Rock quits over helmet rule
Sunday July 05 2009
Diarmuid O'Sullivan will never hurl again for club or county, the Sunday Independent can reveal. To followers of Cork hurling, that may not be a big surprise, but his reason for making the decision will come as a shock to all. "At 30 years of age, a man should be able to make up his own mind whether or not he should have to wear a helmet."
A new rule making the wearing of a helmet compulsory comes into force next January, and this, remarkably, is the final straw for the former Cork full-back.
O'Sullivan played his last game for the Rebels in the All-Ireland semi-final defeat to Kilkenny last August and although an inter-county return appeared on the cards, the man known as 'The Rock' is putting his hurl down for good and embarking on a new sporting career with Highfield rugby club.
O'Sullivan's club, Cloyne, have been knocked out of the local championship and he is ready now to try something different, and helmet-free. "I've been very lucky with the lads in Highfield, they have been very good to me," says O'Sullivan. "We're in off-season at the moment but pre-season starts soon and I'm really looking forward to it."
Walking away from the game that made him a household name -- and from the team he soldiered with for so long with -- has not been easy for O'Sullivan, who admits he spoke to Cork manager Denis Walsh about a shock return to the panel.
"I sat down with Denis and we had a chat about the season ahead," he says. "After the game against Kilkenny last year, I didn't feel I could play again in the full-back line. I told him this and I asked him if I could play a role somewhere else on the field and he said he would think about it. Which he did and he was honest and said he didn't think there was.
"I sat back after the meeting with him and thought for a while, wondering if I would go back and give it a go in the full-back line. I took a few hours to think about it but I had made up my mind after the Kilkenny game that full-back was no more for me so I just had to stick by it."
O'Sullivan felt he still had something to offer Cork further forward and when he scored 3-5 for Cloyne in a championship match against St Finbarr's, others in the county felt likewise. But it wasn't to be. Soon, too, Cloyne's year was over.
"The last couple of weeks have been hard since we lost the club championship. Time is hard to fill, days are hard to fill, but I'll get there. The hardest thing for me since I gave up is that I used to be in contact with the lads all the time. We used to be great buddies but because of the decision I took I knew I had to distance myself from the them. Breaking away from the group and making a conscious decision that you are not part of this group anymore has been the hardest thing."
Of course, he had been through a lot with that group, on and off the field, and the latest posturing between the GPA and the GAA, which could well lead to another strike, does not surprise him. They appear now to be heading down a road all too familiar to O'Sullivan.
"I've been through three of them [strikes], sure I'm well used to it but I think this GPA 'strike' has been brewing for a while, even through in Nickey Brennan's time recognition was coming and coming, then Christy Cooney took over and it was being sorted and sorted and it just never has."
Now that he's removed from the inter-county scene, O'Sullivan says he has had time to really take in how much players put into the game, and this has reinforced his view that the GPA are doing the right thing. "I've always been a supporter of the GPA. I've always backed everything they have done. I think players have to have an official recognised body and they are not going to give up at this stage. Since it started back in 1998, it's just got stronger and stronger. The players need someone to represent them.
"Something is going to have to be done. I weighed up the options when I was thinking about retiring and I saw that nearly 26 hours a week would be spent training and if players can't get something back out of that . . .
"You can see all the money that's been pulled in, even the €19 million they made from the rugby and the soccer over the last couple of years.
"It's fine if you could see it being put in elsewhere but it's very hard for players at the moment to justify what they are doing."
As the economy crumbles in Ireland, the amateurs who play for their counties are feeling the pressure and O'Sullivan feels the GAA need to step up to the plate before it's too late. "There are a lot of lads unemployed, inter-county players who week in week out keep training, doing the best for their county. I think the GAA are going to have to act sooner rather than later.
"At the end of the day, I would ask the question: why are people going to watch matches? It's like going to Thomond Park or Old Trafford -- you're going to see the players or if you pay to go to a concert you are going to see someone perform."
O'Sullivan is sure there will come a time when players will have to get a set match fee and proper expenses. Being involved in the GAA for over a decade allows him the liberty of viewing the association without the rose-tinted glasses most spectators wear. He knows what it's like to put yourself on the line, to deal with highs and lows and to feel pressure. He also knows that it is something players won't put up with forever.
