When a player is videoed in clear contravention of the rules of the game, but the DRA still rules in favour of the player, you do have to wonder why anyone would be a referee. This is no different t your bosses publicly going against you for following company policy.
Over in the world of soccer, they talk about role models. I'm really not sure about the role models the DRA is helping to create.
Quote from: thewobbler on September 05, 2015, 06:57:59 AM
When a player is videoed in clear contravention of the rules of the game, but the DRA still rules in favour of the player, you do have to wonder why anyone would be a referee. This is no different t your bosses publicly going against you for following company policy.
Over in the world of soccer, they talk about role models. I'm really not sure about the role models the DRA is helping to create.
Kevin Keane situation didn't help matters either to be honest.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on September 05, 2015, 07:12:52 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 05, 2015, 06:57:59 AM
When a player is videoed in clear contravention of the rules of the game, but the DRA still rules in favour of the player, you do have to wonder why anyone would be a referee. This is no different t your bosses publicly going against you for following company policy.
Over in the world of soccer, they talk about role models. I'm really not sure about the role models the DRA is helping to create.
Kevin Keane situation didn't help matters either to be honest.
exactly, him getting off with his made a huge mess of things. thats two clear punches now where its been seen and both players sent off and both players cleared of suspension afterwards, how can they deem any other punches in the future to be more worthy of a suspension when these arent?
I doubt anyone is surprised by that decision. The GAA is just a mirror of Irish society, how often do we see the courts come down in favour of the big boys. We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
Makes a total show of the GAA. Player clearly strikes, seen by linesman and two appeal committees uphold it and he still gets off.
The whole appeal system needs a serious revamp. One appeal and you're done. And getting off needs to be far harder.
The DRA reflects what they believe would happen in a court. As long as a court might let offenders off then this will occur. A referee's job is impossible; he cannot employ CSI to investigate, but has to decide on the spot. If teams oppose the spirit of the game, as Dublin did in this case, then we will have complete chaos.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on September 05, 2015, 07:41:47 AM
I doubt anyone is surprised by that decision. The GAA is just a mirror of Irish society, how often do we see the courts come down in favour of the big boys. We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
Agree but it is everyone who tries to bend rules and "pull a stroke".
As I said the economic crash reflected this and Dr Merkel can not be blamed for insisting we pony up every last cent.
The DRA wouldn't have been looking at the merits of the decision to ban Connolly and instead would have been concentrating on whether or not the procedures were correctly followed. Having been involved in disciplinary matters for a number of sports of the last number of years I can tell you that it can often be difficult for administrators particularly those not from a legal background to always follow the procedures to the standards required. It's not a situation that's unique to the GAA and it is one that is very difficult to prevent against. Particularly when those on the receiving end of suspensions are willing to engage lawyers to fight their appeals.
Brolly covered this in his article last week... The rules were written by laymen and being picked apart by top of the range legal teams. The sooner they rewrite the rulebook with legal guidance the better.
The appeals committees are ordinary lads up against a top of the range legal team but when the legal cases are brought to the DRA the rules are being pored over to a degree not foreseen when they were written.
Horrible decision but not surprising. With the resources The GAA have available there is no excuse for our rulebook to be picked apart so easily and so often!!
Quote from: David McKeown on September 05, 2015, 08:38:18 AM
The DRA wouldn't have been looking at the merits of the decision to ban Connolly and instead would have been concentrating on whether or not the procedures were correctly followed. Having been involved in disciplinary matters for a number of sports of the last number of years I can tell you that it can often be difficult for administrators particularly those not from a legal background to always follow the procedures to the standards required. It's not a situation that's unique to the GAA and it is one that is very difficult to prevent against. Particularly when those on the receiving end of suspensions are willing to engage lawyers to fight their appeals.
Well that's a joke and the GAA need to change this. A players suspension should be determined by the actions of a player on the pitch, not by the actions of the county board administration team. Surely the GAA can change this. This is sport and we can allow it to be run by smart ass lawyers, some who probably have zero involvement in the game.
Quote from: Rodman on September 05, 2015, 08:57:36 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on September 05, 2015, 08:38:18 AM
The DRA wouldn't have been looking at the merits of the decision to ban Connolly and instead would have been concentrating on whether or not the procedures were correctly followed. Having been involved in disciplinary matters for a number of sports of the last number of years I can tell you that it can often be difficult for administrators particularly those not from a legal background to always follow the procedures to the standards required. It's not a situation that's unique to the GAA and it is one that is very difficult to prevent against. Particularly when those on the receiving end of suspensions are willing to engage lawyers to fight their appeals.
