Ulster Semifinal- Derry v Tyrone 21/6/09 Casement Park

[talktothehand]

nice picture of Doc trying to take out Clerkins 2 eyes in todays News of the World

i tried to start this as a topic last week but a derry moderator obviously took it off. typical. freedom of speech eh??

You tried to start the topic as your first post then i take it. 

is it wrong to do that? i was asking had anyone seen the incident or had it sky+ed. i thought he had but was asking for confirmation

[Rav67]

nice picture of Doc trying to take out Clerkins 2 eyes in todays News of the World

i tried to start this as a topic last week but a derry moderator obviously took it off. typical. freedom of speech eh??

You tried to start the topic as your first post then i take it. 

is it wrong to do that? i was asking had anyone seen the incident or had it sky+ed. i thought he had but was asking for confirmation

A lot of  WUMs who post under another name create a new username and start controversial topics.

[Rois]

It's in Irish news today that they have been suspended so it must be confirmed.

Slightly incorrect there, as Ziggy says the Irish News says that they are "in line" for suspensions and can either accept or appeal to CCCC.

[screenmachine]

I'm right in thinking that these sanctions only affect county football and not club, aren't I?

[Doire abú]

I'm right in thinking that these sanctions only affect county football and not club, aren't I?

effects both if more than 4 weeks i think.

[Oakleafer93]

If fergal is out of the next Club round it'll be a big bonus for Lavey. However I'd prefer him to be there for Derry.

[screenexile]

I can see them appealing Fergal's ban. To be honest did he really do anything to warrant it? A still photo that 'appears' to show him eye gouging is not sufficient proof and unless it can be established that there is intent there (Like Quinlan against Leinster) then the ban shouldn't stick. I think we should just accept Mullan's although I wouldn't be surprised if we did appeal it and I would be disappointed if we did as I think in a case like his where there is no ambiguity he should just take his medicine.

Again I would like to reiterate that had we a competent match official who was capable of applying the rules properly and using common sense there would be no reason for any of this!

[EC Unique]

I hear Casement is looking likely..

[Oakleafer93]

I can see them appealing Fergal's ban. To be honest did he really do anything to warrant it? A still photo that 'appears' to show him eye gouging is not sufficient proof and unless it can be established that there is intent there (Like Quinlan against Leinster) then the ban shouldn't stick. I think we should just accept Mullan's although I wouldn't be surprised if we did appeal it and I would be disappointed if we did as I think in a case like his where there is no ambiguity he should just take his medicine.

Again I would like to reiterate that had we a competent match official who was capable of applying the rules properly and using common sense there would be no reason for any of this!

Pity the 4 umpires were useless though, 4 bloody coffin dodgers there for a day out. Mullans ban shouldn't be contested only on the grounds of it's length in comparison to Mc Guigans. I say we get Joe Brolly in as a barrister.

[DennistheMenace]

Doherty would be a loss obviously, can't believe there is talk of 8 week ban, madness.

However it's not as if Midfield is Tyrone's strong point, the game won't be won or lost in the middle of the park.

[Oakleafer93]

Doherty would be a loss obviously, can't believe there is talk of 8 week ban, madness.

However it's not as if Midfield is Tyrone's strong point, the game won't be won or lost in the middle of the park.

On Derry thread someone said Patsy Bradley should be fit

[DUBSFORSAM1]

I can see them appealing Fergal's ban. To be honest did he really do anything to warrant it? A still photo that 'appears' to show him eye gouging is not sufficient proof and unless it can be established that there is intent there (Like Quinlan against Leinster) then the ban shouldn't stick. I think we should just accept Mullan's although I wouldn't be surprised if we did appeal it and I would be disappointed if we did as I think in a case like his where there is no ambiguity he should just take his medicine.

Again I would like to reiterate that had we a competent match official who was capable of applying the rules properly and using common sense there would be no reason for any of this!

So kicking a player is totally acceptable and doesn't warrant a ban  - as for the Quinlan against Leinster they didn't have to show intent at all, they just had to show it being careless use of the hands...

[Doire abú]

I can see them appealing Fergal's ban. To be honest did he really do anything to warrant it? A still photo that 'appears' to show him eye gouging is not sufficient proof and unless it can be established that there is intent there (Like Quinlan against Leinster) then the ban shouldn't stick. I think we should just accept Mullan's although I wouldn't be surprised if we did appeal it and I would be disappointed if we did as I think in a case like his where there is no ambiguity he should just take his medicine.


Again I would like to reiterate that had we a competent match official who was capable of applying the rules properly and using common sense there would be no reason for any of this!

But sure Tommy McGuigan only got four weeks for the exact same thing! Where is the consistency there?

[DennistheMenace]

Mullan should be banned for that knee, what can be debated is the length of his ban and as said there is precedance for this type of incident already.

[Doire abú]

Mullan should be banned for that knee, what can be debated is the length of his ban and as said there is precedance for this type of incident already.

I agree he def should be banned. And his ban should be the same lenght as a man who did the exact same thing a couple of months ago!