While not debating the actuall suspension, I find it hard to take the selective measures taken by Croke Park against certain teams. I fhte same thing had happened in a D3 game, there wouldnt be a word, and dont doubt for a minute that they do take place! But because certain teams are more in the "limelight" than others , they suffer accordingly. How hard would it be to have a tape of all intercounty games and have they reviewed every week( make a few steak eaters from Croker earn their corn for once). P.S No video of the Armagh v Laois game?
Quote from: cadhlancian on February 23, 2009, 03:19:50 PM
While not debating the actuall suspension, I find it hard to take the selective measures taken by Croke Park against certain teams. I fhte same thing had happened in a D3 game, there wouldnt be a word, and dont doubt for a minute that they do take place! But because certain teams are more in the "limelight" than others , they suffer accordingly. How hard would it be to have a tape of all intercounty games and have they reviewed every week( make a few steak eaters from Croker earn their corn for once). P.S No video of the Armagh v Laois game?
my understanding is that no video of the laois game exists for revision
Quote from: cadhlancian on February 23, 2009, 03:19:50 PM
While not debating the actuall suspension, I find it hard to take the selective measures taken by Croke Park against certain teams. I fhte same thing had happened in a D3 game, there wouldnt be a word, and dont doubt for a minute that they do take place! But because certain teams are more in the "limelight" than others , they suffer accordingly. How hard would it be to have a tape of all intercounty games and have they reviewed every week( make a few steak eaters from Croker earn their corn for once). P.S No video of the Armagh v Laois game?
Taking a leaf from rugby, have all competitive inter-county games recorded.
The 4th official to have the power to review incidents missed by the referee ( as in "citing" in rugby)
One hearing, sanction as required and move on.
Relatively easy for CP to issue guidelines to each county on the video set-up, to be the responsibility of the home county to record and hand the tape to 4th official immediately after the game.
how many tapes would get eaten i wonder?
Quote from: Leo on February 23, 2009, 03:23:45 PM
Quote from: cadhlancian on February 23, 2009, 03:19:50 PM
While not debating the actuall suspension, I find it hard to take the selective measures taken by Croke Park against certain teams. I fhte same thing had happened in a D3 game, there wouldnt be a word, and dont doubt for a minute that they do take place! But because certain teams are more in the "limelight" than others , they suffer accordingly. How hard would it be to have a tape of all intercounty games and have they reviewed every week( make a few steak eaters from Croker earn their corn for once). P.S No video of the Armagh v Laois game?
thats exactly what Im saying Leo, its 2009 now, would not be difficult to implement, and would cut a lot of this out I believe
Taking a leaf from rugby, have all competitive inter-county games recorded.
The 4th official to have the power to review incidents missed by the referee ( as in "citing" in rugby)
One hearing, sanction as required and move on.
Relatively easy for CP to issue guidelines to each county on the video set-up, to be the responsibility of the home county to record and hand the tape to 4th official immediately after the game.
it would be a logistical nightmare,it's the same in every sport the higher profile teams/players are usually the ones who receive toughest punishment due to them being in the limelight alto more there acting as a deterant to others when they see the galvins,whelans mcmenamins of this world getting heavy sanctions.
Quote from: The GAA on February 23, 2009, 03:26:43 PM
how many tapes would get eaten i wonder?
I'm sure it's all DVDs at this stage! But maybe it should be the responsibility of the referee's team, rather than leaving it to the home county, where the camera might just happen to be pointing the wrong way at a crucial time. :P
The video evidence used against Ricey was a joke, the whole thing was staged at a studio in the Nevada desert with a stuntman wearing one of the those widely available Ricey masks from lasts final. Galvin was played by a well known clown from Algerian reality TV.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 23, 2009, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: The GAA on February 23, 2009, 03:26:43 PM
how many tapes would get eaten i wonder?
I'm sure it's all DVDs at this stage! But maybe it should be the responsibility of the referee's team, rather than leaving it to the home county, where the camera might just happen to be pointing the wrong way at a crucial time. :P
Unfortunate indeed. :P
As mentioned earlier I hate the selective use of video evidence. The gaa in many instances seem to enforce suspensions based on reaction by the media. If the incident was in a different game that weekend or by a different player I think there would hardly have been a word about it. Also has a 6 week ban always been there? I thought it was 4 or 8. Think it means McMenamin missing 4 games instead of 1. Bit harsh for a player to miss over 50% of the league due to a moment of madness which was silly rather than dangerous.
He grabbed Galvin's goolies for the whole country (apart from jimmy white) to see. Any player caught doing this live on television would be repremanded, pathetic how some tyronies are trying to victimise the situation ::)
It was more than 'silly'. Using that logic, the Galvin/Paddy Russell affair was 'silly'. How long did Galvin get?
