Corduff lose their Ulster Title - Swanlinbar win appeal

Started by thebandit, January 12, 2011, 01:12:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Westside

The 12 day comment is also incorrect as far as I'm aware. He would need to be of age at the beginning of the season of the competition.

RedandGreenSniper

Quote from: Westside on January 12, 2011, 10:02:02 PM
The 12 day comment is also incorrect as far as I'm aware. He would need to be of age at the beginning of the season of the competition.

Correct. Hard to have too much sympathy for Corduff. Although I'm sure there was some very deserving members of their team for whom an Ulster title was huge who were completely unaware that it was a breach. But the people in the club who needed to know clearly did.
Mayo for Sam! Just don't ask me for a year

The GAA

Quote from: tommysmith on January 12, 2011, 09:47:33 PM

A replay is all that they asked Ulster Counci for.

Well that's not true because they lodged anappeal against the result.

we all know that neither the Ulster council nor any other body can order a replay in such circumstances

Maguire01

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 12, 2011, 09:49:32 PM
With regards to it being akin to the leinster final, I don't agree. In this case the team that cheated lost the game.
I meant in respect of being able to enjoy it. Because they didn't actually win the game.

TacadoirArdMhacha

Quote from: The GAA on January 12, 2011, 10:12:13 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on January 12, 2011, 09:47:33 PM

A replay is all that they asked Ulster Counci for.

Well that's not true because they lodged anappeal against the result.

we all know that neither the Ulster council nor any other body can order a replay in such circumstances

I'm sure the appeal would have been withdrawn had Corduff agreed to a replay.
As I dream about movies they won't make of me when I'm dead

tommysmith

Quote from: The GAA on January 12, 2011, 10:12:13 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on January 12, 2011, 09:47:33 PM

A replay is all that they asked Ulster Counci for.

Well that's not true because they lodged anappeal against the result.

we all know that neither the Ulster council nor any other body can order a replay in such circumstances

Corduff were getting thrown out anyway, and i dont have the article now but the Swad chairman made a statement saying that all they wanted was a replay.

StGallsGAA

As I recall Tyrone could have appealed the AI final in 1995 and had the cup awared to them when Charlie Redmond refused to leave the field of play having been sent off.   Tyrone made the right decision and decided not to appeal.  Whats the point in being award a cup a few weeks later after all the presentation has been made and the celebrations of the club/county nearly over as well?

The GAA should have allowed Corduff to keep the cup & title but for Swanlinbar to advance.

Dougal

Quote from: The GAA on January 12, 2011, 10:12:13 PM
Quote from: tommysmith on January 12, 2011, 09:47:33 PM

A replay is all that they asked Ulster Counci for.

Well that's not true because they lodged anappeal against the result.

we all know that neither the Ulster council nor any other body can order a replay in such circumstances


ulster council alerted swad that keenan shouldnt of been playing.only 2 outcomes possible (well maybe 3,but im not sure on the last one)

1. ulster council are aware rule has been broken,swad dont appeal,its investigated,corduff stripped of title and no representative for ulster in the semi-final.
2. ulster council are aware rule has been broken,swad appeal,its investigated,corduff stripped of title and swad go on to represent ulster in the semi-final.
3. both teams agree to a replay and whoever wins goes on to semi-final.

and heres the rule book incase theres any confusion.

Penalties:
For Breach of Upper Age Limit:
(i) Team Penalty:
On a Proven Objection - Award of Game to Opposing Team.
On an Inquiry by the Committee-in-Charge Forfeiture of Game without Award to the Opposing Team.
(ii) Player:
For breach in Under 16 or Younger Grades - 4 weeks Suspension.
For breach in Minor or Under 21 Grades - 24 weeks Suspension.
(iii) Person(s)-in-Charge of the Team in which the breach is committed - 48 weeks Suspension.
(iv) Chairperson and Secretary of a Club:
For breach in Minor or Under 21 Grades - 48 weeks Suspension.
For Breach of Lower Age Limit:
(i) Team Penalty:
On a Proven Objection - Award of Game to Opposing Team.
On an Inquiry by the Committee-in-Charge - Forfeiture of Game without Award to the Opposing Team.

