Aidan O'Mahony = Pathetic

[AZOffaly]

It was slightly tongue in cheek, but I'd imagine the Kerry lads will feel 'f**k the whole lot of them'.

As for doubt, I wouldn't be 100% sure at all. I'd be more 70-30 to Kerry, but I'd not be shocked if Cork pull it off.

[his holiness nb]

Perhaps the referee should have exercised common sense, but if he was reported for striking, and he did strike (even if it was like a woman), then he had to be suspended.

Whats needed is a full definition of "striking" so. I wouldnt regard what he did as "striking" in the red card sense. As I said before, you could call a pat on the back a "strike" in thats the case.

If not, then the gaa needs to reword the rule to say, striking with an open hand is a yellow card offence, as long as it's only a light tap. How would you even enforce that? Common sense is not an option in this case.

Fair enough AZ, but to say in the rulebook that what he did was a red card offense is crazy.
Commonsense tell me this  . The unfortunately thing is that its a real impossible situation, as you have said, how could you enforce the above?

Its a sad day when we have to hold our hands up and say "common sense is not an option" all because of the actions of a cheat. If O'Mahony acted like a man he would have stayed on his feet, O'connor would have got a yellow at worst (strike or not) and nobody wouldnt have complained as it was clear there was no malice involved.

[orangeman]

The players by their actions are not helping referees at all -
I watched the match last night again - Tomas O'Se wrote Noel O'Leary off near the end - O'Leary went down from the hit, then jumped up and motored on ! Pity the rest of them wouldn't show a bit more honesty.

Refereeing isn't easy and I don't want to be hyppocrtical after the event, but they do have a lot to listen to.

[muppet]

HHNB, or anyone else, please define how the Gaa could write a rule banning striking the head (which I'm sure you agree is undesirable) on one hand, while on the other it allows anwanted, univited contact to the head that is not particularly strong while remaining with the moveable feast that is common sense.

[his holiness nb]

HHNB, or anyone else, please define how the Gaa could write a rule banning striking the head (which I'm sure you agree is undesirable) on one hand, while on the other it allows anwanted, univited contact to the head that is not particularly strong while remaining with the moveable feast that is common sense.

Remove the straight red for a strike, full stop. Empower referees to issue straight reds based on acts of aggression. Referee is empowered to decide if the action merits red, yellow, black or nothing based on HIS opinion of the level of agression. If brought to appeal, same rules apply to the people judging the appeal.

Not ideal by any means, but a rule that deems what O'Connor did deserves a red is just plain wrong.

[full back]

Remove the straight red for a strike, full stop. Empower referees to issue straight reds based on acts of aggression. Referee is empowered to decide if the action merits red, yellow, black or nothing based on HIS opinion of the level of agression. If brought to appeal, same rules apply to the people judging the appeal.

As I said before this might work for county games but it certainly wouldnt work for club games holy man

[Hardy]

When I see the words "common sense" written in relation to implementation of black and white rules, I reach for my revolver. The whole idea of rules is to remove, as much as possible, individual, idiosyncratic interpretations from the officiating at games. When you have to rely on "common sense" ( translation - a referee deciding whether or not he will implement the rules) then there's something wrong with both the rule book and the administration of the association that allows referees to usurp the will of the members in framing the rules.

Anyway, I can only interpret this latest decision as being based on precedent. Since referees have been allowed to ignore the rule disallowing points scored with the open hand, it would be inconsistent to penalise the use of the open hand in any situation!

[Zapatista]

Another skill mastered by Kerry. It seems no matter what any team does to gain an advantage Kerry take it on board and master it. You have to admire that

[muppet]

HHNB, or anyone else, please define how the Gaa could write a rule banning striking the head (which I'm sure you agree is undesirable) on one hand, while on the other it allows anwanted, univited contact to the head that is not particularly strong while remaining with the moveable feast that is common sense.

Remove the straight red for a strike, full stop. Empower referees to issue straight reds based on acts of aggression. Referee is empowered to decide if the action merits red, yellow, black or nothing based on HIS opinion of the level of agression. If brought to appeal, same rules apply to the people judging the appeal.

Not ideal by any means, but a rule that deems what O'Connor did deserves a red is just plain wrong.

Firstly you have not defined 'acts of aggression' or level of aggression.

Secondly you have handed greater discretion to the referees who are obviously getting it wrong as it is, given the steady overturning of their decisions by the appeals process. Any new rule should reduce their discretion or else the appeals should uphold their decisions.

BTW I know the first point is anal in the extreme but everything needs definition when you operate in the world of the likes of Frank Murphy.

[saffron]

Not ideal by any means, but a rule that deems what O'Connor did deserves a red is just plain wrong.

He lifted his hand to another players face - it was petulant and stupid. By the rules its a red. His red card should have stood. Now we have more messing on what is and isnt striking.

[Billys Boots]

The whole idea of rules is to remove, as much as possible, individual, idiosyncratic interpretations from the officiating at games.

Someone needs to point this out to Gerry Kinneavy (or whatever he's calling himself now).

[deiseach]

When I see the words "common sense" written in relation to implementation of black and white rules, I reach for my revolver. The whole idea of rules is to remove, as much as possible, individual, idiosyncratic interpretations from the officiating at games. When you have to rely on "common sense" ( translation - a referee deciding whether or not he will implement the rules) then there's something wrong with both the rule book and the administration of the association that allows referees to usurp the will of the members in framing the rules.

Amen to that. Players, officials and pundits claim on the one hand to want 'consistency' then on the other hand to want 'common sense'. These are mutually exclusive concepts which only make sense together when looked through the filter of "punish them for everything and let us off scot free".

[timmykelleher]

I wonder on what grounds this was overturned?

Did they argue that the referee was deceived by O'Mahoney's mendacious actions.

If that is the case, would their appeal have failed if O'Mahoney had stayed on his feet?



On the point on whether Kerry have the extra motivation because of this, precedent would suggest not.
Remember Anthony Lynch similarly got to play in a replay against the kingdom recently and it did not aversely affect Cork.

I feel overturning this kind of sending off undermines the referee.

I do hope O'Connor grabs his chance and racks up a big score.

[Kerry Mike]

Frank Murphy, the King of the Langers does it again, I'm vexed as f**k but it was expected.

But as I've been living in a glass house all week, I can't be fecking throwing any stones, so for Kerry its simple on Sunday.

Win in for the Kindgom, win it for Darragh, win it for Galvin and then shove up the langer's holes.

[down_head]

a bloody disgrace to his club county and family!! when he looks back at this he suld be sayin to myself wat was i at!! pathetic