Well that's a joke and the GAA need to change this. A players suspension should be determined by the actions of a player on the pitch, not by the actions of the county board administration team. Surely the GAA can change this. This is sport and we can allow it to be run by smart ass lawyers, some who probably have zero involvement in the game.
Kevin Keane got him off. That's the irony
Quote from: thewobbler on September 05, 2015, 06:57:59 AM
When a player is videoed in clear contravention of the rules of the game, but the DRA still rules in favour of the player, you do have to wonder why anyone would be a referee. This is no different t your bosses publicly going against you for following company policy.
Over in the world of soccer, they talk about role models. I'm really not sure about the role models the DRA is helping to create.
You're missing a very fundamental point here wobbler.
The DRA does not adjudicate anything except procedure and the application of rule. I haven't seen their ruling yet but they won't have deliberated on did he or didn't he strike - they will have been asked to consider a specific element of the disciplinary procedure that Dublin feel was not properly applied.
It is not for the DRA to have a moral position on any of these cases nor to consider the implications of their rulings.
Quote from: DuffleKing on September 05, 2015, 09:29:40 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 05, 2015, 06:57:59 AM
When a player is videoed in clear contravention of the rules of the game, but the DRA still rules in favour of the player, you do have to wonder why anyone would be a referee. This is no different t your bosses publicly going against you for following company policy.
Over in the world of soccer, they talk about role models. I'm really not sure about the role models the DRA is helping to create.
You're missing a very fundamental point here wobbler.
The DRA does not adjudicate anything except procedure and the application of rule. I haven't seen their ruling yet but they won't have deliberated on did he or didn't he strike - they will have been asked to consider a specific element of the disciplinary procedure that Dublin feel was not properly applied.
It is not for the DRA to have a moral position on any of these cases nor to consider the implications of their rulings.
Players should not be able to get their ban rescinded by the DRA.
Either way Duffle, this is damaging for the GAA as a man who was clearly guilty of striking has got away Scott free.
Quote from: Syferus on September 05, 2015, 09:33:00 AM
Quote from: DuffleKing on September 05, 2015, 09:29:40 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on September 05, 2015, 06:57:59 AM
When a player is videoed in clear contravention of the rules of the game, but the DRA still rules in favour of the player, you do have to wonder why anyone would be a referee. This is no different t your bosses publicly going against you for following company policy.
Over in the world of soccer, they talk about role models. I'm really not sure about the role models the DRA is helping to create.
You're missing a very fundamental point here wobbler.
The DRA does not adjudicate anything except procedure and the application of rule. I haven't seen their ruling yet but they won't have deliberated on did he or didn't he strike - they will have been asked to consider a specific element of the disciplinary procedure that Dublin feel was not properly applied.
It is not for the DRA to have a moral position on any of these cases nor to consider the implications of their rulings.
Players should not be able to get their ban rescinded by the DRA.
You forgot the bit where all Dublin players can't get their bans rescinded but everyone else can.
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
Quote from: INDIANA on September 05, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
So you think Dublin were right to appeal this?
And mayo right to appeal keanes?
One way around it is to send the player off in the next game, nail them for every little infraction. That'll stop all these appeals if you know you'll be down to 14. Either that or rewrite the rules and procedures. I prefer the former.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on September 05, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
So you think Dublin were right to appeal this?
And mayo right to appeal keanes?
It is my information that the Mayo management did not want to appeal Kevin Keanes Red Card. He made it very clear that it was his decision and his decision alone if he would appeal.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on September 05, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
So you think Dublin were right to appeal this?
And mayo right to appeal keanes?
They are right to appeal if you apply the twisted logic of a lance Armstrong, i.e every inch taken , my rival is at it etc...... There are no saints here. The GAA is a big money matter now and every advantage is sought.
For the first time in my life I care very little for inter county GAA. I frankly care little who wins all Ireland .
Who would want to be a ref? Correct decisions undermined by lawyers and appeals commitees. The rulebook needs a rewrite before the GAA becomes even more of a laughing stock
Quote from: REDCOL on September 05, 2015, 10:02:15 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on September 05, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
So you think Dublin were right to appeal this?
And mayo right to appeal keanes?
It is my information that the Mayo management did not want to appeal Kevin Keanes Red Card. He made it very clear that it was his decision and his decision alone if he would appeal.