And if it hadn't happened during the league game before the 2 week gap, he would have missed more that one game, even with just a 4-week ban.
Again, back to video evidence, whilst it might not be ideal, it's a vicious circle - when the evidence is there, you can't ignore it. There are ups and downs in having your county's games on the TV!
Quote from: The GAA on February 23, 2009, 03:20:31 PM
Quote from: cadhlancian on February 23, 2009, 03:19:50 PM
While not debating the actuall suspension, I find it hard to take the selective measures taken by Croke Park against certain teams. I fhte same thing had happened in a D3 game, there wouldnt be a word, and dont doubt for a minute that they do take place! But because certain teams are more in the "limelight" than others , they suffer accordingly. How hard would it be to have a tape of all intercounty games and have they reviewed every week( make a few steak eaters from Croker earn their corn for once). P.S No video of the Armagh v Laois game?
my understanding is that no video of the laois game exists for revision
Im sure there is a video of that game. Whilst I agree that all games as far as possible should be videoed, simply because other games are not videoed it does not mean that video evidence shouldnt be used when its available. A similar problem would exisit if something was missed in a recorded game
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 23, 2009, 07:04:13 PM
It was more than 'silly'. Using that logic, the Galvin/Paddy Russell affair was 'silly'. How long did Galvin get?
And if it hadn't happened during the league game before the 2 week gap, he would have missed more that one game, even with just a 4-week ban.
Again, back to video evidence, whilst it might not be ideal, it's a vicious circle - when the evidence is there, you can't ignore it. There are ups and downs in having your county's games on the TV!
I actually thought the initial ban to Galvin was excessive. Again it was a moment of madness but wasnt dangerous. The gaa felt they had to act because he was seen to undermine referee. I think the GAA really need to look at the length of bans. I'd say most county players play on average about 12 league and championship games a year. As it stands McMenamin will miss 4 games which is a 3rd of the season for doing something silly. Seems very excessive. I've no doubt that the gaa wanted to teach him a lesson becasue of who he is and hence the ban is 6 weeks rather than the 4 it should have been.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/northern_ireland/gaelic_games/5210990.stm
Paddy Campbell got 4 weeks for the Enda Muldoon incident which was similar and probably worse than what Ricey did. If Tyrone appeal and turn up with the Ricey and Paddy Campbell incidents on video how are the gaa going to explain and justify the different length of suspensions?
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on February 23, 2009, 06:42:49 PM
As mentioned earlier I hate the selective use of video evidence. The gaa in many instances seem to enforce suspensions based on reaction by the media. If the incident was in a different game that weekend or by a different player I think there would hardly have been a word about it. Also has a 6 week ban always been there? I thought it was 4 or 8. Think it means McMenamin missing 4 games instead of 1. Bit harsh for a player to miss over 50% of the league due to a moment of madness which was silly rather than dangerous.
Your right, Why give him 6 weeks when they could have given him 8!! His antics that day constituted more than a moment of madness.
He was acting the ****, once he realised Kerry were in Omagh to have a right good go at them, and being down 10/11 or whatever it was points midway through the half, Ricey's true colours shone through!!
4 weeks is the guideline minimum ban. they can give him anything they feel appropriate above that if they wish.
they probably took the calibre of mcmenamin's charachter into account and gave him 6 weeks.
How would the courts view the incident?
Yes I would and The Gaa I dont think it would be fair for the gaa/or the ref to consider his character or how he behaves in general. They were asked to deal with this particular incident. I dont think it was bad enough for him to miss a 1/3 of the county season and over 50% of the league. It also looks like 1 rule for one player and a different for another, if Paddy Campbell got 4 weeks for the same thing why is Ricey getting 6?
Abject behaviour from Tyrone Co Board. If this happens in a club game in Tyrone they arte saying it doesnt merit 4 weeks. To me it merits 6 months.
Gross dereliciton of duty to protect our games and abandonment of any set of principles by Tyrone.
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on February 23, 2009, 08:02:23 PM
I think the GAA really need to look at the length of bans. I'd say most county players play on average about 12 league and championship games a year. As it stands McMenamin will miss 4 games which is a 3rd of the season for doing something silly. Seems very excessive.
But if the length of the ban isn't a punishment and a deterrent, what is its purpose? It's not supposed to be a minor inconvenience!
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on February 23, 2009, 09:06:32 PM
Yes I would and The Gaa I dont think it would be fair for the gaa/or the ref to consider his character or how he behaves in general. They were asked to deal with this particular incident. I dont think it was bad enough for him to miss a 1/3 of the county season and over 50% of the league. It also looks like 1 rule for one player and a different for another, if Paddy Campbell got 4 weeks for the same thing why is Ricey getting 6?
