards.
The correctness, or otherwise, of a black card decision is largely in the eye of the beholder.
And there in lies its major problem.
Alot of these decisions are impossible to nail down to a definitive right of wrong.
Off the top of my head , the mattie donnelly one v donegal, the lee keegan one in the replay,the non- cards for small & Md Mcauley in the final where all incorrect.
The problem is these are potential game changing decisions that are regularly being called wrongly.
It mostly comes down to either:
a) The referee's interpretation of the level of 'intent' involved,
or
b) The referee's willingness to end a players involvement at an early or pivotal point in the game.
And it should be a) completely. B should not come into it.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 13, 2016, 11:04:52 AM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 13, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Define an 'incorrect decision'?
Did James McCarthy deserve a black card in the drawn game against Mayo?
As far as I'm concerned, yes he did.
That didn't stop people having a go at the ref/linesman afterwards.
The correctness, or otherwise, of a black card decision is largely in the eye of the beholder.
And there in lies its major problem.
Alot of these decisions are impossible to nail down to a definitive right of wrong.
Off the top of my head , the mattie donnelly one v donegal, the lee keegan one in the replay,the non- cards for small & Md Mcauley in the final where all incorrect.
The problem is these are potential game changing decisions that are regularly being called wrongly.
There were incorrect game changing decisions before the black card. It's going to happen. A referee not giving a penalty when he should is arguably more game-changing than a player having to be replaced.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 13, 2016, 11:08:57 AM
And it should be a) completely. B should not come into it.
Exactly.
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 13, 2016, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 13, 2016, 11:04:52 AM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 13, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Define an 'incorrect decision'?
Did James McCarthy deserve a black card in the drawn game against Mayo?
As far as I'm concerned, yes he did.
That didn't stop people having a go at the ref/linesman afterwards.
The correctness, or otherwise, of a black card decision is largely in the eye of the beholder.
And there in lies its major problem.
Alot of these decisions are impossible to nail down to a definitive right of wrong.
Off the top of my head , the mattie donnelly one v donegal, the lee keegan one in the replay,the non- cards for small & Md Mcauley in the final where all incorrect.
The problem is these are potential game changing decisions that are regularly being called wrongly.
There were incorrect game changing decisions before the black card. It's going to happen. A referee not giving a penalty when he should is arguably more game-changing than a player having to be replaced.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 13, 2016, 11:08:57 AM
And it should be a) completely. B should not come into it.
Exactly.
Of course there where , but there are far more now.
Just because there was mistakes made before , doesnt mean ewe should accept a greater number now.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 13, 2016, 11:55:10 AM
Quote from: Esmarelda on October 13, 2016, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 13, 2016, 11:04:52 AM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 13, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Define an 'incorrect decision'?
Did James McCarthy deserve a black card in the drawn game against Mayo?
As far as I'm concerned, yes he did.
That didn't stop people having a go at the ref/linesman afterwards.
The correctness, or otherwise, of a black card decision is largely in the eye of the beholder.
And there in lies its major problem.
Alot of these decisions are impossible to nail down to a definitive right of wrong.
Off the top of my head , the mattie donnelly one v donegal, the lee keegan one in the replay,the non- cards for small & Md Mcauley in the final where all incorrect.
The problem is these are potential game changing decisions that are regularly being called wrongly.
There were incorrect game changing decisions before the black card. It's going to happen. A referee not giving a penalty when he should is arguably more game-changing than a player having to be replaced.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 13, 2016, 11:08:57 AM
And it should be a) completely. B should not come into it.
Exactly.
Of course there where , but there are far more now.
Just because there was mistakes made before , doesnt mean ewe should accept a greater number now.
There are far more now? Because of the black card rule?
I don't agree. There could be half a dozen questionable frees/frees not given in scoreable positions per game.
Over the summer, I'd say the average questionable black card decision per game was very low. Maybe one per game.
It's not a matter of accepting it. It's a matter of acknowledging that key mistakes will be made with or without the black card rule and the focus should be on removing the crimes from the game and enforcing the rules where applicable.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 13, 2016, 11:04:52 AM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 13, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Define an 'incorrect decision'?
Did James McCarthy deserve a black card in the drawn game against Mayo?
As far as I'm concerned, yes he did.
That didn't stop people having a go at the ref/linesman afterwards.
The correctness, or otherwise, of a black card decision is largely in the eye of the beholder.
And there in lies its major problem.
Alot of these decisions are impossible to nail down to a definitive right of wrong.
Off the top of my head , the mattie donnelly one v donegal, the lee keegan one in the replay,the non- cards for small & Md Mcauley in the final where all incorrect.
The problem is these are potential game changing decisions that are regularly being called wrongly.
But on that basis we shouldn't bring in a sin bin either?
a sin bin will 'probably' have a greater impact on a game than a player being subbed (black-carded) and referees will get these calls wrong too.
Shouldn't we be trying to help referees getting the decisions correct rather than trying to change the punishment (just because the referees sometimes make incorrect calls!)
Quote from: westbound on October 13, 2016, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on October 13, 2016, 11:04:52 AM
Quote from: Jinxy on October 13, 2016, 11:00:50 AM
Define an 'incorrect decision'?
Did James McCarthy deserve a black card in the drawn game against Mayo?
