I'd be very interested to see how long a ban McQuaid of Monaghan gets after yesterdays sending off.
I dont wish to suggest he get any particular amount of time, but I'm sure the Dublin and Meath players currently serving 8 week bans will be looking on with great interest.
Apoligies for opening a seperate thread, but this is purely to compare whatever ban he gets with other intercounty players around the country.
I wonder will certain ex Meath playing reporters be suggesting 8 weeks wont be nearly enough?
I don't think anyone from Monaghan would argue that he deserves a decent ban. It was extremely stupid (albeit out of character)and it was obvious he couldn't get away with it. I'd imagine he'd have to get 8 weeks - 4 weeks wouldn't even take us to the first round of the qualifiers.
He deserves a minimum of 8 weeks, because he needs to learn to control that red mist of his. He wanted off that field, the head had gone, but you cant start milling about like a psycho. If I was Monaghan management Id be leaving him off until he can be trusted again.
2 kicks and a punch. Is it possible to contribute to a melee that just involves yourself?
I don't think this should be in a thread of its own. It is already being discussed on the other thread. The comparison of suspension can be done when we know the suspension but until then it should remain in the Monaghan V Fermanagh thread.
12 weeks minimum in my view. that was quite simply outrageous and if a dublin player did the same people here would be calling for a 6 month. firstly he tried to put his studs down the bakc of mc cabe's leg by tripping him, then when he was on the ground he kicked mc cabe and when mc cabe regained his footing he lamped him with a box. absolute minimum 12 weeks.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 26, 2008, 12:35:59 PM
I don't think this should be in a thread of its own. It is already being discussed on the other thread. The comparison of suspension can be done when we know the suspension but until then it should remain in the Monaghan V Fermanagh thread.
Zaptista, this thread is for people to discuss what sort of suspensions they think should be given out to McQuaid in the current climate. If you dont want to contribute then feel free to ignore it.
I dont see any harm in people stating in advance what type of punishment they think would be appropriate.
Given what has happened so far this year, I think its a topic worthy of discussion outside of the match thread as recent developments have made this a more general GAA topic.
I would imagine he will be reported for a Category 2 infraction ("....Kicking or attempting to kick, with minimal force; Striking, or attempting to strike with arm, elbow, hand or knee;....). Assuming he has no previously dismissal for this type of infraction in the past 48 weeks (playing for Monaghan) the minimum suspension is 4 weeks.
Considering what some of the Dubs & Meath men got, you would have to say he should get 8 maybe 12 weeks.
Although if Banty has any sense he wont play him for Monaghan again this year. He is no use to the lads on the field if he is a liability
Funny thing is, from looking at the Sunday game last night, i thought McCabe was raising his own hand in retaliation only McQuaid got there first! (Obviously not trying to condone this, and i may be totally off the mark, but that was my observation from the replay)
Quote from: full back on May 26, 2008, 12:57:49 PM
Considering what some of the Dubs & Meath men got, you would have to say he should get 8 maybe 12 weeks.
this is the key question, many have said some of the Dubs / Meath bans were harsh. So are we looking for a ban thats appropriate, or appropriate in proportion to what the Dublin / Meath lads got?
The GAA are under some pressure now given the marker they have laid down, if they are to be consistant a very long ban must be implimented. But will they be harsher than they should be to be consistant?
note when I say "consistant" I dont necessarily mean right.
On Sunday other players didn't get involved in retaliation, they let the ref deal with it.
The whole tackle and assault was worth about 2 yellows as well as a straight red.
(McQuaid should definitly get 4 or 6 weeks more than what Vaughan got for punching Freeman)
I think 8 weeks would take us up the first qualifier.
Certainly it was a dirthy foul punch as the Fermanagh player was just getting up but you'd have to agree, in boxing terms, it's execution (with no back lift) was as clean as you get.
Is there any chance they can also be swayed by impact and publicity? i.e. a mass brawl is a much bigger headline than an incident involving a single player/2 players? I'm not saying that's the right attitude, but one incident may carry significantly higher reputational damage to the organisation than the other.
QuoteIs there any chance they can also be swayed by impact and publicity?
That would never happen, would it? ;D
Hold on a minute lads - let's not start guessing what he will get - it's as simple as this - he was sent off for striking - so he will get one month - FFS lads, you can't compare what Mc Quaid did to the Dublin v Meat thing - he got sent for for striking - he hot yer man a bit of a slap - nothing more -
All he will get is 4 weeks and that's all he deserves to get to be honest.
When will the Dubs realise the world does not revolve around them?
::)
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2008, 01:09:17 PM
Hold on a minute lads - let's not start guessing what he will get - it's as simple as this - he was sent off for striking - so he will get one month - FFS lads, you can't compare what Mc Quaid did to the Dublin v Meat thing - he got sent for for striking - he hot yer man a bit of a slap - nothing more -
All he will get is 4 weeks and that's all he deserves to get to be honest.
No you cant, the Dublin Meath thing was much worse as there were several players involved.
But we are down to the individual suspensions the Dublin and Meath players got. What McQuaid did, while not as bad overall as the Dubs Meath thing, was worse that most of the INDIVIDUALS who got banned in that game did.
Should the fact that people around him didnt fight make what he did less appaling, suspension wise?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 26, 2008, 01:12:14 PM
When will the Dubs realise the world does not revolve around them?
::)
Au contraire Pints, my point is that it should maybe start revolving around McQuaid and monaghan for a week or so ;)
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2008, 01:09:17 PM
Hold on a minute lads - let's not start guessing what he will get - it's as simple as this - he was sent off for striking - so he will get one month - FFS lads, you can't compare what Mc Quaid did to the Dublin v Meat thing - he got sent for for striking - he hot yer man a bit of a slap - nothing more -
All he will get is 4 weeks and that's all he deserves to get to be honest.
Is there not an arguement for punishing him for the kick, which could mean 8 weeks under Category 3 infractions:
Striking with hurley, either with force or causing injury; Attempting to strike with hurley, with force;
Kicking, either with force or causing injury; Attempting to Kick, with force; Stamping; Striking or attempting to strike with the head; Inflicting injury recklessly by means other than those stated above; Any type of assault on an Opposing Team Official.
By the letter of the law, he will probably get away with 4 weeks under Category 2 infractions. But for me, he should get 8 weeks.
He was sent off for a striking offence - 4 weeks - it wasn't part of a brawl - we all know that the Dublin v Meath suspensions were at best influenced and at worst encouraged by Nicky Brennan coupled with the fact that it was on TV. Dublin had been walking a thin line all year and when the chance came along to hammer them, they got hammered along with whoever their oppostition was ( unfortunately it was Meath, but it could have been anybody ).
Quote from: stevo-08 on May 26, 2008, 01:16:53 PM
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2008, 01:09:17 PM
Hold on a minute lads - let's not start guessing what he will get - it's as simple as this - he was sent off for striking - so he will get one month - FFS lads, you can't compare what Mc Quaid did to the Dublin v Meat thing - he got sent for for striking - he hot yer man a bit of a slap - nothing more -
All he will get is 4 weeks and that's all he deserves to get to be honest.
Is there not an arguement for punishing him for the kick, which could mean 8 weeks under Category 3 infractions:
Striking with hurley, either with force or causing injury; Attempting to strike with hurley, with force; Kicking, either with force or causing injury; Attempting to Kick, with force; Stamping; Striking or attempting to strike with the head; Inflicting injury recklessly by means other than those stated above; Any type of assault on an Opposing Team Official.
By the letter of the law, he will probably get away with 4 weeks under Category 2 infractions. But for me, he should get 8 weeks.
He did not kick - there might have been an attempt to trip but there wasn't a kick.
That's fair enough HH and I'm sure I will like to contribute and I will defiantly read the thread. I do think it can all be discussed on the one thread as it is relevant to the match and I will be jumping from one to the other to read the comments on the same topic. I also don't think there is a need to start a thread on McQuaid getting sent off (i do realise this was a serious offence caught on camera) or the same could be applied to every sending off during the championship. If you wish to open a thread on discipline and punishment I think it would be a better but anything that facilatates the discussion the better.
INDIANA
"12 weeks minimum in my view. that was quite simply outrageous and if a dublin player did the same people here would be calling for a 6 month. ."
I agree there would be people calling for a huge ban if it where a Dublin player but those people should not have any influence on how long he should get or any Dub should get for a similar incident.
fair enough orangeman, he didnt "connect" with the kick. But do you honetly think he only deserves 4 weeks for a trip, attempted kick & a box to the face as the fermanagh man was getting up. I thought it was disgraceful.
Quote from: stevo-08 on May 26, 2008, 01:21:38 PM
fair enough orangeman, he didnt "connect" with the kick. But do you honetly think he only deserves 4 weeks for a trip, attempted kick & a box to the face as the fermanagh man was getting up. I thought it was disgraceful.
Agreed. He definitely attempted a kick while they were both on the ground.
I don't think there was force in the kick or attempted kick so Category 2 would be it I think. There is an argument for greater than the minimum suspension but it depends on whether you view the incident as a whole or 3 seperate offences (and more importantly how the people deciding on suspensions view them).
