I think that the GAA have to be very careful about their use of video evidence. From what I can see they mainly seem to use it for high profile cases brought on from a media outcry. These bans seem to come as a result of pressure from Sunday Game pundits. This is not the way our games should be governed. If video evidence is to be used there must be camera's at every championship match and clear procedures must be in place to ensure that each game is treated equally. Every game has to be watched and reviewed by the panel or its not a fair process. Why should high profile players be more at risk to suspension by video evidence than other players from weaker counties. If a study is carried out into which county players have been suspended from video evidence I think you'll find theyre nearly all high profle players. I think you'll find very few players with a low profile from weaker counties being suspended by video. Imo Geraghty shouldnt be suspended as many players have done as bad and not a word said.
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on June 04, 2007, 10:05:41 PM
I think that the GAA have to be very careful about their use of video evidence. From what I can see they mainly seem to use it for high profile cases brought on from a media outcry. These bans seem to come as a result of pressure from Sunday Game pundits. This is not the way our games should be governed. If video evidence is to be used there must be camera's at every championship match and clear procedures must be in place to ensure that each game is treated equally. Every game has to be watched and reviewed by the panel or its not a fair process. Why should high profile players be more at risk to suspension by video evidence than other players from weaker counties. If a study is carried out into which county players have been suspended from video evidence I think you'll find theyre nearly all high profle players. I think you'll find very few players with a low profile from weaker counties being suspended by video. Imo Geraghty shouldnt be suspended as many players have done as bad and not a word said.
I dont think it is right to say that Geraghty shouldn't be suspended because other have got away with worse, he played like a dirty naker yesterday and should be banned. As a whole I think there should be a citing officer like in rugby that reviews the game when its over!
Geraghty is, was and will always be a kn**ker. He showed it again yesterday, I was at the game and the only incident I clearly saw was the slap on Cosgrove. Given that there is the technology and the systems in place he should be punished. Not right that he should get away with it, although given that he was booked for one incident I am not sure if further action can be taken!
On a different issue that hardstation touched on... The Square Ball... this has to be looked at, we have had three games in eight days where poor decisions were made and had a major impact on the respective games.
Donegal/Armagh (not given incorrectly) changes result from Armagh win to Donegal win
Longford/Laois (called incorrectly) turning point of the game, a four point swing as laois score directly from the resultant free and means that Longford are two points down instead of two points up. In a game where they lost by five if the goal had stood it could well have been a different result
Dublin/Meath (not given incorrectly) Meath would have won instead of ending up with a draw
IF Video evidence is to be used then it should be clear who is responsible for bringing up the issues/incidents to review . Each team should be made aware that games will be scrutinised by an independent panel of qualified people and not by sunday game experts resonding to texts messages and calls to the programme
I wouldn't like to see a citing officer sitting in the stand looking for things to drag up after the game. Every year we are always debating various incidents 'was it a foul or not?'. Football is a game with an element of lawlessness and all the better for it. As I've said on another thread some things should be let go in favour of flowing, physical football. And let the only review of these things be on discussion boards like this, we'll argue it out but let the players get on with the football.
Maybe Im wrong but Ive yet to see Spillane point out to many incidents involving Kerry players. The current system is a joke and biased against higher profile players. The panelists on the Sunday Game have far to much input into who is being suspened by video evidence. A clear and transparent system must be put in place so that every game is dealt with equally or the whole thing scrapped. Maybe someone could put up a list of all players banned so far using video evidence - Im convinced nearly everyone is a high profile player but will take it back if Im wrong. The ironic thing is its Spillane and these guys who complain about current day players and long for a return to the tough men of the 70's/80's, yet when there's a few knocks in a game its a disgrace. It was a great game of football helped very much by a ref who would let the thing go a bit.
[
QuotePeople calling for players suspension are a joke just like players who run to the referee trying to get a player booked or sent off.
Bang on.
i'd love to see you as a ref -i'd say it would be compelling viewing. Tell you what let's go the whole hog- forget the rules let's just let everyone beat the shit out of each other- whatever team has less men in A&E after the game wins.
Our GAA punditry has, unfortunately, started to go the way of our soccer friends across the water. The big talking points are now off-the-ball incidents or possible subsequent sanctions, surprisingly and usually initiated by Spillane himself as well as the likes of McStay. O'Rourke, Tohill and Brolly try to stick to the football fortunately but the dumbing down and sensationalism of GAA analysis is an unstoppable force. It's sexier for the media that way. The sad thing is that the public are swallowing it and are now talking after matches about tackles and slaps that wouldn't have garnered a mention 10 years ago.
What's the Aussie Rules punditry like?
