Disciplinary hearings are destroying the game

[Red eye]

I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.

I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.

Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!

[heffo]

I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.

I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.

Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!

I don't have detailed information as people are preparing for a match.

Basically CCCC presents a charge with a disciplinary report. Arising out of that the person charged with the offence is entitled to certain information ahead of his hearing and I believe this information was not provided and as such he was not afforded a proper defence at CHC and CAC level.

Right decision.

[waterfordlad]

It's ridiculous that retired judges and solicitors are involved in this process at the last minute. County boards preach discipline at club level yet do all in their power to get a county player off even when it is obvious he deserved the suspension. I heard on radio during the week Dublin also appealed Liam Rushe's red card against Waterford even though he struck with the hurley to opponents helmet off the ball. This appeal was rightly turned down.
There are too many layers of appeal and counties are chancing their arm that one of them will overturn the ban but sporting justice should be done and legal eagles kept away from the process.

[Red eye]

I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.

I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.

Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!

I don't have detailed information as people are preparing for a match.

Basically CCCC presents a charge with a disciplinary report. Arising out of that the person charged with the offence is entitled to certain information ahead of his hearing and I believe this information was not provided and as such he was not afforded a proper defence at CHC and CAC level.

Right decision.

So CCCC have not supplied the information he was entitled to - the question regarding the quashing of the suspension now falls at their door.

I personally have a difficulty with apparent ducking and diving to avoid the disciplinary measures imposed and as someone mentioned previously this is wholly the wrong decision for attracting and retaining youth to GAA activity.
The blame is not with Dublin - the blame is firmly at the door of the authorities who have set the system up and then, if this is correct, have not followed procedure to ensure their suspensions are watertight.

[heffo]

I saw the DRA wording. The process didnt allow connolly to prepare his defence. Nothing about keane coc or mcmahon. And it smells like bullshit.

I believe he requested information he was entitled to know at the first stage and which wasn't provided.

Then why was this not provided? And what was this? Surely the procedure is the referee submits his report and suspensions / decisions are made based on this?
I understand that video evidence may be introduced (if allowed? - is it?) in the process of appeal - so what level of info did he request and be denied? Whole thing stinks!!

I don't have detailed information as people are preparing for a match.

Basically CCCC presents a charge with a disciplinary report. Arising out of that the person charged with the offence is entitled to certain information ahead of his hearing and I believe this information was not provided and as such he was not afforded a proper defence at CHC and CAC level.

Right decision.

So CCCC have not supplied the information he was entitled to - the question regarding the quashing of the suspension now falls at their door.

I personally have a difficulty with apparent ducking and diving to avoid the disciplinary measures imposed and as someone mentioned previously this is wholly the wrong decision for attracting and retaining youth to GAA activity.
The blame is not with Dublin - the blame is firmly at the door of the authorities who have set the system up and then, if this is correct, have not followed procedure to ensure their suspensions are watertight.

I'm not saying CCCC, I'm saying I sent a short text and got a short reply and left it at that.

Whether it was CCCC or CHC, I'm told he didn't get the info he was entitled to in order to fully prepare for his hearing/appeal

[Milltown Row2]

Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?

County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.

To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics,  too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.

Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!!  When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense

I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!

You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity???  Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT 

[orangeman]

CCC were either just playing silly beggars or deliberately withheld the information it which Diarmuid Connolly was entitled to.

Agree with Heffo correct decision from DRA.

[Catch and Kick]

Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?

County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.

To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics,  too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.

Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!!  When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense

I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!

You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity???  Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT 

Yes I did. This particular decision had nothing to do with the ref. It was procedural.
And what I said was that the first breakdown in the process begins with referees. Don't tell me there aren't vindictive refs out there. Eddie Kinsella today made mistakes but he was really good at communicating to players and players can live with mistakes when you have a ref who has empathy for them. Others are dictators who refuse to engage with a player. Indeed I have often heard referees dish out abuse. Tell me you haven't.... the give respect get respect campaign should also have included 'earn respect' because clearly SOME referees do not.

[orangeman]

DRA independent of the GAA my arse.