(ii) Player:
For breach in any Grade - 2 weeks Suspension.
(iii) Person(s)-in-Charge of the Team in which the breach is committed - 8 weeks Suspension.
Fcuk you I won't do what ya tell me!!!

Main Street

Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 12, 2011, 09:49:32 PM
With regards to it being akin to the leinster final, I don't agree. In this case the team that cheated lost the game.
Myles you are very loose with your slurs.
Breaking a rule is not cheating.
Intent to break a rule by deceit is cheating.
Corduff were found to be breaking the rules by playing a toddler, that hardly amounts to more than innocent ignorance, but culpable all the same. Hardly an issue to get on a high horse about.


clarshack

we had a brilliant u-16 player in Cathal Devlin (now on 2011 Tyrone Minor Squad) that would have made a difference for us in the tyrone junior final (and who knows what might have happened after that) but we didnt play him last year because of this rule.

its a rule i dont agree with personally but if corduff were told and still played him anyway - they can have no complaints about the outcome.

RMDrive

Quote from: Main Street on January 13, 2011, 01:33:23 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 12, 2011, 09:49:32 PM
With regards to it being akin to the leinster final, I don't agree. In this case the team that cheated lost the game.
Myles you are very loose with your slurs.
Breaking a rule is not cheating.
Intent to break a rule by deceit is cheating.
Corduff were found to be breaking the rules by playing a toddler, that hardly amounts to more than innocent ignorance, but culpable all the same. Hardly an issue to get on a high horse about.

But I thought I read somewhere that Corduff were warned/informed after the semi-final and still decided to play the lad?

Dougal

Quote from: Main Street on January 13, 2011, 01:33:23 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 12, 2011, 09:49:32 PM
With regards to it being akin to the leinster final, I don't agree. In this case the team that cheated lost the game.
Myles you are very loose with your slurs.
Breaking a rule is not cheating.
Intent to break a rule by deceit is cheating.
Corduff were found to be breaking the rules by playing a toddler, that hardly amounts to more than innocent ignorance, but culpable all the same. Hardly an issue to get on a high horse about.

i dont know if it's true,but it's been claimed numerous times on here and elsewhere that corduff were made aware of the rule after the semifinal,whether they were aware before that i dont know.there's also claims that they did as much as they could to hide the truth.it certainly looks like cheating,but i dont know for sure.
Fcuk you I won't do what ya tell me!!!

mylestheslasher

Quote from: Main Street on January 13, 2011, 01:33:23 AM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on January 12, 2011, 09:49:32 PM
With regards to it being akin to the leinster final, I don't agree. In this case the team that cheated lost the game.
Myles you are very loose with your slurs.
Breaking a rule is not cheating.
Intent to break a rule by deceit is cheating.
Corduff were found to be breaking the rules by playing a toddler, that hardly amounts to more than innocent ignorance, but culpable all the same. Hardly an issue to get on a high horse about.

Well my definition of cheating is very simple. You intentionally break the rules to gain an advantage. Corduff knew (how many times do I need to say it) that the guy was not allowed play yet still played him so it was cheating.
Would it be possible for you to refrain from describing the guy as a "toddler", using language like that to play down the crime is just spin. The guy came on illegally and scored a goal. The big question here should be why didn't Corduff agree to play a replay, they were the better team in Breffni so should have been confident of winning and surely they had enough brains to realise if the Ulster council were forced to make a ruling they were going to be the clear losers??

ck

Quote from: StGallsGAA on January 12, 2011, 11:05:41 PM
As I recall Tyrone could have appealed the AI final in 1995 and had the cup awared to them when Charlie Redmond refused to leave the field of play having been sent off.   Tyrone made the right decision and decided not to appeal.  Whats the point in being award a cup a few weeks later after all the presentation has been made and the celebrations of the club/county nearly over as well?

The GAA should have allowed Corduff to keep the cup & title but for Swanlinbar to advance.

I've never heard such rubbish in my life. You either adhere to the rules or you don't. This wishy washy attitude, trying to keep everyone happy is asking for trouble. So you let Corduff keep the cup and then next year another team do the same thing, let them keep the cup too? I totally appreciate that it is harsh but the club executive have messed up big time and if we don't keep to the rules then our games are a joke!

BigMac

Play with feathers you get your arse tickled,
Play with fire and you get burned,
Break the rules and you pay the consequences.
Tough shit Corduff.