4 weeks would look a tad lenient, 8 weeks too severe.
Quote from: Zapatista on May 26, 2008, 01:20:05 PM
I also don't think there is a need to start a thread on McQuaid getting sent off
If you wish to open a thread on discipline and punishment I think it would be a better
Gotcha Zaptista, I just presumed that this was the done thing given all the individual threads opened when theres an incident involving a Dub during a game.
On reflection you are probably right.
8 weeks for the offence
and another 12 weeks for being from Monaghan.
;D
If he gets 4 weeks he won't miss anything and posters will say it's a joke.
If he gets 8 weeks, he'll miss a game or two and posters will say it's too harsh.
Perhaps it's time to bring in game bans.
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2008, 01:35:35 PM
If he gets 4 weeks he won't miss anything and posters will say it's a joke.
If he gets 8 weeks, he'll miss a game or two and posters will say it's too harsh.
Perhaps it's time to bring in game bans.
Surely he misses at least the first qualifier involving Monaghan because of the straight red?
If the ref reports him for the kicking or not surely the CCCC can hammer him for it either way, IMO 8 weeks would be right. What did Cluxton get in 2003???
Quote from: BallyhaiseMan on May 26, 2008, 01:30:28 PM
8 weeks for the offence
and another 12 weeks for being from Monaghan.
;D
That's a bit harsh now. Get real. 8 weeks for the offence? :)
Quote from: orangeman on May 26, 2008, 01:35:35 PM
If he gets 4 weeks he won't miss anything and posters will say it's a joke.
If he gets 8 weeks, he'll miss a game or two and posters will say it's too harsh.
Perhaps it's time to bring in game bans.
Correct and right
I would think that 8 weeks would be right, but even if he gets away with 4 weeks, he will still have to miss one Championship match if not covered by the 4 or 8 weeks ban.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 26, 2008, 01:01:53 PM
Quote from: full back on May 26, 2008, 12:57:49 PM
Considering what some of the Dubs & Meath men got, you would have to say he should get 8 maybe 12 weeks.
this is the key question, many have said some of the Dubs / Meath bans were harsh. So are we looking for a ban thats appropriate, or appropriate in proportion to what the Dublin / Meath lads got?
The GAA are under some pressure now given the marker they have laid down, if they are to be consistant a very long ban must be implimented. But will they be harsher than they should be to be consistant?
note when I say "consistant" I dont necessarily mean right.
the gaa had to deal with the dub/meath clash due to so many players being involved. This was an individual offense compared to basically two teams having a go. For the sake of argument if that had been a Dublin player that had been hit by Mc Quaid , do you all think that a number of their players would have bailed in and started a mass brawl. It is hard to think they wouldn't have as that seems to be their method the past while.
Quote from: Onlooker on May 26, 2008, 01:58:23 PM
I would think that 8 weeks would be right, but even if he gets away with 4 weeks, he will still have to miss one Championship match if not covered by the 4 or 8 weeks ban.
Is that so, that a one championship game ban is compulsory even if it falls outside the time period of the ban?
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on May 26, 2008, 02:00:39 PM
do you all think that a number of their players would have bailed in and started a mass brawl. It is hard to think they wouldn't have as that seems to be their method the past while.
Lets deal with what happened and how its dealt with rather than presume hypothetical situations.
When that happens, we will discuss it at its own merits.
so by some people's definitions it ok to try and trip somebody as long as you miss.
it's ok to kick somebody as long as it wasn't that hard.
and lamping somebody with a box - 4 weeks is acceptable?
absolute minumum of 8 and in my view it should be 12. rarely have i seen such a hare brained action on a pitch of consecutive offences. most people would be happy enough with one.
Quote from: INDIANA on May 26, 2008, 02:17:23 PM
so by some people's definitions it ok to try and trip somebody as long as you miss.
it's ok to kick somebody as long as it wasn't that hard.
and lamping somebody with a box - 4 weeks is acceptable?
absolute minumum of 8 and in my view it should be 12. rarely have i seen such a hare brained action on a pitch of consecutive offences. most people would be happy enough with one.
I wonder whether Ian O'Riordan in the Times will describe it as a 'sickening punch', like he did a few weeks ago...
Quote from: heffo on May 26, 2008, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on May 26, 2008, 02:17:23 PM
so by some people's definitions it ok to try and trip somebody as long as you miss.
it's ok to kick somebody as long as it wasn't that hard.
and lamping somebody with a box - 4 weeks is acceptable?
absolute minumum of 8 and in my view it should be 12. rarely have i seen such a hare brained action on a pitch of consecutive offences. most people would be happy enough with one.
I wonder whether Ian O'Riordan in the Times will describe it as a 'sickening punch', like he did a few weeks ago...
What a stupid statement... who cares if a journalist refers to it as a 'sickening punch'... what has that got to do with the price of cabbage? He's hardly going to condone such a blatant act what difference does it make how he refers to it... more Dub siege mentality methinks!
In fairness it was one of the most silly things I've seen. Given that he was already on a yellow card, I'd say there were at least three infringements there that would have seen him get the line. The first 'tackle', the kick out on the ground, and then the box. Lunacy. As for suspensions, I'd say it's a straightforward decision. Assuming it's his first offence of the year, and he is sent off for striking, It'll be a month + 1 championship game.
Quote from: screenexile on May 26, 2008, 02:55:49 PM
Quote from: heffo on May 26, 2008, 02:43:17 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on May 26, 2008, 02:17:23 PM
so by some people's definitions it ok to try and trip somebody as long as you miss.
it's ok to kick somebody as long as it wasn't that hard.
and lamping somebody with a box - 4 weeks is acceptable?
absolute minumum of 8 and in my view it should be 12. rarely have i seen such a hare brained action on a pitch of consecutive offences. most people would be happy enough with one.
I wonder whether Ian O'Riordan in the Times will describe it as a 'sickening punch', like he did a few weeks ago...
What a stupid statement... who cares if a journalist refers to it as a 'sickening punch'... what has that got to do with the price of cabbage? He's hardly going to condone such a blatant act what difference does it make how he refers to it... more Dub siege mentality methinks!
You're entitled to your opinion...I'm just wondering whether we'll see the same faux-outrage...nothing to do with a siege mentality..
which punch was meant to be "sickening" ?
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 26, 2008, 03:08:50 PM
which punch was meant to be "sickening" ?
Whelan's v Meath...
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on May 26, 2008, 02:00:39 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 26, 2008, 01:01:53 PM
Quote from: full back on May 26, 2008, 12:57:49 PM
Considering what some of the Dubs & Meath men got, you would have to say he should get 8 maybe 12 weeks.
this is the key question, many have said some of the Dubs / Meath bans were harsh. So are we looking for a ban thats appropriate, or appropriate in proportion to what the Dublin / Meath lads got?
The GAA are under some pressure now given the marker they have laid down, if they are to be consistant a very long ban must be implimented. But will they be harsher than they should be to be consistant?
note when I say "consistant" I dont necessarily mean right.
the gaa had to deal with the dub/meath clash due to so many players being involved. This was an individual offense compared to basically two teams having a go. For the sake of argument if that had been a Dublin player that had been hit by Mc Quaid , do you all think that a number of their players would have bailed in and started a mass brawl. It is hard to think they wouldn't have as that seems to be their method the past while.
Listen to Max from this,he knows what hes talking about, hed be an expert on fighting and suspensions seeing as hes from Bellaghy :D
I wonder will he be marched over to Fermanagh to apologise? ;)
Quote from: Zapatista on May 26, 2008, 03:24:45 PM
I wonder will he be marched over to Fermanagh to apologise? ;)
Dont think anyone would expect the same humility the Dubs show from these Monaghan lads ;)
It's not the same. What happens between the 30 players on the pitch is different to what happens when others decide to jump in. The ref is there to manage the players.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 26, 2008, 04:06:20 PM
It's not the same. What happens between the 30 players on the pitch is different to what happens when others decide to jump in. The ref is there to manage the players.
Its different but a bit the same ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 26, 2008, 04:03:20 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on May 26, 2008, 03:24:45 PM
I wonder will he be marched over to Fermanagh to apologise? ;)
Dont think anyone would expect the same humility the Dubs show from these Monaghan lads ;)
Damn those Dubs and their big expectations. :)
Was it McQuaid who was man marking/handling Dooher last year in the Ulster final or was it someone else?
Remember we all thought it would be Freeman but they deemed him too much of a footballer to take Dooher out of it.
Maybe it was someone else?
I was very disappointed with Monaghan yesterday and their lack of fight for each other
Mind you I'm not a fan of Tommy Freeman as he's a great wee footballer but feel he mouths off far too much
No doubt about it,
the Dubs are the Mopes of the GAA.
As soon as something happens which wasn't done by a Dub they are on faster than you can say 0WC,
whining and whinging about scales of justice.
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 05:03:53 PM
No doubt about it,
the Dubs are the Mopes of the GAA.
As soon as something happens which wasn't done by a Dub they are on faster than you can say 0WC,
whining and whinging about scales of justice.