As far as I'm concerned, yes he did.
That didn't stop people having a go at the ref/linesman afterwards.
The correctness, or otherwise, of a black card decision is largely in the eye of the beholder.
And there in lies its major problem.
Alot of these decisions are impossible to nail down to a definitive right of wrong.
Off the top of my head , the mattie donnelly one v donegal, the lee keegan one in the replay,the non- cards for small & Md Mcauley in the final where all incorrect.
The problem is these are potential game changing decisions that are regularly being called wrongly.
But on that basis we shouldn't bring in a sin bin either?
a sin bin will 'probably' have a greater impact on a game than a player being subbed (black-carded) and referees will get these calls wrong too.
Shouldn't we be trying to help referees getting the decisions correct rather than trying to change the punishment (just because the referees sometimes make incorrect calls!)
That's what I was getting at. Thanks for explaining it better.
Lads the campaign was started by Whelan towards Lee Keegan and continued by other lesser Dublin names. All of Whelan's fellow panelists said nothing – too afraid that they would rock the boat. How could they go for pints afterwards?. To portray them as journalists is a joke. To portray the media outlets they work for as producing quality output is therefore a joke. Whatever about Vinnie Murphy commenting at least he is not a paid journalist. When you are paid to write something you need to leave your prejudices at home and you need to show your character and bottle. O'Shea, Dolan, Spillane, Brolly, O'Rourke, Lyster and Cahill showed none when Keegan, AOS and others were subjected to a biased and personal attack by one of their own. They circled the wagons.
Some soft black cards handed out this weekend, saw Donie Kingston's there and it looked like nothing. The kerry midfielder was even less of an offence
Dubs are immune.
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 26, 2017, 10:25:47 PM
Some soft black cards handed out this weekend, saw Donie Kingston's there and it looked like nothing. The kerry midfielder was even less of an offence
Looked like Kingston slipped and accidently caught the Tipp lad's heel. Free but no black card as it certainly didn't look deliberate/cynical.
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 26, 2017, 10:25:47 PM
Some soft black cards handed out this weekend, saw Donie Kingston's there and it looked like nothing. The kerry midfielder was even less of an offence
Didn't see Kingston one but Kerry one was just a common foul.
Roscommon's black last night was a black. Didn't see the Boyle incident but a few that did reckoned it was a black and could have been more.
Quote from: moysider on February 27, 2017, 12:08:51 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on February 26, 2017, 10:25:47 PM
Some soft black cards handed out this weekend, saw Donie Kingston's there and it looked like nothing. The kerry midfielder was even less of an offence
Didn't see Kingston one but Kerry one was just a common foul.
Roscommon's black last night was a black. Didn't see the Boyle incident but a few that did reckoned it was a black and could have been more.
The Kerry one was a classic black offense not a common foul, a deliberate trip on a player with momentum on the counter attack, This is precisely the reason why black cards were brought in, to cut out exactly this type of cynical fouling to slow down the counter attack.
Cynical ploys that pay dividends are ruining our game
By Declan Bogue in the Belfast Telegraph
Last Wednesday night during one of the Ulster Under-21 Championship games, a goalkeeper went to take one of his first kickouts. Almost immediately after he left the ball on his tee, the members of the opposition bench were onto the nearby linesman, making a lot of fuss about how long the kickout was taking, even though the goalkeeper had yet to even begin his run-up.
After some time, the linesman must have felt the heat as he relayed it to the referee. From that point, the goalkeeper was unfairly pressured to rush his kickouts.
Who were the teams? It doesn't matter. It happened and it was clearly a strategy they thought they could implement. And it paid dividends.
That is among Under-21s, who take their lead from the senior inter-county game. Last weekend, we had an All-Ireland Club final and an Ulster derby that showed up the major fault of Gaelic football, which is that - four years after the introduction of the black card - it still pays to cheat.
Nowadays, players hold on to an opponents' jersey and drag them back. It is no less a cynical foul than a trip, or dragging your opponent to the ground.
While there is a yellow card to deal with that kind of infraction, for some inexplicable reason referees display extreme caution when it comes to dishing a few out.
On Friday, Slaughtneil's inspirational Chrissy McKaigue was fouled 11 times when he gained possession in the All-Ireland Club final against Dr Crokes. His marker Gavin O'Shea was a persistent offender, but other forwards such as Johnny Buckley and Kieran O'Leary got in on the act.
Now, Kerry men have never had an issue with doing what it takes to win a game of football.
Two years ago in the final league match of the year, Kerry fouled 34 times in comparison to Tyrone's 14. They didn't really make any bones about it.
The true competitors of Kerry - the likes of the Ó Sé brothers, Mike Quirke and Dara Ó Cinnéide - will speak openly of the need to 'hammer the hammer'.
When selector Harry O'Neill was asked about Crokes hammering the hammer that is McKaigue, he clearly wasn't expecting the question but fronted up. You target the big opposition players, he said.
The thing is, the ways and means of 'targeting' opposition players has descended into schoolyard bullying. Last summer, Diarmuid Connolly spent significant minutes across a few games standing on the Croke Park sideline waiting to get a replacement jersey after his original was ripped by opponents.
