We need to cop ourselves on in the GAA. Parish rules and the like are alright, though small clubs in counties where they don't exist get on just fine, but we embarrass ourselves to often when we force kids, who simply want to play a bit of sport, to obey the rules or give up the game. I doubt any other sport in the world behaves the way we do in relation to young kids and 'eligibility rules'. Offaly CB, like the Kerry CB before them should be ashamed.
Mother claims GAA 'bullying' her child
Friday, January 31, 2014
The Offaly mother of a 15-year-old hurler prevented from lining out for his first club has claimed the GAA are bullying her child.
By John Fogarty
GAA Correspondent
Conor Smith had been a juvenile member of Birr for four years before being informed in 2012 that he was ineligible as he was living in the Crinkill club's catchment area in the Birr parish and, as his father had not represented Birr at senior level, could not play for them.
Smith's late grandfather is Tom Ryan, an honorary president of the Birr club, but Crinkill queried the legitimacy of him playing for Birr in an U14 game between the neighbouring sides in August 2012.
An investigation was launched by Offaly's Competitions Control Committee which, in September of that year, proposed sanctions against him and Birr's chairman and secretary.
Smith has missed 33 days of school with stress as a result of his situation, which culminated in him bringing his case in front of the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA) last September.
However, it wasn't heard as it was deemed to be in effect a parish rule case, which the DRA had already passed judgment on in 2009. However, the independent legal body had later agreed there were grounds for Birr to come before the tribunal again.
Smith scored the winning goal for Birr in the 2011 Offaly Feile final against Coolderry. He is now a promising handballer, winning two Leinster titles and reaching the quarter-finals of the world pairs.
However, his mother Trish is uncertain whether he will ever play hurling again. The ordeal had a deep impact on him and his doctor initially believed he was being bullied at school. After the first county hearing, he vomited through anxiety.
"As far as I'm concerned, the GAA have bullied my child and stopping him from doing something he loved. He hurled for Birr for four years and nobody said a thing.
"I feel our child has been penalised. We didn't break any rules. I wouldn't subject any child to what Conor has gone through. He was 14 at the time of the first hearing and 15 by the end.
"I've another young lad coming on and I swear he won't go through it, but he's been red and green since he was a child and watching DVDs of games with his grandfather. He'll be devastated when he's stopped hurling, but I will not let him go to any hearing.
"I remember after one hearing Conor pleaded with me not to send him to school the next day. The only way I can describe what happened is like a death. It was their grandfather's wish to see them playing for Birr."
Birr have long maintained the parish rule should be implemented and anyone born within the parish of Birr should be entitled to play for any of its three clubs — Birr, Crinkill or Carrig-Riverstown (Crinkill and Carrig-Riverstown form CRC Gaels at underage level).
The parish rule is enforced via the Offaly bye-laws for all grades except where there are no underage teams in a parish and a player can line out for an independent team which does not bear the name of an adult club within the county.
However, the Offaly County Board maintained Smith was an illegal Birr player as per a boundary agreement, which Birr claim is superseded by the parish rule.
An Offaly hearings committee document presented to the Leinster Hearings Committee read: "It would be easy to treat this as simply a case of a young [player] wishing to play hurling and let sentiment cloud your judgement. But as there is an agreement in place we must honour and enforce the terms of that agreement".
Trish Smith was particularly incensed that Colm's name was mentioned on signposts for the tribunal around the hotel where the DRA meeting was held last year. "I was highly disgusted by it. 'Conor Smith versus the DRA' everywhere. A juvenile's name."
On the advice of his parents, Smith also wrote to the DRA asking them to refrain from emailing him directly as he was a juvenile.
At one of the hearings, Smith himself asked why he wasn't allowed to choose which club he wanted to play for in his parish.
"That's what he can't understand," said his mother. "He hasn't done anything wrong."
© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved
QuoteThere was a case a few years ago where a player from Armagh playing club football in Dublin, where he was living, wanted to play for Louth. Should we get rid of the county boundary so he can line out for who he likes? Or is this case only worth talking about because there is a minor involved.
Of course we should treat kids differently from adults, wider society does the same in most situations. There should be protection for small clubs but a CB should be able to look at individual cases and use its common sense to allow kids play sport with the club they want to when it is the logical thing to do.
I think the idea of club catchments is a good thing in the GAA and I wouldn't advocate a free for all as it would make the big bigger rather than increase access to GAA games.
However, in this case there should be a statute of limitations, it is ridiculous to let a player play for 4 seasons and then decide he is with the wrong club. He should be allowed carry on and if this has exposed a lack of clarity in local arrangement then this should be sorted for the future.
Zulu, you do have a point, but where does this discretion or common sense begin and end ?
And as someone said, common sense isn't in the rule book.
QuoteI think the idea of club catchments is a good thing in the GAA and I wouldn't advocate a free for all as it would make the big bigger rather than increase access to GAA games.
I agree but we can't have a 'rules are rules' attitude to kids sport. A kid who wants to play with his friends is a world away from an adult wanting to leave their small club to play with a big club in order to win championships.
QuoteZulu, you do have a point, but where does this discretion or common sense begin and end ?
Every CB should have the leeway to assess individual cases and allow transfers when it's clear the best interests of a child is to play with a particular club.
