Messages

I don't think there can be any debate about the penalty, it was pretty clear cut in my eyes.  On the penalty, would there be any backing for a change in the rules where in the situation like yesterday where Kernan is clearly the last man and denying a goal scoring opportunity that the last man tackle policy used in soccer could apply and that player be red carded.  It seems to becoming more regular, especially with the better teams, that there is a ruthless approach to stopping shots on goal and they will happily take a yellow card by dragging a man down or taking him out with no intention of playing the ball when he is running through on goal.  If there was the possibility of a red it may remove this cynical approach some players seem to have adopted.

On the game itself, Ballinderry certainly produced some performance in the second half but just couldn't get the equaliser to really put the pressure on Cross.  Some going with 14 men in fairness.  In the first half especially Cross made it look terribly easy.  They always had an option at about the halfway line on both sidelines where they kicked the ball to out of defence.  These players won practically every ball that came their way, turned and kicked it into the forwards who won the lions share of ball as well and done serious damage in the first half at least along with players running through.  A rather simple but devastating approach when the running is timed right and the quality of ball is that good.  For Ballinderry, Muldoon obviously stood out and I thought Darren Conway had a great game as well as the two keepers who can have no real complaints with their performances.

It's a pity we have to listen to the BBC's local headline news of a mini riot in Tyrone rather than the great game at Casement Park yesterday. 

[empty him then]

The rules are there for a reason, you can't strike an opponent be it a slap across the face or a full on haymaker.  As the late Eamon Coleman said, 'If you strick, strike, struck you must go...'

To be honest, most of the slaps that are threw on a pitch wouldn't put a man down if it happened on the street so where do you draw the line and say he's diving and he's not.  If you're silly enough to raise a hand to someone you have to accept the punishment, even after provocation.  If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

Good man screenmachine, the voice of reason. What's the figure? 17 people killed last year from a single punch? And you don't have to go beyond this week or outside your own county if you want the proof of the stupidity of your statement.

Firstly you've got people comparing on field nasties with the child abuse scandal in the church and now this.  My point was justifying the rules that are put in place that if you strike an opponent on the field then you have to be sent off.  The end of my point was merely down to the fact that if a player had been goading an opponent about the death of a relative for example, which was suggested earlier, then I think that player has a case to answer and should be confronted at a suitable time.  If the player reacts immediately and is sent off then you're going to be called silly for reacting but if confronted afterwards and the details of the trash talking is revealed then I think it can be justified to an extent.

You can pull figures out of the air to try and validate your post but if you're going down that road then perhaps the players who have hit players off the ball in the past should be the target of your stats as surely they are more appropriate targets who need your advice rather than someone speaking about it online.   

It was you that was giving the advice. You suggested that if player was aggrieved to anger at something that was said to him onfield that he should wait and empty him after the match. That is assault, or as I was illustrating, worse and stupid advice.

In case you have forgotten or missed the quote above:

If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

My angle was that he would be better advised to react when the game was over rather than during it as he would be more than likely sent off and could cost his team the game.

I know exactly what I stated, that if the trash talking is bad enough then I think you have every right to confront the person afterwards.  Are you telling me that if you were walking down the street with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend or whatever and somebody started to verbally abuse your accomplice you would stand there and do nothing about it...Why should it be any different to abuse handed out on a football pitch?

[empty him then]

The rules are there for a reason, you can't strike an opponent be it a slap across the face or a full on haymaker.  As the late Eamon Coleman said, 'If you strick, strike, struck you must go...'

To be honest, most of the slaps that are threw on a pitch wouldn't put a man down if it happened on the street so where do you draw the line and say he's diving and he's not.  If you're silly enough to raise a hand to someone you have to accept the punishment, even after provocation.  If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

Good man screenmachine, the voice of reason. What's the figure? 17 people killed last year from a single punch? And you don't have to go beyond this week or outside your own county if you want the proof of the stupidity of your statement.

Firstly you've got people comparing on field nasties with the child abuse scandal in the church and now this.  My point was justifying the rules that are put in place that if you strike an opponent on the field then you have to be sent off.  The end of my point was merely down to the fact that if a player had been goading an opponent about the death of a relative for example, which was suggested earlier, then I think that player has a case to answer and should be confronted at a suitable time.  If the player reacts immediately and is sent off then you're going to be called silly for reacting but if confronted afterwards and the details of the trash talking is revealed then I think it can be justified to an extent.

