So what do ye think of the black card rule now?

[Canalman]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

[blewuporstuffed]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

[AZOffaly]

Sadly, I'm a beaten man with regards the black card. I still think as a rule it was a noble idea, and I also think it could have, and should have, been a much more successful one. However, in large part to media stupidity, there is a serious lack of understanding about what should and should not be a black card. I don't think it's that complicated, the rule says
Cynical Behaviour Fouls
           Deliberately pull down an opponent.
           Deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
           Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.
           Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate.
           Remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.

I mean, they are fairly clear and unambiguous. And while there are undoubtedly cynical fouls that are MISSING from that list, the list itself is fairly concise and clear in my view. And as somebody said, the key word in there is DELIBERATE.

That, in my view, is what is causing the inconsistency among referees, because something being deliberate or not is Subjective. Whether it was a trip, or a pull down, or a body collision is a matter of fact. But whether it was deliberate is where we are asking the referee to make a judgment call. And as Zulu says, he should be as convinced as he can be that it was a deliberate foul before he issues a black card.

So, in its simplest terms a ref sees a piece of action, where a foul has been committed. He must ask himself two questions.
1 - Is it one of the listed fouls?
and if it was
2 - Is it deliberate.

Only then should it be a black card. I cannot see how that can be confusing, or complicated. Of course refs will differ in 'deliberate' judgments, but that's hardly a reason for all this controversy.

And then I hear Tommy Tom Carr talking and I despair. Other media are as bad, but Tommy is just cat malojeon. He literally has no clue of what constitutes a black card foul, and he also seems to have no understanding of deliberate.

The black card will probably have to go, because the media have made such a balls of commenting on incidents, and I've been really surprised that Joe Brolly hasn't been hammering pundits who make a balls of informing viewers about what is/isn't, should/shouldn't be a black card.

So while I think the black card was a good idea in principle, and I would have expanded it to include Diving or feigning injury as a black card offence. But I have to accept that the media have clouded the waters so much, and the refs have been so inconsistent in their determination of deliberate or not, that it is probably not salvageable at this stage.

[Canalman]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

[AZOffaly]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey.  And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.

[blewuporstuffed]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

This is the sort of nonsense that annoys me, if the referees are getting it wrong as often as they are getting it right, then of course there is an issue.

[BennyHarp]

Black card is working fine imo.

Big problem at intercounty level is the fact alot of fans don't know the rule properly. For some reason alot of the tv pundits/ experts ( I am being kind) don't know the rules either.

Needs tweaking imo to make a black card in the last 15 mins. akin to a straight red card and a one match suspension. Would soon weed out the "heroes" defending a 5 point lead with cynical pull downs etc.

At club level, the black card has seriously cut down the mouthing at the referee from what I can see.

I don't know how you can argue that a rule that is implemented wrongly about 50% of the time is 'working fine'
It's a mess.

Not wrong about 50% of the time. Certainly people can argue whether it was deliberate or not and the only opinion that matters is that of the referee.

I don't think it is wrong 50% of the time. What is 'wrong' 50% of the time (at least) is the gobshites commentating or roaring from the terraces about 'Black Card' ref, because they think it's a cynical foul. I've heard lads on my own sideline roaring at a referee for a black card because a fella is pulling one of our forwards by the jersey.  And when I told them it's not a black card, they say 'it has to be, he pulled him back'. It's mental how misunderstood this is, and it's not even complicated.

It's not complicated on paper but the interpretation of it is complicated. How on earth can a third party decide intention? I've heard discussions about whether a player has taken a step towards an oncoming player therefore it's definitely intentional or he should have dived out of the way therefore it was intentional. These things happen in a split second, sometimes the player himself may not even be sure why he did something as it's such a reactionary thing. I personally think it is the most complicated rule to try and implement although it does look simple when written down on paper.

[AZOffaly]

Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.

Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.

There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.

You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.

[Croí na hÉireann]

It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.

Agree the muppets (no offence muppet  ) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.

[BennyHarp]

It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.

Agree the muppets (no offence muppet  ) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.

Ffs, now we are judging intention by whether the player acts guilty afterwards!! Matty was steaming towards the player and in the instant it took for the play to unfold he collided with McHugh. Now id be very surprised if Matty had time to intentionally say to himself, "right, I'm doing him here, I'm happy to consider the consequences and feel that the benefit of thumping into McHugh outweighs the cost of being sent off" Whatever about intent or not, the greyness of so many of these instances mean that a player leaving the field for good is not justified, in my view!

[rosnarun]

Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.

Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.

There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.

You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.

the worst thing about the black card i it does nothing to solve the problem it was brought in to fix.
Last minute of a game, 2 points down, your shooting for goal when sean cavanagh(colm boyle?) come flying through the air with a rugby tackle. cavanagh black carded Goal chance gone , cavanagh wins you lose, Black cards just takes up time you could be looking for an equaliser.