I think blaming Mr Spillane is a cop out . RTE is only interested in ratings ansd stirring the pot remember most of its own programs are only interested in people texting in the program (celebrity Jigs and Reels etc). Video evidence analysis of wrong doings should not be RTE jobbut should be the Job of the GAA . Australian punditry involves a lot of piss taking but would not work here as our players are only amatuers.
Geez I don't know, I'd imagine Spillane has a big say in how the programme's narrative develops. He has nutured this annoying style of firing out pot-stirring questions, barely waiting for an answer, nor showing little interest in one, before throwing out the next one. You feel that he actually has little faith in what's he's hinting at himself. It's easy to sit back on the sofa and know he'll entertain you in some manner but it is dumbing down at the end of the day. Fast-food analysis of the UTV variety.
There wouldn't be a huge amount of difference in the standard of punditry I would say, but it's difficult to draw a comparison, I will always listen to the GAA pundits, but I'd be confident enough in my own knowledge to be able to mutter at the TV that you're talking out of your hole again Joe/Colm/Kevin
I'd listen to the AFL pundits and they can get quite technical, they'd draw a comparison to an incident 3 or 4 years go to make a point and I wouldn't have a clue - generally speaking I think punditry by former players is going to be the same, most ex-players realise they are on to a lucrative enough, handy number and know the line between being controversial enough to keep the public interested but not going over the line into getting themselves into trouble
Punditry is a good gig for a former player . At this stage of the championship it can be difficult with the number of games . I would not mind more honesty and openess . What do we want of the Sunday game just the highlights and previews . ?
I think we need more journalists and ex-coaches/players who are more removed from their current counties set ups. Too many many of the Sunday Game pundits won't criticise their own or won't say things that might come back to haunt them. Sure Tohill wouldn't even pick a winner in the Munster championship FFS.
It's a difficult job I suppose, especially that immediate analysis that O'Rourke and Brolly give. Few journalists will ever take up that offer - they make their name (as we do on here) from looking back on the action after various reruns and after the dust has settled. They might lose their credability if thrust in front of the camera. I actually like listening to Colm and Joe as they sometimes offer an insight you couldn't possibly spot from behind the screen but the night time show, when they've had some time to prepare, is diabolically rushed and lightweight. Ad break constraints as well as the amount of matches, and codes, may play a part but there's definitely a market out there for a quality 90-120 minute show early in the week.
Agree the number of matches makes proper analysis difficult and the fact that you might have both codes on some nights makes it harder still. However thats why I can't understand why there isn't a midweek 2hr show dedicated to analysis and previews with a phone in aspect to the show. Des Cahill is on record as saying that the GAA dominates his phone in show on radio 1, it woulde make for compulsive viewing and would be relatively cheap to produce I would imagine.
Quote from: hardstation on June 04, 2007, 10:24:05 PM
Almost every game played turns into a nightmare with the media concentrating on the negatives. A great game of football was played. Leave it like that.
Do you expect everyone to just ignore these incidents then, pretend we didn't see them?
Quote from: hardstation on June 04, 2007, 10:24:05 PMHe was dirty on Sunday and he'll suffer the next day with the Dubs hitting him hard (hopefully within the rules). There is no need to suspend him.
"hopefully within the rules"? You're proposing a bit of vigilantism instead of the proper authorities dealing with his transgressions in a proper professional manner? What happens if the retaliating Dub doesn't stay within the rules? Should the Meathmen sort it out themselves, or should the GAA then step in?
Quote from: hardstation on June 04, 2007, 10:24:05 PMVideo evidence is not apart of the game in squareball decisions or anything to do with the play. The referee, linesmen and umpires are there to lay down the law and are part of the game.
And they obviously cannot watch every pair of players and the ball for every second of the game. I agree with the original complaint about the rather arbitrary nature with which these punishments are dished out, but that is a problem with the process, not the principle. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea of retrospective punishment for something like the dig to the head Geraghty gave Henry when he was on the ground after releasing the ball. The problem is that Geraghty might be punished but the next guy might not.
The use of instant playbacks to decide issues like square balls is a separate issue.
Quote from: hardstation on June 04, 2007, 10:24:05 PMPeople calling for players suspension are a joke just like players who run to the referee trying to get a player booked or sent off. I don't know how GAA survived before TV came along.
That is just stupid. If Geraghty gets suspended, its his fault, and his alone. Dublin fans have every right to demand justice, as long as it is fairly and consistently applied.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with a player telling the ref if someone threw a sneaky cheap punch or whatever. As long as its genuine.
read j70's response that covers it.
Quote from: hardstation on June 05, 2007, 02:00:47 AM
QuoteDo you expect everyone to just ignore these incidents then, pretend we didn't see them?
No. We saw them but only for the TV. There are people in place to look at everything that goes on on the pitch. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about them but why are we putting pressure on people to deal with things after the game is over?
