Messages

Definite striking action as opposed to a throw would need to be separation from the ball and hand prior to the strike, is that 5mm, 10mm or 100mm?

Two peoples definite strike is subjective.

Fair point, but there are many rules of play in the GAA - both codes - which are subjective

The referee has to make a call

And this is what I mean around the issue of getting them all to police it the same

Whilst it would maybe be best to define this more specifically, I don't think anyone could dispute that a huge amount (overwhelming majority?) of handpasses in the current game do not contain a 'definite striking action'

If that was policed as a start off - I think the issue would fade away

The wording is spot on. implementing it and dealing with the protests of players, sidelines, management and supporters who, from further away than the ref can see it better!

I'm not sure at coaching level people are coaching kids to throw the ball, I've never seen it or spoke to coaches who would say its part of their coaching.

The players take it on, they watch the games and think they can get away with and in a lot of games probably are.

As for the ref's they aint robots and they will all interpret the rules slightly differently, sure if they can't even get VAR right after multiple views in a professional sport its gives you an idea on how, in a sport that is going at a faster pace

The first bit is down to the GAA in general.  The wording needs to be communicated better - I'm not sure what channels are best for this, but all involved could do with clarification

I do know what you are saying - a great majority of people seem to be of the opinion that if there is the tiniest sliver of daylight between the ball and the hand then they haven't committed a foul

Unfortunately, by the rule book, that's very much not the case

[definite]

Released and struck with a definite striking action of a hand.

So are we to assume that if the referee is not in the correct position to see a hand pass, he should blow his whistle?

Clearly not.

Only an absolute clown would assume that

If you're not in a position to see either way, you can't blow a foul

Same for any infringement

But if you can see it, and you see the pass delivered without a definite (my bad, I said 'clear' earlier) striking action, then you should blow

In the cases above, you were 100% right by the rules to blow a free

And you were still right after the game - regardless of what some slow motion replay might have shown

Problen now is Limerick (easily the most as that's their style in the middle third more than anyone else) have went on with it/got away with it for so long, there'd be uproar if a referee blew a foul say, 8 times in a game.

Usual thing is GAA officials 'clamp down' on it in pre-season competition and early league, then it's disguarded unfortunately, except for the odd one now and again.

The genie is out of the bottle.

It can be enforced and that's down to the ref, I'm comfortable in my view of the rule and will call it if I see someone throw the ball. The biggest noise from the sideline is 'throw ball ref' and that will be for every hand pass, so people are claiming throw ball when in lots of cases its not.

I'm nearly sure last year they were going to trail the hand pass with a different approach, the ball needs to come off the hurl and passed?

From my playing days it was very rare in the game, was only in that latter stages of playing that I was, the odd time, throw the ball, strangely Id have been pulled on it 9 out of 10 times.

Few times last night there could have been some thrown balls but with lads in rucks or closed down it was difficult to see

With the amount of rucks in the game now it's near on impossible for referees to get a good line of sight to see if a ball is thrown or not and as someone else says, if you can't see the foul for sure then you can't give it.

Agreed - a bollox of a job

But there would still be a decent percentage that can be seen

It wouldn't take a lot to nip it in the bud - teams are coached to learn the referee - a couple of early ones blown and that puts it to bed for the rest of the game

The big issue with implementing this will be to get all referees to police it the same - which is nigh on impossible, but no different than any other rule in the book I suppose

Referees also need to be clear on the rule itself

Forgive my wording here

But too many of them seem to think they are looking for the 'presence of a throw' but they are actually looking for the 'absence of a definite striking action'

[definite]

Released and struck with a definite striking action of a hand.

So are we to assume that if the referee is not in the correct position to see a hand pass, he should blow his whistle?

Clearly not.

