Author Topic: Joe Brolly  (Read 579948 times)

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11044
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3435 on: May 23, 2017, 01:10:44 PM »
Just in case there is some doubt where this CCCC and CHC fckid up and are not fit for purpose.

The proper procedure is the CHC presents all the evidence to support the charge against the player at the Hearing.

The fuzzy video is presented, Fitz denies that it is he.
If the more clear evidence had been presented, then Fitz might well have said, 'okay that does look like me', 'yes it is me', 'lets look at the further evidence'.

All the evidence has to be presented at the hearing and it has to be decided there and then if the player is intentionally misleading the CHC based on the evidence presented. The CHC can't suddenly be given other evidence after the Hearing which was not presented to the player at the original Hearing and construct a new charge.

If the video evidence was fuzzy and unclear how was MF absolutely certain it wasn't him?
You still don't get it, no wonder Joe appears to be a super legal eagle.
The one thing  for sure is  that the CHC had no legal right to proceed with the 3rd charge. So whether Mat was not sure, or a little bit sure, or very sure,  or most definitely sure that it was not him in that fuzzy video,  does not not matter one whit.
The CHC fcked up, Keane fckd up and he still struggles with accepting that he fcked up as he spent so much time trying to justify why he and the CHC fcked up in that off the ball interview.

five points

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3436 on: May 23, 2017, 01:19:36 PM »


I'd agree as well. Mayo's Keane was mentioned as an example of a player from a top 4 County say who was cleared to play, I wish he'd have been pushed a bit more on it (maybe he got off on a technicality, I can't remember).

Keane was sent off for striking. The camera showed clearly that he didn't strike, merely lightly tapped his opponent on the face. Same as Darren Hughes who got sent off for striking after ruffling his opponent's hair.

JoG2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3437 on: May 23, 2017, 01:31:26 PM »


I'd agree as well. Mayo's Keane was mentioned as an example of a player from a top 4 County say who was cleared to play, I wish he'd have been pushed a bit more on it (maybe he got off on a technicality, I can't remember).

Keane was sent off for striking. The camera showed clearly that he didn't strike, merely lightly tapped his opponent on the face. Same as Darren Hughes who got sent off for striking after ruffling his opponent's hair.

He did strike. Category 3 offence, 'striking or attempting to strike with the arm, elbow, hand or knee'... minimum 1 match ban. What am I missing?

Jinxy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12333
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3438 on: May 23, 2017, 01:52:21 PM »


I'd agree as well. Mayo's Keane was mentioned as an example of a player from a top 4 County say who was cleared to play, I wish he'd have been pushed a bit more on it (maybe he got off on a technicality, I can't remember).

Keane was sent off for striking. The camera showed clearly that he didn't strike, merely lightly tapped his opponent on the face. Same as Darren Hughes who got sent off for striking after ruffling his opponent's hair.

What does that even mean?
If you were any use you'd be playing.

five points

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3439 on: May 23, 2017, 02:01:35 PM »
What does that even mean?
What it says.

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11044
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3440 on: May 23, 2017, 07:38:35 PM »
Just in case there is some doubt where this CCCC and CHC fckid up and are not fit for purpose.

The proper procedure is the CHC presents all the evidence to support the charge against the player at the Hearing.

The fuzzy video is presented, Fitz denies that it is he.
If the more clear evidence had been presented, then Fitz might well have said, 'okay that does look like me', 'yes it is me', 'lets look at the further evidence'.

All the evidence has to be presented at the hearing and it has to be decided there and then if the player is intentionally misleading the CHC based on the evidence presented. The CHC can't suddenly be given other evidence after the Hearing which was not presented to the player at the original Hearing and construct a new charge.

If the video evidence was fuzzy and unclear how was MF absolutely certain it wasn't him?
You still don't get it, no wonder Joe appears to be a super legal eagle.
The one thing  for sure is  that the CHC had no legal right to proceed with the 3rd charge. So whether Mat was not sure, or a little bit sure, or very sure,  or most definitely sure that it was not him in that fuzzy video,  does not not matter one whit.
The CHC fcked up, Keane fckd up and he still struggles with accepting that he fcked up as he spent so much time trying to justify why he and the CHC fcked up in that off the ball interview.

nonsense from start to finish.
So you don't agree with Liam Keane or the CAC?

I will spell it out word for word, very slowly.

Matt was suspended  for 48 weeks by the CHC, who  used  rule 7.3.3 A,  something or other, to justify their decision.

Radio interview
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/192709/Liam_Keane_of_the_CHC_on_the_Matthew_Fitzpatrick_case

 Ger. "Why did the CAC kick it out?"

Liam Keane  "the CAC said  "in using that rule ….. emmm,    it can only be …emmm enforced or availed of by a hearing committee 
 if the evidence had been presented at the hearing where the false evidence was given,
that's the decision of the appeals committee."