Sean Cavanagh was dismissed after a second yellow card in an All-Ireland quarter-final because of an outbreak of pulling and dragging that the referee would like us to think he was equally culpable of.
And last Saturday night in Ballybofey when Donegal beat Tyrone, we watched the same old nonsense playing itself out between two teams that seem to just hate each other - a virus that has worked its way down to under-age levels.
Neither side want to go down to 14 men, so they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to goad each other into a reaction and forcing the referee to send off a member of the opposition.
Asked about the nature of the rivalry between these two in particular, Tyrone boss Mickey Harte responded: "When someone rises as a power, someone else wants to challenge that power.
"Rivalries happen from time to time, and sometimes the whole idea of the enmity that exists within that can be overplayed.
"I know crowds can get fractious in terms of the vociferous nature of their comments and things like that but that is always going to happen when you have people who are very passionate and maybe don't have as much sense to go with the passion."
He has a point and sometimes you should be careful what you wish for. After all, the rivalries contained within Ulster football makes it practically the only provincial Championship worth following every game when other provinces have given up.
But it does not have to be like this. The black card was also brought in for 'sledging' of opponents. If referee David Coldrick had his umpires on the lookout for this and flashed a few cards early on, we could have ended up with a different game altogether.
It was Coldrick, you might recall, who was the central character in the 2014 documentary 'Man In Black' which had him mic'd up for the 2013 Ulster final. That was a game played before the era of the black card, but it's hard to imagine that players have toned down the verbals significantly.
The suspicion is that somewhere along the way, referees have been instructed to use the black card very sparingly for sledging. What we are left with are games ruined by spite.
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 23, 2017, 12:10:51 PM
Cynical ploys that pay dividends are ruining our game
By Declan Bogue in the Belfast Telegraph
....
On Friday, Slaughtneil's inspirational Chrissy McKaigue was fouled 11 times when he gained possession in the All-Ireland Club final against Dr Crokes. His marker Gavin O'Shea was a persistent offender, but other forwards such as Johnny Buckley and Kieran O'Leary got in on the act.
Now, Kerry men have never had an issue with doing what it takes to win a game of football.
Two years ago in the final league match of the year, Kerry fouled 34 times in comparison to Tyrone's 14. They didn't really make any bones about it.
The true competitors of Kerry - the likes of the Ó Sé brothers, Mike Quirke and Dara Ó Cinnéide - will speak openly of the need to 'hammer the hammer'.
When selector Harry O'Neill was asked about Crokes hammering the hammer that is McKaigue, he clearly wasn't expecting the question but fronted up. You target the big opposition players, he said.
The thing is, the ways and means of 'targeting' opposition players has descended into schoolyard bullying. Last summer, Diarmuid Connolly spent significant minutes across a few games standing on the Croke Park sideline waiting to get a replacement jersey after his original was ripped by opponents.
Sean Cavanagh was dismissed after a second yellow card in an All-Ireland quarter-final because of an outbreak of pulling and dragging that the referee would like us to think he was equally culpable of.
...
And the usual amadáin hereon whine on about Tír Eoghain being
the most cynical team ::)
the Team that doesn't get caught is usually the most Cynical team
I refereed a minor game last week. Often went 5 minutes without a foul as the players (mostly) want to play football, and are less bothered about trying to grind opponents down. So refreshing.
The only way to encourage grown men back into this kind of behaviour is by making it the most desirable outcome.
So I reckon there genuinely aren't enough black cards being shown in adult football.
I still believe we should trial playing a competition with no yellow cards. They're a get out of jail free card for players and most annoyingly, for referees.
Refs would be encouraged to dish out blacks for anything unsporting .
Cynical fouls / persistent fouling: black card.
Normal fouls that a contact sport should involve: carry the f**k on lads. This is football.
Dangerous fouls: red card.
Niall Sludden's card yesterday was as bad a decision as I've seen with regards the black card. The refs clearly aren't getting any better in applying it effectively.
It was an absolute disgrace black card and I think it highlights that the rule needs to be changed.
I think there is still a place for the black card alright but it needs to be for VERY obvious cynical play and not given in marginal decisions where you are not sure about the intent.
I wasn't even sure if Sludden's one was a foul to be honest.
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 27, 2017, 11:59:32 AM
It was an absolute disgrace black card and I think it highlights that the rule needs to be changed.
I think there is still a place for the black card alright but it needs to be for VERY obvious cynical play and not given in marginal decisions where you are not sure about the intent.
I wasn't even sure if Sludden's one was a foul to be honest.
I watched a bit of this whilst waiting on the hurling and Sluddens was dodgy alright, but the lad who belted O'Connor in the face should have gotten a red as there was f**k all accidental about it.
"sorry ref my arms were accidentally flailing about there"
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 27, 2017, 11:59:32 AM
It was an absolute disgrace black card and I think it highlights that the rule needs to be changed.
I think there is still a place for the black card alright but it needs to be for VERY obvious cynical play and not given in marginal decisions where you are not sure about the intent.
I wasn't even sure if Sludden's one was a foul to be honest.
Agree with this entirely. Sludden tried to tackle and in the process probably took the legs from Keegan but it wasn't deliberate or cynical so a foul at best and nothing more. Keegan's wasn't a black either but looked a bit more like one in real time. However, referees should be slow to give black cards for 50/50 things and keep it for the ones where they are 100% sure it was deliberate and cynical. Ending a man's game is something referees shouldn't do lightly.