Well I don't speak your cattle-smuggling 'cant', so I'm not sure what a 'mope' is, but I'm sure it's not complimentary - either way, all were looking for is consistency in both the application of rules and media coverage.
Life ban. :o
If he was a Tyrone county man he'd be completely exonerated. In fact, he wasn't even playing that day. He was on holidays, or milking or it was his twin brother. We have it great here.
he should get 12 weeks anyway!
Quote from: ONeill on May 26, 2008, 09:03:36 PM
If he was a Tyrone county man he'd be completely exonerated. In fact, he wasn't even playing that day. He was on holidays, or milking or it was his twin brother. We have it great here.
I was coming home from work this evening and I was going through Monaghan - I saw Fergal Logan going into the Westenra Hotel - is that the place Mc Eneaney owns ? He could be exonerated yet ! ;) ;)
No can quite swallow that a Monaghan lad deserves the same justice as those Mopes from Dublin.
Taken from the impartial Northern Standard and the Mondo Times, pictures published in aftermath of the game,
Gary from his first communion.
(http://www.discountcatholicproducts.com/pd/13/181/img/102-391.jpg)
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 10:04:14 PM
No can quite swallow that a Monaghan lad deserves the same justice as those Mopes from Dublin.
Taken from the impartial Northern Standard and the Mondo Times, pictures published in aftermath of the game,
Gary from his first communion.
(http://www.discountcatholicproducts.com/pd/13/181/img/102-391.jpg)
;) :D ;D He was and is such a quiet, well behaved and highly respected lad ! 4 Weeks would be a real injustice. He should be commended for his self control at the Dublin game.
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 10:04:14 PM
No can quite swallow that a Monaghan lad deserves the same justice as those Mopes from Dublin.
Taken from the impartial Northern Standard and the Mondo Times, pictures published in aftermath of the game,
Gary from his first communion.
(http://www.discountcatholicproducts.com/pd/13/181/img/102-391.jpg)
Poor aul Dick Clerkin wasn't exagerrating when he got a fright with the kids on the pitch in Parnell, poor fella was still suffering on Sunday - he was terrified of the ball!
From this morning's Indo:
"TV cameras picked up the centre-back, a late replacement for Darren Hughes, leaving his studs in McCabe's back as he lay on the ground.
McQuaid may find himself on the sidelines for longer than expected if the CCCC continue their hard-line approach to indiscipline."
Maybe we should do away with the rule book and the CCCC and let the Indo decide on suspensions? God knows we let them decide on a lot of other things....
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 27, 2008, 09:03:58 AM
Maybe we should do away with the rule book and the CCCC and let the Indo decide on suspensions? God knows we let them decide on a lot of other things....
Is this who the citing commissioner works for ? ;) :D ;D
Quote from: heffo on May 27, 2008, 08:45:51 AM
Poor aul Dick Clerkin wasn't exagerrating when he got a fright with the kids on the pitch in Parnell, poor fella was still suffering on Sunday - he was terrified of the ball!
From this morning's Indo:
"TV cameras picked up the centre-back, a late replacement for Darren Hughes, leaving his studs in McCabe's back as he lay on the ground.
McQuaid may find himself on the sidelines for longer than expected if the CCCC continue their hard-line approach to indiscipline."
You are not called Heffo for nothing ;D
(https://system.hpacde.org.uk/cornwall/jpgl/corn01749.jpg)
Quote from: Main Street on May 27, 2008, 10:41:05 AM
Quote from: heffo on May 27, 2008, 08:45:51 AM
Poor aul Dick Clerkin wasn't exagerrating when he got a fright with the kids on the pitch in Parnell, poor fella was still suffering on Sunday - he was terrified of the ball!
From this morning's Indo:
"TV cameras picked up the centre-back, a late replacement for Darren Hughes, leaving his studs in McCabe's back as he lay on the ground.
McQuaid may find himself on the sidelines for longer than expected if the CCCC continue their hard-line approach to indiscipline."
You are not called Heffo for nothing ;D
(https://system.hpacde.org.uk/cornwall/jpgl/corn01749.jpg)
You've got it all wrong - that's Clerkin being terrorised by a six year old Dub and he trying to do his warm down
What happens in a case where a Blood sub gets sent off? Does the player temporarily being replaced be eliminated from the game?
Yes, the team has to be down a man, but the fella being treated can come back on for another player.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2008, 12:10:51 PM
Yes, the team has to be down a man, but the fella being treated can come back on for another player.
Cheers AZ
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 05:03:53 PM
No doubt about it,
the Dubs are the Mopes of the GAA.
As soon as something happens which wasn't done by a Dub they are on faster than you can say 0WC,
whining and whinging about scales of justice.
Quality stuff Main street. It was me who started the thread and if you bothered to read my posts on here you would know that I am of the opinion that recent events involving Dublin and Meath should not affect the length of ban received. In fact I stated that being consistant with the Dublin Meath bans would not necessarily make it right.
Anything to say about the non Dubs calling for long bans??? Or is it only mopery depending on what county you do and dont like? ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 27, 2008, 01:11:47 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 05:03:53 PM
No doubt about it,
the Dubs are the Mopes of the GAA.
As soon as something happens which wasn't done by a Dub they are on faster than you can say 0WC,
whining and whinging about scales of justice.
Quality stuff Main street. It was me who started the thread and if you bothered to read my posts on here you would know that I am of the opinion that recent events involving Dublin and Meath should not affect the length of ban received. In fact I stated that being consistant with the Dublin Meath bans would not necessarily make it right.
Anything to say about the non Dubs calling for long bans??? Or is it only mopery depending on what county you do and dont like? ::)
Aye HH you Dubs are always startin it ;)
:o
:)
There has been so much mopery and 6 year old Dublin bullock leppin on this thread I've forgotten what it's about? Could someone please inform me??
Quote from: GrandMasterFlash on May 27, 2008, 01:44:28 PM
There has been so much mopery and 6 year old Dublin bullock leppin on this thread I've forgotten what it's about? Could someone please inform me??
Us Dubs want capital punishment brought back ;)
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 05:03:53 PM
No doubt about it,
the Dubs are the Mopes of the GAA.
As soon as something happens which wasn't done by a Dub they are on faster than you can say 0WC,
whining and whinging about scales of justice.
Oh be the holy! There's a few mopes up in Monaghan by the looks of things:
From Sundays Independent:
I t may be that we judge the high-profile GAA stars who've gone all the way to the Disputes Resolution Authority too harshly. They, at least, have the excuse that a great deal is at stake in their cases. Whereas a perusal of the body's decisions since its inception reveals that the majority of appeals would seem to involve disputes which scarcely seem to merit the unleashing of the Authority's full firepower.
DRA hearings are, after all, a very serious business. By rule, half of the authority's members must be barristers, solicitors or professional adjudicators. Both sides in an appeal hearing are represented by a solicitor while the panel is normally chaired by a barrister. The secretary of the DRA, Liam Keane, is also a member of the legal profession.
DRA judgements are set forth in painstaking legal terms, incorporating the kind of jargon, minute parsing of arguments and dissection of technicalities you might expect to see in a US Supreme Court decision on the status of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The body also has the power to award costs.
But what kind of thing is this august tribunal taxed with? What occupies the hours devoted by the QCs and BLs at the helm? What is dealt with by the men who wear the broad black brimmer of the DRA?
How about the Monaghan U12 football league final. Or rather finals, division one and three being at stake last November when chairman Adrian Colton QC heard the arguments put forward by Fergal Logan, solicitor for the applicants, Carrickmacross GAA club and Colm Owens, solicitor for the respondents, Monaghan County Board.
No doubt most of you are familiar with the case already but for those who've missed out, let me recap. Carrickmacross fielded two teams in the Monaghan u12 football league. The first team qualified to meet Emyvale in the Division One decider, while the second team were due to meet Inniskeen in the Division Three decider.
The only problem was that the finals were to be played on July 28 at a time when ten players from each team were going to be away in Belgium with the local scout troop. Carrickmacross tried to get the matches postponed to the following week only to find that Emyvale would have players away on holidays at that time, the fixture having been agreed much earlier by the county board who insisted that the finals go ahead on the scheduled date.
An official from the Carrickmacross club then wrote a letter to the board insisting that the club had no option but to withdraw from the two finals and grant a walkover to their two opponents. (It should be mentioned at this point that Inniskeen never had any problem about the match being rescheduled and seemed reluctant to accept a walkover).
Carrick's point to the DRA was that the letter of withdrawal was supposed to be a kind of discussion starter rather than a final offer but that didn't really wash. Their appeal failed, as must always have seemed likely.
The tribunal members, on making their judgement, declared themselves "particularly impressed" that a number of parents of the Carrickmacross U12s had attended the hearing. It was, my learned friends reckoned, "indicative of a commitment to and support of the teams in question."
I'd be inclined to think that the DRA may have been erring on the charitable side there. Because, no matter what the rights and wrongs of the case, the fact remains that we're talking about an U12 league match. It being unlikely that any of the players involved sought a DRA hearing, the club and those self-same parents were responsible for dragging this trifling matter to the GAA's highest court of appeal.
