I'm a little surprised this point has not raised a bit more debate since yesterday. The way the GAA can mix interpretations of just what purpose Extra-time serves:
1. It's like a new match, so any Red Card punishments imposed on a team no longer apply to the team (I know the players affected cannot come back on, but the team is no longer sanctioned).
2. It's not really a new match regarding Yellow-Cards. Remember last year where some Kildare player got one yellow-card in normal time, then another during extra-time. They were combined to amount to a Red Card and off he went. If this happens 10 seconds into Extra-time, he cant be replaced. If it happens 10 seconds before the end of Normal time, then he can be replaced. Go figure.
3. Didn't yesterday's events serve to give Dublin 5 fresh players during Extra-Time, whereas Wexford were limited to just three potential switches? Dublin kind-of used all 5 (Eamon Fennell resumed after a substantial breather) and were able to bring in their older more experienced subs when the opposition were most tired.
4. Luckily Ger Brennan's foul on Matty Forde was not really dangerous, although definitely quite "professional". However what if he "hypothetically-speaking" had been a bit more cynical and managed to take Matty Forde out of the game? The net result - Wexford lose arguably their best player, Dublin lose a man but only for a few minutes and are then back to the full 15. I know this was suggested before that a manager might even send on a late sub specifically instructed to "take out" a key opponent in such circumstances. How many of you can say "hand on heart" that it couldn't happen? How about in a local Club game? Would it be so hard to find a willing "hatchet-man" then?
5. If Extra-time is good enough for First Round and Provincial Quarter-Final games, then why not for Provincial Semi-Finals too? What's so special about a Provincial Semi-Final fixture (like Kerry v Cork last week) that Extra-time could not be considered to be played in the first game?
Discuss (70 marks) :-\
Quote from: The Biff on June 14, 2010, 04:08:04 PM
3. Didn't yesterday's events serve to give Dublin 5 fresh players during Extra-Time, whereas Wexford were limited to just three potential switches? Dublin kind-of used all 5 (Eamon Fennell resumed after a substantial breather) and were able to bring in their older more experienced subs when the opposition were most tired.
I'm pretty sure you can start extra-time with 15 different players to those who finished normal time. Then you can make 3 additional substitutions during ET. I was surprised Gilroy failed to take advantage of this (not sure whether Wexford made any changes?).
If a palyer is sent off he shoudl be kept off for the rest of the game, including extra time and this is something that the GAA should change. It is a nonsense rule and and should be done away with. I also think that all drawn games should go to extra time. Try as much as possible to keep games to a minimum and it would be easier to manage fixtures then.
It is a fairly well established rule............. extra time is considered a "new game" (with restrictions).
The rule worked against the Dubs in 1991 when iirc Mick Lyons ( apologies to the great man if I am wrong)was redcarded and replaced in extra time. Yesterday the Dubs benefited.
Matter for congress 2011 maybe??????
So a team who are disciplined enough not to get any players sent off in normal time are deprived of their advantage if the opposition's indiscipline leaves them one or more men down. Ridiculous rule. What happens if a team is winning by a point with under a minute to go in normal time and the team who are behind have a man straight through 1 on 1 with the keeper. What does the chasing defender do ? He rugby tackles the man about to win the game, takes his red card, the team pops over the free and the cynical foul isn't penalised in extra time.
QuoteHe rugby tackles the man about to win the game, takes his red card, the team pops over the free and the cynical foul isn't penalised in extra time.
How would this be different if there was a repay?
The bookies treat it as a new game anyway. Ladbrokes not paying out on wins for Down or Dublin.
Its a joke alright,
Imagine the situation:
Game is tied, my team has made its 5 substitutions, your carrying an injury and are very tired, you say to the ref how long is left and he says hes gonna blow it after this kickout, you turn around and punch your marker on the face. He sends you off, blows up the game, it goes to extra time and you get to put a new man on.
Ridiculous rule
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 14, 2010, 07:16:51 PM
The bookies treat it as a new game anyway. Ladbrokes not paying out on wins for Down or Dublin.
All bets are 70 mins though Maguire unless you make a point of getting the "to qualify" price.
Its a joke alright,
Imagine the situation:
Game is tied, my team has made its 5 substitutions, your carrying an injury and are very tired, you say to the ref how long is left and he says hes gonna blow it after this kickout, you turn around and punch your marker on the face. He sends you off, blows up the game, it goes to a replay and you get to put play with 15 men.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 14, 2010, 11:05:46 PM
Its a joke alright,
Imagine the situation:
Game is tied, my team has made its 5 substitutions, your carrying an injury and are very tired, you say to the ref how long is left and he says hes gonna blow it after this kickout, you turn around and punch your marker on the face. He sends you off, blows up the game, it goes to a replay and you get to put play with 15 men.