Quote from: Zulu on February 01, 2014, 12:19:19 AM
QuoteI think the idea of club catchments is a good thing in the GAA and I wouldn't advocate a free for all as it would make the big bigger rather than increase access to GAA games.
I agree but we can't have a 'rules are rules' attitude to kids sport. A kid who wants to play with his friends is a world away from an adult wanting to leave their small club to play with a big club in order to win championships.
QuoteZulu, you do have a point, but where does this discretion or common sense begin and end ?
Every CB should have the leeway to assess individual cases and allow transfers when it's clear the best interests of a child is to play with a particular club.
I agree. I'm loathe to jeapordise the existence of small clubs, and this is a tiny club versus a big one, but in my mind if a child has been playing with one group of friends since he was 6 or 7, how is he not as much part of that club as anyone else?
I would say there's a slight complication in this case in that he handballs for Crinkle. That may be causing some of the angst on their side.
Don't really see that as any justification AZ, not that you are arguing their case, but this is just another case of GAA rules being twisted to farcical levels IMO. It isn't simply about the particulars of this case but the overall issue of preventing kids from playing with clubs of their choice when all reasonable logic would suggest they should be allowed to.
To be honest Zulu, I actually think this is related to a long running saga between Birr, Crinkle and the CB. See this for a bit more context, and look at the dates. This dates back to before this lad was able to walk, and to be honest I think he is being used as a pawn to further the case. By whom, I'm not sure.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/clubs-four-year-wait-for-hearing-on-parish-rule-257228.html?utm_source=iosapp&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=sharebutton
(http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/clubs-four-year-wait-for-hearing-on-parish-rule-257228.html?utm_source=iosapp&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=sharebutton)
I have to say I smell bullshit in some of this emotive language. This row was well known about, and either Birr and/or this woman with her connections would have known well what was going on.
I certainly hope nobody in Offaly GAA is using a 15 year old as a pawn in some power struggle. We've hit rock bottom if that's the case.
I wouldn't be surprised, and I'd be looking at the mother and Birr. She seems well up on it, and connected to the club. There's no way Birr or herself were caught by surprise here.
Power struggle probably the wrong word. Test case more likely.
There are loads of young lads and adults as well openly playing for teams that they're not living or working in and nobody passes a blind bit of notice to it. There seems to a history with case and as AZ suggests, there looks to be be more to this than meets the eye.
It is undoubtedly sad that it ever got as far as the DRA, not once but twice which in itself is madness.
There is no flexibility in GAA rules and once CCCs have to start applying the rules, all logic, common sense and direction sadly disappear for the greater good and protection of the overall association.
The GAA is a great organisation and does so much good work for the country but this sort of case does it no favours at all.
Yes, because it's that black and white ::)
You do appreciate there is a different psychology at play with adults and kids don't you? Most kids play sport to have fun and be with their friends, not out of a loyalty to to their town or village or to win county championships etc.
There is no problem having eligibility rules to protect clubs but we have to have some leeway when we are dealing with kids so that exceptional cases can be addressed.
Maggie Thatcher would no doubt appreciate your adherence to the rules, even in the face of all logic, - crime is crime is crime and all that.
I have never liked the rules relating to minor players and who thy are entitled to play for particularly when they only seem to be adhered to if the youngster is any good. (No one has ever batted an eyelid about me moving about between clubs as a kid) but is the headline not sensationalist. Surely the kid isn't being stopped from playing hurling he's just being told which club he can hurl for which is completely different. That said I still don't know why we can't just met the kid play.
The great thing about clubs is that they are made up of people who want to play for the club. If any club mate of mine wanted a transfer I'd happily let them go
The headline is sensationalist, and the more I hear about this case up at home, the more I think this is a cynical ploy by Birr, no doubt with the consent of the mother in question, to challenge this agreed Offaly Bye-Law.
The background to this is that this rule (where Crinkill have a defined boundary, and anyone in that area plays for them) has been in place since 2003 or so. Essentially what it does, however, is it brought a lot of old Birr catchment into Crinkill, especially as a lot of ex Birr players were moving out of the town and to the outskirts. If you don't know Birr, Crinkill is essentially a suburb. There is no obvious line where a newcomer would know they have left Birr and are in Crinkill, apart from a sign on the road. Carrig and Riverstown is different, as it's obvious you have left Birr before you hit Carrig.
St. Brendan's Park in Birr is probably 10 long pucks from the Thatch Restaurant in Crinkill.
However, all that being said, this rule, and agreement or concession regarding someone's father playing senior for Birr, is in place for 10 years or more. This child is 15. He lives in Crinkill and never, ever, played legally for Birr. Also, given the fact that the Birr club are obviously aware of this rule, and I'd bet anything that the woman in question is also fully au fait with the rule, given her connections to the Birr club, it's not an unreasonable supposition that both parties here knew exactly what was happening, and they are trying to test the rule. It's an absolute nonsense for Birr to say that they are in any way caught by surprise here. Likewise it is very unlikely that the woman herself didn't see this coming down the line.
I'm sure they knew right well, and decided to bring things to a head to try and either get the rule reversed or the agreement regarding parental association to be extended or modified somehow so that anyone with an affinity with Birr can play with them.