The clash of dates was no doubt very unfortunate for the kids involved but, after all, they did have the option of playing the game. Instead, they went to Belgium with the scouts, which was probably the wisest choice. Sometimes, unfortunately, things don't work out exactly like you want them to, a lesson about life the youngsters will have to learn at some stage.
From time to time there are suggestions that there is far too much competition for youngsters in the GAA. But perhaps the problem is that the competitions are taken far too seriously by the adults. When a dispute over an U12 match ends up in the DRA there's something seriously wrong. And if this kind of action is being taken at grassroots level, perhaps it's unreasonable to expect inter-county players to desist from seeking loopholes.
The action of the Carrickmacross faithful is not that unusual. Have a look at the DRA website and you'll see other cases which indicate a similar lack of proportion.
You have the three underage footballers who wanted to transfer from the Shane O'Neills club in Armagh to St Patrick's Carrickcruppen. The South Armagh board, who nixed the transfer, were accused of "failing to allow the claimant freedom of association and freedom of movement under human rights and European legislation."
For good measure, Shane O'Neills were accused of supplying alcohol to the youngsters involved and dropping them off in the village instead of at the clubhouse. The club denied the alcohol claim and told the DRA that players liked to be dropped off in the village for "sweets, drinks or even crisps." That poignant 'even' I feel may be the result of an ordinary decent official slightly unnerved by the mighty forces sitting in judgement upon him. The appeal failed by the way.
There was also the case of another Armagh club Ballymacnab who challenged the suspension of one of their players following a punch-up against Stewartstown of Tyrone in the Ulster Intermediate Club Football Championship on the grounds that photographs can be manipulated to the detriment of an innocent party. Video evidence, said the media savvy Ballymacnab men, "gives a much more holistic view." This post-modern approach was, alas, insufficient for a winning appeal.
Most of the claimants lost, perhaps because many of them sought the over-turning of decisions which, on the face of it, their county boards and provincial councils had every right to make. You can't help thinking that a lot of time, money and intelligence is being wasted at the DRA.
This is no fault of the body itself which the GAA says does a good job in preventing people from taking court action against the Association. Because, apparently, there are Association members who'd go to law over the kind of cases outlined above. It would make you think twice before blaming Croke Park for the convoluted disciplinary system.
Finally, I'd like to wish Carrickmacross U12s the best of luck in their games this week. The Division Three team play Fergal O'Hanlons in Mullaghdun tomorrow, while the Division One side are away to Magheracloone on Tuesday. Life goes on, last year's players will always have Belgium and the U14s won their most recent league game by 1-11 to 1-5. The opposition? Emyvale.
Who needs solicitors?
Great post Heffo
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 27, 2008, 01:11:47 PM
Anything to say about the non Dubs calling for long bans??? Or is it only mopery depending on what county you do and dont like? ::)
I assume that the sensible objective knowledgeable posters like Seanie,,Orangeman, AZOffaly etc are non Dubs and anybody else saying 12 weeks and throw away the key is a Moped up Dub.
Ballyhaise Man can say what he wants, nobody will take him serious :)
Heffo, do you not know what MOPE means? ;D
Quote from: Main Street on May 27, 2008, 04:10:09 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 27, 2008, 01:11:47 PM
Anything to say about the non Dubs calling for long bans??? Or is it only mopery depending on what county you do and dont like? ::)
Heffo, do you not know what MOPE means? ;D
I think I was pretty clear & upfront when I said that I didn't speak your dialect and wasn't 100% sure what a mope was!
I'm not advocating 12 weeks, but there were two if not three red card offences in the same tackle.
Quote from: Main Street on May 27, 2008, 04:10:09 PM
I assume that the sensible objective knowledgeable posters like Seanie,,Orangeman, AZOffaly etc are non Dubs and anybody else saying 12 weeks and throw away the key is a Moped up Dub.
Ballyhaise Man can say what he wants, nobody will take him serious :)
Heffo, do you not know what MOPE means? ;D
And I suppose my starting the thread to discuss the ban and if it will be unfairly influenced by the harsh penalties recieved by Dublin and Meath, and suggesting that copying the harshness would be wrong, is somehow mopery?
MOPE is a term borrowed from OWC I think, they refer to anyone who seems to be over eager to play the woe is me card.
M(ost)O(ppressed)P(erson/eople)E(ver).
How long did Colm McFadden get for hitting Dooher last year?? It was quite similar. Probably a better dig actually :D
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2008, 04:18:56 PM
MOPE is a term borrowed from OWC I think, they refer to anyone who seems to be over eager to play the woe is me card.
M(ost)O(ppressed)P(erson/eople)E(ver).
I've seen it lots but what is WUM?
Wind Up Merchant. Someone who just poses to take make people get annoyed.
In all fairness for what Mcquaid done, deliberate trip + petulent flick out of foot + and punch he prob deserves about 8 weeks IMO but with all three things combined, the fact he hit the man when he was getting up of the ground (which looked worse but really is no different than an ordinary punch) and the fact the GAA have set a Harsh precedent with the Dublin Meath game and the onus on them to be consistent, it wouldnt suprise me if he got 12 weeks. But I def think he deserves at about 8
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 27, 2008, 04:18:56 PM
MOPE is a term borrowed from OWC I think, they refer to anyone who seems to be over eager to play the woe is me card.
M(ost)O(ppressed)P(erson/eople)E(ver).
So by suggesting the GAA shouldnt pander to the current hysteria when banning a MONAGHAN player, is Dublin mopery? Confusing.
Or is it that ONE dub who said 12 weeks minimum is suddenly representative of the other Dubs who posted alternative views on this thread?
Main Street, you need to explain yourself here. ???
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 27, 2008, 05:08:10 PM
So by suggesting the GAA shouldnt pander to the current hysteria when banning a MONAGHAN player, is Dublin mopery? Confusing.
Or is it that ONE dub who said 12 weeks minimum is suddenly representative of the other Dubs who posted alternative views on this thread?
Main Street, you need to explain yourself here. ???
Although you did start this entertaining thread Holiness, I didn't at any time think you were a Hanging Dub :)
I was more thinking of others.
4 Dubs
1 out and out Mope
2 certified Mopes
one borderline ;D
1. "12 weeks minimum in my view. that was quite simply outrageous and if a dublin player did the same people here would be calling for a 6 month"
2. "absolute minumum of 8 and in my view it should be 12."
3. "I'm just wondering whether we'll see the same faux-outrage...nothing to do with a siege mentality.."
4. "he should get 12 weeks anyway!"
Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 01:05:21 PM
On Sunday other players didn't get involved in retaliation, they let the ref deal with it.
The whole tackle and assault was worth about 2 yellows as well as a straight red.
(McQuaid should definitly get 4 or 6 weeks more than what Vaughan got for punching Freeman)
I think 8 weeks would take us up the first qualifier.
Certainly it was a dirthy foul punch as the Fermanagh player was just getting up but you'd have to agree, in boxing terms, it's execution (with no back lift) was as clean as you get.
I agree no ugly melee ensued Ref dealt with it . Some how I think that Monaghan will accept the suspension and get on with it . Bad day at the office they will be back
Quote from: Two Hands FFS on May 27, 2008, 04:26:31 PM
How long did Colm McFadden get for hitting Dooher last year?? It was quite similar. Probably a better dig actually :D
Yeah, I thought of McFadden straight away - frustration leading to crisp clean punch right in front of ref, linesmen and nation. I think McFadden got 8 weeks, so I would expect somthing similar here ... albeit his was only one strike!
Quote from: billy the kid on May 27, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
In all fairness for what Mcquaid done, deliberate trip + petulent flick out of foot + and punch he prob deserves about 8 weeks IMO but with all three things combined, the fact he hit the man when he was getting up of the ground (which looked worse but really is no different than an ordinary punch) and the fact the GAA have set a Harsh precedent with the Dublin Meath game and the onus on them to be consistent, it wouldnt suprise me if he got 12 weeks. But I def think he deserves at about 8
Lads the referee's report will say striking - 4 weeks =- simple - there won't be any big enquiry into it, about how he went to trip the man or kick him - he was sent off for raising his hand / fist which equates to a 4 week ban - nothing more.
Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2008, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: billy the kid on May 27, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
In all fairness for what Mcquaid done, deliberate trip + petulent flick out of foot + and punch he prob deserves about 8 weeks IMO but with all three things combined, the fact he hit the man when he was getting up of the ground (which looked worse but really is no different than an ordinary punch) and the fact the GAA have set a Harsh precedent with the Dublin Meath game and the onus on them to be consistent, it wouldnt suprise me if he got 12 weeks. But I def think he deserves at about 8
Lads the referee's report will say striking - 4 weeks =- simple - there won't be any big enquiry into it, about how he went to trip the man or kick him - he was sent off for raising his hand / fist which equates to a 4 week ban - nothing more.
Striking is a minimum of 4 weeks.
