UC 2010: Aontroim vs Tír Eoghain 23rd May, Páirc Mhic Asmaint

[Zulu]

He was dead right to leave the game flow, if he brought it back he would have rewarded Antrim for breaking the rules.

No he wasn't. It wouldn't be rewarding anyone, it would be applying the rules of the game. By saying 'breaking the rules' you act as if its a heinous crime to step onto the pitch, when in any case Tyrone 'broke the rules' in a fashion by putting the ball out of play in the first place. It was a horrible bit of refereeing and was completely unfair.

Nonsense, it would be the same if a player took a free from the wrong position, if he kicked to his opponents why not just leave the game flow. If you give a throw up, you simply slow the game and reward the player for actually breaking the rules as he now has a 50:50 chance of winning the ball back.

That's because we now know that Tyrone scored from the ensuing play.  PMcE couldn't have known that at the time.

Tyrone won the ball and were attacking, that is an advantage, it is irrelevant whether they went on to score or not.

The sideline ball rule is a petty, nonsense rule and we don't need refs getting even more pernickety.

[EC Unique]

See the Irish News managed to dedicate the back page to Baker's sour grapes courtesy of Archer...

Watched the game back there, Mugsy's steal was legit, took it clean, Brady stumbled after losing the ball.

Bit perplexed at them giving Niblock MOTM when the rest of the team were rated so low, apart from CJ McGourty. Also don't agree that Davey Harte should be rated higher than Cathal McCarron.

I've no complaints about this goal, but he did pull Brady's shirt....technically a foul but I don't think McEneany could have seen it.  How he missed Mulligan's throw for the first goal mind you...

We agree on the second goal, but I actually think the first goal was legit. I have watched the replay several times and I can see Mulligan remove his striking hand away from the ball before the "strike" with the fingers. Not very far and not a haymaker by any means but I do think there was clear air between the ball and his striking hand before the striking action. I'm not sure McEneaney could have seen a "clear striking action" though in realtime if it took me 3 or 4 replays. Maybe that's what makes him such a good referee  <duck>

He does not have to see it. In order to blow for a free he has to sure there was NOT an 'clear striking action'. Benifit of the doubt rightly goes to the player with the ball.

[A Quinn Martin Production]

He was dead right to leave the game flow, if he brought it back he would have rewarded Antrim for breaking the rules.

No he wasn't. It wouldn't be rewarding anyone, it would be applying the rules of the game. By saying 'breaking the rules' you act as if its a heinous crime to step onto the pitch, when in any case Tyrone 'broke the rules' in a fashion by putting the ball out of play in the first place. It was a horrible bit of refereeing and was completely unfair.

Nonsense, it would be the same if a player took a free from the wrong position, if he kicked to his opponents why not just leave the game flow. If you give a throw up, you simply slow the game and reward the player for actually breaking the rules as he now has a 50:50 chance of winning the ball back.

That's because we now know that Tyrone scored from the ensuing play.  PMcE couldn't have known that at the time.

Tyrone won the ball and were attacking, that is an advantage, it is irrelevant whether they went on to score or not.

The sideline ball rule is a petty, nonsense rule and we don't need refs getting even more pernickety.

If you step over the line taking a sideline kick you lose the advantage (of the unhindered kick) and the resultant punishment is a hop ball.  There is no advantage to accrue to the opposing team therefore you cannot play an advantage ...

[Zulu]

That's fair enough but like I said about the player who takes the free from the wrong position (how strictly that should be applied is another matter) and kicks it away to the opposition. In that situation I'd be in favour of letting the game continue rather than giving a throw up, it should be similar with a sideline, let the decision be up to the ref whether he feels the game should continue or not.

[OverThePostsAWide]

Watching the square ball decision over and over. It looks like when it was kicked in high by Cavanagh. Took a bounce outside the square, Finucane then just beats Hub to it, pats it down inside the box. Cavanagh comes in, hits off him, Hughes then pats at it trying to control it. He then kicks it, it's not clear if he is inside or out at this point, McHugh says Hub kicks it from outside the small rectangle. Finucane and an Antrim player manage to save it between them inside before it deflects off them and comes to Cavanagh who knocks it in, from what looks like inside the box. What isn't clear is whether Cavanagh was inside when Hub kicked it.

Now is it even technically a square ball if the opposing keeper saves and another player fists it in from inside the box?

Yes! If he is in the square before the ball. Coming off the keeper, another player, or the post has nothing to do with it - despite what you might have heard along the sideline (right after "two man tackle ref!", "10yds forward ref!", "he lifted the kickout inside the 21 ref!"  ).

If Cavanagh entered the square after the ball first entered it but while the ball was still in there and he didn't have time to step out before the ball went out and in again then it would have been legit. But I don't think that was the case. I don't think I would even want to try and work that sequence out in real time A square ball was the correct call.

The idea of the rule is not stop players standing on the goal line beside the keeper when the high ball comes in

Doesn't matter what the intention was, the rule is quite clear in principle if not reality.

a bit like the offside rule in soccer. That's how I interpret it anyway.