Referees too often give the impression that they've suddenly just remembered again about the black card, and therefore jump to brandish it at the earliest, though inevitably most inopportune and most inappropriate, opportunity. It either needs to be applied properly or jettisoned completely at this stage, having marred or destroyed too many games at this point through total misapplication, whether through incompetence or ignorance.
Keegan's was a stonewall black card.
He dragged McNabb around by the hips and took him to the ground after he broke past him. Certain black card, just because he pulled his hands away when McNabb was falling doesn't come into it. Kirby's was justified as well. Donnelly certainly should have had a black card later on in the game.
Sludden's was an absolute joke, he slapped the ball and got black carded, it was harsh to award a foul nevermind a black card.
Conor Lane is a cretin though, I'm sure some of the Derry lads will remember the black card he issued to Brendan Rodgers in a Championship game in Salthill 2 years ago. Brian McIver packed it in on the basis of Lane's performance.
I don't feel done by Lane yesterday, he made bizarre calls all through the match against both sides but he really should not be allowed near a big game this summer.
Dara mcvitty was rugby tackled while one on one with the keeper yesterday, dragged to the ground. The referee gave him a free in and didn't give a card of any description to the culprit. It was one of those ones you'd see on pat McEneaney's video of what a black card is for. Then Pat didn't legislate for Maurice Deegan being a ref.
GAA Football Rules book.
(http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wikipedia_book_02.jpg)
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on March 27, 2017, 06:43:08 PM
Keegan's was a stonewall black card.
He dragged McNabb around by the hips and took him to the ground after he broke past him. Certain black card, just because he pulled his hands away when McNabb was falling doesn't come into it. Kirby's was justified as well. Donnelly certainly should have had a black card later on in the game.
Sludden's was an absolute joke, he slapped the ball and got black carded, it was harsh to award a foul nevermind a black card.
Conor Lane is a cretin though, I'm sure some of the Derry lads will remember the black card he issued to Brendan Rodgers in a Championship game in Salthill 2 years ago. Brian McIver packed it in on the basis of Lane's performance.
I don't feel done by Lane yesterday, he made bizarre calls all through the match against both sides but he really should not be allowed near a big game this summer.
Lane set the tone early on with a ridiculous yellow card to a mayo player. Keegans was probably a black deservedly but it's the type of foul most refs cop out with a yellow card. I thought kirbys was a yellow card offence. Sluddens was very harsh but he does stick his leg out which makes it look like a trip. It looked completely accidental though and that's why it shouldn't have been a card. Donnelly could've got a black in the 2nd half.
The problem is that refs are not implementing the rule. Too much individual and circumstantial interpretation. It was brought in to stop deliberate dragging down - not clumsy tackling (Sean Cavanagh's tackle that probably started the move for this card). Clumsy tackling an ordinary free and a ticking. Dragging at a player that falls down or dives consequently is not a black. A black also for taking a man out on a support run ( like Richie Feeney got ). A black also for verbal abuse/sledgng - but good luck with that happening. A yellow is for a successions of tickings or a reckless tackle that is not quite a red. The problem is that refs are not accurate enough and winging it. The same ref. will give black one day, yellow another, ticking another, ignore completely another, depending on his humour and the nature of the game. Refs. just need to be more clinical.
The Black card was approved at Congress 3 or 4 months before the Cavanagh foul.
Why do people keep saying it was introduced because of Cavanagh ? ??
Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2017, 09:07:11 AM
The Black card was approved at Congress 3 or 4 months before the Cavanagh foul.
Why do people keep saying it was introduced because of Cavanagh ? ??
We were going to a match somewhere last year and the brother stated that it was brought in because of Cavanagh. I had to go online to disprove this and he had to eat humble pie for once. The bollox is nearly always right though :-)
Ideally it would be for instances where there's no attempt whatsoever to tackle and it's just taking the man out of it to stop him. Difficult to define in an objective way though
Quote from: Il Bomber Destro on March 27, 2017, 06:43:08 PM
Keegan's was a stonewall black card.
He dragged McNabb around by the hips and took him to the ground after he broke past him. Certain black card, just because he pulled his hands away when McNabb was falling doesn't come into it. Kirby's was justified as well. Donnelly certainly should have had a black card later on in the game.
Sludden's was an absolute joke, he slapped the ball and got black carded, it was harsh to award a foul nevermind a black card.
Conor Lane is a cretin though, I'm sure some of the Derry lads will remember the black card he issued to Brendan Rodgers in a Championship game in Salthill 2 years ago. Brian McIver packed it in on the basis of Lane's performance.
I don't feel done by Lane yesterday, he made bizarre calls all through the match against both sides but he really should not be allowed near a big game this summer.
http://www.the42.ie/black-card-offences-gaa-graphic-1246838-Jan2014/
Keegan should not have got a black card. Learn the rules
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 28, 2017, 01:32:16 PM
Ideally it would be for instances where there's no attempt whatsoever to tackle and it's just taking the man out of it to stop him. Difficult to define in an objective way though
Exactly.
In my opinion in the first year or so, refs generally implemented it well. But the gobshites in the media who didn't understand it were constantly bleating about various challenges that they wrongly said deserved black cards.