And the fact that he did not get a run the last day might back that up. He has done us a disservice if that is the case.
Serious question lads. When was the last suspension actually upheld? I said earlier i wouldnt be surprised if he got off because it is such a shambles but it is the wrong decision.
Quote from: CK_Redhand on September 05, 2015, 10:05:26 AM
Who would want to be a ref? Correct decisions undermined by lawyers and appeals commitees. The rulebook needs a rewrite before the GAA becomes even more of a laughing stock
To be fair the DRA won't say the ref was wrong . Their beef is how would the case stand up if juxtaposed to a legal scenario.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on September 05, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
So you think Dublin were right to appeal this?
And mayo right to appeal keanes?
Dublin were 100% right to appeal it.
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 10:23:16 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on September 05, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
So you think Dublin were right to appeal this?
And mayo right to appeal keanes?
Dublin were 100% right to appeal it.
No they weren't! Just because everyone else does it is not a viable excuse!
Bit of a disgrace when you can drag a man to the ground, beat the head of him with a ref, a linesman, 80,000 spectators and a fair chunk of the viewing public as witnesses and get off scot free.
What kind of message does it send when a guy convicted of assault can go around digging it into players on the GAA field with impunity? Disgusting.
Might as well do away with refs and let a Judge and 2 lawyers run games.
Appalling vista time has arrived.
Think about the reaction of every GAA referee and every potential GAA referee in the land when they heard this.
When the GAA's disciplinary procedures seem to undermine them at every single turn, is it any wonder that refereeing standards aren't higher.
The GAA disciplinary process just constantly kicks referees in the teeth as opposed to supporting them.
Told yes. The Keane decision made it a slam dunk .
Decisions not to charge Philly , COC with anything made it a formality. Imo of course.
Quote from: twohands!!! on September 05, 2015, 11:51:43 AM
Think about the reaction of every GAA referee and every potential GAA referee in the land when they heard this.
When the GAA's disciplinary procedures seem to undermine them at every single turn, is it any wonder that refereeing standards aren't higher.
The GAA disciplinary process just constantly kicks referees in the teeth as opposed to supporting them.
Totally agree.
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 10:23:16 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on September 05, 2015, 09:51:47 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on September 05, 2015, 09:47:53 AM
The counties themselves need to take responsibility for this for appealing these clearcut decisions in the first place.
Mayo and dublin this year and Tyrone, kerry and others inches past.
No one seems to be able to say, fair cop and and take a justified suspension.
No they don't the GAA needs to take responsibility for never rewriting the Disciplinary Rulebook despite promising to do so on several occasions.
The buck stops with them
So you think Dublin were right to appeal this?
And mayo right to appeal keanes?
Dublin were 100% right to appeal it.
Of course they were.
I can't believe lads are complaining about the decisions to appeal. Look at the risk/reward. Zero risk versus huge chance of reward.
Yes it is a serious blight on the games but you can't blame Keane or the DCB.
The problem is with the top level administrators.
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Quote from: screenexile on September 05, 2015, 08:43:28 AM
Brolly covered this in his article last week... The rules were written by laymen and being picked apart by top of the range legal teams. The sooner they rewrite the rulebook with legal guidance the better.
The appeals committees are ordinary lads up against a top of the range legal team but when the legal cases are brought to the DRA the rules are being pored over to a degree not foreseen when they were written.
Horrible decision but not surprising. With the resources The GAA have available there is no excuse for our rulebook to be picked apart so easily and so often!!
The rules were certainly not written by laymen, but laymen are involved in making sure all the rules of procedure are being followed. The rules of procedure may be cumbersome and impractical, I don't know I haven't read them that carefully, regardless the GAA would need a legal expert to make sure all procedures are followed in a disciplinary process, but not involve them in the adjudication.
A player is allowed a 2nd appeal but it is restricted to appeal against the procedures as laid out in the official guide.
The entire matter of the rules of procedure being followed, should be dealt with in the one appeal, the first and only appeal.
I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.
The referee should just yellow card Connelly twice in quick succession ... Job done... Referees must ferl like shit at that level...most at club level the player takes his punishment
Show me the money...
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!! When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 12:37:12 PM
I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.
I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!! When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense
I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said
'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 10:12:55 AM
Serious question lads. When was the last suspension actually upheld? I said earlier i wouldnt be surprised if he got off because it is such a shambles but it is the wrong decision.