Only an absolute clown would assume that

If you're not in a position to see either way, you can't blow a foul

Same for any infringement

But if you can see it, and you see the pass delivered without a definite (my bad, I said 'clear' earlier) striking action, then you should blow

In the cases above, you were 100% right by the rules to blow a free

And you were still right after the game - regardless of what some slow motion replay might have shown

You don't need the slo mo, they are throwing them

I've blown for throws and have asked to see the odd match I've done, what I've seen at the match is completely different to when I watched the slow mo.

They ended up as proper passes!

Like I said I'd love to see everyone of Lynch's passes, they all look like fouls

The way the rules are defined is correct - and in that case almost all of Limerick's (and many others tbf) handpasses are fouls.

There's no need for a slow motion.

If the ref in real time doesn't see a 'clear striking action' it's a foul.  The onus is on the player to make a clear striking action.  Which few of them currently do.

This is like the black card debate all over again.  A clamour for rule changes when the rules (in this regard), if applied properly by referees, are perfectly fit for purpose.

What ever about the local politicians running for Westminster - the only real interest I have in that is the nationalist v unionist count at the end of it. An increase in the number of nationalists might nudge us further towards a border poll.

It feels inevitable that the Tories are going to lose in a landslide Labour victory and as much as I want to see that, I can't help but feel Starmer is not going to change much. I'm not a fan of his. It's such a pity Labour aren't going in with a Corbyn-esque leader who I think would do some real good. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think he was honest and had the good of all people at heart.

Starmer is the continuity candidate.

Starmer is basically a tory

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

This post is incredibly illustrative of the shift in the overton window that's occurred in British politics.

IMO Starmer is further to the right on most issues than Blair, which would put him very close to 'normal' Tory territory

This breed of Tories are so far to the right that they make every previous Tory leader (apart from Thatcher) looks like a bleeding heart leftie

Which issues is Starmer to the right of Blair on?

Immigration
Benefits
EU (Won't countenance rejoin)
Trade Union links
Middle East issues

to name a few

What ever about the local politicians running for Westminster - the only real interest I have in that is the nationalist v unionist count at the end of it. An increase in the number of nationalists might nudge us further towards a border poll.

It feels inevitable that the Tories are going to lose in a landslide Labour victory and as much as I want to see that, I can't help but feel Starmer is not going to change much. I'm not a fan of his. It's such a pity Labour aren't going in with a Corbyn-esque leader who I think would do some real good. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think he was honest and had the good of all people at heart.

Starmer is the continuity candidate.

Starmer is basically a tory

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

This post is incredibly illustrative of the shift in the overton window that's occurred in British politics.

IMO Starmer is further to the right on most issues than Blair, which would put him very close to 'normal' Tory territory

This breed of Tories are so far to the right that they make every previous Tory leader (apart from Thatcher) looks like a bleeding heart leftie

dont think he's done enough - took Slaughtneil for 6 weeks of the year after they got put out of football? and Tyrone? hardly a tier 1 manager.

And Gleeson's CV was?

Was he not backroom before manager? obviously impressed. Dont think mcshane would be a good move

Think he was tbf.

But let's face it - his entire managerial CV consisted of being in the backroom team of a Tier 2 county (at the time).  And he's from Tipp.

dont think he's done enough - took Slaughtneil for 6 weeks of the year after they got put out of football? and Tyrone? hardly a tier 1 manager.

And Gleeson's CV was?

[including armed reistence]

Sure its ok to miss quote, you have littered the thread with it

Well if NI is not comparable I haven't seen you knock anyone on here with their use of NI as a comparison

It will, like all wars end up around a table, the sooner they get there the more mothers will be alive, sons will grow to be adults and men will be able to go out and provide for their families

That is unfortunately a lot to do with what the Israelis do going forward. The US, UK and others will eventually sway to public demand and call a stop on their support.

