We need to talk about Diarmuid

Started by Mayo4Sam, June 05, 2017, 09:37:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 ... 63
User actions

johnneycool

#480
June 15, 2017, 02:55:09 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on June 15, 2017, 02:13:29 PM
Pathetic replies.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the players to the next controversial decision by a ref or linesman.

You kind of hope it would be to set the ball down and get back into position rather than remonstrating like a dickhead, no?

Hound

#481
June 15, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 14, 2017, 08:13:32 PM

Having said that, my suggestion for what happened:
The ref. didn't even notice it in real time. The push happened in about 250 milliseconds. He then saw it on The Sunday Game, as well as seeing the reaction. He said to himself, "Oops, I missed a clear breach of Rule 7.2. That'll have to go in my report."
(Note, the fact that the linesman didn't see fit to bring it to the referee's attention in real time is irrelevant. It's the referee's opinion that matters.)

That might have been a reasonable analysis, except that the fact of the matter is the ref was looking straight at it and noted it in his notebook during the game (according to the reports after the CCCC initially gave the ban)

I think its disingenious for people to call this a frivilous appeal, given the way it was handled by the officials and the severity of the supposed crime and punishment. An incident that initially the linesman and ref thought was not worthy of a talking too, never mind a yellow, black or red card, and they subsequently changed their mind to it being an offence of an extremely serious nature. That has to be brought through full due process.

westbound

#482
June 15, 2017, 03:57:39 PM
Quote from: Hound on June 15, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 14, 2017, 08:13:32 PM

Having said that, my suggestion for what happened:
The ref. didn't even notice it in real time. The push happened in about 250 milliseconds. He then saw it on The Sunday Game, as well as seeing the reaction. He said to himself, "Oops, I missed a clear breach of Rule 7.2. That'll have to go in my report."
(Note, the fact that the linesman didn't see fit to bring it to the referee's attention in real time is irrelevant. It's the referee's opinion that matters.)

That might have been a reasonable analysis, except that the fact of the matter is the ref was looking straight at it and noted it in his notebook during the game (according to the reports after the CCCC initially gave the ban)

I think its disingenious for people to call this a frivilous appeal, given the way it was handled by the officials and the severity of the supposed crime and punishment. An incident that initially the linesman and ref thought was not worthy of a talking too, never mind a yellow, black or red card, and they subsequently changed their mind to it being an offence of an extremely serious nature. That has to be brought through full due process.

It's frivolous in that he definitely committed the offence and therefore definitely deserves the punishment.

But I agree with you that it might not be frivolous in that it's possible he will get off due to the incident being handled badly by the officials.
But in my opinion, if someone commits the offence they should serve the punishment regardless of whether the officials dealt with it correctly or not.

On a slightly different issue, whilst an appeal is in progress is Connolly not suspended and therefore allowed to train with Dublin? If yes and then the 12 week ban is upheld, why isn't the suspension extended by the number of days which he was technically not suspended for during the appeal?
Or is he suspended currently and will continue to be unless his ban is overturned?

Geoff Tipps

#483
June 15, 2017, 04:22:22 PM
RTE reporting he will not continue with the appeal.

Geoff Tipps

#484
June 15, 2017, 04:23:22 PM
Dublin GAA Twitter confirm that.

heffo

#485
June 15, 2017, 05:30:17 PM
That was pointless - it was never going to be overturned at Hearing stage.

Why did he bother.

Fuzzman

#486
June 15, 2017, 05:37:54 PM
Leverage for the next time.
He'll be back in time for the Ulster champions conquerors.

lenny

#487
June 15, 2017, 06:31:17 PM
Quote from: heffo on June 15, 2017, 05:30:17 PM
That was pointless - it was never going to be overturned at Hearing stage.

Why did he bother.

He appealed on the grounds that his touch on brannigans shoulder wasn't minor interference. The appeal committee found that it was proven to be minor interference with an official. The only way he could take it further then was on a technicality.

magpie seanie

#489
June 15, 2017, 09:47:45 PM
Bit pointless but they were going nowhere anyway.

Taylor

#490
June 16, 2017, 10:40:30 AM
DC was royally stitched up here - feel sorry for him (cant believe I said that).

If he had been sent off at the time then no problem but to nail him after the game simply doesnt sit well with me.

Look forward to a Summer of discontent and media/columnists spending more time talking about disciplinary and who is/isnt banned than the games.

GAA needs to get its house in order ASAP

johnneycool

#491
June 16, 2017, 12:10:50 PM
Quote from: Taylor on June 16, 2017, 10:40:30 AM
DC was royally stitched up here - feel sorry for him (cant believe I said that).

If he had been sent off at the time then no problem but to nail him after the game simply doesnt sit well with me.


GAA needs to get its house in order ASAP

If he'd have been sent off at the time for the same infraction, i.e. minor physical interference with an official he'd have got 12 weeks minimum anyway, would he not?

GAA certainly needs to sort out the consistency with the rules and how they are applied as there's no consistency from one week to the next.

Syferus

#492
June 16, 2017, 01:20:45 PM
Some people here need to get out of the stone age mentality where citing is unfair or not commonplace in football, hurling, rugby, american football and indeed nearly every major sport on Earth with any sense whatsoever.

Crime equals time. It is so simple and so very fair.

Taylor

#493
June 16, 2017, 01:30:46 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 16, 2017, 12:10:50 PM
Quote from: Taylor on June 16, 2017, 10:40:30 AM
DC was royally stitched up here - feel sorry for him (cant believe I said that).

If he had been sent off at the time then no problem but to nail him after the game simply doesnt sit well with me.


GAA needs to get its house in order ASAP

If he'd have been sent off at the time for the same infraction, i.e. minor physical interference with an official he'd have got 12 weeks minimum anyway, would he not?

GAA certainly needs to sort out the consistency with the rules and how they are applied as there's no consistency from one week to the next.

Yes he would have got 12 weeks and it would have been all above board.

But to ignore the office at the time (considering he put his hand on the linesman how could he or the referee have 'missed' it?) and then retrospectively do him for it shows it was all done cloak and dagger.

The most surprising part of all this is that a Dub has been banned

From the Bunker

#494
June 16, 2017, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Syferus on June 16, 2017, 01:20:45 PM
Some people here need to get out of the stone age mentality where citing is unfair or not commonplace in football, hurling, rugby, american football and indeed nearly every major sport on Earth with any sense whatsoever.

Crime equals time. It is so simple and so very fair.

Yes, there seems to be a mindset here that it's not a crime if you are not caught the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqcEq1hsT6s
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 ... 63
User actions