Armagh had 3 players suspended last year following Cavan brawl. These were upheld. Obviously they could have done with Dublin lawyers! Feel it is obvious that DRA only rule on procedure. I heard last year that Armagh had proof that one of their players had been punched 4 times before he hit back. The Cavan player was not banned. They were told it was not up to them to decide who should be banned but if procedures had been properly followed.
Quote from: Throw ball on September 05, 2015, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 10:12:55 AM
Serious question lads. When was the last suspension actually upheld? I said earlier i wouldnt be surprised if he got off because it is such a shambles but it is the wrong decision.
Armagh had 3 players suspended last year following Cavan brawl. These were upheld. Obviously they could have done with Dublin lawyers! Feel it is obvious that DRA only rule on procedure. I heard last year that Armagh had proof that one of their players had been punched 4 times before he hit back. The Cavan player was not banned. They were told it was not up to them to decide who should be banned but if procedures had been properly followed.
This is a great example of the failure of the system. Of course he should have been suspended but so should his opponent, who should possibly have got a longer suspension.
Read during the week (irish times?) that both panels that refused DOCs appeal had members who had previously served on the DRA. So how did it get to the DRA? If the first hearings are factual and DRA is procedural then what is the f in point?
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: Throw ball on September 05, 2015, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 10:12:55 AM
Serious question lads. When was the last suspension actually upheld? I said earlier i wouldnt be surprised if he got off because it is such a shambles but it is the wrong decision.
Armagh had 3 players suspended last year following Cavan brawl. These were upheld. Obviously they could have done with Dublin lawyers! Feel it is obvious that DRA only rule on procedure. I heard last year that Armagh had proof that one of their players had been punched 4 times before he hit back. The Cavan player was not banned. They were told it was not up to them to decide who should be banned but if procedures had been properly followed.
This is a great example of the failure of the system. Of course he should have been suspended but so should his opponent, who should possibly have got a longer suspension.
And the 3rd man in who was involved in a number of other incidents. All the rest of the posts about the integrity of the system are bullshit - he was deliberately targetted and wasn't the agressor.
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 12:37:12 PM
I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.
I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.
Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!
Quote from: Red eye on September 05, 2015, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 12:37:12 PM
I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.
I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.
Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!
I don't have detailed information as people are preparing for a match.
Basically CCCC presents a charge with a disciplinary report. Arising out of that the person charged with the offence is entitled to certain information ahead of his hearing and I believe this information was not provided and as such he was not afforded a proper defence at CHC and CAC level.
Right decision.
It's ridiculous that retired judges and solicitors are involved in this process at the last minute. County boards preach discipline at club level yet do all in their power to get a county player off even when it is obvious he deserved the suspension. I heard on radio during the week Dublin also appealed Liam Rushe's red card against Waterford even though he struck with the hurley to opponents helmet off the ball. This appeal was rightly turned down.
There are too many layers of appeal and counties are chancing their arm that one of them will overturn the ban but sporting justice should be done and legal eagles kept away from the process.
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Red eye on September 05, 2015, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 12:37:12 PM
I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.
I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.
Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!
I don't have detailed information as people are preparing for a match.
Basically CCCC presents a charge with a disciplinary report. Arising out of that the person charged with the offence is entitled to certain information ahead of his hearing and I believe this information was not provided and as such he was not afforded a proper defence at CHC and CAC level.
Right decision.
So CCCC have not supplied the information he was entitled to - the question regarding the quashing of the suspension now falls at their door.
I personally have a difficulty with apparent ducking and diving to avoid the disciplinary measures imposed and as someone mentioned previously this is wholly the wrong decision for attracting and retaining youth to GAA activity.
The blame is not with Dublin - the blame is firmly at the door of the authorities who have set the system up and then, if this is correct, have not followed procedure to ensure their suspensions are watertight.
Quote from: Red eye on September 05, 2015, 04:20:11 PM
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: Red eye on September 05, 2015, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: heffo on September 05, 2015, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 05, 2015, 12:37:12 PM
I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.
I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.
Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!
I don't have detailed information as people are preparing for a match.
Basically CCCC presents a charge with a disciplinary report. Arising out of that the person charged with the offence is entitled to certain information ahead of his hearing and I believe this information was not provided and as such he was not afforded a proper defence at CHC and CAC level.
Right decision.
So CCCC have not supplied the information he was entitled to - the question regarding the quashing of the suspension now falls at their door.