It's pretty transparent when you consider that the same journalist in the same paper (John Fogarty in the Examiner - a journo I have good time for by the way) has two stories. The first is the story where Birr are trying to get their case about this rule heard in the DRA. The second just happens to be a prime example, in emotive terms, of how this rule is impacting a particular child.
Birr are chancing their arm here I think.
I should say that Birr are unhappy that the division from 2003 and rule exist in the first place. I wouldn't want people to think that Birr were happy about this until now, in fairness to them. If anything it makes the scenario I am painting even more likely.
That's why they are in the DRA. (Fogarty's other article). Sanctions were proposed on the Birr Chairman and secretary from 2012, when this lad played in an U14 game v Crinkill.
Did the mum play for Birr (Camogie)??
Would there be grounds there?
Good question re the Mam. I think, as it happens, that she did play Camogie for Birr (from reading between the lines), but as we know the Camogie association is a separate organisation. She might as well have played Ladies Rugby for Birr.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 01:44:15 PM
Good question re the Mam. I think, as it happens, that she did play Camogie for Birr (from reading between the lines), but as we know the Camogie association is a separate organisation. She might as well have played Ladies Rugby for Birr.
Not any more as some Camogie clubs are now affiliated AFAIK.
I don't think so. I could be wrong about that. Maybe that's part of Birr's case.
"Smith's late grandfather is Tom Ryan, an honorary president of the Birr club, but Crinkill queried the legitimacy of him playing for Birr in an U14 game between the neighbouring sides in August 2012.
An investigation was launched by Offaly's Competitions Control Committee which, in September of that year, proposed sanctions against him and Birr's chairman and secretary."
:D
Sure CB's vary the way the apply the rules as it is. Like I said, some counties have the parish rule and others don't yet in counties where it doesn't exist I don't think there are any major issues. I haven't gone into depth on eligibility rules as we could be here all week discussing the merits of various versions but by and large I would be in favour of no eligibility rules or a parish rule with leeway for CB's to assess individual cases on their merits.
For example, what if you had a 9 year old son who was being bullied in a particular club, would you not agree that you should be able to take him out of that club and play with another one?
What if you moved to a different county for work and years later had a 9 year old son playing for the local club and you went to some of his training sessions and games and were appalled by the behaviour of coaches who were verbally abusing the kids and clearly only interested in winning. If their behaviour was turning your son off football would you not feel you should have the option of taking him to another club with a better attitude to coaching kids?
The idea that a young kid plays for his local club come hell or high water is a nonsense in my opinion. When dealing with kids we have to have some leeway to deal with exceptional cases. Of course this will lead to some abuses but I'd sooner allow the odd kid move for spurious reasons than force the majority to play for a club the don't want to or give up. It's only sport at the end of the day.
Quote from: Zulu on February 02, 2014, 01:53:47 PM
Maggie Thatcher would no doubt appreciate your adherence to the rules, even in the face of all logic, - crime is crime is crime and all that.
Terrible attempt to swerve around Godwin there.
It is a tricky one, and I do think there has to be some sort of 'guideline' with regards to what clubs you are eligible for. Given that the GAA is hugely based around the local community then it does make sense that one of the main planks would have to be a geographic or community connection with the club. We have to help small clubs to maintain their playing base where possible.
That said, I agree that in 'exceptional cases' as you have said, there should be a way whereby a child can play with a club, especially if he or she has a non-geographic connection with the club, but a real connection nonetheless. Certainly if it is a case of playing with friends he has always played with, then it should at least be considered sympathetically.
The small club thing is an issue though, and particularly where those small clubs are within striking distance of a bigger town type club that may have better facilities or whatever. I don't think people should be able to choose a club based on how successful it is, or likely to be, or how much money it has, or whether it has a bigger hurling wall than the local club, or whatever. Nothing good can come from that.
I agree AZ and I know that a parent could claim bullying as a reason to leave when none exists but to allow CB's tie their hands in respect to kids sport is totally wrong IMO. As I said, in my own experience kids rarely leave clubs to join better/bigger clubs, they want to play with friends in the main.
Zulu. In my experience the kids are NEVER the problem. At worst the child just wants to play with his friends, and that is perfectly understandable, and I think the GAA should have some flexibility there. 99% of the time, the friends will be in the local club anyway. With regard to the other issues, it's Mammy and Daddy that are the problem. Especially when Daddy used to play with X, and wants his child to play with X , even though they live in Y. (A lot of times in this case the child doesn't really want to move. We had that situation here this very year.)
Or the town field is handier because mammy does the messages in there on a Saturday morning, and it's better to use town GAA's "babysitting" facilities rather than have to actually go to the local rural pitch.
I have to say that in all my GAA life, my club in Offaly and my club here in Tipp would be the biggest of the local clubs. (Say the clubs within the school's catchment area). But I wouldn't like to see people coming to our club, and hurting smaller satellite clubs, on the basis that we have a hurling wall or are a handy option for a Saturday morning.
There are grammar schools in the north that put a ban (don't know how it would be enforced!) on players in the First XV rugby teams from playing for their clubs. Is this child protection / anti-burnout or more selfishly, protecting their assets?