As for the other reason for the Black card they were all yellow or reds under the old system anyway. any one who abuses a ref or deliberately trips  should get red anyway

[AZOffaly]

Referees have to decide on intent quite a lot. That normally comes into red/yellow card decisions too. I stand by my opinion that it is not complicated, but when you have pundits clouding the issue it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. See my two questions the ref must ask himself? That's how simple it should be. If the answer to either of those is no, or not sure, then it's not a black. I accept refs will only be giving a judgment on intent, but they make judgments with every decision they make. They get most right, and some wrong. We have to asks if the cost of the wrong calls is worth the benefit of the right ones.

Take any of the black card incidents in Sunday, apply my 2 questions, and you will arrive at whether it was a black card or not in your opinion of intent. That's how simple or difficult it is. And all the pundits have to say is 'the ref must have decided it was deliberate. I don't agree with him, but if he thinks it's a deliberate body contact to take the man out of the play, then it is black'.

There's no need for the wailing about what is or isn't a black card, that definition is clear.

You never hear them saying 'I'm so confused as to what is a penalty or not'. All you hear is disagreements on whether one should have been awarded. But framed in the context that the ref believed a foul has taken place. That's the same context that should be used for the black card incidents. I can't believe he thought that was a deliberate body check, as opposed to I have no clue what refs are giving black cards for.

the worst thing about the black card i it does nothing to solve the problem it was brought in to fix.
Last minute of a game, 2 points down, your shooting for goal when sean cavanagh(colm boyle?) come flying through the air with a rugby tackle. cavanagh black carded Goal chance gone , cavanagh wins you lose, Black cards just takes up time you could be looking for an equaliser.

As for the other reason for the Black card they were all yellow or reds under the old system anyway. any one who abuses a ref or deliberately trips  should get red anyway

It wasn't brought in to address that. In fact when it came in I remember saying that that would still happen, and as a player I'd still do that and take the card.

It was brought in to try and address cynical fouling, all through the game and all through the pitch. The shitty corner forward dragging down a back after a turnover, to kill the break, and allow his team get set. Those incidents don't look sexy and weren't on any video, but that is what the black card was primarily aimed at, and has been relatively successful at doing.

[Croí na hÉireann]

It has though taken the obvious off the ball blocking out of the game though. Players though are just readjusting their running lines to slow down the runner. Matty Donnelly's might seem harsh but he forced the referee to make a decision, could have pulled out of it to a certain degree, sitting on the bench with the jersey pulled up over his head was telling I thought.

Agree the muppets (no offence muppet  ) like Tommy Carr are killing it though, how these lads can't read and understand 5 lines beggars belief.

Ffs, now we are judging intention by whether the player acts guilty afterwards!! Matty was steaming towards the player and in the instant it took for the play to unfold he collided with McHugh. Now id be very surprised if Matty had time to intentionally say to himself, "right, I'm doing him here, I'm happy to consider the consequences and feel that the benefit of thumping into McHugh outweighs the cost of being sent off" Whatever about intent or not, the greyness of so many of these instances mean that a player leaving the field for good is not justified, in my view!

Ball was well gone before he landed and carried himself into McHugh. For me there wasn't enough deliberate action to confirm a black card offence but there was enough to force the referee into making a decision. Unfortunately for Matty he came out the wrong end of it but if he tries to pull out he takes away that decision from the ref and probably clips McHugh as well for good measure.

[AZOffaly]

I didn't see the Donnelly incident, but I saw the other two.

In my view mcshane did trip the Dongal player, and it was deliberate. - Black.
In my view Murphy did collide with McCann, but it was not a deliberate collision. - Not Black.

[Fuzzman]

It was brought in to try and address cynical fouling, all through the game and all through the pitch. The shitty corner forward dragging down a back after a turnover, to kill the break, and allow his team get set. Those incidents don't look sexy and weren't on any video, but that is what the black card was primarily aimed at, and has been relatively successful at doing.

Cynical is the important word here and defining what is a cynical foul and what isn't is proving to be a bit difficult.
I agree with AZ above and whilst McShane's contact was very slight, he did reach out his hand and touch the defenders foot/leg and so stopped his progress from clearing the ball. Was it intentional? Hard to be 100% sure but it looked like it otherwise he was protecting himself from being stood on.

Personally I think ONLY the VERY clear cut cynical fouls should result in black cards and so any where there is an element of doubt over the intentional aspect should result in a yellow. A guy who definitely pulls a man down clearly to stop a scoring chance etc should be a black but if you pull a man back or down where there are lots of other players around then I don't see that as being that cynical.
The verbal abuse part of the rule seems to have been totally ignored.