Perhaps its because there are no matches in the first 3 weeks of his suspension?
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on February 23, 2009, 09:06:32 PM
Yes I would and The Gaa I dont think it would be fair for the gaa/or the ref to consider his character or how he behaves in general. They were asked to deal with this particular incident. I dont think it was bad enough for him to miss a 1/3 of the county season and over 50% of the league. It also looks like 1 rule for one player and a different for another, if Paddy Campbell got 4 weeks for the same thing why is Ricey getting 6?
Course it was, if it was up to me I'd give him 6 months and maybe he wouldnt act the c**k when he returned.
What are the grounds for his appeal anyway?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 23, 2009, 09:34:06 PM
if it was up to me I'd give him 6 months and maybe he wouldnt act the c**k when he returned.
...or grab it either.
Quote from: AFS on February 23, 2009, 09:40:25 PM
What are the grounds for his appeal anyway?
Length of ban.
Quote from: AFS on February 23, 2009, 09:40:25 PM
What are the grounds for his appeal anyway?
They don't like the punishment. Simple as.
They are behaving like spoilt children who don't like getting punished.
Quote from: AFS on February 23, 2009, 09:40:25 PM
What are the grounds for his appeal anyway?
Probably as I mentioned above the fact that the ban is 6 weeks and Tyrone can find an identical incident in the past were the ban was 4 weeks. Unless the gaa can prove they are operating under new rules I think they will find it hard to justify.
Maguire01 a 1 or 2 game ban would still be a punishment. Just think 4 is very long considering the length of the county season. Its ridiculous at this stage that bans are still handed out for periods of time rather than games. Makes no sense.
Quote from: cadhlancian on February 23, 2009, 03:19:50 PM
While not debating the actuall suspension, I find it hard to take the selective measures taken by Croke Park against certain teams. I fhte same thing had happened in a D3 game, there wouldnt be a word, and dont doubt for a minute that they do take place! But because certain teams are more in the "limelight" than others , they suffer accordingly. How hard would it be to have a tape of all intercounty games and have they reviewed every week( make a few steak eaters from Croker earn their corn for once). P.S No video of the Armagh v Laois game?
Surely Peter Canavan and Stephen O'Neill used video evidence in their defence after the Armagh game in 2005. Should that not have been permitted?
Your point is nonsense. If there is conclusive video evidence then appropriate action should be taken, either suspension or exoneration. If you don't agree, talk to Mickey Harte and ask him to get Tyrone relegated to D3. Problem solved.
Campbell should have got at least 3 months, so should Ricey and anyone else who feel another players crown jewels on the field of play in front of thousands of gaels, many of whom are women and children..
It was a disgustingly low act that deserves a harsh punishment.. This talk of missing x amount of games is irrelevant.. If your prepared to act the gypsy on the field then you should be prepared to do the time...
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on February 23, 2009, 09:48:11 PM
Quote from: AFS on February 23, 2009, 09:40:25 PM
What are the grounds for his appeal anyway?
Probably as I mentioned above the fact that the ban is 6 weeks and Tyrone can find an identical incident in the past were the ban was 6 weeks. Unless the gaa can prove they are operating under new rules I think they will find it hard to justify.
Maguire01 a 1 or 2 game ban would still be a punishment. Just think 4 is very long considering the length of the county season. Its ridiculous at this stage that bans are still handed out for periods of time rather than games. Makes no sense.
6 months would have been appropriate in my view. Then again the rest of us don't have Fergal Logan in our corner.
Quote from: Yes I Would on February 23, 2009, 10:09:03 PM
Campbell should have got at least 3 months, so should Ricey and anyone else who feel another players crown jewels on the field of play in front of thousands of gaels, many of whom are women and children..
It was a disgustingly low act that deserves a harsh punishment.. This talk of missing x amount of games is irrelevant.. If your prepared to act the gypsy on the field then you should be prepared to do the time...
I'd agree with all of your post except for the bit in bold. The GAA's disciplinary system
should use number of games either instead of, or as well as a period of time when handing out bans.
6 months are you's taking the piss. Thats 6 times more than you would get for striking and would rule him out for nearly the whole season. What he did was stupid and silly but not dangerous. A punch to the face would have caused Galvin more harm and discomfort.
I can understand the calls for 6 months, it's the only chance against us some of you have, and the rest of the lads can be done for breathing! :D
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on February 23, 2009, 10:15:41 PM
6 months are you's taking the piss. Thats 6 times more than you would get for striking and would rule him out for nearly the whole season. What he did was stupid and silly but not dangerous. A punch to the face would have caused Galvin more harm and discomfort.