Quote from: heffo on May 28, 2008, 10:05:44 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2008, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: billy the kid on May 27, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
In all fairness for what Mcquaid done, deliberate trip + petulent flick out of foot + and punch he prob deserves about 8 weeks IMO but with all three things combined, the fact he hit the man when he was getting up of the ground (which looked worse but really is no different than an ordinary punch) and the fact the GAA have set a Harsh precedent with the Dublin Meath game and the onus on them to be consistent, it wouldnt suprise me if he got 12 weeks. But I def think he deserves at about 8
Lads the referee's report will say striking - 4 weeks =- simple - there won't be any big enquiry into it, about how he went to trip the man or kick him - he was sent off for raising his hand / fist which equates to a 4 week ban - nothing more.
Yes I know and that's all he will get as he doesn't deserve anything more - sure he barely hit the man a slap - not like that Dublin brawl !! ;) ;) ;)
Striking is a minimum of 4 weeks.
Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2008, 10:13:00 AM
Quote from: heffo on May 28, 2008, 10:05:44 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2008, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: billy the kid on May 27, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
In all fairness for what Mcquaid done, deliberate trip + petulent flick out of foot + and punch he prob deserves about 8 weeks IMO but with all three things combined, the fact he hit the man when he was getting up of the ground (which looked worse but really is no different than an ordinary punch) and the fact the GAA have set a Harsh precedent with the Dublin Meath game and the onus on them to be consistent, it wouldnt suprise me if he got 12 weeks. But I def think he deserves at about 8
Lads the referee's report will say striking - 4 weeks =- simple - there won't be any big enquiry into it, about how he went to trip the man or kick him - he was sent off for raising his hand / fist which equates to a 4 week ban - nothing more.
Yes I know and that's all he will get as he doesn't deserve anything more - sure he barely hit the man a slap - not like that Dublin brawl !! ;) ;) ;)
Striking is a minimum of 4 weeks.
Dya mean the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time he struck him?? ???
Quote from: heffo on May 28, 2008, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2008, 10:13:00 AM
Quote from: heffo on May 28, 2008, 10:05:44 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2008, 10:03:34 AM
Quote from: billy the kid on May 27, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
In all fairness for what Mcquaid done, deliberate trip + petulent flick out of foot + and punch he prob deserves about 8 weeks IMO but with all three things combined, the fact he hit the man when he was getting up of the ground (which looked worse but really is no different than an ordinary punch) and the fact the GAA have set a Harsh precedent with the Dublin Meath game and the onus on them to be consistent, it wouldnt suprise me if he got 12 weeks. But I def think he deserves at about 8
Lads the referee's report will say striking - 4 weeks =- simple - there won't be any big enquiry into it, about how he went to trip the man or kick him - he was sent off for raising his hand / fist which equates to a 4 week ban - nothing more.
Yes I know and that's all he will get as he doesn't deserve anything more - sure he barely hit the man a slap - not like that Dublin brawl !! ;) ;) ;)
Striking is a minimum of 4 weeks.
Dya mean the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time he struck him?? ???
Do you reckon it was buy one get 2 free day ?? ;D
Quote from: Main Street on May 27, 2008, 08:33:32 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 27, 2008, 05:08:10 PM
So by suggesting the GAA shouldnt pander to the current hysteria when banning a MONAGHAN player, is Dublin mopery? Confusing.
Or is it that ONE dub who said 12 weeks minimum is suddenly representative of the other Dubs who posted alternative views on this thread?
Main Street, you need to explain yourself here. ???
Although you did start this entertaining thread Holiness, I didn't at any time think you were a Hanging Dub :)
I was more thinking of others.
4 Dubs
1 out and out Mope
2 certified Mopes
one borderline ;D
1. "12 weeks minimum in my view. that was quite simply outrageous and if a dublin player did the same people here would be calling for a 6 month"
2. "absolute minumum of 8 and in my view it should be 12."
3. "I'm just wondering whether we'll see the same faux-outrage...nothing to do with a siege mentality.."
4. "he should get 12 weeks anyway!"
Fair enough :)
maybe though its time for a thread to explain GAAboard terminology.
Whats a "hanging dub"?
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 28, 2008, 01:20:56 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 27, 2008, 08:33:32 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 27, 2008, 05:08:10 PM
So by suggesting the GAA shouldnt pander to the current hysteria when banning a MONAGHAN player, is Dublin mopery? Confusing.
Or is it that ONE dub who said 12 weeks minimum is suddenly representative of the other Dubs who posted alternative views on this thread?
Main Street, you need to explain yourself here. ???
Although you did start this entertaining thread Holiness, I didn't at any time think you were a Hanging Dub :)
I was more thinking of others.
4 Dubs
1 out and out Mope
2 certified Mopes
one borderline ;D
1. "12 weeks minimum in my view. that was quite simply outrageous and if a dublin player did the same people here would be calling for a 6 month"
2. "absolute minumum of 8 and in my view it should be 12."
3. "I'm just wondering whether we'll see the same faux-outrage...nothing to do with a siege mentality.."
4. "he should get 12 weeks anyway!"
Fair enough :)
maybe though its time for a handbook of GAA terminology.
Whats a "hanging dub"?
Surely you know what a "hanging dub" is, hi!
No, maybe I'm a dope not a mope!
Monaghan duo Paul Finlay and Gary McQuaid look likely to miss their county's first All-Ireland qualifying clash due to disciplinary action following on from their defeat to Fermanagh in the Ulster SFC.
McQuaid was shown a straight-red card after he appeared to hit out at Fermanagh's Shane McCabe, and can expect a minimum of a four week suspension.
The Monaghan man could face an even longer ban, depending on the content of referee Derek Fahy's report.
Finlay, meanwhile, is believed to have been involved in a verbal altercation with Fahy, which could lead to a four week suspension if it's mentioned in the report.
It is understood that issues arising from that game will be dealt with by the GAA's Central Competitions Control Committee this week.
This wouldn't be good news for Monaghan.
No it would not. McQuaid will get what he deserves.
But Finlay is a valuable player and a class act, pure waste to be having verbals with a ref
especially after being roasted by a team that didn't even have to shoot straight.
Where did you get that info?
It's in the Irish News today and also heard it on Radio Ulster this morning. They usually just quote each other but I'd say there's truth in it. Terrible stuff for Monaghan. I did think the ref was kind to Fermanagh but then I thought that we got the 'rub of the green' by a few refs last year when we were underdogs.. In any case, discipline is a must and this sort of behaviour doesn't do any good, especially with the zero tolerance shown by referees of late.
It's on the BBC website. Finlay would be a huge blow - one of the few players that made any impact for Monaghan on Sunday. I can understand his frustration however - he clearly believes/believed he never lifted that ball off the ground and at the time i thought the ref made the wrong call. In the end, that call, and bringing the ball forward, led to the second goal that killed the game.
Kills me to say it but Finlay did lift the ball clean off the ground, his whinging after the act did'nt help matters at all, the goal followed swiftly afterwards.
If Jap is missing thriugh suspension the next day out we're in the shit, big time.
Quote from: The Subbie on May 29, 2008, 09:08:47 AM
Kills me to say it but Finlay did lift the ball clean off the ground, his whinging after the act did'nt help matters at all, the goal followed swiftly afterwards.
If Jap is missing thriugh suspension the next day out we're in the shit, big time.
I wouldn't say your in the brown stuff just yet - it's the first round of the qualifiers and there might be a lot of handy fixtures out there. Hopefully you'll get one of them.
Quote from: orangeman on May 29, 2008, 09:18:21 AM
- it's the first round of the qualifiers and there might be a lot of handy fixtures out there.
Not that many, given that the Division 4 teams are all excluded.
Finlay would have been better giving some of his team-mates a rollicking during the game rather than the ref at the end. In fairness to jap he was one of the very few that played ok. But as the sunday game confirmed he did touch the ball on the ground leading to the goal. Also it wasn't the ref cleaning us out at midfield either.
Quote from: timmyot501 on May 29, 2008, 09:36:00 AM
Finlay would have been better giving some of his team-mates a rollicking during the game rather than the ref at the end. In fairness to jap he was one of the very few that played ok. But as the sunday game confirmed he did touch the ball on the ground leading to the goal. Also it wasn't the ref cleaning us out at midfield either.
Thats a very good point!!
If Finlay is missing it could be major trouble for Monaghan but as orangeman says its first round of the qualifiers and there will be alot of handy teams in the draw that Monaghan should def be able to overcome without Finlay if they are any use at all. If they got one of the harder draws they could be in major trouble without him and more because of his passing and playmaking which are top class than his frees which can be hairy enough if the pressure is on.
You'd have to be very unlucky to draw a big team in the qualifiers - very very unlucky !
Quote from: orangeman on May 29, 2008, 12:35:41 PM
You'd have to be very unlucky to draw a big team in the qualifiers - very very unlucky !
Not necessarily a big team but a harder team is what i mean, any of the division 1 or 2 teams
Quote from: orangeman on May 29, 2008, 12:35:41 PM
You'd have to be very unlucky to draw a big team in the qualifiers - very very unlucky !
Well so far there's Roscommon, Kildare and Longford - all of which Monaghan would go into as favourites i'd assume, although only Roscommon would be deemed a fairly handy one to be honest. However, there's also going to be either Donegal or Derry and Tyrone or Down - either of which would be tougher. There'll also be Wexford or Meath. So there's a decent enough chance that the first round could be tight enough.