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
The boy could play with any soccer club he wants to, he could play with any rugby club he wants to, join any running club, etc. but by God if he tries to play hurling with one club slightly further away than another, you have people writing letters of objection and preferring for the boy to never play hurling again than to play with the other club.
The same thing happened in Kerry where there was even the ridiculous situation where the pitch of the club a boy wanted to play with was 5 times closer to the pitch of the club the Kerry CB wanted him to play with.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
Jeez sorry AZ for asking a genuine question (not a statement!) that I was curious about that didn't have any "point" to it! Look up "question" in the dictionary.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:50:21 PM
Zulu. In my experience the kids are NEVER the problem. At worst the child just wants to play with his friends, and that is perfectly understandable, and I think the GAA should have some flexibility there. 99% of the time, the friends will be in the local club anyway. With regard to the other issues, it's Mammy and Daddy that are the problem. Especially when Daddy used to play with X, and wants his child to play with X , even though they live in Y. (A lot of times in this case the child doesn't really want to move. We had that situation here this very year.)
Or the town field is handier because mammy does the messages in there on a Saturday morning, and it's better to use town GAA's "babysitting" facilities rather than have to actually go to the local rural pitch.
I have to say that in all my GAA life, my club in Offaly and my club here in Tipp would be the biggest of the local clubs. (Say the clubs within the school's catchment area). But I wouldn't like to see people coming to our club, and hurting smaller satellite clubs, on the basis that we have a hurling wall or are a handy option for a Saturday morning.
AZ there isn't a rule you could word that would cover all situations and that is why I believe that CB's should have leeway to asses cases on their own merits. It would be fairly easy to spot a suspicious case, i.e. a 12 year old who is likely to be county development player looking to leave a small club for a bigger more successful club. In those cases you would need to have a fairly watertight case but to tell every kid there's no chance of leaving a club is nonsense.
In fairness blanketattack, that's not the case here. And if we follow your thoughts through to their logical conclusion, then you can simply pick whichever club you want to play for, with no restrictions or whatever?
Soccer and Rugby are different. In many cases there wasn't a soccer or rugby club local to you, so you had to travel to a nearby town to play. The culture of always playing with your own just doesn't exist in those sports. I forget what part of Kerry you are from, but if you were from Foilmore say, you'd have to travel to Cahirciveen to play soccer with Skellig United or whatever they are called. But if you want to play GAA, you play with St. Michaels, and their pitch is right there in Foilmore.
Now, if you want to go down that route, then it's a different kettle of fish entirely, and a different argument really, because I don't think that's what you are suggesting. I'm not against a common sense solution in this area, but I think using the Birr case as a poster child (no pun intended) is not necessarily the right thing to do. The Kerry case you mention was probably a lot more clear cut in terms of what common sense would tell you to do.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 03, 2014, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
Jeez sorry AZ for asking a genuine question (not a statement!) that I was curious about that didn't have any "point" to it! Look up "question" in the dictionary.
Didn't mean to come across like that Tony. Apologies. I wasn't sure what the context of the question was on this thread is all. I thought you were comparing grammar school rugby players, and their status as 'assets' with GAA clubs' views of their players. I was just confused, not trying to be sarky.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 05:05:52 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 03, 2014, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
Jeez sorry AZ for asking a genuine question (not a statement!) that I was curious about that didn't have any "point" to it! Look up "question" in the dictionary.
Didn't mean to come across like that Tony. Apologies. I wasn't sure what the context of the question was on this thread is all. I thought you were comparing grammar school rugby players, and their status as 'assets' with GAA clubs' views of their players. I was just confused, not trying to be sarky.
I should apologise for over-reacting. I know it wasn't in the context of the thread but it is something I thought of when reading it. :-*
Quote from: Zulu on February 03, 2014, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:50:21 PM
Zulu. In my experience the kids are NEVER the problem. At worst the child just wants to play with his friends, and that is perfectly understandable, and I think the GAA should have some flexibility there. 99% of the time, the friends will be in the local club anyway. With regard to the other issues, it's Mammy and Daddy that are the problem. Especially when Daddy used to play with X, and wants his child to play with X , even though they live in Y. (A lot of times in this case the child doesn't really want to move. We had that situation here this very year.)
Or the town field is handier because mammy does the messages in there on a Saturday morning, and it's better to use town GAA's "babysitting" facilities rather than have to actually go to the local rural pitch.
I have to say that in all my GAA life, my club in Offaly and my club here in Tipp would be the biggest of the local clubs. (Say the clubs within the school's catchment area). But I wouldn't like to see people coming to our club, and hurting smaller satellite clubs, on the basis that we have a hurling wall or are a handy option for a Saturday morning.
AZ there isn't a rule you could word that would cover all situations and that is why I believe that CB's should have leeway to asses cases on their own merits. It would be fairly easy to spot a suspicious case, i.e. a 12 year old who is likely to be county development player looking to leave a small club for a bigger more successful club. In those cases you would need to have a fairly watertight case but to tell every kid there's no chance of leaving a club is nonsense.
I'm agreeing with you :) I'm just saying you'd have to even frame the 'common sense' part of it fairly clearly. What is common sense to you, me or 100 other people might not be common sense at all when the blood is getting heated and a good player wants to move clubs to be closer to his pals.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 05:05:52 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 03, 2014, 05:00:16 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
Jeez sorry AZ for asking a genuine question (not a statement!) that I was curious about that didn't have any "point" to it! Look up "question" in the dictionary.