But it was sexual assault.
whatever keeps you warm at night pints
I have to agree with the call for suspensions to be given out in games rather than times. The problem I have with times is that you can end up suspended for more matches than other players who receive bans at the same stage of a competition. For example a 4 week ban for ricey would mean one game missed. A 4 week ban for the same incident after the next game which is at the same stage of the competition would mean at least a three game ban. I understand the logic a little more come championship time where the further you progress the more the onus is on you to avoid suspensions to enable you to play in matches at later stages of competition. Im glad time bans now carry I believe a minimum one game suspension. Addresses the problem a little
Quote from: INDIANA on February 23, 2009, 10:10:31 PM
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on February 23, 2009, 09:48:11 PM
Quote from: AFS on February 23, 2009, 09:40:25 PM
What are the grounds for his appeal anyway?
Probably as I mentioned above the fact that the ban is 6 weeks and Tyrone can find an identical incident in the past were the ban was 6 weeks. Unless the gaa can prove they are operating under new rules I think they will find it hard to justify.
Maguire01 a 1 or 2 game ban would still be a punishment. Just think 4 is very long considering the length of the county season. Its ridiculous at this stage that bans are still handed out for periods of time rather than games. Makes no sense.
6 months would have been appropriate in my view. Then again the rest of us don't have Fergal Logan in our corner.
It might well be appropriate, but either you have to go with the 2 precedents set for 2 identical incidents (Kenny, Campbell) 4 weeks, or you have to write some new rules and punishment specifically protecting players nuts. It would amusing to see the committees getting into that one.
QuoteSurely Peter Canavan and Stephen O'Neill used video evidence in their defence after the Armagh game in 2005. Should that not have been permitted?
Wrong. No video evidence was required. Michael Collins claimed the linesman told him to send Canavan off, but the linesman later said Collins was talking through his ar$e. Collins then admitted to thinking he'd booked O'Neill before when he hadn't.
Apparently Collins hasn't had to put his hand in his pocket for a fill of dodgy diesel ever since........
The appeals culture should be tackled. All penalties should be doubled on appeal failure.
Quote from: under the bar on February 24, 2009, 10:00:18 AM
QuoteSurely Peter Canavan and Stephen O'Neill used video evidence in their defence after the Armagh game in 2005. Should that not have been permitted?
Wrong. No video evidence was required. Michael Collins claimed the linesman told him to send Canavan off, but the linesman later said Collins was talking through his ar$e. Collins then admitted to thinking he'd booked O'Neill before when he hadn't.
Apparently Collins hasn't had to put his hand in his pocket for a fill of dodgy diesel ever since........
I think you probably got my point.
Besides, when I mentioned O'Neill and Armagh 2005, I actually meant O'Neill and Kerry 2004. Here's what Mickey Harte had to say.
Quote
However, Harte plans to launch an appeal against O'Neill's suspension and urged the GAC to use video evidence as it did last year, which led to Gavin Devlin enduring three months on the sidelines.
"This decision needs to be appealed and Stephen needs to get a hearing," said Harte. "We were sunk last year by video evidence, which was harsh against us. If it sunk us last year, it should exonerate us this time."
Irish News 9/4/04
Can't get any source for the Collins / linesman thing by the way.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 24, 2009, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: under the bar on February 24, 2009, 10:00:18 AM
QuoteSurely Peter Canavan and Stephen O'Neill used video evidence in their defence after the Armagh game in 2005. Should that not have been permitted?
Wrong. No video evidence was required. Michael Collins claimed the linesman told him to send Canavan off, but the linesman later said Collins was talking through his ar$e. Collins then admitted to thinking he'd booked O'Neill before when he hadn't.
Apparently Collins hasn't had to put his hand in his pocket for a fill of dodgy diesel ever since........
I think you probably got my point.
Besides, when I mentioned O'Neill and Armagh 2005, I actually meant O'Neill and Kerry 2004. Here's what Mickey Harte had to say.
Quote
However, Harte plans to launch an appeal against O'Neill's suspension and urged the GAC to use video evidence as it did last year, which led to Gavin Devlin enduring three months on the sidelines.
"This decision needs to be appealed and Stephen needs to get a hearing," said Harte. "We were sunk last year by video evidence, which was harsh against us. If it sunk us last year, it should exonerate us this time."
Irish News 9/4/04
Can't get any source for the Collins / linesman thing by the way.
Was that when Horse
stamped on Colm Parkinson?
It was, yes.