Quote from: AFS on May 29, 2008, 02:37:55 PM
I think most people forget that the first round of the qualifiers includes any team that does not qualify for a provincial final. This means that one of Armagh/Tyrone (assuming Cavan and Down don't spring surprises) and one of Dublin/Westmeath (assuming Louth and Offaly won't count) will also be in the first round along with two from Fermanagh/Derry/Donegal and two from Meath/Wexford/Laois. Qualifiers are not the place to be this year, the first round will be riddled with decent teams.
Your right AFS i thought that was the case but wasnt sure. Good luck with that one Monaghan and I hope after sunday We aint in the same situation. But I believe we will win as Im as blind as the next supporter 8)
Both McQuaid and Finlay get 8 weeks each.
http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2008/0603/monaghan.html?gaa (http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/championship/2008/0603/monaghan.html?gaa)
Which means a one match ban, the first round qualifier.
In the scheme of things, McQuaid got good value for his deeds, like a summer sale, 3 or 4 offenses for a one game suspension.
For Finlay it was a total waste, giving the ref verbals after the game.
QuoteWhich means a one match ban, the first round qualifier.
Not much point in Monaghan appealing the Finlay ban then if it won't make any difference to the amount of games he misses.
I thought striking was 12 weeks?
If it is then it has to be 12 for McQuaid...
Quote from: Hollow Man on June 03, 2008, 10:04:31 PM
I thought striking was 12 weeks?
If it is then it has to be 12 for McQuaid...
I thought it was a minimum of 4, but i'm not certain. I'd imagine if it was 12 weeks he would have got 12 weeks.
This is typical of the kind of pure nonsense suspensions that are handed out in our organisation >:(
Mc Quaid went after a man, not just hitting him once, but going after him three times until he eventually got a good enough hit in on him. Eight weeks is probably about right for the crime and befitting of the stupidness of actions if nothing else anyway.
But, how in the name of God do they deem it to be just to give a man who was involved in verbals the same punishment ???
I don't care if the Jap called the refs mother a whore of satan (which I can safely say that he didn't), that would still not warrant anything close to an eight week suspension. I don't think that anyone on here would call him a dirty player and he is a gentleman off the field.
Can anyone on here provide a logicall explanation for the CCCC's actions?
Quote from: Louth Exile on June 03, 2008, 10:33:04 PM
Can anyone on here provide a logicall explanation for the CCCC's actions?
Please don't attempt to look for logic in the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Agree completely, theres a serious lack of accountability. The whole suspension process is a joke. It is ridiculous that it is time periods rather than games, so 2 players given different sentences in all likelihood receive the same punishment. And ok, the ref has to be protected, but there is a big difference between verbals and doing what McQuaid did, as said, no matter how 'bad' the verbals were. After watching that ref, I'd imagine he's well used to receiving abuse too, I thought he was v poor (though incidentally he was right in the decision against finlay, which is what I assume set him off)
I'm going against the grain here - but here goes - verbal abuse of the referee should get 8 weeks - but striking is 4 weeks - how did Mc Quaid get 8 weeks ?
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 09:47:03 AM
I'm going against the grain here - but here goes - verbal abuse of the referee should get 8 weeks - but striking is 4 weeks - how did Mc Quaid get 8 weeks ?
Refs have to be protected no matter how bad they are, but McQuaid had 3 pops at yer man including a pretty cheeky punch while the man was getting up. This was much more serious than what Finlay done.
Finlay was unlucky to get 8 weeks instead of 4 and McQuaid was very lucky to get 8 weeks instead of 12.
Someone asked earlier about minimum terms and the minimum for striking is 4 weeks - but that would be for a back of the hand girly slap and not for a good dig in the mouth that was preceeded by a kick and a stamp.
Quote from: billy the kid on June 04, 2008, 09:56:14 AM
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 09:47:03 AM
I'm going against the grain here - but here goes - verbal abuse of the referee should get 8 weeks - but striking is 4 weeks - how did Mc Quaid get 8 weeks ?
Refs have to be protected no matter how bad they are, but McQuaid had 3 pops at yer man including a pretty cheeky punch while the man was getting up. This was much more serious than what Finlay done.
Finlay was unlucky to get 8 weeks instead of 4 and McQuaid was very lucky to get 8 weeks instead of 12.
Someone asked earlier about minimum terms and the minimum for striking is 4 weeks - but that would be for a back of the hand girly slap and not for a good dig in the mouth that was preceeded by a kick and a stamp.
Is that not the whole problem - two people can commit the same offence in probably the same manner and it's open to interpretation then by whichever CCC is judging it - one person can get 4 weeks - somebody else might get 8 !
Quote from: Hollow Man on June 03, 2008, 10:04:31 PM
I thought striking was 12 weeks?
If it is then it has to be 12 for McQuaid...
Stirking is a minimum of four weeks.
I suggest people read the rule book before commenting on suspensions or the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Neither player can have much cause for complaint in my view.
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 04, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
I suggest people read the rule book before commenting on suspensions or the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Neither player can have much cause for complaint in my view.
I agree to an extent in that verbal abuse should be punsihed - but there is a grey area which is open to interpretation - eg. Mc Quaid lifted his hand and didn't hit the Fermanagh man very hard - Fergal Doherty SEEMED to hit the Donegal a right slap - Mc Quaid has 8 weeks - what will Fergal Doherty get ?? Nothing ? 4 weeks ? 8 weeks ? ????
Down manager Ross Carr will find out this Friday whether or not he will be allowed to motivate his team from the sidelines at Healy Park when Down visit Tyrone this Sunday in the Ulster SFC.
Carr's appeal against an eight-week suspension, handed down to him for criticising a referee after his side lost out to Fermanagh in NFL meeting back in April, will be heard on Thursday night.
Assistant coach DJ Kane, who was also in hot water after the loss to Fermanagh, will be take his place along the line as his current suspension expires the day before the Mourne men travel to Omagh.
However, even if the Down boss' appeal is turned down this week, he will still have the opportunity to bring his case before the Disputes Resolution Authority.
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 09:47:03 AM
I'm going against the grain here - but here goes - verbal abuse of the referee should get 8 weeks - but striking is 4 weeks - how did Mc Quaid get 8 weeks ?
orangeman, under the rules striking is a Category 2 infraction and the penalty is a
minimum of 4 weeks. This gives the CCCC flexibility to give more than 4 weeks if they see fit. Looks like this is what happened with McQuaid. As stated by a few posters already, he cant really complain with the suspension.
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 10:52:11 AM
I agree to an extent in that verbal abuse should be punsihed - but there is a grey area which is open to interpretation - eg. Mc Quaid lifted his hand and didn't hit the Fermanagh man very hard - Fergal Doherty SEEMED to hit the Donegal a right slap - Mc Quaid has 8 weeks - what will Fergal Doherty get ?? Nothing ? 4 weeks ? 8 weeks ? ????
Are you for real? Tyson in his prime would have been proud of that punch. But I do agree that there is a grey area and it is open to interpretation (no doubt the media attention can have an effect also).
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 04, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
I suggest people read the rule book before commenting on suspensions or the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Neither player can have much cause for complaint in my view.
I agree to an extent in that verbal abuse should be punsihed - but there is a grey area which is open to interpretation - eg. Mc Quaid lifted his hand and didn't hit the Fermanagh man very hard - Fergal Doherty SEEMED to hit the Donegal a right slap - Mc Quaid has 8 weeks - what will Fergal Doherty get ?? Nothing ? 4 weeks ? 8 weeks ? ????
Are you taking the piss???
McQuaid
Kicked, Stamped and then
boxed the man when he wasnt even up of the ground and it was a
right slap.
Doherty didnt even catch kavanagh properly he just made out like he was shot it wasnt even a proper punch.
McQuaide very lucky to get only 8 weeks
Doherty deserves 4 weeks when we see what McQuaid got for what he done
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 09:47:03 AM
I'm going against the grain here - but here goes - verbal abuse of the referee should get 8 weeks - but striking is 4 weeks - how did Mc Quaid get 8 weeks ?
Why?
Quote from: billy the kid on June 04, 2008, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 04, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
I suggest people read the rule book before commenting on suspensions or the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Neither player can have much cause for complaint in my view.
I agree to an extent in that verbal abuse should be punsihed - but there is a grey area which is open to interpretation - eg. Mc Quaid lifted his hand and didn't hit the Fermanagh man very hard - Fergal Doherty SEEMED to hit the Donegal a right slap - Mc Quaid has 8 weeks - what will Fergal Doherty get ?? Nothing ? 4 weeks ? 8 weeks ? ????
Are you taking the piss???
McQuaid Kicked, Stamped and then boxed the man when he wasnt even up of the ground and it was a right slap.
Doherty didnt even catch kavanagh properly he just made out like he was shot it wasnt even a proper punch.