Now some refs are handing them out far too readily. A ref should be 100% sure the intention of the player was to bring the player to ground without an attempt to make a proper tackle.
Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2017, 09:07:11 AM
The Black card was approved at Congress 3 or 4 months before the Cavanagh foul.
Why do people keep saying it was introduced because of Cavanagh ? ??
Maybe because it was the foul that black cards were supposed to punish. Not a lazy tackle or a tackle where a player feels hands on him and dives to the ground.
Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies
Quote from: RedHandTom on March 28, 2017, 11:51:54 PM
Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies
I've no problem with the black card. It's the referees that seem to have the biggest problem getting used to it and implementing it consistently. And that is just any individual referee over different games, let along all refs. singing off the same hymn sheet.
It's becoming like rugby where different refs. referee the scrum and the breakdown differently and players adjust how they play to what they think the referee is going to punish or allow.
Quote from: moysider on March 29, 2017, 12:01:33 AM
Quote from: RedHandTom on March 28, 2017, 11:51:54 PM
Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies
I've no problem with the black card. It's the referees that seem to have the biggest problem getting used to it and implementing it consistently. And that is just any individual referee over different games, let along all refs. singing off the same hymn sheet.
It's becoming like rugby where different refs. referee the scrum and the breakdown differently and players adjust how they play to what they think the referee is going to punish or allow.
I would argue it is many 'expert' analysts on tv who have the biggest problem getting used to it. Many of these 'experts' blatantly don't know the rules.
So many supporters at games don't know the rules either, hence nearly every free awarded you hear some eejits shouting black card!
In fairness to the refs, they know the rules, but I agree that the inconsistency is a problem. But it is virtually impossible to be consistent when you have to try and decide in a split second (with no tv replays) the
intention of the offender.
Quote from: westbound on March 29, 2017, 12:04:49 PM
Quote from: moysider on March 29, 2017, 12:01:33 AM
Quote from: RedHandTom on March 28, 2017, 11:51:54 PM
Was speaking to a well known inter county referee tonight and he reckons the black card is here to stay for the long term. Get used to it lads and lassies
I've no problem with the black card. It's the referees that seem to have the biggest problem getting used to it and implementing it consistently. And that is just any individual referee over different games, let along all refs. singing off the same hymn sheet.
It's becoming like rugby where different refs. referee the scrum and the breakdown differently and players adjust how they play to what they think the referee is going to punish or allow.
I would argue it is many 'expert' analysts on tv who have the biggest problem getting used to it. Many of these 'experts' blatantly don't know the rules.
So many supporters at games don't know the rules either, hence nearly every free awarded you hear some eejits shouting black card!
In fairness to the refs, they know the rules, but I agree that the inconsistency is a problem. But it is virtually impossible to be consistent when you have to try and decide in a split second (with no tv replays) the intention of the offender.
I agree with this. It has become a self fulfilling prophesy. 'Experts' saying it is unworkable, and then making a balls of explaining what is and isn't a black card. Pressure mounts on refs. Refs then second guess every decision, which leads to inconsistency. Which then leads to it being unworkable. Q.E.D. 'Experts' can say they were right all along.
I don't know why referees even bother. You have boys on here arguing and whining and disagreeing on fouls that they've seen three different ways in slow motion, yet there is non-stop crying about the decisions of referees who get one real time, split second, look at a particular foul, from who knows what angle, with who knows how many players in the way, with who knows what antics the players involved are up to or what intent is involved. And all of those factors are highly variable, which means the same foul two minutes later might not be seen in the same way by the same ref. Its no wonder soccer went the professional referee route. There is no sum you could pay me to convince me to carry out this thankless task that our games couldn't exist without.
With it being so hard for refs to decide whether or not it was a cynical foul then there are going to be lots of mistakes made and in big matches this could be the difference to winning and losing. Can you imagine if the Dubs lost Rock to an early black card or Mayo lost CoC and how it would affect the game.
For argument sake lets say Lee Keegan gets out in front of Rock or Connolly and gets the ball. The forward puts his hand in to tackle and Keegan grabs his arm and throws himself to the ground. The ref who is miles away gives the free and a black card. The punishment is too much for the crime in my opinion.
If the black card was ONLY for very very obvious cynical play like an intentional foot trip or rugby tackle when the player has broke free of his man rather than a trip because their legs crossed each other or a foot trip because the offender was reaching for the ball and caught the player's leg.
I think most of us know the type of cynical fouls that we want the black card to stop but it is too wide in its scope in my opinion and so too often players are been removed from the field of play early in a match because they made a genuine mistake or silly tackle
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 29, 2017, 03:39:24 PM
With it being so hard for refs to decide whether or not it was a cynical foul then there are going to be lots of mistakes made and in big matches this could be the difference to winning and losing. Can you imagine if the Dubs lost Rock to an early black card or Mayo lost CoC and how it would affect the game.
For argument sake lets say Lee Keegan gets out in front of Rock or Connolly and gets the ball. The forward puts his hand in to tackle and Keegan grabs his arm and throws himself to the ground. The ref who is miles away gives the free and a black card. The punishment is too much for the crime in my opinion.
