Kennedy is new Irish FA president

[SammyG]

SammyG,

I think you are sticking your head in the sand about the "Never on a Sunday" rule. 

Not at all, I've said a million times that the rule should be removed.

 It is a throw back to a time when Catholics were locked out of parks and couldn't shop because their Protestant betters decided how the Sabbath would be observed.

Sorry but that's bollix. It's a throwback to a time when NOBODY went to parks or shopped on a Sunday, it is nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics or Hindus or Atheists or Jedis. In the late 1800's Sunday observance was the 'normal practice'. And as I've pointed out several times the late Pope is on record as wanting a return to those times.

That's what people don't like about it.

So you make up a reason and then use that made up reason as your reason not to like something. It's a bit like the people who complain about Windsor Park being named after the Queen, even though WP was built and named about 50 years before the Royals changed their name to Windsor.

Of course to call it sectarian/concession to a sect etc, etc.  is over the top completely.

Correct

However it is inescapable that some find it offensive and also inescapable that some that voted to maintain it, voted for that very reason.

/Jim.

Of course some people (including me) find it offensive. It is also possible that some who voted to maintain the rule may have done so based on their relgious beliefs (although we'll never know as the vote is secret and even if it wasn't the relegious makeup isn't disclosed). It is also just as likely that some are worried about competition from the Premiership on Sky, or the GAA, or they go shopping with the Missus on a Sunday or anyone of a thousand other reasons.

[Evil Genius]

However it is inescapable that some find it [the Sunday ban] offensive and also inescapable that some that voted to maintain it, voted for that very reason.
/Jim.

As someone strongly in favour of ending the ban, I wouldn't say I find it "offensive" per se, just some of those who would uphold it!

On which point, I have it on good authority from someone who was there exactly why the last vote failed by one percent to achieve the 75% necessary. Essentially, the Sunday ban was just one, small part of a package of reforms proposed by the then Executive/Committee. There was actually a rather low turnout at the meeting, and at least a section of those there felt that very inadequate notice had been given to the Membership, with insufficient time to study the whole package etc.
Therefore, in the belief that the Executive was trying to push everything through without the Membership "noticing", the "natives got restless" and rejected (postponed, actually) the whole package, in protest.
The fact that the Old Guard itself was thrown out at the next EGM confirms for me my source's analysis. 

On the subject of the ban generally, I actually think it more symbolic than anything else (though symbolism is a good enough reason for ending it for me, I should add). This is for two reasons. First, it is increasingly being "more honoured in the breach than the obeservance".
Second, in practical terms, few soccer teams would actually want to play on a Sunday. This is partly because there is a section of the population of NI which takes Sunday Observance seriously, partly because it would clash with English soccer on TV and (not least) because it would come up against GAA sports on a Sunday afternoon!
And since soccer successfully manages to attract GAA players from the Nationalist community in a way that GAA fails in attracting soccer players from the Unionist community, we would suffer more accordingly!

That said, I'd still end the ban in an instant, given the choice! 

P.S. I haven't the time or inclination to check it out now, but I am pretty much certain that in the early decades of the GAA's history, it often came into conflict with the Roman Catholic hierarchy over a number of issues, including playing on a Sunday (to which influential individuals in the RC Church were then strongly opposed!)

"And if, you know, your history, it's enough to make..."

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Sorry but that's bollix. It's a throwback to a time when NOBODY went to parks or shopped on a Sunday, it is nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics or Hindus or Atheists or Jedis. In the late 1800's Sunday observance was the 'normal practice'. And as I've pointed out several times the late Pope is on record as wanting a return to those times.

Sammy,

I don't live in Northern Ireland but my understanding that far from the 1800s but as recent as the 70/80s Protestant controlled council ordered playgrounds locked on Sundays.  I was told this by people living in Northern Ireland.  I have no reason to doubt them or doubt the fact that they felt put upon by this.

So you make up a reason and then use that made up reason as your reason not to like something. It's a bit like the people who complain about Windsor Park being named after the Queen, even though WP was built and named about 50 years before the Royals changed their name to Windsor.

I'm not making it up.  I am relaying what people have told me.  I have no doubt that the rule was around from the 1800's but the fact is for those people who are offended by it, it reminds them of these times.   That's what I mean by a throwback.

/Jim.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

On the subject of the ban generally, I actually think it more symbolic than anything else (though symbolism is a good enough reason for ending it for me, I should add). This is for two reasons. First, it is increasingly being "more honoured in the breach than the obeservance".
Second, in practical terms, few soccer teams would actually want to play on a Sunday.

EG,

I have no doubt that this is about symbolism rather than practicality.   In the GAA I can relay countless examples of Rule 42 been broken.  I can also give oodles of practical examples of how keeping our grounds to ourselves is advantageous.  However due to origin and symbolism (Banning "foreign" games) the GAA regular gets beaten with that particular stick.

My point is that said symbolism can be interrpeted as a Protestant ethos which bugs people.  Of course, I may just be making it up      

/Jim.

[SammyG]

My point is that said symbolism can be interrpeted as a Protestant ethos which bugs people.  Of course, I may just be making it up      

/Jim.