I personally have a difficulty with apparent ducking and diving to avoid the disciplinary measures imposed and as someone mentioned previously this is wholly the wrong decision for attracting and retaining youth to GAA activity.
The blame is not with Dublin - the blame is firmly at the door of the authorities who have set the system up and then, if this is correct, have not followed procedure to ensure their suspensions are watertight.
I'm not saying CCCC, I'm saying I sent a short text and got a short reply and left it at that.
Whether it was CCCC or CHC, I'm told he didn't get the info he was entitled to in order to fully prepare for his hearing/appeal
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!! When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense
I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!
You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity??? Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT ::)
CCC were either just playing silly beggars or deliberately withheld the information it which Diarmuid Connolly was entitled to.
Agree with Heffo correct decision from DRA.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!! When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense
I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!
You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity??? Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT ::)
Yes I did. This particular decision had nothing to do with the ref. It was procedural.
And what I said was that the first breakdown in the process begins with referees. Don't tell me there aren't vindictive refs out there. Eddie Kinsella today made mistakes but he was really good at communicating to players and players can live with mistakes when you have a ref who has empathy for them. Others are dictators who refuse to engage with a player. Indeed I have often heard referees dish out abuse. Tell me you haven't.... the give respect get respect campaign should also have included 'earn respect' because clearly SOME referees do not.
DRA independent of the GAA my arse.
Yes it would appear that the rule has been broken - assuming this is the team list has been submitted pre 9.00am on Thursday. This is not an issue for Mayo however. Most definitely a rule for Croke Park to judge on. Galway forfeited a place in an All Ireland Ladies U14 final this year due to a technicality - not an appeal by the team they beat in the semi final but a breach picked up on by the overseeing body.
Having said that I can't see and don't expect any movement from Croke Park on this.
Can't say whether this is accurate or not, but over a day prior to the decision, I'd heard from a few people that a team could replace their sub goalie for a player not named in the 26 (but could not do likewise for an outfield player named in the 26).
The liklihood is that this was given to the PR people for the programme on Weds night, and they submitted a different team with Connolly on Thursday to the appropriate body.
Justice was done . You either send both of them off or not at all
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on September 05, 2015, 11:29:49 PM
The liklihood is that this was given to the PR people for the programme on Weds night, and they submitted a different team with Connolly on Thursday to the appropriate body.
This seems likely. Of course if Connolly had not won out they would have had to leave the missing player anyway.
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!! When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense
I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!
You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity??? Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT ::)
Yes I did. This particular decision had nothing to do with the ref. It was procedural.
And what I said was that the first breakdown in the process begins with referees. Don't tell me there aren't vindictive refs out there. Eddie Kinsella today made mistakes but he was really good at communicating to players and players can live with mistakes when you have a ref who has empathy for them. Others are dictators who refuse to engage with a player. Indeed I have often heard referees dish out abuse. Tell me you haven't.... the give respect get respect campaign should also have included 'earn respect' because clearly SOME referees do not.
Abuse?? Why would I get involved with abuse with a player when I've the black card to brandish?? I've no time for arseholes who continue to whine during a game... Nor should any referee.. Monkey sees monkey does... Players mimic there coaches, you seem the type... Hard done by, always everyone else's fault, well listen up I've played against teams that never talk back to referees they are disciplined throughout and gain respect big time... A referee is only there to officiate... He won't get it all the time but neither will you.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 06, 2015, 12:50:10 AM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!! When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense
I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!
You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity??? Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT ::)
Yes I did. This particular decision had nothing to do with the ref. It was procedural.
And what I said was that the first breakdown in the process begins with referees. Don't tell me there aren't vindictive refs out there. Eddie Kinsella today made mistakes but he was really good at communicating to players and players can live with mistakes when you have a ref who has empathy for them. Others are dictators who refuse to engage with a player. Indeed I have often heard referees dish out abuse. Tell me you haven't.... the give respect get respect campaign should also have included 'earn respect' because clearly SOME referees do not.
Abuse?? Why would I get involved with abuse with a player when I've the black card to brandish?? I've no time for arseholes who continue to whine during a game... Nor should any referee.. Monkey sees monkey does... Players mimic there coaches, you seem the type... Hard done by, always everyone else's fault, well listen up I've played against teams that never talk back to referees they are disciplined throughout and gain respect big time... A referee is only there to officiate... He won't get it all the time but neither will you.