If the black card was ONLY for very very obvious cynical play like an intentional foot trip or rugby tackle when the player has broke free of his man rather than a trip because their legs crossed each other or a foot trip because the offender was reaching for the ball and caught the player's leg.
I think most of us know the type of cynical fouls that we want the black card to stop but it is too wide in its scope in my opinion and so too often players are been removed from the field of play early in a match because they made a genuine mistake or silly tackle
The black card is currently for intentional foot trips and is not for an accidental foot trip. That is the current rule.
I know that Westbound but my point is it should need to be very obvious that the fouling player was trying to take his opponent down as opposed to reach out to tackle to win the ball.
Last year in the Ulster final McShane got a black card for a foot trip (we think) but it looked like he was trying to protect his face from a boot and there was no clear advantage from him doing that. I think most would have thought even a yellow card wasn't necessary as it didn't look like cynical play.
There was another incident last year when Johnny Cooper got a black card for a foot trip on a Mayo player I think around the 40 yard line. I think there were a few players on the ground and so no real advantage to the attacker yet Cooper pulled back his foot. In that incidence I thought a yellow would suffice but under the current law he got a black.
However, if a forward gets out in front of his man and wins the ball, turns his man but his man drags back his foot/leg and he falls then that is much more obvious of cynical play and that's what I'm saying people want to see the black card used for. I think ALL black cards decisions should be discussed first between the ref and his assistants to get a better consensus before making the call. It's a big deal to send someone off and so you should be pretty sure you're right before ending someone's game. I just think they are being handed out too easily and some of our games are being spoiled as we're losing our best players because of it.
But if they have to be "very sure" then you'll have fans and pundits screaming about the ones where the slow motion replays show they erred in not issuing the card.
They can't win.
Of course they're never always gonna get it right but I think the fact the black card is there at all now means players are a lot less likely to be cynical in their fouling. It certainly has cleaned up the 3rd man tackle or taking a runner out sort of tackle and you don't see as many rugby style drag a man down around the hips.
I think it has worked to a degree but where most people have a problem with it now is players getting a black card when a yellow would suffice but refs feel under pressure to give a black.
Quote from: Fuzzman on March 30, 2017, 12:04:21 PM
Of course they're never always gonna get it right but I think the fact the black card is there at all now means players are a lot less likely to be cynical in their fouling. It certainly has cleaned up the 3rd man tackle or taking a runner out sort of tackle and you don't see as many rugby style drag a man down around the hips.
I think it has worked to a degree but where most people have a problem with it now is players getting a black card when a yellow would suffice but refs feel under pressure to give a black.
Some times a foul is just a foul. We've now developed this soccer culture of calling for cards after almost every foul (and I must admit to getting drawn into it myself on a few occasions). I've always opposed this rule but the biggest thing is the word "deliberate". I'm not someone who usually defends referees but how can you be a mind reader? A club mate of mine got a very harsh black card last week against Offaly. He did trip or pull down the player but he seemed to me to be genuinely trying to play the ball/dispossess the guy as he usually does (he's a particularly good, clean tackler) but when he didn't get the ball the player came down. I know the guy so perhaps that's why I'd give the benefit of the doubt but obviously the ref went the other way.
If the aim is for refereeing perfection then a video ref would go a good way to achieving that.
In the time that Coldrick spent discussing with the umpire about McShane's hand trip in that Ulster final, a video ref in a Ford Transit van outside the ground could have told him, after viewing the replay from a different angle, that it was more likely McShane was protecting his face than indulging in dark art cynical fouling.
On the flip side, I could imagine Coldrick being way too slow and pedantic about receiving the assistance of the video ref.
The word deliberate should be removed.
Black cards should be used to stop opponents gaining an advantage from coughing up a "cute" free. The overwhelming majority of these instances are "lazy" fouls that kill momentum before it starts, or else trips designed to stop an attacker reaching a shooting position.
It's extremely difficult to judge these incidents when they involve a head-on tackle, as in many of these cases the foul is caused by trickery and movement, rather than a purposeful attempt to kill play by any means necessary.
Instead we should concentrate on fouls from behind.
So something along the lines of this would suffice:
"when tackling a player from behind (i.e. at an angle between 90 and 270 degrees from the direction of the attacker's movement), if the tackling action results in a technical foul that causes the ball carrier to trip or stumble, the tackler should be punished with a black card."
Simply put, if you choose to tackle a player from begin, don't foul him, or it's an early bath.
Is it illegal to tackle an opponent from behind?
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 30, 2017, 09:05:57 PM
Is it illegal to tackle an opponent from behind?
I don't think so! Andy Moran always get tackled form behind. Rarely gets a free for it.
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 30, 2017, 09:05:57 PM
Is it illegal to tackle an opponent from behind?
No, but it's more difficult not to actually foul in so doing.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on March 30, 2017, 09:32:05 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 30, 2017, 09:05:57 PM
Is it illegal to tackle an opponent from behind?
No, but it's more difficult not to actually foul in so doing.
Does pushing earn a black card issue, from behind or otherwise, if the player being pushed falls to the ground?
Ah come on, you have to know this
QuoteGAA Black card offences are:
1 To deliberately pull down an opponent
2 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand, arm or foot
3 To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play
4 To use abusive or provocative language or gestures to players
5 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a match official.