I think that if you do something like McMenamin or Devlin you can have no complaints if video evidence is used. Likewise, if you have done nothing wrong a la O'Neill you should be able to use video evidence.
Where the problem arises is when there is clear cut video evidence that a suspension is warranted, but the powers that be refuse to act, for example Francie Bellew's head butt.
Hmm, very good post. Consistency is the big downfall here. As you say, use it to suspend people, use it to clear people, but use it all the time or not at all.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 23, 2009, 07:04:13 PM
It was more than 'silly'. Using that logic, the Galvin/Paddy Russell affair was 'silly'. How long did Galvin get?
And if it hadn't happened during the league game before the 2 week gap, he would have missed more that one game, even with just a 4-week ban.
Again, back to video evidence, whilst it might not be ideal, it's a vicious circle - when the evidence is there, you can't ignore it. There are ups and downs in having your county's games on the TV!
Maguire01 I'm suprised after you calling for McMenamin to be suspended numerous times and wanted video evidence used that you haven't been on about Rory Woods tonight after the footage shown on Sunday Sport. Firstly I want to point out that I dont want to see him suspended becasue what he did was stupid not dangerous. However using your logic throughout the McMenamin case he should be done for kicking the Kildare player on the ground twice. I think it was Darren Hughes who should also be in trouble after dropping his knee on a player on the ground. Your keeper could be in trouble but I think he should get off ok. Not much reaction to the incidents on here.
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on March 15, 2009, 10:06:21 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 23, 2009, 07:04:13 PM
It was more than 'silly'. Using that logic, the Galvin/Paddy Russell affair was 'silly'. How long did Galvin get?
And if it hadn't happened during the league game before the 2 week gap, he would have missed more that one game, even with just a 4-week ban.
Again, back to video evidence, whilst it might not be ideal, it's a vicious circle - when the evidence is there, you can't ignore it. There are ups and downs in having your county's games on the TV!
Maguire01 I'm suprised after you calling for McMenamin to be suspended numerous times and wanted video evidence used that you haven't been on about Rory Woods tonight after the footage shown on Sunday Sport. Firstly I want to point out that I dont want to see him suspended becasue what he did was stupid not dangerous. However using your logic throughout the McMenamin case he should be done for kicking the Kildare player on the ground twice. I think it was Darren Hughes who should also be in trouble after dropping his knee on a player on the ground. Your keeper could be in trouble but I think he should get off ok. Not much reaction to the incidents on here.
I'd have no argument if video evidence was used in either case. I wouldn't want to lose either player, but both incidents were very unsporting and unnecessary - especially since both of these players had great games otherwise. It's not nice to see and if they're pulled up on these incidents, then they've no argument.
As I've said I dont think Woods should be suspended. Similar to McMenamins I don't believe there was a lot of intent in what he did, it was just silly. There was a bit more in the Hughes incident though. The anti Tyrone lot are very quiet tonight when there's incidents involving other county players. If the incidents had been in the Tyrone game there would be a 10 page thread with insult after insult.
What way did Monaghan play today? Was suprised enough to see them defeated but Kildare are obviously an improving team. Even at this stage that Monaghan Derry game looks like being a real cracker come championship. There's going to be a few great weeks in Ulster with it followed by Tyrone Armagh. Did Damien Freeman play today?
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on March 15, 2009, 10:38:26 PM
As I've said I dont think Woods should be suspended. Similar to McMenamins I don't believe there was a lot of intent in what he did, it was just silly. There was a bit more in the Hughes incident though. The anti Tyrone lot are very quiet tonight when there's incidents involving other county players. If the incidents had been in the Tyrone game there would be a 10 page thread with insult after insult.
As i've said in previous threads on the McMenamin case, it was the Tyrone posters who kept those threads on the front page!
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on March 15, 2009, 10:38:26 PM
What way did Monaghan play today? Was suprised enough to see them defeated but Kildare are obviously an improving team. Even at this stage that Monaghan Derry game looks like being a real cracker come championship. There's going to be a few great weeks in Ulster with it followed by Tyrone Armagh. Did Damien Freeman play today?
Monaghan had a very poor start and Kildare cleaned up midfield. Did well to go in at half time only 5 down. A lot of mistakes throughout the match and an awful referee didn't help the flow of the game either. No doubt though, Kildare are a good side and deserved their win.
Freeman started but was substituted (in the second half if i remember correctly).
Woods doesn't have Mcmenamin's "previous" which is why his actions arent siezed upon as much.
QuoteWoods doesn't have Mcmenamin's "previous" which is why his actions arent siezed upon as much.