"I think without a doubt the strike could end up with players not playing. I've been to enough meetings throughout the years to know that and I think they are so well organised and structured at this stage it will come eventually. I think the GAA are taking a huge chance by pushing the lads as far as they are because at previous meetings I've been at it's only been the toss of a coin whether the lads would go on strike or not. If the GAA are going to keep pushing and pushing, there is only so much rope you can give a person and I think the lads are at the end of the rope at this stage."
O'Sullivan knows more than most the difficulties that standing up for something you believe in can cause. The most recent dispute between the hurling squad and the county board pitted O'Sullivan and his brother Paudie against their father, Jerry, the current board chairman.
"It was very difficult with my dad being in the position he is in but he understands what I believe in and I understand what he believes in," says O'Sullivan. "But apart from one interview with a certain outspoken man who got in trouble with his mouth a few times, it wasn't dragged into the media. To be honest, we didn't speak about it much. We had small conversations about it but never to a large extent. Neither of the two of us wanted to get in to a discussion about the rights and the wrongs of it so we just didn't.
"And there were rights and wrongs on both sides. Maybe if the time came around again certain people may have conducted their business differently and done things differently in certain aspects. But it's gone and it's done and what was said was said."
People have moved on now, and so has O'Sullivan, who has started coaching in Cloyne, with the U16s. His career was as colourful as it was successful, so much so that he is credited with being the cause of two rule changes in the GAA: the blood sub rule and the infamous interference with the helmet rule.
"It happened with Martin Comerford of Kilkenny," he laughs. "It was something Donal O'Grady mentioned to me. He told me Comerford is a good player but it takes only the slightest thing to put him off. He asked me to try and think of something you could do to put him off.
"I remember the very first high ball coming in and I could see the big long strap sticking out of his helmet. It was made for me so I just pulled it and he didn't know what was after happening, he was just scratching himself, he thought he was after getting a bite or some thing so I kept doing it and doing it, it was very funny. The next time we met Kilkenny they had all their helmets strapped up with tape, it was priceless."
Priceless indeed. Hurling's loss will be rugby's gain.
Such a bit of crying, good riddance.
A hurler I have great respect for, especially after his annus horribilis last year when he showed balls of steel to finish up with a stormer against Kilkenny. The toll of the year was evident on him at the final whistle when he couldn't hold back the tears. His stance on the GPA and other strikes I would not concur with.
Goalkeepers, especially older goalkeepers, will really suffer if they don't wear them. I think while it's smart, and safer for everyone to wear the helmets and we'd have less head injuries obviously, and it looks good to promote it to young players, but I think if you're 30 odd years old you should be able to decide for yourself whether you should wear a helmet or not. Older players are going to have a serious problem getting used to them if they haven't worn them in years.
Quote from: orangeman on July 05, 2009, 01:15:32 PM
"Apart from one interview with a certain outspoken man who got in trouble with his mouth a few times, it wasn't dragged into the media.
I'm surprised to see him criticising Donal og so explicitly especially as they're clubmates..
Sure if it's good enough for Bobby & Reillers, it's good enough for them..
No doubt he'll not be wearing a gum shield in his Rugby career . ::)
Quote from: Reillers on July 05, 2009, 07:12:29 PM
Goalkeepers, especially older goalkeepers, will really suffer if they don't wear them. I think while it's smart, and safer for everyone to wear the helmets and we'd have less head injuries obviously, and it looks good to promote it to young players, but I think if you're 30 odd years old you should be able to decide for yourself whether you should wear a helmet or not. Older players are going to have a serious problem getting used to them if they haven't worn them in years.
Oddly enough (has to be a gaaboard first) I'd agree. How in Gods name is a keeper going to wear a visor and know where the ball is going.
Quote from: INDIANA on July 06, 2009, 12:38:53 AM
Quote from: Reillers on July 05, 2009, 07:12:29 PM
Goalkeepers, especially older goalkeepers, will really suffer if they don't wear them. I think while it's smart, and safer for everyone to wear the helmets and we'd have less head injuries obviously, and it looks good to promote it to young players, but I think if you're 30 odd years old you should be able to decide for yourself whether you should wear a helmet or not. Older players are going to have a serious problem getting used to them if they haven't worn them in years.
Oddly enough (has to be a gaaboard first) I'd agree. How in Gods name is a keeper going to wear a visor and know where the ball is going.