McQuaide very lucky to get only 8 weeks
Doherty deserves 4 weeks when we see what McQuaid got for what he done
I'm not taking the piss at all - there is no facility in the GAA rulebook where you can get sent off for a kick AND a box etc - Mc Quaid was sent off for striking ! Simple as that - and whether it's as little as Drogba or as hard as Doherty makes no difference !
Both players should get 4 weeks. The Donegal man got a right slap - much more force than Mc Quaid used.
I doubt that there is some slapometer in HQ that measures the severity of a strike and matches the recorded torque to a time period of suspension.
As regards Finlay it looks harsh but we don't know what went on.
4 or 8 weeks, it doesn't matter, he would still miss only one game.
A one game ban in any sport is light enough.
It's just that it might be the only game.
Have no complaints about either suspension, had an Under 12 sent booked last night night for badmouthing a ref. We had been told it was a straight red at Underage level but the same player got it sorted himself shortly after by getting a second level for throwing a slap. Two yellows mean he could play the next game but won't.
One problem I have with Finlays suspension is why action isn't taken at the time. If an offence is worthy of a 8 week suspension and happened during the game (which this did), then should he not be carded there and then?
Also, a lot of nonsense about McQuaids three offences. The first one was a trip more than a kick, and if he hadn't have been red carded he prob would have booked for the trip and off for two yellows. His punch earned him his red card. If a melee starts and one player throws 2/3/4 punches at a couple of players, should he red carded and suspendsed for each punch?? Get real, he has got his punishment and made a fool of himself by throwing a punch at a player getting off the ground.
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 11:26:24 AM
Quote from: billy the kid on June 04, 2008, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 04, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
I suggest people read the rule book before commenting on suspensions or the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Neither player can have much cause for complaint in my view.
I agree to an extent in that verbal abuse should be punsihed - but there is a grey area which is open to interpretation - eg. Mc Quaid lifted his hand and didn't hit the Fermanagh man very hard - Fergal Doherty SEEMED to hit the Donegal a right slap - Mc Quaid has 8 weeks - what will Fergal Doherty get ?? Nothing ? 4 weeks ? 8 weeks ? ????
Are you taking the piss???
McQuaid Kicked, Stamped and then boxed the man when he wasnt even up of the ground and it was a right slap.
Doherty didnt even catch kavanagh properly he just made out like he was shot it wasnt even a proper punch.
McQuaide very lucky to get only 8 weeks
Doherty deserves 4 weeks when we see what McQuaid got for what he done
I'm not taking the piss at all - there is no facility in the GAA rulebook where you can get sent off for a kick AND a box etc - Mc Quaid was sent off for striking ! Simple as that - and whether it's as little as Drogba or as hard as Doherty makes no difference !
Both players should get 4 weeks. The Donegal man got a right slap - much more force than Mc Quaid used.
Firstly - You clearly dont understand that 4 weeks minimum means that you can receive no less than 4 weeks
BUT you can receive more as McQuaide got and he was lucky not to get more when you compare it to other incidents and what they received.
Secondly - The CCCC or whatever can take the whole incident (Striking + Stamping + Kicking) into account when dishing out suspensions as i have experience of this happening where a punch and a headbutt were quite rightly taken as much more serious than either on their own and were basically added together to work out suspension.
Thirdly - If you think McQuaids punch was a lesser punch than Dohertys slap you are one of a few things:
(a) A Monaghan player (Possibly even Gary himself) trying to get him off
(b) One of those horrible folk from Tyrone/Donegal who just want to see Derry Men suspended (like that wee fcuker Mchugh)
(c) Drunk when you were watching the matches
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 04, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
I suggest people read the rule book before commenting on suspensions or the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Neither player can have much cause for complaint in my view.
I agree to an extent in that verbal abuse should be punsihed - but there is a grey area which is open to interpretation - eg. Mc Quaid lifted his hand and didn't hit the Fermanagh man very hard - Fergal Doherty SEEMED to hit the Donegal a right slap - Mc Quaid has 8 weeks - what will Fergal Doherty get ?? Nothing ? 4 weeks ? 8 weeks ? ????
Seriously though,
are you taking the piss?! How you can say Doherty's offence is worse than McQuaid's i don't know.
McQuaid also (in a seperate incident, i noticed on the Sunday Game highlights), appeared to elbow McCabe when going down on a ball. 8 weeks is about right for McQuaid. Monaghan appear to agree as they won't appeal this. Doherty deserves 4 weeks if that incident is deemed as a striking offence.
Finlay was probably given 8 weeks so that he would at least miss a game.
Quote from: Main Street on June 04, 2008, 11:29:16 AM
I doubt that there is some slapometer in HQ that measures the severity of a strike and matches the recorded torque to a time period of suspension. :D :D :D
As regards Finlay it looks harsh but we don't know what went on.
4 or 8 weeks, it doesn't matter, he would still miss only one game.
A one game ban in any sport is light enough.
It's just that it might be the only game.
Cant believe i missed that one. :D :D A truely quality idea and maybe something the GAA should look at developing in the future.
Quote from: Will Hunting on June 04, 2008, 11:55:23 AM
Finlay was probably given 8 weeks so that he would at least miss a game.
Not so it appears.
For a category 2 infraction - abuse to the ref- minimum 4 weeks plus miss a game - even if it falls outside the suspension period.
Quote from: bingobus on June 04, 2008, 11:30:54 AM
One problem I have with Finlays suspension is why action isn't taken at the time. If an offence is worthy of a 8 week suspension and happened during the game (which this did), then should he not be carded there and then?
The issue with Finlay relates to him confronting the ref
after the game if i'm not mistaken.
Also, with regard to the whole suspensions/appeal process, would it not make more sense to have the 'accused' at a hearing where the suspension is handed down, rather than this farce of appeals? Then they could put their case across in advance of the ruling.
Quote from: billy the kid on June 04, 2008, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 11:26:24 AM
Quote from: billy the kid on June 04, 2008, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 10:52:11 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 04, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
I suggest people read the rule book before commenting on suspensions or the GAA's disciplinary procedures.
Neither player can have much cause for complaint in my view.
I agree to an extent in that verbal abuse should be punsihed - but there is a grey area which is open to interpretation - eg. Mc Quaid lifted his hand and didn't hit the Fermanagh man very hard - Fergal Doherty SEEMED to hit the Donegal a right slap - Mc Quaid has 8 weeks - what will Fergal Doherty get ?? Nothing ? 4 weeks ? 8 weeks ? ????
Are you taking the piss???
McQuaid Kicked, Stamped and then boxed the man when he wasnt even up of the ground and it was a right slap.
Doherty didnt even catch kavanagh properly he just made out like he was shot it wasnt even a proper punch.
McQuaide very lucky to get only 8 weeks
Doherty deserves 4 weeks when we see what McQuaid got for what he done
I'm not taking the piss at all - there is no facility in the GAA rulebook where you can get sent off for a kick AND a box etc - Mc Quaid was sent off for striking ! Simple as that - and whether it's as little as Drogba or as hard as Doherty makes no difference !
Both players should get 4 weeks. The Donegal man got a right slap - much more force than Mc Quaid used.
Firstly - You clearly dont understand that 4 weeks minimum means that you can receive no less than 4 weeks BUT you can receive more as McQuaide got and he was lucky not to get more when you compare it to other incidents and what they received.
Secondly - The CCCC or whatever can take the whole incident (Striking + Stamping + Kicking) into account when dishing out suspensions as i have experience of this happening where a punch and a headbutt were quite rightly taken as much more serious than either on their own and were basically added together to work out suspension.
Thirdly - If you think McQuaids punch was a lesser punch than Dohertys slap you are one of a few things:
(a) A Monaghan player (Possibly even Gary himself) trying to get him off
(b) One of those horrible folk from Tyrone/Donegal who just want to see Derry Men suspended (like that wee fcuker Mchugh)
(c) Drunk when you were watching the matches
I don't fall into any of these categories Billy - sorry - but the point you seem to be missing is this - who decides if a player gets 4 weeks or 8 weeks for striknig ? Is is subjective ? Is it objective ? Is is done depending on the amount of force you THINK was used ? You can easily cause a lot of damge with what might seem to be little force ?
If for instance somebody got a broken jaw out of an incident, does this merit more of a suspension ?
Where do you draw the line ?
What I'm saying is ( and mark my words ) by the end of the season, there'll be a lot of cases where players will have got from no suspension,to 4 weeks, to 8 weeks suspension for committing the same offence and will miss a significant match as a result.
Why can't there be a uniform approach to this instead of what seems like making it up as you go along ?
Example - Dublin and Meath boxed on TV - 15 or so suspensions as a result - Cork and Armagh boxed on the same day in the same competition in the same league but not on TV - Outcome - no suspensions ! Is this a fair system ?
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2008, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: bingobus on June 04, 2008, 11:30:54 AM
One problem I have with Finlays suspension is why action isn't taken at the time. If an offence is worthy of a 8 week suspension and happened during the game (which this did), then should he not be carded there and then?
The issue with Finlay relates to him confronting the ref after the game if i'm not mistaken.
Also, with regard to the whole suspensions/appeal process, would it not make more sense to have the 'accused' at a hearing where the suspension is handed down, rather than this farce of appeals? Then they could put their case across in advance of the ruling.