Too late for the thousands that have lost their lives and continue to do so. Armed resistance won't cut it, if another similar Hamas attack happened again in the future be rest assured the same thing will happen again, like it has done for 75 years   

I have knocked using comparisons and try and avoid them myself..  I think I might have even mentioned it yesterday when I mentioned the Warsaw ghetto (posted at 12.45 yesterday) and its not the first time I mentioned it..

there wasn't armed resistence for (all) that 75 years and the Palestinians are still being murdered without consequence.

we are going around in circles..

should palestinans use all legal avenues to get self determination, including armed reistence?

if not, are you saying they need to wait and accept whatever faith comes ther way until Uk/US/EU decides the stop supporting Israel and then Israel also decides to take a difference approach to the last 75 years?

to be clear the faith that has come there way sees daily murders, 2.2m caged in Gaza, starvation, apartheid in Israel, and the west bank. And little or no sign of any chance of self determination.

'including armed reistence' in reality what will that achieve, it like throwing rocks at a tank, or poking the bear with a stick to see if it will chase you..

From history of conflicts the invaded people generally come out on top, but they have usually put up more resistance because there has been a huge financial backer and provider of weapons, America Russia China lets say in Vietnam being an obvious recent war, that impasse and body count of American soldiers and protests back home eventually brought about negotiations to bringing that to an end, same in Afghanistan.

The Palestinians don't have that outside body to fund that, Iran won't get much more involved, as they have no one to back them either. Its got to come to some sort of talks, and a 2 state solution is the only way to have agreement. Israel at the minute won't entertain that, the current and past governments have/had no love for it either.

Current conditions are not healthy for it

Might not happen though for another 75 years! 

Oh, and I haven't said they shouldn't have armed resistance, I'm just saying its futile 

It's no more futile than sitting at a talks table with someone who has no interest in talking to you

Or who hasn't even turned up to the talks because they've no incentive to

They might as well throw rocks at the tanks

And there's another school of thought ref. the 6 county conflict, namely that the only thing that brought the British to the talks table in a serious way was a series of bombs in England

I think there's validity in that

If you think there is validity in blowing innocent people into smithereens grand, whatever floats your boat

They were setting off bombs in England during the 70's 80's and 90's over 30 years it didn't help or changed the mindset for a long time, if that was actually was the reason

What brought people to the table or behind close doors  there was no end game other than dialogue that and the republican movement was completely infiltrated by touts, and needed to go down the political process, which has brought about a SF minister, still under British rule but a lot further down the road than 50 years ago.

As php said there is no comparison though

Look anything is better than doing nothing internationally, but the big guns are still rowing in behind the Israelis, all I've said is that it will only stop when they talk, are the conditions there at the minute for that? no..

Marches and protests will obviously bring and keep attention/focus on the genocide, but the main governments, mainly the US as the rest will fall in behind them need to demand the talks

You know full well that's not what I meant

But you decided, pathetically, to go for the cheap point score anyway

Which I shouldn't be surprised about I suppose


You keep mentioning talks - but talks only work when both sides WANT to engage

For any negotiation to happen, in any setting, both sides need some sort of leverage

The Palestinians currently have none

When one side just wants to keep murdering your citizens and stealing your land - and can do so with total impunity, pray tell me what the fcuk the point would be of turning up to sit and talk about it

I stand by what I said - and it's generally recognised by many people a lot more qualified than either of us - the bombing in England was a crucial factor in making the British govt realise that talks were the only way - they had tried the military route and it got them nowhere

You are fond of the cheap shots also, so dry your eyes

I've said repeatedly that the the conditions are nowhere near right for talks, but talks will be the only way this conflict will have better ending.

What do Hamas want to bring to the table? They want a 2 state solution to be part of the PLO and be legitimised, that said they still ant to destroy Israel (and who can blame them) but that rhetoric isn't helpful either..

Talks 20 years ago should have been upheld and the Israelis kept in check on land grabbing and abuse to those living in Gaza, that's on those that set up those talks, it allowed Israel to do what it wanted.