Mother of God :o :o..and moving right along.. ;) ;)
Quote from: Gnevin on July 05, 2009, 11:15:21 PM
No doubt he'll not be wearing a gum shield in his Rugby career . ::)
A massive difference between the two (and its not compulsory)......I could never wear a helmet as always felt it impeded my vision and if you are not used to it then it is a massive difference when you wear one
Will he still be able to remain a member of the GPA. Again I thinks its important to remember you can like the player ofn the field, but think they are a mouth off it. Why dont they set up as breakaway Gaelic games league and see how many pay in to watch them.
Does the Rock's retirement mean that the farmers will be able to get supplies of axle grease for the horses cars that he used to rub around his eyes again?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on July 05, 2009, 06:56:16 PM
There are sound medical reasons for the wearing a helmet w/faceguard. That should be obvious.
Some claim that this new rule discriminates against older players, but they knew it was going to come in sooner rather than later, and wearing one while doing say winter training against a hurling wall or alley would have helped such players get used to it. I also get the feeling that some players are against wearing one as it would go against their "tough" image.
The only middle way that could have been achieved in this issue would have been that helmets for players were not to be compulsory but that any player receiving a head or facial injury not wearing one would lose any entitlement to benefits from the injury fund. However I wonder if (a) that could be efficiently policed and (b) stands on a legal viewpoint not to mention the injury fund backers.
This is a ridiculous statement. No one knew it was going to be made compulsary for senior hurlers "sooner rather than later". I think its probably about 5 - 10 years too soon. It is compulsary at underage up to minor level, so why not give 5 or 10 years lee way to get the older players that dont wear helmets out of the system?? I dont think it has to do with players tough image as you suggest, its a simple case of their sight being impeded. An awful lot of players who wear helmets and have done since underage, often find their sight impeded. There are an awful lot of modifications, often homemade to deal with this issue. And unfortunately players often start cutting bars out of the visor which sometimes can have the effect of being dangerous as the bars that protect the face and wont allow a ball / hurl through are cut.
Also the most worrying part of your statement is that players who dont have helmets shouldnt be covered for their medical bills, this goes completely against the ethos of the gaa. It wouldnt be supported in practice and how could you prove a player wasnt wearing a helmet?? I think you wouldnt find one player / ref that would testify in court that a guy with serious injuries wasnt wearing a helmet and therefore shouldnt recieve life saving treatment.
This rule is coming in 5 years too soon and I agree many will retire in frustration
But that piece was just a chance for GPA soundbites to be transmitted. Good riddance
Quote from: DUBSFORSAM1 on July 06, 2009, 08:17:29 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on July 05, 2009, 11:15:21 PM
No doubt he'll not be wearing a gum shield in his Rugby career . ::)
A massive difference between the two (and its not compulsory)......I could never wear a helmet as always felt it impeded my vision and if you are not used to it then it is a massive difference when you wear one
Why not ware a clear helmet or is that a stupid suggestion?
Does this ruling not require a face guard on the helmet? Assumed so.
The Rock is in charge of training a juvenile team. Has anyone asked him his views on whether young lads who are learning the game should have helmets and if like him they choose not to wear helmets that it is clear as to who is responsible if there is a serious incident, the person in charge of the training or the young lad without the helmet. I admire Diarmuid O'Sullivan for his contribution to the GAA and particularly his coaching of young lads, (I mentioned on another thread that he was coaching young lads on an opposing team during a game) but I fail to see how his decision over a helmet is deserving of such debate other than it was, as already stated, a reason for thrashing out more GPA rubbish. In any event, we now have a situation where a Cork player refuses to wear a helmet to add to the ones who wants to play with a different hurling ball, the ones who refuse to wear their socks pulled up for the parade, the ones who go on strike etc, etc and it is becoming clear that soon a few more will be refusing to wear helmets in Cork, not because of the uncomfortable attributes of the helmet but because their heads have got too big for them.
No way should it be compulsory . It's up to the indivdual and that's it .
C u n t i n g insurance interfering yet again on our liberties .
I'd say its the boys who want to sell the helmets that are interfeering more than the insurance. Wasn't there a few of the Cork boys trying to endorse ones for Aldi and Lidl. See, I can't post without mentioning Cork.
Quote from: Bud Wiser on July 07, 2009, 01:07:46 PM
I'd say its the boys who want to sell the helmets that are interfeering more than the insurance. Wasn't there a few of the Cork boys trying to endorse ones for Aldi and Lidl. See, I can't post without mentioning Cork.
Yes I've noticed this Cork thing with you Bud . Are you sure your not Gul/RedRebel/Relliers aswell ? ;D .