So its not the incident itself but your reputation that needs to be considered? Very fair! In that case McMenamin, Galvin, Geraghty etc would be on a continuous "rolling" suspension! lol
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on March 16, 2009, 02:44:24 AM
Woods doesn't have Mcmenamin's "previous" which is why his actions arent siezed upon as much.
Oh right so when a player does something on the pitch people research their history and then decide whether its appropriate to give them abuse on here? For example I'm sure Rory Woods has been sent off a few times in recent years including a 3 month ban received after from a league semi game in 2005. Would people have decided these sendings off didnt count? Are you sure the different treatment of the players wasn't something to do with Ricey being a high profile Tyrone player?
I again want to point out that I don't want to see Woods suspended and enjoy watching him play. However, based on what everyone said on here in the Ricey case Woods kicked a Kildare player on the ground twice. Personally due to the force used I would count it more as a stupid act and let it go. Wonder if it had been Ricey would it have been as quiet on here.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 15, 2009, 10:54:12 PM
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on March 15, 2009, 10:38:26 PM
As I've said I dont think Woods should be suspended. Similar to McMenamins I don't believe there was a lot of intent in what he did, it was just silly. There was a bit more in the Hughes incident though. The anti Tyrone lot are very quiet tonight when there's incidents involving other county players. If the incidents had been in the Tyrone game there would be a 10 page thread with insult after insult.
As i've said in previous threads on the McMenamin case, it was the Tyrone posters who kept those threads on the front page!
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on March 15, 2009, 10:38:26 PM
What way did Monaghan play today? Was suprised enough to see them defeated but Kildare are obviously an improving team. Even at this stage that Monaghan Derry game looks like being a real cracker come championship. There's going to be a few great weeks in Ulster with it followed by Tyrone Armagh. Did Damien Freeman play today?
Monaghan had a very poor start and Kildare cleaned up midfield. Did well to go in at half time only 5 down. A lot of mistakes throughout the match and an awful referee didn't help the flow of the game either. No doubt though, Kildare are a good side and deserved their win.
Freeman started but was substituted (in the second half if i remember correctly).
I would agree. How he didn't issue straight reds to the Monaghan keeper, full back and Woods is beyond me. In addition how numbers 2, 9 and 10 weren't removed from the fray with yellow cards is also shocking.
I would support the use of video evidence to suspend all three Monaghan men.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on March 16, 2009, 11:24:12 AM
How he didn't issue straight reds to the Monaghan keeper, full back and Woods is beyond me.
...and me. The goalie's shoulder charge on the Kildare forward was a disgrace.
Ouch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDxVF8wMwk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDxVF8wMwk)
Quote from: cornafean on March 16, 2009, 11:33:59 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on March 16, 2009, 11:24:12 AM
How he didn't issue straight reds to the Monaghan keeper, full back and Woods is beyond me.
...and me. The goalie's shoulder charge on the Kildare forward was a disgrace.
Absolutely....and to see Doyle got yellow carded for a harmless hand on shoulder.
Croke Park needs to pay more attention to getting referees to enforce the existing rules and fair play than dreaming up newer rules for referees to half inplement half ignore and make a balls of.
I'd use that video evidence to give a free out way before the tackle. Count the steps taken by #10 before the pass to #14!
But yes, it was a brutal tackle.
To call it a tackle is being very generous. I always thougt a tackle involved going for the ball. It was a (dangerous)cheap shot. End of story
Any more word on the Monaghan incident? Are the gaa going to be consistent and use video evidence?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 23, 2009, 07:04:13 PM
It was more than 'silly'. Using that logic, the Galvin/Paddy Russell affair was 'silly'. How long did Galvin get?
And if it hadn't happened during the league game before the 2 week gap, he would have missed more that one game, even with just a 4-week ban.
Again, back to video evidence, whilst it might not be ideal, it's a vicious circle - when the evidence is there, you can't ignore it. There are ups and downs in having your county's games on the TV!
It seems you can depending on were the player is from and how high profile the incident was. I take it no action was taken against Woods or Hughes then? Tyrone have a right to be angry about the selective use of video evidence if this is the case.
Not much of a mention of the antrim
number 21`s assault in the sligo match yesterday.By the way were is the all the people that slagged
of ricey and tommy mc guigan wrote about i dont know how many pages of garbage,yet no mention of this assault y-day.
The sligo man was lucky he was able 2 get up.Has the BOARD MEMBERS gone 2 sleep in the last 24hrs?Are maybe us tyronies
are right to feel victimised,nobody can say this match was not on tv and nobody seen it.I expect after everybody has read this
post their will maybe get 50 till 60 posts in the next few days!
Quote from: hardstation on April 26, 2009, 08:14:19 PM
What happened?
A bad tackle, straight into the Sligo man's head. Antrim man sent off with a yellow.