I've no idea how any resolution will come about, to even go into talks, but that doesn't mean armed resistance is the other solution. It's not and won't, regardless of what you think happened over here, stop those feckers from doing what they are doing now 

My views on how this place, it was purely political in the end. I don't think bombings that spanned the 3 decades actually made a difference. If nearly taking out the Tory government in Brighton didn't work I fail to see how it was the main reason, that was in 84, Good Friday Agreement 98..

As you said though there are smarter people than us that good give many reasons. And look you can throw out cheap pot shots at me till the cows come home, you are a nobody person (like me) behind a screen, you've no impact on my life

It's always political in the end - that's a nothing observation.

As is the rest of it to be frank.  A whole lot of if, but and shouldn't.  Nothing

Brolly had a good line on it somewhere... basically something along the lines that in the whole history of human kind, people who lived under oppressive regimes for sustained periods ALWAYS ended up resorting to violence.  It's human nature - nothing more.

Someone (you?) asked he question earlier regarding what Hamas expected in retaliation to October 7th.  The question should actually be - What did Israel expect after 75 years of subjugation?

And finally - please drop the perma-victim routine.  I engaged with you in good faith, you acted the child, I called you out.  No need for the histrionics - nobody cares

[including armed reistence]

Sure its ok to miss quote, you have littered the thread with it

Well if NI is not comparable I haven't seen you knock anyone on here with their use of NI as a comparison

It will, like all wars end up around a table, the sooner they get there the more mothers will be alive, sons will grow to be adults and men will be able to go out and provide for their families

That is unfortunately a lot to do with what the Israelis do going forward. The US, UK and others will eventually sway to public demand and call a stop on their support.

Too late for the thousands that have lost their lives and continue to do so. Armed resistance won't cut it, if another similar Hamas attack happened again in the future be rest assured the same thing will happen again, like it has done for 75 years   

I have knocked using comparisons and try and avoid them myself..  I think I might have even mentioned it yesterday when I mentioned the Warsaw ghetto (posted at 12.45 yesterday) and its not the first time I mentioned it..

there wasn't armed resistence for (all) that 75 years and the Palestinians are still being murdered without consequence.

we are going around in circles..

should palestinans use all legal avenues to get self determination, including armed reistence?

if not, are you saying they need to wait and accept whatever faith comes ther way until Uk/US/EU decides the stop supporting Israel and then Israel also decides to take a difference approach to the last 75 years?

to be clear the faith that has come there way sees daily murders, 2.2m caged in Gaza, starvation, apartheid in Israel, and the west bank. And little or no sign of any chance of self determination.

'including armed reistence' in reality what will that achieve, it like throwing rocks at a tank, or poking the bear with a stick to see if it will chase you..

From history of conflicts the invaded people generally come out on top, but they have usually put up more resistance because there has been a huge financial backer and provider of weapons, America Russia China lets say in Vietnam being an obvious recent war, that impasse and body count of American soldiers and protests back home eventually brought about negotiations to bringing that to an end, same in Afghanistan.

The Palestinians don't have that outside body to fund that, Iran won't get much more involved, as they have no one to back them either. Its got to come to some sort of talks, and a 2 state solution is the only way to have agreement. Israel at the minute won't entertain that, the current and past governments have/had no love for it either.

Current conditions are not healthy for it

Might not happen though for another 75 years! 

Oh, and I haven't said they shouldn't have armed resistance, I'm just saying its futile 

It's no more futile than sitting at a talks table with someone who has no interest in talking to you

Or who hasn't even turned up to the talks because they've no incentive to

They might as well throw rocks at the tanks

And there's another school of thought ref. the 6 county conflict, namely that the only thing that brought the British to the talks table in a serious way was a series of bombs in England

I think there's validity in that

If you think there is validity in blowing innocent people into smithereens grand, whatever floats your boat

They were setting off bombs in England during the 70's 80's and 90's over 30 years it didn't help or changed the mindset for a long time, if that was actually was the reason

What brought people to the table or behind close doors  there was no end game other than dialogue that and the republican movement was completely infiltrated by touts, and needed to go down the political process, which has brought about a SF minister, still under British rule but a lot further down the road than 50 years ago.