Didn't mean to come across like that Tony. Apologies. I wasn't sure what the context of the question was on this thread is all. I thought you were comparing grammar school rugby players, and their status as 'assets' with GAA clubs' views of their players. I was just confused, not trying to be sarky.
Meanwhile, over on General Discussion... ;D
Quote from: Tony Baloney on February 03, 2014, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: EC Unique on February 03, 2014, 01:46:17 PM
Bit sad the way this thread has gone but typical of the GAABoard this last while.
RIP to the man.
Has always been this way since I joined (not linked ;D) and not exclusive to the gaaboard. Some boys could start a fight in a phonebox.
Jaysus. This wasn't a fight :D
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 05:12:24 PM
Jaysus. This wasn't a fight :D
Right answer my question then. I didn't know this before about rugby schools - asset protection? Simple yes or no and I'll move on ;)
I'll say that, similar to the GAA when county players are often unofficially told to skip club sessions, it's more about protecting the players when the school can't see or trust what's going on in the clubs. So yes, if you call the players an asset, I suspect it's about trying to reduce the risk of them getting hurt playing with their clubs.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 05:18:59 PM
I'll say that, similar to the GAA when county players are often unofficially told to skip club sessions, it's more about protecting the players when the school can't see or trust what's going on in the clubs. So yes, if you call the players an asset, I suspect it's about trying to reduce the risk of them getting hurt playing with their clubs.
Cheers. Bit of a cheek from the schools.
Now, that 15 year old playing for Birr...
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 05:07:37 PM
Quote from: Zulu on February 03, 2014, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:50:21 PM
Zulu. In my experience the kids are NEVER the problem. At worst the child just wants to play with his friends, and that is perfectly understandable, and I think the GAA should have some flexibility there. 99% of the time, the friends will be in the local club anyway. With regard to the other issues, it's Mammy and Daddy that are the problem. Especially when Daddy used to play with X, and wants his child to play with X , even though they live in Y. (A lot of times in this case the child doesn't really want to move. We had that situation here this very year.)
Or the town field is handier because mammy does the messages in there on a Saturday morning, and it's better to use town GAA's "babysitting" facilities rather than have to actually go to the local rural pitch.
I have to say that in all my GAA life, my club in Offaly and my club here in Tipp would be the biggest of the local clubs. (Say the clubs within the school's catchment area). But I wouldn't like to see people coming to our club, and hurting smaller satellite clubs, on the basis that we have a hurling wall or are a handy option for a Saturday morning.
AZ there isn't a rule you could word that would cover all situations and that is why I believe that CB's should have leeway to asses cases on their own merits. It would be fairly easy to spot a suspicious case, i.e. a 12 year old who is likely to be county development player looking to leave a small club for a bigger more successful club. In those cases you would need to have a fairly watertight case but to tell every kid there's no chance of leaving a club is nonsense.
I'm agreeing with you :) I'm just saying you'd have to even frame the 'common sense' part of it fairly clearly. What is common sense to you, me or 100 other people might not be common sense at all when the blood is getting heated and a good player wants to move clubs to be closer to his pals.
I know AZ and I'm not using the Birr situation as the classic example, the Kerry case was actually more in my mind. However, I think you can look at a few things to decide if there is merit to the case, the following for example;
1. Where did/does the child go to school
2. The child's parents association with a club
3. Where is the child's home
4. The age of the child and the duration he/she is playing with their current club
5. The status of the club they are proposing to leave and the status of the club they are proposing to join
If you are in the parish of one club but live closer to another club and go to school with kids who normally play with that club then I think an 8 year old would have a good case. Anyone who simply hides behind the rule book is IMO has the wrong priorities. Kids should come before clubs.
Now if he is a 15 year old who thinks moving to another club would increases his chances of playing with the county minors in a few years then we have a totally different story and would probably object to his transfer.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
Young lads are told not to play football for their clubs by the school?
Where does that happen?
QuoteIf you are in the parish of one club but live closer to another club and go to school with kids who normally play with that club then I think an 8 year old would have a good case. Anyone who simply hides behind the rule book is IMO has the wrong priorities. Kids should come before clubs.
Do you mean that club boundaries should be aligned with schools, or that "kids" should be allowed play with one club until secondary school when they have to go to the proper club?
No, I was making a hypothetical case. Why do you out the word kids in quotations? When I said school I was referring to primary school but my point is simple. We shouldn't have a black and white rule for kids sport, have whatever rules you want but allow the CB to look at applications for a transfer and decide whether this case has merit. Small clubs have to be protected and we don't want super clubs based around towns while clubs on the outskirts of the town can't field but we have to also consider what is best for individual kids.
Quote from: Jinxy on February 03, 2014, 05:58:34 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
Young lads are told not to play football for their clubs by the school?
Where does that happen?
Wasn't clear enough. I meant you have teams in the GAA, normally county teams, where players are encouraged to miss or take it handy for club activities.
Quote from: Jinxy on February 03, 2014, 05:58:34 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 03, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
That's not new. Sure that goes on in the GAA as well. Not sure what point you are making there Tony, to be honest.