Quote from: twohands!!! on March 31, 2017, 05:39:54 PM
QuoteGAA Black card offences are:
1 To deliberately pull down an opponent
2 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand, arm or foot
3 To deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play
4 To use abusive or provocative language or gestures to players
5 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a match official.
Well Holy God...when a man is in front of you and bearing down on goal, push him off-balance (he may fall to ground or maybe not) rather than pull him down and no black card!!!
Wtf are they on about?? Stonewall black card and exactly the kind of thing that needs to be removed from the game. It was an innocuous challenge but he was prevention the fermanagh man getting back to help his defence.
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 21, 2017, 10:28:34 PM
Wtf are they on about?? Stonewall black card and exactly the kind of thing that needs to be removed from the game. It was an innocuous challenge but he was prevention the fermanagh man getting back to help his defence.
Agreed. Refs are there to implement the rules. If the rules are shit then change them but to have referees apply them as they see fit is the reason that we are in the mess that we are. We can't complain about inconsistency and then demand it if other situations.
If refs did apply the rules rigidly then players/supporters would know the craic and either the rule gets obeyed or changed/binned.
Watching the hurling here and there's a lot of cynical fouling going on. How come there's no black card?
Quote from: tonto1888 on June 10, 2017, 07:44:36 PM
Watching the hurling here and there's a lot of cynical fouling going on. How come there's no black card?
Because there are no Pundits calling for rules changes. There are no Pundits saying anything bad about the game.
Because they are too manly to bother about the rules.
Occasionally th'oul ref will blow for a free to let them know he's still around
Now that another season is in the books, I thought I would see if opinions have changed on this. I m still a supporter but understand the inconsistency and the frustration it brings. There could have a few more on Sunday...
It's still nonsense
Quote from: sligoman2 on September 20, 2017, 06:05:43 PM
Now that another season is in the books, I thought I would see if opinions have changed on this. I m still a supporter but understand the inconsistency and the frustration it brings. There could have a few more on Sunday...
Yeah Aidan O'Shea being the most blatant
The most cynical foul of the final was Philly McMahon's pull back of Cillian O'Connor for the point that put Mayo 1-14 to 1-13 up.
Yet under the rules it's not a black card card offence.
Had O'Connor not been pulled back it would have been a gilt-edged goal chance but the pull back allowed Cian O'Sullivan time to get across to cover.
I wonder when Mr Coldrick reflects on his application of the black card last night will he be able to explain how the Donegal goalkeeper escaped one?
Quote from: BennyHarp on March 11, 2018, 08:28:28 AM
I wonder when Mr Coldrick reflects on his application of the black card last night will he be able to explain how the Donegal goalkeeper escaped one?
he had no problem dishing one out to us early in the game when we were in the all ireland semi for a very borderline call. goalkeepers are immune to getting black cards it seems
Niall O'Donnel's black card yesterday!!!!
The black card is a pure farce and to be honest i's not even a punishment to the top teams unless it's a Peter Harte or a Michael Murphy that gets one. Pretty much all the top 6 or so teams will have a like for like replacement for all but 1 or 2 players on the bench already. I didn't see the O'Donnell one yesterday but the lad that came on for him was a more than equal replacement anyway so what's the point. It was and still is a GAA solution to a problem that rather than solve the problem of cynical play, it now legitimised it. The refs are completely incapable of applying it evenly even in the same game let alone across a season. An accidental trip when a team is already cruising through a game in extra time with a huge lead nowhere near the goal is deemed a black card yet cynical fouling of a player through on goal to possibly decide a game isn't unless it falls within the narrow idiotic definition of the card.
IMO the whole thing needs to be scrapped and replaced with a yellow card sin bin like they have in rugby. Anything cynical, diving, verbal abuse, dangerous tackles, consistent fouling by a player or even by a team outside the scoring zone should be punished with the 10 minutes off the pitch. However to properly implement this you need to have the clock stopping for injuries etc as during the league you seen teams simply wasting 7 or 8 minutes of the sin bin time pretending to be hurt.
The black card recipient leaves the pitch and is replaced by a player who has a clean disciplinary slate.
In many cases that isn't a punishment for a black card offence, it's a detox.
Could the original sin theory be applied? that a black card replacement sub has the equivalent of a yellow card infraction as soom as he enters the game and if he picks up one yellow card, he's sent off.
Personally I didn't like the effect that the 10 minute sin bin had on the game.
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2019, 03:29:42 PM
The black card recipient leaves the pitch and is replaced by a player who has a clean disciplinary slate.
In many cases that isn't a punishment for a black card offence, it's a detox.
Could the original sin theory be applied? that a black card replacement sub has the equivalent of a yellow card infraction as soom as he enters the game and if he picks up one yellow card, he's sent off.
Personally I didn't like the effect that the 10 minute sin bin had on the game.
Completely unfair on the player coming in imo to have him on a card for something he didn't do. the 10 minute sin was poorly implemented for the league this year and the Tyrone/Monaghan game's sin bin before half time would not be what you'd normally expect to happen. Also if the black/Sinbin was more liberally applied for all the things I listed in my last post you would have either of 2 things happen.
