Kevin Cassidy is in bother with the boss.

[OverThePostsAWide]

The rules are there for a reason, you can't strike an opponent be it a slap across the face or a full on haymaker.  As the late Eamon Coleman said, 'If you strick, strike, struck you must go...'

To be honest, most of the slaps that are threw on a pitch wouldn't put a man down if it happened on the street so where do you draw the line and say he's diving and he's not.  If you're silly enough to raise a hand to someone you have to accept the punishment, even after provocation.  If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

Good man screenmachine, the voice of reason. What's the figure? 17 people killed last year from a single punch? And you don't have to go beyond this week or outside your own county if you want the proof of the stupidity of your statement.

Firstly you've got people comparing on field nasties with the child abuse scandal in the church and now this.  My point was justifying the rules that are put in place that if you strike an opponent on the field then you have to be sent off.  The end of my point was merely down to the fact that if a player had been goading an opponent about the death of a relative for example, which was suggested earlier, then I think that player has a case to answer and should be confronted at a suitable time.  If the player reacts immediately and is sent off then you're going to be called silly for reacting but if confronted afterwards and the details of the trash talking is revealed then I think it can be justified to an extent.

You can pull figures out of the air to try and validate your post but if you're going down that road then perhaps the players who have hit players off the ball in the past should be the target of your stats as surely they are more appropriate targets who need your advice rather than someone speaking about it online.   

It was you that was giving the advice. You suggested that if player was aggrieved to anger at something that was said to him onfield that he should wait and empty him after the match. That is assault, or as I was illustrating, worse and stupid advice.

In case you have forgotten or missed the quote above:

If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

[rogueryhill]

Screenmachine, wise the head ...or move to Rasharkin 

[screenmachine]

The rules are there for a reason, you can't strike an opponent be it a slap across the face or a full on haymaker.  As the late Eamon Coleman said, 'If you strick, strike, struck you must go...'

To be honest, most of the slaps that are threw on a pitch wouldn't put a man down if it happened on the street so where do you draw the line and say he's diving and he's not.  If you're silly enough to raise a hand to someone you have to accept the punishment, even after provocation.  If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

Good man screenmachine, the voice of reason. What's the figure? 17 people killed last year from a single punch? And you don't have to go beyond this week or outside your own county if you want the proof of the stupidity of your statement.

Firstly you've got people comparing on field nasties with the child abuse scandal in the church and now this.  My point was justifying the rules that are put in place that if you strike an opponent on the field then you have to be sent off.  The end of my point was merely down to the fact that if a player had been goading an opponent about the death of a relative for example, which was suggested earlier, then I think that player has a case to answer and should be confronted at a suitable time.  If the player reacts immediately and is sent off then you're going to be called silly for reacting but if confronted afterwards and the details of the trash talking is revealed then I think it can be justified to an extent.

You can pull figures out of the air to try and validate your post but if you're going down that road then perhaps the players who have hit players off the ball in the past should be the target of your stats as surely they are more appropriate targets who need your advice rather than someone speaking about it online.   

It was you that was giving the advice. You suggested that if player was aggrieved to anger at something that was said to him onfield that he should wait and empty him after the match. That is assault, or as I was illustrating, worse and stupid advice.

In case you have forgotten or missed the quote above:

If what he said is bad enough wait until after the game and confront/empty him then...

My angle was that he would be better advised to react when the game was over rather than during it as he would be more than likely sent off and could cost his team the game.

I know exactly what I stated, that if the trash talking is bad enough then I think you have every right to confront the person afterwards.  Are you telling me that if you were walking down the street with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend or whatever and somebody started to verbally abuse your accomplice you would stand there and do nothing about it...Why should it be any different to abuse handed out on a football pitch?

[Zulu]

Surely it's this type of abuse that we should be trying to tackle rather debating where the retaliation should take place?

[onefaircounty]

Crossmaglen are well known for their verbals, but I am reliably informed that in a match in recent years some of their players took some serious personal abuse, certainly well below the general verbals.