Stick to the soccer reffing. there's a good lad, Sandwiches 

Goal would have stood in 90% of cases, IMO.

In my experience a square ball would have been given 90% of the time simply because he was in the square when he scored (regardless of when/how he arrived there unless he is seen to soar through the air )

[stibhan]

He was dead right to leave the game flow, if he brought it back he would have rewarded Antrim for breaking the rules.

No he wasn't. It wouldn't be rewarding anyone, it would be applying the rules of the game. By saying 'breaking the rules' you act as if its a heinous crime to step onto the pitch, when in any case Tyrone 'broke the rules' in a fashion by putting the ball out of play in the first place. It was a horrible bit of refereeing and was completely unfair.

Nonsense, it would be the same if a player took a free from the wrong position, if he kicked to his opponents why not just leave the game flow. If you give a throw up, you simply slow the game and reward the player for actually breaking the rules as he now has a 50:50 chance of winning the ball back.

That's because we now know that Tyrone scored from the ensuing play.  PMcE couldn't have known that at the time.

Tyrone won the ball and were attacking, that is an advantage, it is irrelevant whether they went on to score or not.

The sideline ball rule is a petty, nonsense rule and we don't need refs getting even more pernickety.

It isn't nonsense. It's the rules. If the sideline ball rule being 'broken' was punished by the facilitation of another attack for a team then they'd get a free.

[OverThePostsAWide]

He was dead right to leave the game flow, if he brought it back he would have rewarded Antrim for breaking the rules.

No he wasn't. It wouldn't be rewarding anyone, it would be applying the rules of the game. By saying 'breaking the rules' you act as if its a heinous crime to step onto the pitch, when in any case Tyrone 'broke the rules' in a fashion by putting the ball out of play in the first place. It was a horrible bit of refereeing and was completely unfair.

Nonsense, it would be the same if a player took a free from the wrong position, if he kicked to his opponents why not just leave the game flow. If you give a throw up, you simply slow the game and reward the player for actually breaking the rules as he now has a 50:50 chance of winning the ball back.

That's because we now know that Tyrone scored from the ensuing play.  PMcE couldn't have known that at the time.

Tyrone won the ball and were attacking, that is an advantage, it is irrelevant whether they went on to score or not.

The sideline ball rule is a petty, nonsense rule and we don't need refs getting even more pernickety.

Are not all technical rules petty and nonsensical then? Sure he nearly got his toe under that one... Sure it was only a wee small second bounce... It may have seemed petty in this instance, but would it have been as petty if Scullion had "stolen" 2 or 3 yards and several degress of angle to score a point? 

Not that Scullion is likely, but we have all seen it creep into forward play in the last few seasons. Cut out the discretion that has been exploited of late and apply the rules and use the white line. Simple. No?

[Fuzzman]

The best part of my day was that great burger I had in the Fruithill
Well that and taking €30 off my driver who I offered 100-30 on an Antrim win
The other 3 passengers all predicted a 4, 6 and 11 point victory

I think Antrim needed the start to each half that Tyrone got but when we scored those few points at the start of the 2nd half then we probably thought yeah that's it all over now and took the foot of the gas. Its hard not to do I suppose

I'll watch it again tonight as I always miss so much at matches but i was amazed we didn't hit more direct ball into Stevie & Mugsy as both were winning most ball into them

Good to meet a few of ye in the fruithill, even if I was distracted for most of the time I was there.

[Zulu]

We have to allow refs some discretion, we allow the hurling refs have plenty of it and it encourages a more free flowing game. IMO the rule book shouldn't be strictly adhered to as many of the rules were written many years ago and have little to do with the modern game. You mention about the pick up, well if that was reffed strictly there'd be another 10 frees per game. We can go around in circles here but I want to see refs allow the game flow rather than quote rule x subsection y ad nauseum. The rules are only there to allow the game be played they shouldn't be implemented if they are actually preventing the game being played. good refs know the difference, the Derek Fahy's of the world don't.

[nrico2006]

See the Irish News managed to dedicate the back page to Baker's sour grapes courtesy of Archer...

Watched the game back there, Mugsy's steal was legit, took it clean, Brady stumbled after losing the ball.

Bit perplexed at them giving Niblock MOTM when the rest of the team were rated so low, apart from CJ McGourty. Also don't agree that Davey Harte should be rated higher than Cathal McCarron.

I've no complaints about this goal, but he did pull Brady's shirt....technically a foul but I don't think McEneany could have seen it.  How he missed Mulligan's throw for the first goal mind you...

On the subject of pulling, I never seen a man pulled as much as SON was everytime he got near the ball.  As for people complaining about Antrim errors causing Tyrone scores, this happens in every game.  Most scores are from some mistake somewhere in the build up to a score,  I am sure if you analysed Antrims scores you could put most of them down to Tyrone making errors.  Its always been like that, so why the big hooo haahhh now, you would swear that Antrim set every ball they had on a goalies kick out tee for the Tyrone men to simply tap it over the bar or into the net.