1) A lot more sin bins, including concurrent sin bins for the same team resulting in a big advantage for the team with 15 players
or
2) A stop to cynical fouling, tactical fouling like we seen from Cork at the weekend around the half way line to stop a break, verbal abuse of players and officials, diving etc.
Yellow = sin bin, you'd see the case with the danger players taken out.
Niggling instigated by the defender, with the likes of a corner back and say, Michael Murphy sin binned for two yellows. We all know refs usually show two yellows when it's clear one player has been the innocent victim. It's a cop out.
I'd say any fan would like to see the likes of Murphy taken out for 10 against their team. And it would get to the point where that sort of thing would be encouraged.
Quote from: Jayop on July 22, 2019, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2019, 03:29:42 PM
The black card recipient leaves the pitch and is replaced by a player who has a clean disciplinary slate.
In many cases that isn't a punishment for a black card offence, it's a detox.
Could the original sin theory be applied? that a black card replacement sub has the equivalent of a yellow card infraction as soom as he enters the game and if he picks up one yellow card, he's sent off.
Personally I didn't like the effect that the 10 minute sin bin had on the game.
Completely unfair on the player coming in imo to have him on a card for something he didn't do. the 10 minute sin was poorly implemented for the league this year and the Tyrone/Monaghan game's sin bin before half time would not be what you'd normally expect to happen. Also if the black/Sinbin was more liberally applied for all the things I listed in my last post you would have either of 2 things happen.
1) A lot more sin bins, including concurrent sin bins for the same team resulting in a big advantage for the team with 15 players
or
2) A stop to cynical fouling, tactical fouling like we seen from Cork at the weekend around the half way line to stop a break, verbal abuse of players and officials, diving etc.
It's not unfair on the black card replacement to already have a yellow card. It's not a personal punishment, it's a punishment on the team.
Where do get the idea that the black card /sin bin is just a punishment on the player? it's a team punishment.
A red card is a punishment on the team on the day.
Quote from: BennyCake on July 22, 2019, 03:40:56 PM
Yellow = sin bin, you’d see the case with the danger players taken out.
Niggling instigated by the defender, with the likes of a corner back and say, Michael Murphy sin binned for two yellows. We all know refs usually show two yellows when it’s clear one player has been the innocent victim. It’s a cop out.
I’d say any fan would like to see the likes of Murphy taken out for 10 against their team. And it would get to the point where that sort of thing would be encouraged.
Black Card 14 yard free middle of the goal , but only for really cynical sean Cavanagh type fouls , Far too much Pork belly politics went into the current rules
Quote from: BennyCake on July 22, 2019, 03:40:56 PM
Yellow = sin bin, you'd see the case with the danger players taken out.
Niggling instigated by the defender, with the likes of a corner back and say, Michael Murphy sin binned for two yellows. We all know refs usually show two yellows when it's clear one player has been the innocent victim. It's a cop out.
I'd say any fan would like to see the likes of Murphy taken out for 10 against their team. And it would get to the point where that sort of thing would be encouraged.
And maybe this would force refs to stop this cop out guessing when two players are rolling about on the ground. That is another thing that drives me nuts. There was one in the Kerry Donegal game where a Kerry lad O'Shea I think was being held on the ground, he was clearly from my pov completely innocent yet he got a yellow. Refs need to quit doing that and unless they actually know what happened then keep tehir cards in their pockets. There's 7 officials on hand, surely we can have a situation where unless one fo them actually sees an incident you don't go handing out yellows for nothing.
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2019, 03:50:27 PM
Quote from: Jayop on July 22, 2019, 03:35:54 PM
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2019, 03:29:42 PM
The black card recipient leaves the pitch and is replaced by a player who has a clean disciplinary slate.
In many cases that isn't a punishment for a black card offence, it's a detox.
Could the original sin theory be applied? that a black card replacement sub has the equivalent of a yellow card infraction as soom as he enters the game and if he picks up one yellow card, he's sent off.
Personally I didn't like the effect that the 10 minute sin bin had on the game.
Completely unfair on the player coming in imo to have him on a card for something he didn't do. the 10 minute sin was poorly implemented for the league this year and the Tyrone/Monaghan game's sin bin before half time would not be what you'd normally expect to happen. Also if the black/Sinbin was more liberally applied for all the things I listed in my last post you would have either of 2 things happen.
1) A lot more sin bins, including concurrent sin bins for the same team resulting in a big advantage for the team with 15 players
or
2) A stop to cynical fouling, tactical fouling like we seen from Cork at the weekend around the half way line to stop a break, verbal abuse of players and officials, diving etc.
It's not unfair on the black card replacement to already have a yellow card. It's not a personal punishment, it's a punishment on the team.
Where do get the idea that the black card /sin bin is just a punishment on the player? it's a team punishment.
A red card is a punishment on the team on the day.
I just disagree that it's not a personal punishment. The player is coming onto the pitch with a yellow against him. It's a nonsense IMO. A sin bin is a much fairer system and works in so many sports around the world really well. Why do the GAA always feel the need to reinvent the wheel.
Yellow and red cards is more than enough. Never seen the sense of black cards other than causing more confusion.
Still a scourge on the game. If the fouls that bad that a man needs to leave the pitch then its a red, if its nothing major or dangerous then a yellows plenty. Hate seeing quality players having their match cut short for lets be honest harmless shite.