[orangeman]

Former Donegal senior football manager John Joe Doherty claims that he understands why his successor Jim McGuinness took the decision to drop two-time All-Star winner Kevin Cassidy from the county's panel.

Cassidy was removed from the Donegal set-up following his part in the This Is Our Year book, in which he criticizes McGuinness' 2010 management team.


In the book, Cassidy is critical of Doherty and his management team and claims that they had lost the support of the squad. He also states that he helped quelled a player revolt in the county.


However, speaking on RTÉ Radio 1's Sport At 7, Doherty insisted that there was never any player revolt during his time in charge and says that he is misquoted in the book.

"We live in a very critical world and obviously my two years with the county were unsuccessful. If Kevin was going to make a comment, he was entitled to make a critical comment, but from my point of view I would have a few problems with the book," Doherty said.

"I was quoted once in it as having said something that I didn't say at all and there were other things. For example there was talk about a player revolt. I took it upon myself to make a couple of calls to a few senior Donegal players that are still involved in the team. They said that it was the first they'd heard of this players' revolt.

"There probably was a few disgruntled men in the panel that would have loved to hang me out to dry, but that's the one issue I got to the bottom of myself."

Doherty explained that he believed that Cassidy's involvement in the book was a breach of dressing-room confidentiality.

"It was one of those calls that's very difficult for a manager to make. It's a nightmare kind of call," he said.

"I think the problem was the shroud of secrecy that was over the book right from the word go. The manager wasn't aware this was going on, so I think that's where the problem lay.

"What Kevin was thinking, I don't know. He should have always forseen problems down the line with doing the likes of this.

"At the start of the year they [the players] all signed a confidentiality clause [that said] that whatever the preparation for the Donegal team was to be, was kept within the four walls of the dressing room.

"Obviously that's not the way it turned out and Jim took great exception to this. There are plenty of things in the book that I would take issue with myself."

[orangeman]

Regarding the above statement, just to be clear, did the players ACTUALLY sign a document or is John Joe saying that there was an understanding amongst players and management that no one would speak out of school ?.

[muppet]

Regarding the above statement, just to be clear, did the players ACTUALLY sign a document or is John Joe saying that there was an understanding amongst players and management that no one would speak out of school ?.

In addition, did this document have a life (e.g. for the season), or was it for life?

[time ticking away]

Here's the thing...

If confidentially in the Donegal dressing room is so important, how is it public knowledge that there was a confidentiality document

[muppet]

Here's the thing...

If confidentially in the Donegal dressing room is so important, how is it public knowledge that there was a confidentiality document

The first rule of fight club is......

[seafoid]

Regarding the above statement, just to be clear, did the players ACTUALLY sign a document or is John Joe saying that there was an understanding amongst players and management that no one would speak out of school ?.

In addition, did this document have a life (e.g. for the season), or was it for life?

maybe it is the mysterious side letter to the memorandum of understanding with the troika. Or the report that fintan o toole wrote about recently on the banks I think that is so secret it was delivered verbally.

anyway when donegal go out in round 2 of the qualifiers to longford next year omerta won't be worth shite.   

[mylestheslasher]

They signed 2 documents according to my source. Confidentiality and discipline agreements.

[imtommygunn]

Real secret service stuff going on here.

What does the signature mean - i.e. what were the penalties meant to be??

[mylestheslasher]

I believe mcguinness has his lawyers working on a lawsuit for breach of contract  as we speak. Cassidy could lose his home, its not funny anymore. Even worse, he can rely on a 14 man defence to help him out anymore either

[brokencrossbar1]

The one thing thay strikes me about all this is that for all the so called togetherness in the squad, and agreements signed, and omerta there really wasn't any such togetherness. If a group are together they are together and you don't need agreements etc to confirm that. The whole thing is a nonsense and McGuinness may have been trying to make a point and show he's the boss but the reality is that Cassidy no doubt has lots of supporters/friends on the panel and I would question their commitment to do what McGuinness wants when the shit hits the fan next  season.