Re Helmets . Are you sure about this ? I wouldn't be too sure about that . There is simply no way any helmet manufacturer would ( or should ) hold any sway on the rule makers within the GAA . It has to be the scummy insurance crowd encroaching further into all before it .
Or perhaps there's a genuine safety reason for it? I mean in fairness people have died from getting belts on the head, and it's common sense that wearing a protective helmet reduces the risk significantly. In soccer, you must wear shinpads, in boxing, you must wear gumshields and in amateur boxing you must wear a protective headgear. I don't see the problem in the GAA enforcing a rule like this to be fair.
If you cycle a motorbike, you wear a helmet, if you drive a car you wear a seatbelt. If you hurl, you wear a helmet. Sometimes people need to be forced to take care of themselves.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 07, 2009, 01:54:19 PM
Or perhaps there's a genuine safety reason for it? I mean in fairness people have died from getting belts on the head, and it's common sense that wearing a protective helmet reduces the risk significantly. In soccer, you must wear shinpads, in boxing, you must wear gumshields and in amateur boxing you must wear a protective headgear. I don't see the problem in the GAA enforcing a rule like this to be fair.
If you cycle a motorbike, you wear a helmet, if you drive a car you wear a seatbelt. If you hurl, you wear a helmet. Sometimes people need to be forced to take care of themselves.
You won't be insured if you don't wear a helmet. Thats the long and short of it.
True enough AZ but, in soccer the players can do little cameos when they score a goal and that very picture can appear on an endorsement later so if you are wearing a big helmet with your face covered up your earning potential is reduced considerably. For example, say Diarmuid caught a big high ball in the All Ireland Final and landed Martin Comerford or Shefflin on his arse in doing so and a week later Halifax had a big add in the paper saying "With HALIFAX, Your Investment Is As Solid As A Rock" the add would be a lot better if all you could see his full earning potential instead of a big helmet.
Or is it just me that has a fixation with Cork and Sponsorship and the GPA :)
If this new rule is serious and enforced from next year on I'm afraid there will be plenty who will be walking away from the game . Ten years down the road was plenty of time for this rule change . This is a disgraceful new rule . Mark my words this rule will be put back for a few years .
Definitely,the rock cant just change any rule he wants,like what pintsofguinness said good riddance
The Rock was cleaned out several times last year if I remember correctly. So the helmet isn't the only reason. I remember reading a great story in a Gaelsport annual from 1980 where the hero played on despite a head wound and won the county final at the price of being scarred for life but things have changed in the meantime.
I think it would be more meaningful to insist on making bank shareholders responsible for the performance of their boards.
I wouldn't go as far as to say good riddance, he is a gaa man first and foremost and he is still coaching young lads. His attraction to rugby is not a sin either but rather outlines his dedication to the GAA over the years and it was our gain that he put hurling before rugby up to now. If he is retiring though he should do so without firing salvos on behalf of the Greatest Pricks of All-time.
Quote from: Bud Wiser on July 08, 2009, 10:05:32 AM
I wouldn't go as far as to say good riddance, he is a gaa man first and foremost and he is still coaching young lads. His attraction to rugby is not a sin either but rather outlines his dedication to the GAA over the years and it was our gain that he put hurling before rugby up to now. If he is retiring though he should do so without firing salvos on behalf of the Greatest Pricks of All-time.
Here Here .
He still is a bit of a p***k though . 8)
You can'ay good riddance to the Rock. Any man that can set the stadium in thurles humming on the back of one rousing clearance will be missed.
What a rebel
Quote from: Bing Crosby . on July 07, 2009, 03:22:15 PM
If this new rule is serious and enforced from next year on I'm afraid there will be plenty who will be walking away from the game . Ten years down the road was plenty of time for this rule change . This is a disgraceful new rule . Mark my words this rule will be put back for a few years .
Exactly my sentiments, no one is stupid enough not to wear a helmet to act "the hard man" as has been suggested earlier in this thread. It is compulsary at underage and id say about 60 - 70% of hurlers at senior grade wear them at the moment. Within a few years players who grew up without a helmet will have retired so why not wait and let them have their last few years of hurling in peace. I know quite a few hurlers from my own club in their thirties...and indeed early forties that play at junior level. I think its a great thing to see, i hope im still playing at their age, but you will lose them players next year if you bring in this rule as they arent going to buy a helmet at their age and especially not with the recession!
awfulynice
That's bacially it . What you say is true . Older hurlers won't wear them and it's as simple as that . No rule or no match official will make them wear them either . Next years league will be interesting .