Why is it seen as reinforcing a Protestant ethos? Not trying to be awkward (well no more than usual) but I've asked this question dozens of times and no-one can answer it.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Why is it seen as reinforcing a Protestant ethos? Not trying to be awkward (well no more than usual) but I've asked this question dozens of times and no-one can answer it.

I don't think it is and wasn't claim it was.   It just reminds some people of Protestants running the show so the speak and people having to put up with it.   I never referred to an overall ethos to be reinforced.

Surely a"Seldom on a Sunday" rule would be acceptable.  Remove the outright ban but continue to observe the practicalities of GAA fixtures, Sky Sports etc..

/Jim.

[Main Street]

Apologies I wasn't trying to be arsey, I just wasn't getting what you were asking for.

All right Sammy, thank you for that. I apologise for my sharp words.

And as I've pointed out several times the late Pope is on record as wanting a return to those times.

The Israel fa have some similar religious belief connected to their game schedules.
Whatever the Pope past or present may say (whatever about the claimed infallabllity) the basic constitution of an organization should be what protects it from anyones political or religious baggage entering the committee room. That's the gist of my viewpoint. If neccessary have it written in stone.
For instance
Whatever a GAA county board may feel about a burning local issue, imo the constitution should prevent it from even discussing the issue  not to mention passing a motion.

[SammyG]

Surely a"Seldom on a Sunday" rule would be acceptable.  Remove the outright ban but continue to observe the practicalities of GAA fixtures, Sky Sports etc..

/Jim.

Totally agree. Firstly IFA teams have played on Sundays several times (including last week) and secondly when the ban is removed (which it will be soon) I'd be amazed if there are more than a couple of games a season, played on a Sunday.

[lynchbhoy]

SammyG,

I think you are sticking your head in the sand about the "Never on a Sunday" rule.   It is a throw back to a time when Catholics were locked out of parks and couldn't shop because their Protestant betters decided how the Sabbath would be observed.

That's what people don't like about it.

Of course to call it sectarian/concession to a sect etc, etc.  is over the top completely.

However it is inescapable that some find it offensive and also inescapable that some that voted to maintain it, voted for that very reason.

/Jim.

yep
somehow
'they all dont agree with it'
BUT
they dont really pick up upon this problem

I wonder why 

Methinks Tony Fearon was right all along 

[Main Street]

yep
somehow
'they all dont agree with it'
BUT
they dont really pick up upon this problem

I don't know if the problem hasn't been picked upon. It has been noted there was a strong attempt to get rid off it which nearly succeeded. The GAA need 66% in favour and IFA need 75%.
The clear impression from Sammy G and EG. is that they couldn't care less about the Sunday observance and want it gone.
You could draw parallells with the GAA re any of the important constitutional amendments.
Most were in favour of Croke Pk opening but a few votes either way could have kept it closed for another year.

[An Fear Dearg]

Boyce...was part of the IFA way back in the 70s and didn't raise a murmur against the rampant sectarianism at Windsor Park in those days.

Apologies for joining this debate somewhat late in the day, but are you entirely sure about that?  Boyce was a young member of the Management Committee of Cliftonville back in the '70s.  He wasn't Reds' Chairman until 1984.  And even then his IFA influence was relatively weak, as we frequently found to our detriment...

[An Fear Dearg]

Was Boyce involved with the IFA when they switched the times of games to make it harder on Cliftonville to win the league.

Cliftonville got a rough time of it the last time they won the league, there were fixtures changed to make it harder for them and to pile the pressure on, it didnt work though as they went on to claim the title. Who was responsible for the last minute changes?

Boyce was Cliftonville Chairman when we won the league in 1998.  It was the Irish Football League (then separate from the IFA) who made us play Glentoran at 2pm the day we won the league, yet let Linfield (our closest challengers) to kickoff at Coleraine at 3pm that day.  The irony was that the official reason given for the switch was the crowd trouble at the Linfield-Glentoran game on 7 March that year - so we were effectively being punished for something that had nothing to do with us.  Boyce, like the rest of us, was opposed to the kickoff change.

Was Boyce involved in the no football on a Sunday stance?

He was Chairman of Cliftonville when we became the first IL side to play on a Sunday (a friendly at Bray Wanderers in the summer of 1990) and it was the Reds who were one of the clubs who frequently put forward proposals to change the rules to allow Sunday football.  I've no reason to believe Jim in any way supports the ban, though I suspect he was reluctant to campaign openly for its removal for fear of alienating significant sections of the IFA membership.

[An Fear Dearg]

I just hope that he didnt get kicked to the kerb because he was a Cliftonville supporter but nothing would surprise me knowing the ifa.

He wasn't ousted because of his Cliftonville connections.  It was much more to do with internal football politics and the ambitions of several other high-ranking local football officials...

[T Fearon]

Fear Dearg, is my old mate Eugene Rodgers still at Solitude?

[An Fear Dearg]

As for the number of Catholics/Nationalists in the IFA, there are and have been a number at high levels, including the Council. None has made it to President (to my knowledge)

In terms of the people in positions of control at the IFA (as opposed to employees), a look at the lists of past Presidents, other office bearers, Executive Committee members and Council members would make it clear that the degree of representation from Catholics is significantly less than the proportion of Catholics in the wider population or indeed even the proportion of Catholics involved in local football...