[Red eye]

Yes it would appear that the rule has been broken - assuming this is the team list has been submitted pre 9.00am on Thursday. This is not an issue for Mayo however. Most definitely a rule for Croke Park to judge on. Galway forfeited a place in an All Ireland Ladies U14 final this year due to a technicality - not an appeal by the team they beat in the semi final but a breach picked up on by the overseeing body.
Having said that I can't see and don't expect any movement from Croke Park on this.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

Can't say whether this is accurate or not, but over a day prior to the decision, I'd heard from a few people that a team could replace their sub goalie for a player not named in the 26 (but could not do likewise for an outfield player named in the 26).

[Norf Tyrone]

The liklihood is that this was given to the PR people for the programme on Weds night, and they submitted a different team with Connolly on Thursday to the appropriate body.

[INDIANA]

Justice was done . You either send both of them off or not at all

[armaghniac]

The liklihood is that this was given to the PR people for the programme on Weds night, and they submitted a different team with Connolly on Thursday to the appropriate body.

This seems likely. Of course if Connolly had not won out they would have had to leave the missing player anyway.

[Milltown Row2]

Lot of comment on here defending referees. This decision has nothing to do with refereeing.
The whole process is flawed from the very beginning of the reporting of incidents.
Yet if we start with referees, they are part of the problem too.
Referees can be vindictive and some of them go to the rule book before they writer their report.
They are not content to report a player they have sent off but they take it further and want to decide the length of suspension a player receives. That is the function of the committee dealing with the report - and the refs know this. By consulting the rule book they can report the incident to ensure the committee MUST impose the higher suspension. After that the appeals system cannot commute or give the appropriate suspension. That's a fact and it happens.
This is an abuse of their position.
At club level how often have we seen referees not sending off players for clear striking actions - depending on who it is?

County Boards, Provincial and Croke Park Committees are past masters at confusing everyone with their rulings and interpretations. And even though it's not in the rule book, 'common sense' or 'natural justice' has no place in the system - when clearly there are occasions when it must apply.

To my mind layers of the appeal system need to be done away with.
A Disciplinary Commissioner should be given power to adjudicate on controversial decisions - or non decisions.
Both sides should present their evidence and hear it being presented by the other side and have an opportunity to refute it; the Commissioner should also be able to use video evidence as he sees fit.
The Commissioner should be able to speak in plain English and not hide behind rules.
There the matter should rest.
Committees should be done away with - there are too many of them, too many committee members play politics,  too many of them re there for the expenses, too many of them are career committee members and they are intimidating for individuals to appeal to.
In addition the heads of the CCC and the CHC are both solicitors and can baffle and bamboozle appellants. They are both of impeccable character BUT justice is not being served and they know it. To them it's almost like their version of playing the game. It's a contest between their legal proficiency and that of the individual.
Time to end the nonsense.

Just cause you say the word fact doesn't make it fact!!  When someone punches a player twice in gbe face while he's on the ground and gets away with it is a nonsense... Saying all referees look to the rule book after match is over to write up a report is another nonsense

I've been involved with teams for many years and it does happen. I didn't say every referee - I said 'some'.
I didn't dispute the fact that he struck him twice on the ground. He didn't get off for not striking! That's the whole point - technicalities are more important than fact and justice.
The disciplinary process is completely dominated by doing things right instead of doing the right thing....
Read my post again!

You say its got nothing to do with referees but go onto lambasting referees and questioning their integrity???  Like you I've played many many years managed juveniles and senior teams at my club... But having refereed these past 6/7 years o find it daft that peoples perceptions of what a referee does or doesn't do is comical.... FACT 

Yes I did. This particular decision had nothing to do with the ref. It was procedural.
And what I said was that the first breakdown in the process begins with referees. Don't tell me there aren't vindictive refs out there. Eddie Kinsella today made mistakes but he was really good at communicating to players and players can live with mistakes when you have a ref who has empathy for them. Others are dictators who refuse to engage with a player. Indeed I have often heard referees dish out abuse. Tell me you haven't.... the give respect get respect campaign should also have included 'earn respect' because clearly SOME referees do not.

Abuse?? Why would I get involved with abuse with a player when I've the black card to brandish?? I've no time for arseholes who continue to whine during a game... Nor should any referee.. Monkey sees monkey does... Players mimic there coaches, you seem the type... Hard done by, always everyone else's fault, well listen up I've played against teams that never talk back to referees they are disciplined throughout and gain respect big time... A referee is only there to officiate... He won't get it all the time but neither will you.