Young lads are told not to play football for their clubs by the school?
Where does that happen?
If anything I have witnessed the other way happen.
QuoteI've grown tired of these "appeals" that crop up on occasion in that almost all the time they are not being prevented from playing (they are just restricted to playing for certain clubs within the confines of the rules that every player is subject to), and the full story isn't being told.
I think that's hiding behind language rather than accepting the reality. Of course we don't know the full story in any of these cases and whether this one is a genuine case or not I don't know but rules that prevent any kid playing with a club he wants to in all circumstances are dubious to say the least. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be eligibility rules, I'm arguing that they shouldn't be so sacrosanct that a county boards hands are tied even when any logical person would feel the kid should be allowed to transfer.
QuoteIncidently if restrictions on playing for a certain club at a certain age level should be removed, should this privilege also be extended at county level at the same age level? Many young talented players go to school in a different county from the one they live in, so if not why not?
County teams don't start until U14, I would suggest that allowing kids to play with their friends is more of a U8/10 type of thing. Besides, you might only have one or two friends from school on a county team and only play a few games with a county team prior to minor at which point playing with your mates is certainly no justification for a transfer.
The parish rule is more often than not designed to prevent big clubs poaching the better players from small clubs and even that doesn't work all the time.
If the young fella has been playing with Birr since he started and never played for Crinkill even if he lived within the boundaries as its not as if anyone knew whether he'd be good, bad or indifferent at hurling.
Was the lad 'poached' from Crinkill?
In this case, it appears to me that Birr are chancing their arm. They knew right well what the boundary was, and as I said the agreement was there since 2003, when this lad was 3 years of age or so.
The family appear to be steeped in the Birr club, and it is just not credible that they thought there was no issue with this, and certainly the Birr club would have known.
So now they have a cause celebre to take to the nation, on the exact same day, with the exact same reporter, that they also release a story saying they are pushing the DRA to hold a hearing on their appeal about the very same rule.
It's a PR stunt to bolster their case.
All that being said, I have no issue if the GAA allow counties to adjudicate what amounts to common sense on other cases. Certainly the Kerry case is a lot more nuanced.
Lads you can't have rules that leave scope for "common sense", primarily because what's common sense to one person might me a daft idea to another - and that's before you take into account the bias that will always be inherent in disputes between clubs. By all means use common sense when framing the rules, but there needs to be hard and fast rules to work with, otherwise there will be those who will look to take advantage. Common sense is a lovely idea in theory, but it just doesn't work in practice.
Imagine trying to police speeding on the roads by common sense? We all think it's a good idea, but if you get five people in a room and ask them what's the right speed limit for a dual carraigeway on a wet day, you'll get five different answers.
In this case, let's be clear here for those who don't get it - the child in question lives in the heart of Crinkill. Crinkill is part of Birr parish and didn't exist until 1981, and when it was founded it was for junior and adults only - by rule, it wasn't allowed get promoted to senior. They only started fielding underage in 2003, when the boundary was drawn up, and then in 2009 (I think) they were granted the right to gain promotion, which is still a bit away but could be realistic in five or six years. They won a minor "B" championship last year and would be competitive at "B" level all down the ages.
Birr don't agree with this boundary and feel that they should still be allowed to pick from the whole parish, and so are contesting that concept, as they are entitled to do - but the rule remains in place and the only reason that the child in question wants to hurl with Birr is because he has done so this far, due to the influence of his mother and grandfather. I he had been brought to Crinkill club initially, as he should have been, he would have been in with most of his national school friends, would have been closer to home, and this never would have arisen.
LS, how about a law that says all underage transfers must be voted on by a county board meeting, and the county board has the power to ratify transfers to underage clubs where the vote of the members feels that there is a valid, child welfare, reason for doing so.
AZ, much like the common sense idea, that works great in theory, until you see how it goes in practice. My experience is that clubs will vote out of self interest, and it doesn't matter how ridiculous it sounds, there will always be a self-interest angle to be found if you dig deep enough.
If you put a system in place like that, what would happen is that clubs wouldn't look at it in terms of right and wrong, they'd look at it in terms of how it's likely to affect them. For example, Tullamore would possibly vote with Birr while Durrow and Ballinamere might vote with Crinkill because of parallels in their situations. Another club might vote for Birr to be seen to lend their support so that Birr would let them borrow the field for a challenge match, while another club might vote for Crinkill because they've a league match coming up against Crinkill and they want it moved because of a stag do, and they want to do Crinkill a favour in advance in order to grease the wheels.
An independent subcommittee might work, but it would have to be people of the highest integrity that couldn't be questioned, your Brendan Wards and the like. Otherwise it would become a trading shop.
Well maybe that's the way forward. I agree club politics would be hard to avoid if it was just an open county board vote, but maybe a committee like that, independent of the clubs if you like, would be the best way forward. You'd only have to convene them to examine contentious transfers, not to rubber stamp all transfers that are uncontested.
By the way, in this case, I'm convinced Birr have engineered, or at least taken advantage of, a situation where they can use a public case to further their challenge to the rule. There's no way the parties in this were caught by surprise that the young lad was not legal for Birr.
To have another, 'unrelated', article in the same paper on the same day about their battle with the DRA about the rule was so obvious I can't believe they did it that way.