Was pretty wreckless, but at least it was in the vicinity of the ball. Probably deserved a red card all the same.
Quote from: hardstation on April 26, 2009, 09:12:28 PM
Ah, I thought he may have been talking about the 'kick' to the goolies.
Maybe he was - not sure.
Doubt he'll be done for it. It was a lot more dangerous than what McMenamin did.
Quote from: up tyrone on April 26, 2009, 08:10:45 PM
Not much of a mention of the antrim
number 21`s assault in the sligo match yesterday.By the way were is the all the people that slagged
of ricey and tommy mc guigan wrote about i dont know how many pages of garbage,yet no mention of this assault y-day.
The sligo man was lucky he was able 2 get up.Has the BOARD MEMBERS gone 2 sleep in the last 24hrs?Are maybe us tyronies
are right to feel victimised,nobody can say this match was not on tv and nobody seen it.I expect after everybody has read this
post their will maybe get 50 till 60 posts in the next few days!
It looks like the Antrim player in question could be facing a suspension after all, based on video evidence. It would appear that 'up tyrone' has the same influence and power in getting players suspended than those know-it-all analysts working for Setanta!!!
The point made by 'up tyrone' is a good one, though. Many of those who expressed their horror and disgust at the actions of Ryan McMenamin and Tommy McGuigan in live televised NFL games this year strangely had no comment to make in relation to the very dangerous incident in the Antrim-Sligo game. I suppose it is proof that there are do-gooders on this Board (mostly from Armagh, might I add) who are very selective when it comes to condemning players actions.
I don't think your arguement holds up RHF, as the chances of Armagh men watching Antrim on TV would be very slim
the green man, are you saying that the orange men are far more interested in watching Tyrone on tv than Antrim? No way.....sure, they hate the sight of us!!!!
hardstation, you are talking balls....stop taking the mickey
I didn't see the incident involving the Antrim player. If it deserved suspension, I hope he gets what he deserves.
Fair play to ya, ardmhachaabu, better late than never!
hardstation, don't be getting a-head of yourself.....the Antrim player is innocent until proven guilty. If he does get 4-6 weeks, I hope he has a shoulder to cry on.
Yep, Mr Seamus Woods from Drumragh will see to it that the Antrim player goes down for a very long time. We could be looking at a life sentence.
You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am going to give you Woods' address.
Fully deserves any suspension that comes his way.
Disappointed, but not surprised by Dr McSparran's contribution to the debate.
From the Irish News. 29th April
QuoteANTRIM County Board Chairman Dr John McSparran last night confirmed that neither he nor county secretary Frankie Quinn had received any correspondence from the GAA's Central Competition Control Committee (CCCC) over an incident involving Sean Burke.
A number of GAA websites and a national newspaper carried a story yesterday stating that the St Gall's man would be the first player to appear before the GAA's new committee, which is now chaired by Tyrone's Seamus Woods.
Burke picked up a yellow card late on in Saturday's NFL Division Four defeat to Sligo. Television replays appeared to show Burke catching Sligo's Gary Gaughan with his elbow.
"It's the first I heard of it," said McSparran when contacted last night. "I didn't realise we had a senior football team."
"We have received no confirmation from the CCCC. We just came from a meeting there and we have heard nothing on the matter."
"It would raise the question of 'who is actually running the show'?"
"If any suspension was to arise, given the fact that this is in the public domain and has been discussed through various media outlets, that would give me cause for concern – it's trial by TV.
"Mickey Harte has a point in this. Who is making the decisions here?
"Is the CCCC reacting because an incident has been highlighted or are they acting on a consistent basis and how can we prove they are being consistent? What happens if a match is not covered by TV?
"We can all accept if a referee makes a mistake and they are asked to clarify something. I don't have a problem with that.
"But I do have concerns if an incident that attracts media attention suddenly appears in front of the CCCC."
If the CCCC decides that Burke should have been given a red card, then he will receive an automatic four-week suspension.
In any case, it is unlikely that he will miss Antrim's first round Ulster SFC tie with Donegal in Ballybofey on June 14.
I might have added a sentence myself.
Rumour has the gaa have scrapped video evidence and are bringing in internment starting with ricey gormley cairan mc keever cairan whelan and cj mc gourty.
Quote from: Redhandfan on April 30, 2009, 11:33:55 PM
The point made by 'up tyrone' is a good one, though. Many of those who expressed their horror and disgust at the actions of Ryan McMenamin and Tommy McGuigan in live televised NFL games this year strangely had no comment to make in relation to the very dangerous incident in the Antrim-Sligo game. I suppose it is proof that there are do-gooders on this Board (mostly from Armagh, might I add) who are very selective when it comes to condemning players actions.