You see our situations are not the same. For a start there is usually a week between the reply, by which time you could recover from your tiredness/injury. In the one game i can effectively give my manager another sub
Cork had an extra 20 mins home advantage on Sunday after the draw which wasn't afforded to Kerry the previous week. ET should be treated with the same rules any replay is. Yellow cards shouldn't carry through. It would make it simpler. The suggestion that players could be sent on to take another player out would be the sign of a terrible manager (ethics aside) in a one point game going into injury time.
On second thoughts maybe that's not as big a deal since if Kerry had of won the first day out they it would have been 70 mins to their benefit.
I still think it would be easier if the reset button was hit.
Quote from: Zapatista on June 14, 2010, 11:51:00 PM
Cork had an extra 20 mins home advantage on Sunday after the draw which wasn't afforded to Kerry the previous week. ET should be treated with the same rules any replay is. Yellow cards shouldn't carry through. It would make it simpler. The suggestion that players could be sent on to take another player out would be the sign of a terrible manager (ethics aside) in a one point game going into injury time.
On second thoughts maybe that's not as big a deal since if Kerry had of won the first day out they it would have been 70 mins to their benefit.
I still think it would be easier if the reset button was hit.
I think it would make a lot more sense to apply the same rules that most field sports do with regards to extra time, that it is simply a continuation of the match, that's why it's called 'extra-time', then all the advantages that the dirtier team have by being able to force extra time are wiped out, they have to play the extra 20 mins with all previous yellows and reds still applying. Quite simple really (subs made already should also count).
I think this notion of extra time being a whole new game is an absolute disgrace. When a player shows indiscipline, he should be punished, he let the team down, the team have to struggle on without him. The punishment is that they have to play a man down. Going into extra time, Dublin were allowed to bring on fresh men, Mossy Quinn scored what? 4 points? Thats an absolute disgrace, sure theres no punishment in that at all.
Quote from: EagleLord on June 15, 2010, 10:27:41 AM
I think this notion of extra time being a whole new game is an absolute disgrace. When a player shows indiscipline, he should be punished, he let the team down, the team have to struggle on without him. The punishment is that they have to play a man down. Going into extra time, Dublin were allowed to bring on fresh men, Mossy Quinn scored what? 4 points? Thats an absolute disgrace, sure theres no punishment in that at all.
Then why should the same not be applied to a replay?
If you can't beat a team who are down to 13 in normal time then ou missed your opportunity.
But Zap the extra time is for all intents and purposes 'the same game' the advantage or disadvantage has been wiped out.
I notice that all the talk is about Dublin benefitting but not Cork benefitting....I agree it's a stupid rule which has cost us before and we got the benefit this time...
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 15, 2010, 10:36:47 AM
But Zap the extra time is for all intents and purposes 'the same game' the advantage or disadvantage has been wiped out.
That's a technicality that can be argued either way. The argument posted earlier is
When a player shows indiscipline, he should be punished, he let the team down, the team have to struggle on without him. The punishment is that they have to play a man down.
Thay do struggle with a man down up to full time as they do in any given match.
Apart from technicalities should this not be applied to a Replay? If a player had have got lined in the first Cork Kerry game they would have been down one untill 70 mins but in the replay it would have been up to 90mins. Surely this would be wrong?
By right a replay should be subject to the same rules as ET.
Quote from: The Biff on June 14, 2010, 04:08:04 PM
5. If Extra-time is good enough for First Round and Provincial Quarter-Final games, then why not for Provincial Semi-Finals too? What's so special about a Provincial Semi-Final fixture (like Kerry v Cork last week) that Extra-time could not be considered to be played in the first game?
I am of the opposite opinion. Why should the quarter-finals be forced to extra time but later games get a replay? Until last year, the age old rule was that extra time could only be used at a replay. I think that was fairer.
Quote from: Hound on June 14, 2010, 04:12:40 PM
I'm pretty sure you can start extra-time with 15 different players to those who finished normal time
Is that the case? Are full team sheets supplied or just substitution slips? Can any officials who have been through the business end of extra time confirm?
Quote from: Canalman on June 14, 2010, 04:25:39 PM
It is a fairly well established rule............. extra time is considered a "new game" (with restrictions).
Is it? Or is it just one of those sloppy phrases that gets its "truth" from repetition? If a team can't start with 15 new players then the only similarity with a new game is that teams start with the full complement of 15. In which case it would be better described as extra-time (with benefits).
To my mind, having yellow cards carry over into extra time is logical. Replacing a player sent off is the anomaly and should be done away with. It invites abuse of the "hatchet man" variety. And if anybody thinks it wouldn't happen at county level, just think water carriers ;) ...or the time when they experimented with the rule where wrestling was a yellow card for both "offenders". An awful lot of the best forwards in the country got involved in nonsensical wrestling matches during that period :D
Quote from: Zapatista on June 15, 2010, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 15, 2010, 10:36:47 AM
But Zap the extra time is for all intents and purposes 'the same game' the advantage or disadvantage has been wiped out.
That's a technicality that can be argued either way. The argument posted earlier is When a player shows indiscipline, he should be punished, he let the team down, the team have to struggle on without him. The punishment is that they have to play a man down.
