Messages

The generic AI posters for everything. They're literally the same for everything.best ones (worst ones) are GAA clubs using them for results/ upcoming games where the jersey graphics etc are changed.

Hurling is in a great place, thing id like to see is a timer on frees/sidelines. I see soccer is bringing in 10 secs for throw ins, I'd like to see maybe say 20secs for frees and sidelines. Potentially puc outs as well.

dont know what cork are complaining about. Tried to take too many touches before getting the shot off

Commentators realise added time is a minimum? Like there was 3 breaks in play after the added time was shown, that's always going to be added on on top of what was given, surely that's not hard to understand

Is it just the hurlers that head off to the sun or do the other codes do likewise?

In fairness to the hurlers they run their golf classic to fund it

[I guess the idea of the 2 pointer was also to draw the defence out. However with 3 less defenders there's no unbreachable packed defence and one less reason for the 2 pointer]

I'm split on the rules. Love the solo & go, and the new rules were worth it, if only to bring it in. Other than that, I'd be fairly Meh with the rest. Don't like the 2 pointer personally nor the hooter.
But have to laugh at some of the posters who were all in for the changes due to the problems that were evident. But went so all in on the new rules, they are now trying to prevent any talk of changes or amendments that could be made to improve them. They've gone full circle now, and taken the position the traditionalists had.

the 3 up, no passbook to the keeper and the solo and go would have been the perfect middle ground. The 2pter is really boring me now. the throw in was never an issue and the hooter is terrible. Also with the ball not being able to be played back to the keeper, the kickout rule was fine as was.

I agree, why change the throw in rule.  Seemed like change for the sake of change.

I would have preferred a 2 up rule.  3 up appears to distort the balance too much in favour of the offence.  Hopefully teams adapt defensively and that distortion is reduced.

The 3 up rule was created to end the packed defence, with the team in possession endlessly recycling the ball outside the defence. I guess the idea of the 2 pointer was also to draw the defence out.  However with 3 less defenders there's no unbreachable packed defence and one less reason for the 2 pointer.

What puzzles me is what they settled on in the new rules.  You still have just as much possession outside the arc as you had before.  Plus you have players, like David Clifford, spending as much time outside the arc as he does near the goal.  I don't believe the objective was to draw the top scorers away from goal, was it?

That's it actually, they brought in 2 rules when 1 was enough, with the 3 up rule and no 2 pter it would have given us more goals and teams being more direct rather than messing about round the arc.

Same as the kickout, brought 2 rules in when 1 fixed the issue, ie if ya can't play the ball back to the keeper it stops the slow possession based play at the back with a spare man as teams can easily press up. We didn't need the wholesale changes

I'm split on the rules. Love the solo & go, and the new rules were worth it, if only to bring it in. Other than that, I'd be fairly Meh with the rest. Don't like the 2 pointer personally nor the hooter.
But have to laugh at some of the posters who were all in for the changes due to the problems that were evident. But went so all in on the new rules, they are now trying to prevent any talk of changes or amendments that could be made to improve them. They've gone full circle now, and taken the position the traditionalists had.

the 3 up, no passbook to the keeper and the solo and go would have been the perfect middle ground. The 2pter is really boring me now. the throw in was never an issue and the hooter is terrible. Also with the ball not being able to be played back to the keeper, the kickout rule was fine as was.

So just to summarise your position as I understand is

Allegations have been made therefore Burns has to act. He has to believe those allegations but ignore and not consider the denials or the large number of factors that cast doubt over the veracity of the allegations. He has to do so and ignore the rules and procedures of the Association?

You place no weight on the legal proceedings except the one that RG hasn't taken ie defamation ignoring the legal and practical issues of same. But you again place no weight on the fact the complainant hasn't taken legal proceedings of her own.

You place considerable weight on the Facebook post of a witness but do not consider the fact that she either didn't report the contents of same to either police force or if she did the contents was discounted when compared to the other evidence.

You place no weight on the three police investigations and 4 no prosecution decisions all of which were made on the basis of all available evidence not just what's in the public domain. You seem to this for two reasons. Firstly because of the standard/burden of proof involved and secondly because of failings in previous unconnected investigations. Going as far as to accuse those who have indicated these decisions may be relevant factors as hiding behind legal processes. Yet you seemingly ignore the findings of the family court which doesn't require anywhere near the same level of proof. You also seem to discount that plenty of people have made untrue allegations in the past.