One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, as Stalin didn't say. The reason I bring up this quote is that the only way you can keep every individual person happy when it comes to the club they play with is if you have a free-for-all. When that's the case, you never have people running to the press wailing about how cruel the system is. Of course in a free-for-all you'll have groups of individuals, i.e. clubs, who are extremely put out by the situation. But who gives two hoots about a club when set against the needs/wants of Tiny Tim? Now, I have to emphasis that there's nothing wrong with advocating a free-for-all. I just wish those arguing for it would be honest about it rather than using hard cases to bring about change and pretending that any such change would not have a disruptive effect.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 06, 2014, 01:35:53 PM
By the way, in this case, I'm convinced Birr have engineered, or at least taken advantage of, a situation where they can use a public case to further their challenge to the rule. There's no way the parties in this were caught by surprise that the young lad was not legal for Birr.
To have another, 'unrelated', article in the same paper on the same day about their battle with the DRA about the rule was so obvious I can't believe they did it that way.
I'm not entirely sure, simply because Birr have taken a bath on bringing a similar case to this to the DRA before and could have been driven to penury if they had been hit for costs. I can't be sure, but I suspect that the mother/grandfather is fuelling this push, and that nobody in Birr committee is strong enough to stand up to a senior figure like him and say that they don't want to stand behind it. As things stand, unless there's a lot more to this than meets the eye, they're going to end up with suspensions for Chair and Secretary, and possibly a large fine and a big legal bill as well.
I'm only speculating, but one story, pushed by the mother, could easily have precipitated a call to the club, which created the parallel story, so to speak.
QuoteImagine trying to police speeding on the roads by common sense? We all think it's a good idea, but if you get five people in a room and ask them what's the right speed limit for a dual carraigeway on a wet day, you'll get five different answers.
I don't think that's the correct analogy LS, I'd view it more as having the 40kph speed zone but the guards not hanging a guy for going 41kph. The rule is there but common sense dictates that it shouldn't be applied in such cases even though they have technically broken the law like the guy who does 70kph in a 40 zone.
An independent committee, like you suggested, is what I'd have in mind. If counties can't find an ethical committee then you should have leave to Croke Park.
Quote from: Zulu on February 06, 2014, 02:30:36 PM
I don't think that's the correct analogy LS, I'd view it more as having the 40kph speed zone but the guards not hanging a guy for going 41kph. The rule is there but common sense dictates that it shouldn't be applied in such cases even though they have technically broken the law like the guy who does 70kph in a 40 zone.
Do the guards hang people for breaking the speed limit these days? The whistle blower didn't mention that!
Call me old fashioned Deiseach but hanging is the proper punishment for any offence!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlSjBAQixGI
Quote from: Zulu on February 06, 2014, 02:53:48 PM
Call me old fashioned Deiseach but hanging is the proper punishment for any offence!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlSjBAQixGI
I don't know why everyone gasps in those scenes. What were they expecting, the archangel Michael to come down from on high and cut the rope in mid-drop with the sword with which he wounded Satan?
Quote from: Lone Shark on February 06, 2014, 02:03:47 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 06, 2014, 01:35:53 PM
By the way, in this case, I'm convinced Birr have engineered, or at least taken advantage of, a situation where they can use a public case to further their challenge to the rule. There's no way the parties in this were caught by surprise that the young lad was not legal for Birr.
To have another, 'unrelated', article in the same paper on the same day about their battle with the DRA about the rule was so obvious I can't believe they did it that way.
I'm not entirely sure, simply because Birr have taken a bath on bringing a similar case to this to the DRA before and could have been driven to penury if they had been hit for costs. I can't be sure, but I suspect that the mother/grandfather is fuelling this push, and that nobody in Birr committee is strong enough to stand up to a senior figure like him and say that they don't want to stand behind it. As things stand, unless there's a lot more to this than meets the eye, they're going to end up with suspensions for Chair and Secretary, and possibly a large fine and a big legal bill as well.
I'm only speculating, but one story, pushed by the mother, could easily have precipitated a call to the club, which created the parallel story, so to speak.
I thought the grandfather was dead? I'm sure I read his 'late' Grandfather was a life president of Birr?
I'm genuinely not sure of that - it does state that in the article, but it wasn't mentioned to me, and I've had people suggest to me that Birr feel under a bit of a pressure to pursue this one. Having said that I'm going beyond the realm of hard facts for this one, since we're now into hearsay and individual views.
Quote from: Zulu on February 06, 2014, 02:30:36 PM
QuoteImagine trying to police speeding on the roads by common sense? We all think it's a good idea, but if you get five people in a room and ask them what's the right speed limit for a dual carraigeway on a wet day, you'll get five different answers.
I don't think that's the correct analogy LS, I'd view it more as having the 40kph speed zone but the guards not hanging a guy for going 41kph. The rule is there but common sense dictates that it shouldn't be applied in such cases even though they have technically broken the law like the guy who does 70kph in a 40 zone.
An independent committee, like you suggested, is what I'd have in mind. If counties can't find an ethical committee then you should have leave to Croke Park.