Pretty sure it was for the incedent during the game, heard this from several people and with connections to the county board. Haven't seen it anywhere stating that it was after the game.
There are other stories doing the rounds about his actions after the game in the dressing room but haven't heard anything concrete.
According to BBC Monaghan are going to appeal Finlays 8 weeks But not Mcquaids :o :o
What would they say about McQuaid "Excuse me fellas i think you will find Gary got him 3 times and the punch was a good one and we would like that acknowledged with a 12 week stint on the sidelines. Thank you."
Also heard rumours about Finlay in the changing rooms
Quote from: billy the kid on June 04, 2008, 02:21:27 PM
Also heard rumours about Finlay in the changing rooms
He showers with his trunks on?
He showers with Bantys G-string on.......................
While Banty is still wearing it :D :D
As Brians Mum says "He's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy"
Quote from: bingobus on June 04, 2008, 02:01:56 PM
Pretty sure it was for the incedent during the game, heard this from several people and with connections to the county board. Haven't seen it anywhere stating that it was after the game.
Thats interesting
if it all just happened in the game.
You'd think that what happens in the game stays in the game.
Did the ref even hand out a yellow to Finlay?
Yet the incident not even deemed a sending off at the time can gather overdraft interest on the way to the CCCC.
Although Paul is very decent fella
I hope the Co Sec doesnt use these words in his defense at the appeal.
"We feel the suspension is harsh on Paul, who is not that sort of fella and probably just felt hard done by that the decision went against him,"
I noticed Finlay doing an awful lot of crying at the ref that day. At one stage he put his arms round a Fermanagh man in an attempted tackle and got blown for it. Then he went ballistic with the ref and gave away ten yards.
He's not normally like that but for some reason he'd a real bee in his bonnet about the ref that day as that was not the only time he was like that to the ref.
The ref wasn't too bad that day either.
I actually thought the ref was grand that day and Finlay def picked that ball of the ground that he was crying about.
Quote from: bingobus on June 04, 2008, 02:01:56 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on June 04, 2008, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: bingobus on June 04, 2008, 11:30:54 AM
One problem I have with Finlays suspension is why action isn't taken at the time. If an offence is worthy of a 8 week suspension and happened during the game (which this did), then should he not be carded there and then?
The issue with Finlay relates to him confronting the ref after the game if i'm not mistaken.
Also, with regard to the whole suspensions/appeal process, would it not make more sense to have the 'accused' at a hearing where the suspension is handed down, rather than this farce of appeals? Then they could put their case across in advance of the ruling.
Pretty sure it was for the incedent during the game, heard this from several people and with connections to the county board. Haven't seen it anywhere stating that it was after the game.
There are other stories doing the rounds about his actions after the game in the dressing room but haven't heard anything concrete.
I have it from a very good source that the incident reported was after the game, it related to the incident in the game where the ball was picked up, free, moved forward, goal etc.
Jap confronted the ref after the game (not physically) and gave him a piece of his mind in relation to the afforementioned free and its consequences, I won't say on here what was said, but it was nothing too bad, certainly not bad enough to warrant 8 weeks anyway!
Quote from: billy the kid on June 04, 2008, 03:08:18 PM
I actually thought the ref was grand that day and Finlay def picked that ball of the ground that he was crying about.
There's more than Finlay can cry ! ;) ;) :D ;D
Yeah sure werent most of Tyrone crying when Dublin beat Peter Canavan in the AllIreland Final in 1995!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Jesus but you have some memory Billy ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What happened Deeery that year ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: orangeman on June 04, 2008, 04:24:47 PM
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Jesus but you have some memory Billy ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What happened Deeery that year ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
We were beat by a team who were down one player more than us >:(
Quote from: Main Street on June 04, 2008, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: bingobus on June 04, 2008, 02:01:56 PM
Pretty sure it was for the incedent during the game, heard this from several people and with connections to the county board. Haven't seen it anywhere stating that it was after the game.
Thats interesting if it all just happened in the game.
You'd think that what happens in the game stays in the game.
Did the ref even hand out a yellow to Finlay?
Yet the incident not even deemed a sending off at the time can gather overdraft interest on the way to the CCCC.
Although Paul is very decent fella
I hope the Co Sec doesnt use these words in his defense at the appeal.
"We feel the suspension is harsh on Paul, who is not that sort of fella and probably just felt hard done by that the decision went against him,"
This is where i got it from...
QuoteMonaghan pair may miss qualifier
Paul Finlay celebrates after scoring a point for Monaghan
Monaghan pair Gary McQuaid and Paul Finlay look set to miss their side's All-Ireland Qualifiers opener because of disciplinary action.
McQuaid was shown a straight red card for a striking offence on Shane McCabe during last Sunday's bad-tempered Ulster SFC clash with Fermanagh.
Finlay is believed to have been involved in a verbal altercation with referee Derek Fahy after the game.
The referee's report will be examined by the CCCC of the GAA this week.
The minimum penalty for Finlay's offence is four weeks plus missing the next game in the competition while McQuaid could incur a greater penalty depending on that referee's report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/northern_ireland/gaelic_games/7425044.stm
QuoteBoth players should get 4 weeks. The Donegal man got a right slap - much more force than Mc Quaid used.
If you ever plaued football and looked nuetrally at it you'd know that while the Donegal player got a slap, it was pretty low on the 'force' scale and certainly nothing like he made it out to be. It was certainly a strike and certainly a red card but compared to the combined assault where McQuaid missed with the boot but then got up and waited for his man to rise to thump him, ... well there is no comparison. There should be minimum suspensions but no maximum with the same person or group of people meeting to review each week. All decisions made by Tuesday at the latest. Personal appearance on the night - appeals only on the basis of process... suspensions for minimum period plus matches at the same level (i.e. county player sent off last week for staright red should be banned from all competition for four weeks and from the next two competitive county matches whether they take place in the next month or not... and bring back the rule that sees anyone getting a straight red not being eligible for the All Star
QuoteFinlay is believed to have been involved in a verbal altercation with referee Derek Fahy after the game.
Shure Derek Fahy is from Longford, what would he know about football or Ulster football?
Quote from: paddypastit on June 04, 2008, 10:44:41 PM
QuoteBoth players should get 4 weeks. The Donegal man got a right slap - much more force than Mc Quaid used.
If you ever plaued football and looked nuetrally at it you'd know that while the Donegal player got a slap, it was pretty low on the 'force' scale and certainly nothing like he made it out to be. It was certainly a strike and certainly a red card but compared to the combined assault where McQuaid missed with the boot but then got up and waited for his man to rise to thump him, ... well there is no comparison. There should be minimum suspensions but no maximum with the same person or group of people meeting to review each week. All decisions made by Tuesday at the latest. Personal appearance on the night - appeals only on the basis of process... suspensions for minimum period plus matches at the same level (i.e. county player sent off last week for staright red should be banned from all competition for four weeks and from the next two competitive county matches whether they take place in the next month or not... and bring back the rule that sees anyone getting a straight red not being eligible for the All Star
[/b]
You were going alright until you produced this one !
According to today's Irish News Derry may well appeal Doherty's 4 weeks suspension - Apparently he was only trying to get the Donegal man off him ! ;)
Quote from: orangeman on June 05, 2008, 09:38:02 AM
According to today's Irish News Derry may well appeal Doherty's 4 weeks suspension - Apparently he was only trying to get the Donegal man off him ! ;)
I think Doc and Derry should take the suspension. No point doing a Tyrone and appealing every ban. Makes you look bad. Doc/County board, Take the medicine and carry on.
I agree Greenman if he got 4 weeks take it on the chin and move on.
Has he def got the 4 weeks?
Quote from: billy the kid on June 05, 2008, 10:23:56 AM
I agree Greenman if he got 4 weeks take it on the chin and move on.
Has he def got the 4 weeks?
Yes - he has def got 4 weeks - he will only miss the Fermanagh game and James Conway is a ready made replacement who impressed when he came on last Sunday - I have to agree with you about Diver - he must be one of the most mobile and fastest "big" men around. What height is he ? The tv said the other day he was 6'6" ?
I suppose it's very convenient for Derry folk, at the same time a great relief, that his name is pronounced Divver.
Its actually pronounced Diver. Its the Media who call him Divver
When he first came on the scene we all thought he was from tyrone or something with a name like that.
Incidently the man could never be accused of diving and If you have evidence to the contrary please share.
Who is accusing him?
Quote from: Main Street on June 05, 2008, 11:46:50 AM
I suppose it's very convenient for Derry folk, at the same time a great relief, that his name is pronounced Divver
Maybe accuse was a bit strong, imply would be a better word.
Quote from: billy the kid on June 05, 2008, 12:41:44 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 05, 2008, 11:46:50 AM
I suppose it's very convenient for Derry folk, at the same time a great relief, that his name is pronounced Divver
Maybe accuse was a bit strong, imply would be a better word.
It might be a "less bad" word but it is still a totally inaccurate word.
To most who can get the attempt at humour it is simply - nobody wants a diver in their team.
You obviously dont know to many Tyrone men ;)