You can pull figures out of the air to try and validate your post but if you're going down that road then perhaps the players who have hit players off the ball in the past should be the target of your stats as surely they are more appropriate targets who need your advice rather than someone speaking about it online.   

The rules are there for a reason, you can't strike an opponent be it a slap across the face or a full on haymaker.  As the late Eamon Coleman said, 'If you strick, strike, struck you must go...'

To be honest, most of the slaps that are threw on a pitch wouldn't put a man down if it happened on the street so where do you draw the line and say he's diving and he's not.  If you're silly enough to raise a hand to someone you have to accept the punishment, even after provocation.  If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

There is nothing new going on here as far as I can see.

That's what the Catholic Church said for years. Should we just shrug the shoulders and say "Priests will be priests" 

There's a fair difference between raping a child and indulging in a few of the 'dark arts' on a football field.  I'm sure the lives of those affected by child abuse by the church are in a slightly worse place than Joe McMahon after he got hit a slap in a football match.  Maybe not though...

Some of the reaction has been a bit ridiculous to be honest.  People are nearly suggesting that Cassidy (and Donegal in general) have developed this nasty streak that no-one has ever seen before.  Trash talking opponents, handing out the odd softener to boys who may not be 100%, telling players to go down if they are touched at all and trying to get opponents sent off.

There is nothing new going on here as far as I can see.  Players having a word with their opponents to put them off their game or provoke a reaction is common place.  The best way to answer that is by putting scores on the board.  If I remember rightly McMenamin had about three fingers up Paddy Bradley's backside during one Ulster Championship match.  It's been going on for years.

If a player gets emptied and suffers a relapse of an injury which they have just recovered from then the player/manager has to accept some responsibility due to the fact that they may have returned slightly too soon.  Granted McLoone should have seen red that day but it's not his fault the ref only produced a yellow.  I believe Tagdh Kennelly cleaned a Cork player out at the beginning of the All Ireland final one year in what was later revealed as a pre meditated tackle which was discussed before the game.

This furore has turned out to be a dream ticket for the author with country wide coverage and by the sounds of it Cassidy was ready to go anyway with family comittments.  Anything that was revealed I think most people had assumed anyway, hardly earth shattering revelations...

How in the name of God did this farce of an organisation receive over £1m from OFMDFM alone...I would imagine any sane thinking person would struggle to find £10 of that which was spent appropriately in the past. 

Listening to the news this morning stating that money had been used to take victims families to the cinema, Alton Towers, day trips, etc.  Is this man on another planet.  More worryingly, the morons who rubber stamped the funding to be released, are they on the same planet?  Hopefully Frazer is locked up if he refuses to repay monies owed...Imagine being that man's cellmate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cc7941yX7MY

Keane scoring for LA Galaxy last night.

Has Robbie put on a pound or two?  He looks a bit heavy from that video...

Donegal's style of football will be accepted by their fans until they suffer a few defeats in Championship.  It may sound quite an obvious thing to say but if they lose one or two games and are eliminated in the early stages I don't think the fans would be as willing to accept Jim's style of football whereas a team that goes out and gives it a good lash may receive some form of praise in defeat.  A weak referee could also scupper their gameplan if he started dishing out frees for some of there two or three men tackling (which was very good last year to be fair).

Fair play to them for doing what it takes to win and I'm sure they don't really give a fiddler's what way it looked to anyone else.  Hopefully Derry can provide the first stage of their failing next year although Derry's history against the blanket defence has been about successful as a chocolate fireguard.  Time will tell.

On a side note i noticed Slab Murphy at Casement today,  Is he a Cross supporter?

I think he played for Cross but I stand to be corrected.  An explosive forward with a fantastic shooting range.  I think they were referring to the football anyway...

I take it all back, the RTE Player is a fantastic resource...

Is there anywhere to watch or listen to the debate online?  (In the North as the RTE Player is a bollocks  )

His death, after capture in battle, is a natural conclusion to the life of Gaddafi. It gives some closure to a particularly brutal and corrupt era.
It should be noted that Gaddafi didn't fight to his death as he had ordered and inspired others to do so.

According to the NTC, British and other media outlets.  How can we be sure he didn't go down fighting?  I wouldn't listen to much being spouted in the media to be honest and world leaders celebrating the death of anyone really paints a great picture for the position they hold...

Yeah some reports claim they were driving him away when they came under attack from Gadaffi Loyalists who shot at them and inadvertently shot Gadaffi in the head.  If you believe that may I also suggest that Jeffrey Donaldson was on the army council of the IRA before he defected to the DUP.