I agree with you - common sense suggests 41 in a 40 is not dangerous, and 70 in a 40 is. Neither would there be much disagreement at anything over 60kph, or anything under 46kph. But then you have that whole grey area in the middle, where one "common sense" person would say that at 53kph they're not causing a danger, and another would say that they are. The problem is that most of the contentious cases come out of that grey area.
Which is why consensus at a neutral committee would be a fair adjudicator of common sense.
As AZ said, an independent committee can decide in such cases. While I'd accept it's easy to throw out 'solutions' on an internet discussion board I do believe the bottom line is the parents of a young child should have recourse to a body that can view their case a grant a transfer in certain situations. If things are so rancorous that they get to that stage I would suggest forcing the kid to play with a club he doesn't want to play with is tantamount to stoping him playing. In that situation, he loses out and both clubs lose out, not to mention the image of the GAA. Lose lose situations shouldn't happen in kids sport.
Quote from: Zulu on February 06, 2014, 03:32:53 PM
As AZ said, an independent committee can decide in such cases. While I'd accept it's easy to throw out 'solutions' on an internet discussion board I do believe the bottom line is the parents of a young child should have recourse to a body that can view their case a grant a transfer in certain situations. If things are so rancorous that they get to that stage I would suggest forcing the kid to play with a club he doesn't want to play with is tantamount to stoping him playing. In that situation, he loses out and both clubs lose out, not to mention the image of the GAA. Lose lose situations shouldn't happen in kids sport.
What if the independent committee decides that the transfer shouldn't happen? I don't see the point of your proposal if the only correct decision is one that allows the child to play on their terms. If that's the goal, fine. But then you should advocate a free-for-all and spare us yet another committee.
I was just thinking the same thing :D In this case (and I know we've moved on from the specific to the generic) from what I know about it, if I were on the committee, I'd be saying the young lad should be playing with Crinkill, and should always have been playing with Crinkill.
Quote from: deiseach on February 06, 2014, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: Zulu on February 06, 2014, 03:32:53 PM
As AZ said, an independent committee can decide in such cases. While I'd accept it's easy to throw out 'solutions' on an internet discussion board I do believe the bottom line is the parents of a young child should have recourse to a body that can view their case a grant a transfer in certain situations. If things are so rancorous that they get to that stage I would suggest forcing the kid to play with a club he doesn't want to play with is tantamount to stoping him playing. In that situation, he loses out and both clubs lose out, not to mention the image of the GAA. Lose lose situations shouldn't happen in kids sport.
What if the independent committee decides that the transfer shouldn't happen? I don't see the point of your proposal if the only correct decision is one that allows the child to play on their terms. If that's the goal, fine. But then you should advocate a free-for-all and spare us yet another committee.
Sorry, I didn't really put that well. Those chancing their arm because they want their kids to play with a bigger club etc. might go to those lengths as well and they shouldn't be granted a transfer. I wouldn't see, such a committee being very busy but I don't believe the GAA is best served by rigidly sticking to rules that are well meaning but don't always reflect the realities of modern Ireland such as separated parents, people from other countries, the greater movement of people between counties etc. Rarely is inflexibility a positive. Is it not sensible to have eligibility rules but also an avenue where, in exceptional circumstances, they can be over ridden in the best interests of a child?
Quote from: Zulu on February 06, 2014, 04:05:33 PM
Sorry, I didn't really put that well. Those chancing their arm because they want their kids to play with a bigger club etc. might go to those lengths as well and they shouldn't be granted a transfer. I wouldn't see, such a committee being very busy but I don't believe the GAA is best served by rigidly sticking to rules that are well meaning but don't always reflect the realities of modern Ireland such as separated parents, people from other countries, the greater movement of people between counties etc. Rarely is inflexibility a positive. Is it not sensible to have eligibility rules but also an avenue where, in exceptional circumstances, they can be over ridden in the best interests of a child?
I wouldn't have any problem with that. Let's have a committee which can take into account separated parents, people from other countries and the greater movement of people between counties. But if you want the committee to take into account "the image of the GAA" or that it would be required to allow the transfer if there is a chance the child might stop playing, forget it. There's no point in having a committee because the end result would always be the same.
Quote from: Zulu on February 06, 2014, 04:05:33 PM
Is it not sensible to have eligibility rules but also an avenue where, in exceptional circumstances, they can be over ridden in the best interests of a child?
That sounds good but don't forget here that these are parents with kids - I guarantee you that there will be an argument in absolutely every case that their child is experiencing "exceptional circumstances." Which is why again, there need to be rules and guidelines, even to give these committees a helping had. As Deiseach pointed out, fear of the child being distressed or turned away from the sport is not exceptional.
QuoteI wouldn't have any problem with that. Let's have a committee which can take into account separated parents, people from other countries and the greater movement of people between counties. But if you want the committee to take into account "the image of the GAA" or that it would be required to allow the transfer if there is a chance the child might stop playing, forget it.
I may be structuring my posts poorly but I'm not advocating transfers simply on the basis of kid being upset, I was just saying that type of thing is an additional unwanted aspect to these things.
QuoteThat sounds good but don't forget here that these are parents with kids - I guarantee you that there will be an argument in absolutely every case that their child is experiencing "exceptional circumstances." Which is why again, there need to be rules and guidelines, even to give these committees a helping had.
I agree and I previously listed some things that could be looked at when deciding the merits of cases.