The evidence in question was the video of the full game.

Are you going to shut up with your nonsense, once and for all time.  You're contradicting what Keane said on radio and his account of the CAC's reasons for their judgement.
You're not fit to lick the soles of Joe Brolly's brogues. ;D
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 07:40:09 PM by Main Street »

five points

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3441 on: May 24, 2017, 08:30:44 AM »

He did strike. Category 3 offence, 'striking or attempting to strike with the arm, elbow, hand or knee'... minimum 1 match ban. What am I missing?

You're missing the meaning of the word strike. It means the inflicting of a blow. It does not include a light tap nor a hair ruffle. Do look it up.

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11044
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3442 on: May 24, 2017, 10:43:41 AM »

He did strike. Category 3 offence, 'striking or attempting to strike with the arm, elbow, hand or knee'... minimum 1 match ban. What am I missing?

You're missing the meaning of the word strike. It means the inflicting of a blow. It does not include a light tap nor a hair ruffle. Do look it up.
Exactly five points
Also due to the poor quality of that phone video and the long distance, we don't even know what happened or what appeared to happen in that video.
What was it? was it a strike, a tap, a gentle stroke or nothing?

The first thing to be considered by the CCCC is 'cause of action', that even if the charge was proven, is the offense sufficiently serious enough to warrant the attention of the CCCC and later the CHC. The answer to that is an emphatic no. There was not enough cause for action. Stuff like that happens all the time. If the match officials miss it on the day, then "forgetaboutit".
Secondly, the quality of the evidence was so dubious that it was laughable. The CCCC and to a lesser extent the CHC ended up having egg poured over their face.

 Joe had it spot on with his parody, whoever in the CCCC happened upon that video and thought to open up an investigation, is petty, vindictive, a zero tolerance extremist and also one who hasn't got an adequate knowledge about ethical & legal disciplinary procedures.

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11044
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3443 on: May 24, 2017, 11:34:34 PM »
We're obviously not going to agree on this MS and I'll take your insult in the last line in the good spirit in which I'm sure it's intended  ;)
if you applied more rationality and less emotion, it would go no small way to agreeing with me  ;D
However I am in complete agreement with the CAC's ruling and by default, Liam Keane's rational acceptance of their ruling, despite his emotional reservations.
Fwiw, Joe never claimed he was at the CAC hearing, he always said he could not attend that but had briefed the Antrim reps beforehand  on what points to argue.


PW Nally

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3444 on: May 25, 2017, 09:29:41 AM »
How good a footballer is his son on the Antrim minors this year?

Taylor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 930
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3445 on: May 25, 2017, 11:22:21 AM »
How good a footballer is his son on the Antrim minors this year?

Currently a sub for Antrim minors but only 16.

Has great potential and seems to be level headed.

Wont do much with Antrim unfortunately when he progresses to seniors such is the shambles set up there

johnneycool

  • Guest
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3446 on: May 29, 2017, 08:46:43 AM »
How good a footballer is his son on the Antrim minors this year?

Currently a sub for Antrim minors but only 16.

Has great potential and seems to be level headed.

Wont do much with Antrim unfortunately when he progresses to seniors such is the shambles set up there

Does he play with Rossa or St Brides?

BennyHarp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5443
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3447 on: May 29, 2017, 09:22:29 AM »
I wonder who Damian Barton was talking about in his Off The Ball interview when he said about one pundit; "Somebody should put "attention seeker" on his forehead"?
That was never a square ball!!

imtommygunn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3448 on: May 29, 2017, 09:51:19 AM »
How good a footballer is his son on the Antrim minors this year?

Currently a sub for Antrim minors but only 16.

Has great potential and seems to be level headed.

Wont do much with Antrim unfortunately when he progresses to seniors such is the shambles set up there

Does he play with Rossa or St Brides?

Hurling for rossa. Football for st brides.

Main Street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11044
    • View Profile
Re: Joe Brolly
« Reply #3449 on: May 29, 2017, 11:18:29 PM »
Joe's at it again. In this weeks Indo's GAA podcast.

https://soundcloud.com/the-throw-in-independentie

The first question put to him was about Kerry's doping secret, Joe managed to turn it around mid sentence and in a flash he was at Celtic Park watching the minors take to the pitch and in particular the Tyrone minors coming on to the pitch and "the physiques were just extraordinary", "like looking at a provincial rugby team com on to the pitch".

Joe lowered his voice to a conspiratorial deep husky whisper (that didn't dare to actually mention drugs)
"we were just sitting there  and everybody  was saying, whao, look at the physiques."

They should dump that name 'The Throw In'  and just title the podcasts,
"Joe Brolly and the Innuendoes"  ;D