Finally you condemn those who say that an investigation should take place and proper procedures should take place as condoning domestic violence and being akin to church leaders involved in some sort of coverup yet have provided no reason why an investigation should not take place other than some kind of ambiguous non defined 'moral' reason that should preclude an investigation.

This nails it, perfectly summed up

The item on public record i am on about is the incident that happened in Clones,The fermanagh fballers wife made the comment on fb bcking her up but didnt report it to the Garda when NG make the public statement at the time.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying both Nicola Gallagher and his wife made the allegation up?

I've read his post a few times, and I'm struggling to see where Wildweasel has said they made it up?

Put it up in bold so I can read it again

I'm asking him what he is trying to say. He hasn't answered me, maybe you should let him answer it. Are you saying they made it up? Are you saying that the allegations Nicola Gallagher has made are not credible? Are you saying that her friend, a wife of a former teammates of Gallagher, is also not credible?

It's no wonder we have such a terrible stigma in the north with domestic abuse when an allegation of physical abuse is attempted to be discredited.

They are very detailed allegations made a victim who waived her anonymity about Gallagher. I just don't get why some people are so adamant to defend Gallagher from these allegations. He should not be involved in the GAA as long as they follow him around.

Who is defending him? You keep making up allegations on posters here ffs! Saying they are defending him and what not, without actually showing any proof of it! Put your head in a cooler and breathe

You're not making much sense here. You are going to great lengths to argue with me here and are accusing me of things I never said. You are answering questions for other posters who won't answer themselves. When the same question is put to you, you won't answer that either.

All I have said is Burns was right to intervene when certain clubs disgraced themselves and pursued Gallagher in the knowledge of what he is accused of. My second point is that I find her and her account of events to be very credible and this is why I think Gallagher should be a pariah within the GAA with this hanging over him.

You need to ask yourself why you are going to great lengths to argue those points. What's your motivation here?

You were happy to answer questions for other posters so I'll ask you again what I asked that poster and you wouldn't answer yourself.

What is it about Nicola Gallagher and her allegations you don't find credible?

We all know you are quite mouthy and full of opinions on lots of different things, I'm just surprised you don't want to offer this specific opinion on a topic you are happy to give lots of other opinions on in favour of Rory Gallagher.

I'm simply curious what you mean by whilst these allegations are still hanging around him?  Do you mean that the only way he should be back involved is if the two individuals did a volte face and came out and said they lied? I mean there's no mechanism for anyone to prove their innocence.  If so where is the line?

Again for the avoidance of doubt I am in no way casting aspirations on those involved. I am asking from a more theoretical perspective

The allegations for me are monstrous, multiples hospitalisations, broken bones, dragged down a public street by her hair, gouging broken ribs, bitings and strangling on a woman. What has been alleged there is horrific.

This isn't a case of whether he should be in jail or not. There is a different precedent there to satisfy before it goes to trial or gaining convictions.

What matters is we there is any ounce of credibility to them then Gallagher should be nowhere near the GAA. Burns should never have been in a place to intervene. Once the allegations became public then that should have been it.

The Derry County Board can be criticised but eventually did the right thing at their own accord. The clubs however who have pursued Gallagher in full knowledge of what he is alleged to have committed are utterly disgraced and have brought the GAA into disrepute IMO.

We are not talking legal. The GAA should be protecting their reputation and setting examples for the public. This is the key issue here, if we deem the allegations to be credible then we must treat with seriousness they are worth. Dismissing or looking for technicalities for Gallagher to operate is very poor optics particularly with domestic violence issues up north.

A telling thing for me is Gallagher has never tried to clear his name, IMO. He has hoped the whole thing would blow over and become yesterday's news. Has he ever actually denied the allegations other than cite investigations of systems that consistently fail victims of domestic violence where the evidence threshold is extremely high?

I happen to find Nicola Gallagher extremely credible. It was a very brave thing to come forward, she addressed the press on it, she provided huge amount of specific details and one specific incident was even corroborated by a wife of Gallagher's former team mates. So why are certain people willing to dismiss this so flippantly?

It's either one of two things here, Gallagher is the victim of a vindictive ex who is attempting to torch him with false allegations or Gallagher is guilty of the monstrous allegations. The GAA have an onus to judge this on the basis of who is more credible here, not looking after their own member as he has a big profile and this is huge issue across the nation with GAA stars. If they are talented - clubs, counties and the association itself are willing to overlook actions that should see they expelled. This is at the extreme gravity of what a member has been publicly accused of before.