[longrunsthefox]

We have to allow refs some discretion, we allow the hurling refs have plenty of it and it encourages a more free flowing game. IMO the rule book shouldn't be strictly adhered to as many of the rules were written many years ago and have little to do with the modern game. You mention about the pick up, well if that was reffed strictly there'd be another 10 frees per game. We can go around in circles here but I want to see refs allow the game flow rather than quote rule x subsection y ad nauseum. The rules are only there to allow the game be played they shouldn't be implemented if they are actually preventing the game being played. good refs know the difference, the Derek Fahy's of the world don't.

What he did with the lineball wasn't using his discretion as it wasn't  like Tyrone would have got  a free otherwise. Sure Antrim might have won the hop ball. On that one he just made up hi sown rule...

[OverThePostsAWide]

See the Irish News managed to dedicate the back page to Baker's sour grapes courtesy of Archer...

Watched the game back there, Mugsy's steal was legit, took it clean, Brady stumbled after losing the ball.

Bit perplexed at them giving Niblock MOTM when the rest of the team were rated so low, apart from CJ McGourty. Also don't agree that Davey Harte should be rated higher than Cathal McCarron.

I've no complaints about this goal, but he did pull Brady's shirt....technically a foul but I don't think McEneany could have seen it.  How he missed Mulligan's throw for the first goal mind you...

We agree on the second goal, but I actually think the first goal was legit. I have watched the replay several times and I can see Mulligan remove his striking hand away from the ball before the "strike" with the fingers. Not very far and not a haymaker by any means but I do think there was clear air between the ball and his striking hand before the striking action. I'm not sure McEneaney could have seen a "clear striking action" though in realtime if it took me 3 or 4 replays. Maybe that's what makes him such a good referee  <duck>

He does not have to see it. In order to blow for a free he has to sure there was NOT an 'clear striking action'. Benifit of the doubt rightly goes to the player with the ball.

Not in the current climate. I think there has been a switch in the "benefit of the doubt" that is contributing most to the current mess over the handpass. Referees (McEneaney excepted) seem to be increasingly now assuming a handpass is illegal unless they clearly see evidence of it being legal.

[orangeman]

See the Irish News managed to dedicate the back page to Baker's sour grapes courtesy of Archer...

Watched the game back there, Mugsy's steal was legit, took it clean, Brady stumbled after losing the ball.

Bit perplexed at them giving Niblock MOTM when the rest of the team were rated so low, apart from CJ McGourty. Also don't agree that Davey Harte should be rated higher than Cathal McCarron.

I've no complaints about this goal, but he did pull Brady's shirt....technically a foul but I don't think McEneany could have seen it.  How he missed Mulligan's throw for the first goal mind you...

We agree on the second goal, but I actually think the first goal was legit. I have watched the replay several times and I can see Mulligan remove his striking hand away from the ball before the "strike" with the fingers. Not very far and not a haymaker by any means but I do think there was clear air between the ball and his striking hand before the striking action. I'm not sure McEneaney could have seen a "clear striking action" though in realtime if it took me 3 or 4 replays. Maybe that's what makes him such a good referee  <duck>

He does not have to see it. In order to blow for a free he has to sure there was NOT an 'clear striking action'. Benifit of the doubt rightly goes to the player with the ball.

I think there has been a switch in the "benefit of the doubt" that is contributing most to the current mess over the handpass. Referees (McEneaney excepted) seem to be increasingly now assuming a handpass is illegal unless they clearly see evidence of it being legal.

Did Mc Enaney not say in a post match interview that he was only able to call the ones he saw and couldn't call the ones he didn't see ?.

[Milltown Row2]

thats all you can do as a referee, you see it you call it. Pat does not give a hoot who wins

[sandwiches_in_the_boot]

Yes! If he is in the square before the ball. Coming off the keeper, another player, or the post has nothing to do with it - despite what you might have heard along the sideline (right after "two man tackle ref!", "10yds forward ref!", "he lifted the kickout inside the 21 ref!"  ).

If Cavanagh entered the square after the ball first entered it but while the ball was still in there and he didn't have time to step out before the ball went out and in again then it would have been legit. But I don't think that was the case. I don't think I would even want to try and work that sequence out in real time A square ball was the correct call.

a bit like the offside rule in soccer. That's how I interpret it anyway.

Stick to the soccer reffing. there's a good lad, Sandwiches 

Goal would have stood in 90% of cases, IMO.

In my experience a square ball would have been given 90% of the time simply because he was in the square when he scored (regardless of when/how he arrived there unless he is seen to soar through the air )

Why is it open questions are always answered by the most patronising b'stards?

I'm in awe you're able to call square ball when from watching the replay over and over it isn't clear whether Hughes kicked the ball from out side of the small rectangle, or whether Cavanagh was inside when the ball left Hughes' boot.

Doesn't matter what the intention was, the rule is quite clear in principle if not reality.

The intention and the principle of the rule are one and the same. That sort of drivel will have you chairing the CCC in no time.