Players in all football forms are afforded the right to ask why a decision is made. Lot of made of this in rugby in particular. I'm not talking about badgering a referee but we all know that in gaelic football consistency in applying rules varies from referee to referee and often even in the same game. Give players credit too - they're not monkeys and they're able to think for themselves and don't need to mimic their coaches. By the way I'd be a strict disciplinarian myself. But that's irrelevant; personal abuse is often the currency of contributors on this board.
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 06, 2015, 01:01:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 06, 2015, 12:50:10 AM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 05, 2015, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: Catch and Kick on September 05, 2015, 12:23:43 PM
Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?
County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.
To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics, too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.
Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!! When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense
I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!
You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity??? Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT ::)
Yes I did. This particular decision had nothing to do with the ref. It was procedural.
And what I said was that the first breakdown in the process begins with referees. Don't tell me there aren't vindictive refs out there. Eddie Kinsella today made mistakes but he was really good at communicating to players and players can live with mistakes when you have a ref who has empathy for them. Others are dictators who refuse to engage with a player. Indeed I have often heard referees dish out abuse. Tell me you haven't.... the give respect get respect campaign should also have included 'earn respect' because clearly SOME referees do not.
Abuse?? Why would I get involved with abuse with a player when I've the black card to brandish?? I've no time for arseholes who continue to whine during a game... Nor should any referee.. Monkey sees monkey does... Players mimic there coaches, you seem the type... Hard done by, always everyone else's fault, well listen up I've played against teams that never talk back to referees they are disciplined throughout and gain respect big time... A referee is only there to officiate... He won't get it all the time but neither will you.
Players in all football forms are afforded the right to ask why a decision is made. Lot of made of this in rugby in particular. I'm not talking about badgering a referee but we all know that in gaelic football consistency in applying rules varies from referee to referee and often even in the same game. Give players credit too - they're not monkeys and they're able to think for themselves and don't need to mimic their coaches. By the way I'd be a strict disciplinarian myself. But that's irrelevant; personal abuse is often the currency of contributors on this board.
I've been seen critical tweets by an established referee (an inter county ref) about the performance of a fellow ref in the same county! Respect!
Disgraceful decision to let off a repeat offender, people say the decision was correct, how? he obviously hit his man as caught on camera, no this ain't a court of law this is amateur Gaelic football, Lawyers should not be allowed even at appeals nosing through the rule book looking for flaws to get GUILTY people off. Had alot of time for the Dubs but after the last game and this carry on i think they No.2 on my hate list behind Tyrone. County Boards, Managers and players take no responsibility for breaking the rules and then trying to get off. This will open the door to countless appeals to players sent off for striking. Gaelic football stinks at the minute that that overshadows such a great game today. Gaelic football was way better back in the 90`s at least players took their suspensions. If players had the self respect of a certain waterfold hurler and abide by GAA decisions the counties who chase these loop holes wouldn't be a laughing stock. its only a matter of time before a county team appeals losing a match over a decision during the game.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on September 06, 2015, 01:14:02 AM
Disgraceful decision to let off a repeat offender, people say the decision was correct, how? he obviously hit his man as caught on camera, no this ain't a court of law this is amateur Gaelic football, Lawyers should not be allowed even at appeals nosing through the rule book looking for flaws to get GUILTY people off. Had alot of time for the Dubs but after the last game and this carry on i think they No.2 on my hate list behind Tyrone...
Yaaaay! We're still number one on someone's list, some fecking where! :)
Oh your still the team the countyr loves to hate but dublin gaining ground at the rate of knots.
Just a couple of points. The problem here doesn't lie with the rule book at all. It's endemic with in modern society. Disciplinary procedures are difficult to follow in any sport I mean just look at the NFL and how their incredibly well paid team of lawyers have fallen short in recent years. The GAA are far from the worst offenders
Furthermore and consequently the DRA provide a necessary and effective role in providing oversight and removing the possibility of court action. The DRA in fact having been founded in response to players securing interlocutory injunctions from courts in order to play in games.
Everyone earning a wage from the gaa should be put on unpaid garden leave. Until they write a simple 2 page rulebook fit for purpose.
It made the GAA the most talked about sport in the Country yesterday. Not bad with a Rugby international. Too often replays don't get the same level of excitement as a SF proper might.
Yes if you enjoy the facts that other sports see us for buck eejits
Mayo management ensured Keane not only wasn't getting on last week, but wouldn't play him yesterday either.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on September 05, 2015, 08:15:39 PM
Saw this mentioned on BookFace, this whole mess could probably get even worse...