Quick question, had this went to court and RG found not guilty what would your stance be

I don't think it would severely change. It would depend on the evidence and testimony being heard really. The verdict would be insignificant as the threshold to a) get to trial and b) get a conviction are extremely high.

McGregor for instance never went to trial for criminal but was found guilty in a civil case. That's the level of difference you are talking about. Paddy Jackson was found not guilty in his trial but I have my views on that.

What we know of the legal system in reference to sexual assault and domestic violence is that it is very hard to convict and that the system routinely fails to protect victims or serve them justice.

We should not be discussing criminal trials here though, we should be discussing the appropriate actions of the GAA to allegations of this nature against one of its members. I think it's deplorable the way certain clubs openly pursued Gallagher amid these allegations. I think Jarlath Burns was forced into the only moral decision he should make and it was something he should never be have been forced to do.

So for you allegations are enough, you realise how dangerous that is?

We really really are now looking for trial by social media.

I have zero time for RG and wouldn't really want him near Antrim but stopping someone from being involved in GAA for something they've allegedly done which is outside the GAA really doesn't sit well with me

The item on public record i am on about is the incident that happened in Clones,The fermanagh fballers wife made the comment on fb bcking her up but didnt report it to the Garda when NG make the public statement at the time.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying both Nicola Gallagher and his wife made the allegation up?

I've read his post a few times, and I'm struggling to see where Wildweasel has said they made it up?

Put it up in bold so I can read it again

I'm asking him what he is trying to say. He hasn't answered me, maybe you should let him answer it. Are you saying they made it up? Are you saying that the allegations Nicola Gallagher has made are not credible? Are you saying that her friend, a wife of a former teammates of Gallagher, is also not credible?

It's no wonder we have such a terrible stigma in the north with domestic abuse when an allegation of physical abuse is attempted to be discredited.

They are very detailed allegations made a victim who waived her anonymity about Gallagher. I just don't get why some people are so adamant to defend Gallagher from these allegations. He should not be involved in the GAA as long as they follow him around.

Who is defending him? You keep making up allegations on posters here ffs! Saying they are defending him and what not, without actually showing any proof of it! Put your head in a cooler and breathe

You're not making much sense here. You are going to great lengths to argue with me here and are accusing me of things I never said. You are answering questions for other posters who won't answer themselves. When the same question is put to you, you won't answer that either.

All I have said is Burns was right to intervene when certain clubs disgraced themselves and pursued Gallagher in the knowledge of what he is accused of. My second point is that I find her and her account of events to be very credible and this is why I think Gallagher should be a pariah within the GAA with this hanging over him.

You need to ask yourself why you are going to great lengths to argue those points. What's your motivation here?

You were happy to answer questions for other posters so I'll ask you again what I asked that poster and you wouldn't answer yourself.

What is it about Nicola Gallagher and her allegations you don't find credible?

We all know you are quite mouthy and full of opinions on lots of different things, I'm just surprised you don't want to offer this specific opinion on a topic you are happy to give lots of other opinions on in favour of Rory Gallagher.

I'm simply curious what you mean by whilst these allegations are still hanging around him?  Do you mean that the only way he should be back involved is if the two individuals did a volte face and came out and said they lied? I mean there's no mechanism for anyone to prove their innocence.  If so where is the line?

Again for the avoidance of doubt I am in no way casting aspirations on those involved. I am asking from a more theoretical perspective

The allegations for me are monstrous, multiples hospitalisations, broken bones, dragged down a public street by her hair, gouging broken ribs, bitings and strangling on a woman. What has been alleged there is horrific.

This isn't a case of whether he should be in jail or not. There is a different precedent there to satisfy before it goes to trial or gaining convictions.

What matters is we there is any ounce of credibility to them then Gallagher should be nowhere near the GAA. Burns should never have been in a place to intervene. Once the allegations became public then that should have been it.

The Derry County Board can be criticised but eventually did the right thing at their own accord. The clubs however who have pursued Gallagher in full knowledge of what he is alleged to have committed are utterly disgraced and have brought the GAA into disrepute IMO.

We are not talking legal. The GAA should be protecting their reputation and setting examples for the public. This is the key issue here, if we deem the allegations to be credible then we must treat with seriousness they are worth. Dismissing or looking for technicalities for Gallagher to operate is very poor optics particularly with domestic violence issues up north.