Quote"hopefully within the rules"? You're proposing a bit of vigilantism instead of the proper authorities dealing with his transgressions in a proper professional manner? What happens if the retaliating Dub doesn't stay within the rules? Should the Meathmen sort it out themselves, or should the GAA then step in?
It's bound to happen. They will target Geraghty. No, I didn't ever say that the Meath men should sort it out but I do hope the referee sorts it out.
QuoteAnd they obviously cannot watch every pair of players and the ball for every second of the game. I agree with the original complaint about the rather arbitrary nature with which these punishments are dished out, but that is a problem with the process, not the principle. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea of retrospective punishment for something like the dig to the head Geraghty gave Henry when he was on the ground after releasing the ball. The problem is that Geraghty might be punished but the next guy might not.
The use of instant playbacks to decide issues like square balls is a separate issue.
The point I'm making is why do we want certain mistakes by the referee looked at and not others?
QuoteThat is just stupid. If Geraghty gets suspended, its his fault, and his alone. Dublin fans have every right to demand justice, as long as it is fairly and consistently applied.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with a player telling the ref if someone threw a sneaky cheap punch or whatever. As long as its genuine
.
Hold on a minute, who is controlling the decisions in the game? How can you even consider that players (never mind a teams fans as you mentioned) influencing the referees decisions is just? It makes a bit of a joke to the term referee. "Teacher, he hit me", "No I didn't teacher".
The point is that hindsight is a great thing but not something we should bring into our games.
I don't see why we shouldn't have hindsight in the game. If the technology is available, why not use it?
When I said square balls and so on were a separate issue, I meant as in a case can be made for treating serious foul play separately in terms of whether to use retrospective punishment. But, I accept your point of "if one, why not the other?"
Regarding players calling a referee's attention to an off-the-ball incident or a thrown dig or something, obviously the ref can only take action during the game if he or one of the other officials he can consult saw it. That kind of goes without saying!
Quote from: hardstation on June 05, 2007, 03:04:30 AM
QuoteI don't see why we shouldn't have hindsight in the game. If the technology is available, why not use it?
The technology that we have can be used in hindsight but could also be used during the game. It would take about three seconds for someone to talk in the referee's ear piece saying "Geraghty struck a dirty blow and has to walk". I would prefer this than people talking on the Sunday Game about the dirty blow Geraghty hit the Dublin boy and Geraghty being pulled up a week later. The technology is there in both cases.
QuoteWhen I said square balls and so on were a separate issue, I meant as in a case can be made for treating serious foul play separately in terms of whether to use retrospective punishment
Same as above really. I don't want to slow the games down but it wouldn't take much time for the referee to be called back by an official that watches it on a screen telling him that a serious foul took place. You may think, what do I put in my report says the referee? The same as he would put in his report if a linesman or umpire called his attention to something. Not even that but he could even watch it afterwards himself for satisfication.
QuoteRegarding players calling a referee's attention to an off-the-ball incident or a thrown dig or something, obviously the ref can only take action during the game if he or one of the other officials he can consult saw it. That kind of goes without saying!
Of course. I don't know if I missed what you were getting at in this part of your last post but this stands to sense with me.
What I'm saying is that I don't like hindsight evidence in football as it can be influenced too much. I prefer it being dealt with at the time.
Fair points all of those, but I think there is room for both.
Quote from: hardstation on June 05, 2007, 01:30:01 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 04, 2007, 11:25:01 PM
[
QuotePeople calling for players suspension are a joke just like players who run to the referee trying to get a player booked or sent off.
Bang on.
i'd love to see you as a ref -i'd say it would be compelling viewing. Tell you what let's go the whole hog- forget the rules let's just let everyone beat the shit out of each other- whatever team has less men in A&E after the game wins.
Very simple- why shouldn't people call for suspensions when someone strikes on the field. What are you suggesting exactly- that we can allow anyone away with anything on the field? If so that menas it's open season for players to get away with what they like and you may as well have no rules. If the technology is there then use it. Rugby use citings post the event and there is no reason and i haven't even seen one arguement yet that suggests that we shouldn't. If players know they can get away with anything then that is what they will do.
It wasn't a late tackle-it was a strike with the fist with no attempt to play the ball -sneaky and cowardly is what i would call it and it needs to be out of the game.
If he is available for the replay I don't think he'll come in for any special attention. Sure who's going to give it to him? McConnell, Griffin, Casey?
Does no one have a list of the players who have so far been banned using video evidence? It would be interesting if they were all either high profile players or from one of the big name counties.
Where have I suggested that we should just let everything go because you have pointed at that on two seperate occasions? Do you really think that if we don't use hindsight video evidence then it is open for players to get away with what they like? How have we come so far without it? Do you realise that there is a referee at matches, never mind linesmen and umpires?? "
yes and they all missed a bloody punch to the head despite two of them being within 15 yards of it. Thanks for making my point for me.