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11350880_10153850715528455_2920196522709524784_n.jpg?oh=77dea7287facfdf0b786f6224ccebc47&oe=56A96368)
This was (supposedly) the list of 26 Dublin players listed in todays match programme...
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/11954778_10153850612203455_7166780066987751480_n.jpg?oh=5823a55c78fa01921738b89b9b75de9b&oe=56609E46)
There's one notable Dublin name not in that list of 26 - Diarmuid Connolly, who started the game.
Now someone out there will probably know better than I do, but haven't the Dubs broken Rule 6.35(b) here? While I would seriously doubt Mayo would peruse such an action, haven't the Dubs played an illegal player here thus forfeiting the game and if so, why did they go to the DRA to get his suspension lifted when it was only for one game in the first place?
No it probably definitely won't as there is a clear rule to allow the late naming of a player cleared in circumstances like this week
Was Rory O`Connell of westmeath not the first man to start this bullshit, He not get a court injunction to play in a game 10/11yrs back? DRA brought in to cover this and have let off many offenders from various countries since as its all about them and not the GAA in general. Fairplay and the GAA don't go hand in hand. We deride the diving of soccer players but our players are not much better.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on September 06, 2015, 02:05:59 PM
Was Rory O`Connell of westmeath not the first man to start this bullshit, He not get a court injunction to play in a game 10/11yrs back? DRA brought in to cover this and have let off many offenders from various countries since as its all about them and not the GAA in general. Fairplay and the GAA don't go hand in hand. We deride the diving of soccer players but our players are not much better.
In 1994, Tipperary footballer Derry Foley went to the High Court to get an injunction against a suspension so he could play in the championship. Clare tried and failed to get an injunction to get Colin Lynch off the hook in 1998 also.
It was just starting to become rampant when the O'Connell case hit the courts in 2004. Which was the same year as John Mullane went against the grain and accepted his punishment for picking up a red card.
Does the passage of time make John Mullane look more of a fool or a hero for somehow feeling honour bound to accept his sanction?
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 07, 2015, 11:08:10 AM
Does the passage of time make John Mullane look more of a fool or a hero for somehow feeling honour bound to accept his sanction?
A fool, unfortunately. The heroic thing seems to be to stick it to The GAA, aka The Man.
Quote from: deiseach on September 07, 2015, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on September 07, 2015, 11:08:10 AM
Does the passage of time make John Mullane look more of a fool or a hero for somehow feeling honour bound to accept his sanction?
A fool, unfortunately. The heroic thing seems to be to stick it to The GAA, aka The Man.
A decent man in my eyes.
I have zero respect for any of the individuals who went down the appeal route trying to weasel out of stuff on technicalities.
It's just sc**bag behaviour in my eyes.
Yes i remember the Foley incident, from what i remember at the time everybody was laughing at him to take a amateur sporting organisation to court just so he could play in a game. Derry take a bow, you started all this shit son!!
John Mullane took his punishment and was correct in doing so, you heard all this crap about the GAA and its amateur ethos ands its all about the club and families etc, Theres more money floating round it now than never and the GAA got more like soccer where cheating is called brinkmanship and its all in the game.
Some team will lose a big game with a player sent off, a wrong ref decisions, a square ball and the losing team will go to court looking a replay, its only a matter of time, the GAA should actually increase failed appeals if unsuccessful as they do in other sports
People are asking the wrong questions and coming to the wrong conclusions. The rulebook is not bad. It needs some tweaks but it's generally sound. The process, as it's supposed to work, is fairly sound.
The DRA had to be introduced because GAA Administration was failing and people had no confidence in it (and people were feeling strongly enough to go to court over it). People felt they were being treated differently because of who they were/where they came from. At least you knew if you went to the DRA it was independent and they'd apply the rules. That's all anyone could ask for. However, it seems to me that the burden of proof has shifted far too far in favour of the appellant so good legal teams can get people off all the time. I feel if there is a minor procedural issue it should not be enough to nullify a charge (perhaps reduce). The question I'd ask is this - why do these procedural mistakes keep being made? Fool me once.....etc. I've been involved in GAA disciplinary matters and like everyone, I've made mistakes. You learn though and don't make them again.
So in short - I don't think there's a whole lot wrong with the process or rules. Like a lot of things in this country it's the people unfortunately.