Should An Glenn object?

[seafoid]

It can't be proven that the 17 were an accident unless KC is investigated properly. The GAA has a wider problem with discipline at the end of football games.

[LeoMc]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

It can't be proven that the 17 were an accident unless KC is investigated properly. The GAA has a wider problem with discipline at the end of football games.

Colombo or CSI Miami team which is your preference to carry out the investigation?. Have mobile phones been seized yet 🙄

[tyrone08]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

[Milltown Row2]

They didn't fire them on though, they went through the process, ref allowed it and didn't restart the game with 15 v 15

Either way it's a mess and be interesting to see how it pans out

[Baile Brigín 2]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

It is up to the referee to referee. He made an error, quite a big one, but it had no material impact on the result. Bench the referee and get on with it - too much sorted out at committee l

[tonto1888]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

It is up to the referee to referee. He made an error, quite a big one, but it had no material impact on the result. Bench the referee and get on with it - too much sorted out at committee l

you cant say it had no material impact o the result though.
Who has responsibility for making sure a substituted player leaves the field?

[seafoid]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

It is up to the referee to referee. He made an error, quite a big one, but it had no material impact on the result. Bench the referee and get on with it - too much sorted out at committee l

Even if the ref was at fault there was still an extra man on the line.
It's like the Thierry Henry goal. You are not allowed to score with an arm or a hand in soccer but ....

[Milltown Row2]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

It is up to the referee to referee. He made an error, quite a big one, but it had no material impact on the result. Bench the referee and get on with it - too much sorted out at committee l

you cant say it had no material impact o the result though.
Who has responsibility for making sure a substituted player leaves the field?

It's a simple enough process, linesman raises flag and takes it down once player leaves pitch, you see it week on week and the ref restarts game

[Baile Brigín 2]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

It is up to the referee to referee. He made an error, quite a big one, but it had no material impact on the result. Bench the referee and get on with it - too much sorted out at committee l

you cant say it had no material impact o the result though.
Who has responsibility for making sure a substituted player leaves the field?

The ref and the linesman between them.

He went for a point and balooned it. An extra player on the pitch had no impact on his execution

[Baile Brigín 2]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

It is up to the referee to referee. He made an error, quite a big one, but it had no material impact on the result. Bench the referee and get on with it - too much sorted out at committee l

Even if the ref was at fault there was still an extra man on the line.
It's like the Thierry Henry goal. You are not allowed to score with an arm or a hand in soccer but ....

And soccer brought in var to try and eliminate those match official errors. There was no replay.

Refereeing errors happen. We can't go to committee every time the press go to town on one.

And I despise Crokes. Everything that is wrong with Gaelic games in one horrible club.

[seafoid]

"An extra player on the pitch had no impact on his execution"

KC lost last year's final via a goal at the death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYui7_rrWyk

The extra man wasn't placed at a random spot around the pitch. He was standing on the goal line.
why was he there ? Admiring the painting of the posts ?
If he hadn't been there would KC have had  2 or 3 on the line? Would Wattys have done what they did or lobbed the ball in ?
Would KC have panicked like last year ?

Answers on a postcard

[seafoid]

Can't see how kilmacud can object

Their argument is they did nothing wrong.

They advised the officials they wanted to make the substitution.
The officials allowed the sub to come on.
The officials allowed the game to re-start without allowing time for Mullin to go off (or for anyone to tell Mullin that he was going off). 
The officials were notified of their error and did not order a retake.

Just a refereeing mistake. One of those things.  Unfortunate for Glen, but the rule everyone quotes is for when a club puts an extra player on without the permission of the officials. You can't penalise Crokes for the officials making a mistake.

That's how they can, and are, objecting.

During the 6 seconds of play where Crokes had 16 on the pitch, the Glen full back had a great chance to deflect the ball into the net, but missed. Imagine an alternative scenario where it was 15 v 15, and the full back got the crucial touch, the ball ended up in the net, the officials missed that he was in the square before the ball was played to him and wrongly allowed the goal. Would there be grounds for a replay because the winning goal was illegal? Of course not. A ref's error. Unfortunate for Crokes, but one of those things.

This.

So a team can fire on as many players as they want and its up to the ref to sort out? Lack of responsibility from crokes is unreal

It is up to the referee to referee. He made an error, quite a big one, but it had no material impact on the result. Bench the referee and get on with it - too much sorted out at committee l

Even if the ref was at fault there was still an extra man on the line.
It's like the Thierry Henry goal. You are not allowed to score with an arm or a hand in soccer but ....

And soccer brought in var to try and eliminate those match official errors. There was no replay.

Refereeing errors happen. We can't go to committee every time the press go to town on one.

And I despise Crokes. Everything that is wrong with Gaelic games in one horrible club.

It's a mess.
The RTE GAA podcast is good this week. The problem is much bigger than what happened last Sunday

https://www.rte.ie/radio/podcasts/22203884-lee-keegan-and-peter-canavan-on-club-final-fallout/

[Milltown Row2]

"An extra player on the pitch had no impact on his execution"

KC lost last year's final via a goal at the death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYui7_rrWyk

The extra man wasn't placed at a random spot around the pitch. He was standing on the goal line.
why was he there ? Admiring the painting of the posts ?
If he hadn't been there would KC have had  2 or 3 on the line? Would Wattys have done what they did or lobbed the ball in ?
Would KC have panicked like last year ?

Answers on a postcard

He might as well been admiring the paint work as he was on the other post so not even close to the play

[Wildweasel74]

Doesn't matter who's fault it was, there 3 options for a course of action. Replay been sensible. Hell I lost a underage championship game because some names weren't in Irish, so whats the point having rules if no body bothers with them if it doesn't suit them. We see the way  red card appeals have gone. With everybody happy their players get off even when they shouldn't, cause there gaps in the rulebook. We'll there no gaps on this one.