A telling thing for me is Gallagher has never tried to clear his name, IMO. He has hoped the whole thing would blow over and become yesterday's news. Has he ever actually denied the allegations other than cite investigations of systems that consistently fail victims of domestic violence where the evidence threshold is extremely high?

I happen to find Nicola Gallagher extremely credible. It was a very brave thing to come forward, she addressed the press on it, she provided huge amount of specific details and one specific incident was even corroborated by a wife of Gallagher's former team mates. So why are certain people willing to dismiss this so flippantly?

It's either one of two things here, Gallagher is the victim of a vindictive ex who is attempting to torch him with false allegations or Gallagher is guilty of the monstrous allegations. The GAA have an onus to judge this on the basis of who is more credible here, not looking after their own member as he has a big profile and this is huge issue across the nation with GAA stars. If they are talented - clubs, counties and the association itself are willing to overlook actions that should see they expelled. This is at the extreme gravity of what a member has been publicly accused of before.

Quick question, had this went to court and RG found not guilty what would your stance be

[The players are more than likely also there for the coin]

The players are more than likely also there for the coin

Its a shambles from Tyrones point of view. Plenty of hurling clubs to gather up a panel of 30 lads.

Load up with antrim lads hoping to get a run out in croker..for them to say they can't be arsed travelling the following year and them get beat out the gate every game. Play at your level

They are young and think 1 of them may have been about the Antrim panel last year, maybe got the opportunity and thought it be worth a go. get used to a county set up, playing 70 mins and then in the next few years get back at the Antrim panel. Not saying it's the right thing to do but that's exactly what's happened with Duffin at TNN, easy to say it's about money.

Agree with the point in general though, Tyrone should have enough good hurlers. I mean Carrickmore won Ulster intermediate and were pushed in Tyrone by Dungannon so the talent is there, unless won't commit to the county

Important motion going forward by St Galls at the convention.  Hoping that a lot of clubs get on board for it and we'll hopefully see the introduction of quarter finals in the intermediate championship.

Def should be. though be better to see smaller groups to see less dead rubbers. theres 11 teams, could we maybe promote glenravel not have a relegation and have 3 groups of 4?

I get we are a proud association but in a city where soccer has won the war and is beating the shit out of GAA, a small bit of pragmatism wouldn't go amiss.
The alternative is that the lads all go and play the soccer matches and the GAA club loses out. Can't see how that does any good.

This, we really don't help ourselves. We already struggle with number retention in the city without then not working a way to accommodate. Things like playing junior/ intermediate champ games on a Sunday would help. Let them play soccer on Saturday then football on the Sunday. Like there's talk of amalgamations in the city at senior level, before even getting near that conversation lets try make it easier for smaller clubs to utilise players, if that means working round soccer then so be it.

St Galls appointed internally (which should almost always be the case) and it caused players to walk away for those years

If you can appoint internally then it something that should be the first option

It should be the case if you have clubmen suitable for the role. Theres club that don't have any suitable to manage senior football. Or go elsewhere for $$ but do you blame them?

Or maybe lads in the club don't want the hassle? Family members, friends sons etc all in the team people who you may have loyalty/ soft spot for. If you're taking another club there's no real loyalty which in turn gets the best out of players. Prob not how it should be but it's a reality in many clubs. It's too simplistic to say it's simply money.

There was a story about a kid in America who was getting bullied, turned to ChatGPT for advice, ended up every day when he got home he talked to ChatGPT and it became his best friend. Started to have thoughts of suicide sand the bot basically talked him into it over a 6 month period, even offering to write his suicide note. Heart breaking. Here's one of the links

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/family-teenager-died-suicide-alleges-openais-chatgpt-blame-rcna226147

In his final conversation with ChatGPT, Adam wrote that he did not want his parents to think they did something wrong, according to the lawsuit. ChatGPT replied, "That doesn't mean you owe them survival. You don't owe anyone that." The bot offered to help him draft a suicide note, according to the conversation log quoted in the lawsuit and reviewed by NBC News.

Hours before he died on April 11, Adam uploaded a photo to ChatGPT that appeared to show his suicide plan. When he asked whether it would work, ChatGPT analyzed his method and offered to help him "upgrade" it, according to the excerpts.

Ballyhale got over Kilcormac in a good battle there, they'll be in the mix later.

A bit of a melee at the end there. 

Always makes me laugh someone punching someone with a helmet on. Even stupider punching someone with a helmet on when you don't have one! Lol. Serious note, terrible to see, no need at all.