Probably because very few have actually seen it!
It would be interesting to compare the viewing figures for the Tyrone games and this Antrim game, but i'd imagine it's a significant factor.
bit of a fiesty game, Scullion beforehand ended up with ketchup all over his gob. think burkey tried to stop himself but managed to catch the poor fellow in the ear. these things always look worse when in slow motion.
if he is dealt with by the referee on the day is that not enough? why have a referee just let them play (no referee) and have a judge of referees like boxing and if they all press the button at the same time then a big horn lets rip and the match stops ;)
So what about Galvin planting a knee in the Corkman's head on the ground? No significant enough to trouble the video reviewers?
Quote from: tyssam5 on June 12, 2009, 07:19:13 PM
So what about Galvin planting a knee in the Corkman's head on the ground? No significant enough to trouble the video reviewers?
Seems that same pesky wasp that attacked Paddy Russell last year attacked the poor Cork land....................shure what was a fellow supposed to do????????????????
The system is a joke. How the hell did Ricey got a 50% longer ban for touching Galvin than Mullan got for sticking his knee into someone on the ground?
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on June 12, 2009, 09:21:32 PM
The system is a joke. How the hell did Ricey got a 50% longer ban for touching Galvin than Mullan got for sticking his knee into someone on the ground?
was thinking this myself.
can not see any reason why but there's no point complaining now - ricey's back when it matters. Mullan and Fergal Doherty aint
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on June 12, 2009, 09:21:32 PM
The system is a joke. How the hell did Ricey got a 50% longer ban for touching Galvin than Mullan got for sticking his knee into someone on the ground?
It doesn't matter too much TD, we're going to make them pay, and pay big-time! :D
How come if Joe Brolly can get all of this footage from the BBC, do the GAA not get all available footage first (from all broadcasters), and review it in full, so that they can make an informed decision on sanctions? Surely that would make the whole process more credible and reduce the likelihood of successful appeals.
Just after watching the Cork and Kerry game..........question is, what will the boys in Croke Park make of some this? Galvin and Cadogan should have been booked, and then he booked 3 guys who should have walked, and should get suspended if the laws are to be consistant, namely Shields , Donaghy and not sure who hit BJ Walsh first in that schomozzle( Murphy?)
Let's see how they deal with Mayo player struck McMenamin before Joe McMahon got sent off... needs to be same for all the counties
If this discriminitive nonsense continues is there scope for players refusing to play in front of the live cameras?
Seems the your chances of suspension will be greatly reduced if there's no live cameras
Quote from: DuffleKing on February 14, 2010, 05:04:43 PM
If this discriminitive nonsense continues is there scope for players refusing to play in front of the live cameras?
Seems the your chances of suspension will be greatly reduced if there's no live cameras
I would say so! Its Bullshiittt. I said when I started this thread last year, that it would be fine, IF the powers be, looked at EVERY game, meaning there would be cameras at EVERY game,,,,,,,,,,,this will never happen though ::)
What a load of D..g! No "extra" action taken over the Kerry V Cork game at the weekend, this is bordering on fuccking ridiculous. Various incidents that were not dealt with appropriately by the ref at the time >:( total horsec..k
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 14, 2010, 04:56:50 PM
Let's see how they deal with Mayo player struck McMenamin before Joe McMahon got sent off... needs to be same for all the counties
He got upgraded to a red. Does that make everything ok?
Quote from: muppet on March 01, 2010, 10:04:46 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on February 14, 2010, 04:56:50 PM
Let's see how they deal with Mayo player struck McMenamin before Joe McMahon got sent off... needs to be same for all the counties
He got upgraded to a red. Does that make everything ok?
No it just proves that they only review Tyrone games. 7 players have been banned in the last NFL in the last 2 years and every one of them has been in a Tyrone game. If anyone believe's that these offences only occur in Tyrone games they are kidding themselves.
In the last round of games punches were thrown in the Cork Kerry game which were at least on par with what Justy McMahon got suspended for. In the league last year at least 2 incidents were highlighted in the Monaghan Kildare game which should have been sendings off on the day. No further action was taken in relation to any off these incidents. I'm sure there have been others to. As no one knows what the process is for reviewing games and how the CCC operates its difficult to say why some incidents are reviewed and some aren't.
Its also very difficult when you operate in a league were some games are subject to video evidence and some aren't. It isn't a level playing field for all players and counties which surely gives an unfair advantage to teams not subject to video evidence. Throw into the mix that suspensions could be doubled later in the year based on earlier sendings off using video evidence and you have a very fair disadvantage for a few teams who are subject to video evidence.