Thay do struggle with a man down up to full time as they do in any given match.
Apart from technicalities should this not be applied to a Replay? If a player had have got lined in the first Cork Kerry game they would have been down one untill 70 mins but in the replay it would have been up to 90mins. Surely this would be wrong?
By right a replay should be subject to the same rules as ET.
Not at all. A replay is a new game with new players, new officials and often a new venue. The logical extension of your reasoning is that sending offs should be cumulative throughout the championship. Dublin would then find themselves starting a Leinster final with 11 men ;D
Wait a minute, not a bad idea...
It's the Double-Standards interpretations that really annoy me, i.e. it's a "new game" in some ways but not others. But sure the GAA Rules will never be a hallmark of consistency.
By the way, any examples I give about Dublin v Wexford should not be interpreted as me being anti-Dublin. It's just using this recent game for practical examples of the anomalies that can and have arisen.
My own view boils down to an acceptance that it is basically ridiculous to try to consider Extra Time as a new game. Such a notion is so wrong on so many levels.
- It's only 20 minutes in total, not even as long as one half of a regular game.
- The players are not starting afresh. They are tired, their form is now based on a previous 70+ minutes action, some may now be carrying knocks, some may be demoralised because they've not played up to their own expectations, etc. etc.
- The momentum of how the Extra Time is likely to swing is entirely dependent on which team has probably finished stronger during normal time.
- Hound's assertion above that the manager could actually change all 15 players - I've never heard that before; can anyone verify that or not?
- I feel it is correct that Yellow Cards in Normal Time should continue to apply in Extra Time, and this principle should be matched that Red Cards in Normal Time are not effectively discarded by the team in Extra Time. The current situation is so hypocritical in that the more serious offence carries a lesser team penalty into Extra Time.
- I have no problem with additional subs being used in Extra Time. In last Sunday's example, Wexford's failure to use more subs probably reflects their Management feeling they would not have been better than the tired players already on the field. We can't argue that point. However Dublin gained very significantly by being able to call on 5 new players at that point. Having that number of strong players available to call on reflects well on the strength of their panel. However I feel they should only have been able to use 3 new players, and still be limited to 13 in total on the field.
- There should be NO room in the rules where a "hatchet man" can be allowed to effectively help his team by an act of "self sacrifice". If this is a loophole, it should be plugged.
- Finally, we all know the impact that County fixtures have on Club fixtures. That is the basis for bringing in the rule about Extra Time in early round games this year. But given the inequalities in the four provinces, this rule change has far less impact in Connacht or Munster than in the other two. It only serves to widen those inequalities further, and does not serve to minimise the impact on Club fixtures. Once more, the GAA Rules only pay lip service to the slogan that the Club is the most important element of the organisation. This seems to be the case only when it does not clash when County Board priorities.
I would be in favour of this rule. It's what keeps our games different from the rest.
For me extra-time is not a new-game. It's a continuatiuon of the game to try and find a conclusuion. I am against teams being allowed to replace a man that has been sent-off. If they were indisciplined through normal time then they should have to suffer the consequences.
You name a fresh 15 at the start of extra time ...but they have to be from the official list of 24 or whatever handed to the Officials before the start of normal time.
This was clarified by Central Council after last years Ros/Kerry Minor Q.F as there were allegations that Kerry had used too many subs.
This notion of firing on a new whole team is also brutal!
Quote from: Lecale2 on June 15, 2010, 06:28:55 PM
I would be in favour of this rule. It's what keeps our games different from the rest.
Good man Lecale, that really lifts the debate :o
You wouldn't be a Central Council delegate by any chance?
No. Why do you ask that?
Quote from: OverThePostsAWide on June 15, 2010, 12:09:38 PM
Not at all. A replay is a new game with new players, new officials and often a new venue. The logical extension of your reasoning is that sending offs should be cumulative throughout the championship. Dublin would then find themselves starting a Leinster final with 11 men ;D
Wait a minute, not a bad idea...
I'm not much sood at this, I thought I was arguing against that.
I don't know how sports other than soccer do it. The difference with soccer is that in Knockout tournaments they go as far as having penaltys in order to secure a winner regardless. I think it's just a different train of thought. They want a result at any cost.
Quote from: Lecale2 on June 15, 2010, 06:28:55 PM
I would be in favour of this rule. It's what keeps our games different from the rest.
if we had both sets of players perform a tug of war that would be different from most other sports too (barring tug of war of course).
The current situation is illogical, we've had the examples of both Antrim in the hurling and Wexford in the football over the past few weeks playing against and losing to teams who went back to full strength for extra time, yet if any of their players had picked up another yellow, they'd have been off, it's just stupid. Of course you can pedal that auld shite about how they had their chance to bate them in normal time etc, but it ignores fair play, and i'll repeat, it's illogical.
Quote from: Lecale2 on June 15, 2010, 11:03:27 PM
No. Why do you ask that?
Your reasoning made you sound like one...at least the ones in the cloth caps ::)