As php said there is no comparison though

Look anything is better than doing nothing internationally, but the big guns are still rowing in behind the Israelis, all I've said is that it will only stop when they talk, are the conditions there at the minute for that? no..

Marches and protests will obviously bring and keep attention/focus on the genocide, but the main governments, mainly the US as the rest will fall in behind them need to demand the talks

You know full well that's not what I meant

But you decided, pathetically, to go for the cheap point score anyway

Which I shouldn't be surprised about I suppose


You keep mentioning talks - but talks only work when both sides WANT to engage

For any negotiation to happen, in any setting, both sides need some sort of leverage

The Palestinians currently have none

When one side just wants to keep murdering your citizens and stealing your land - and can do so with total impunity, pray tell me what the fcuk the point would be of turning up to sit and talk about it

I stand by what I said - and it's generally recognised by many people a lot more qualified than either of us - the bombing in England was a crucial factor in making the British govt realise that talks were the only way - they had tried the military route and it got them nowhere

[including armed reistence]

Sure its ok to miss quote, you have littered the thread with it

Well if NI is not comparable I haven't seen you knock anyone on here with their use of NI as a comparison

It will, like all wars end up around a table, the sooner they get there the more mothers will be alive, sons will grow to be adults and men will be able to go out and provide for their families

That is unfortunately a lot to do with what the Israelis do going forward. The US, UK and others will eventually sway to public demand and call a stop on their support.

Too late for the thousands that have lost their lives and continue to do so. Armed resistance won't cut it, if another similar Hamas attack happened again in the future be rest assured the same thing will happen again, like it has done for 75 years   

I have knocked using comparisons and try and avoid them myself..  I think I might have even mentioned it yesterday when I mentioned the Warsaw ghetto (posted at 12.45 yesterday) and its not the first time I mentioned it..

there wasn't armed resistence for (all) that 75 years and the Palestinians are still being murdered without consequence.

we are going around in circles..

should palestinans use all legal avenues to get self determination, including armed reistence?

if not, are you saying they need to wait and accept whatever faith comes ther way until Uk/US/EU decides the stop supporting Israel and then Israel also decides to take a difference approach to the last 75 years?

to be clear the faith that has come there way sees daily murders, 2.2m caged in Gaza, starvation, apartheid in Israel, and the west bank. And little or no sign of any chance of self determination.

'including armed reistence' in reality what will that achieve, it like throwing rocks at a tank, or poking the bear with a stick to see if it will chase you..

From history of conflicts the invaded people generally come out on top, but they have usually put up more resistance because there has been a huge financial backer and provider of weapons, America Russia China lets say in Vietnam being an obvious recent war, that impasse and body count of American soldiers and protests back home eventually brought about negotiations to bringing that to an end, same in Afghanistan.

The Palestinians don't have that outside body to fund that, Iran won't get much more involved, as they have no one to back them either. Its got to come to some sort of talks, and a 2 state solution is the only way to have agreement. Israel at the minute won't entertain that, the current and past governments have/had no love for it either.

Current conditions are not healthy for it

Might not happen though for another 75 years! 

Oh, and I haven't said they shouldn't have armed resistance, I'm just saying its futile 

It's no more futile than sitting at a talks table with someone who has no interest in talking to you

Or who hasn't even turned up to the talks because they've no incentive to

They might as well throw rocks at the tanks

And there's another school of thought ref. the 6 county conflict, namely that the only thing that brought the British to the talks table in a serious way was a series of bombs in England

I think there's validity in that

Irexit incoming? What would the vote be like for that? Controlling your own borders and having all shape bananas

Surely, when they look at the mess that's the UK's been in, anyone with half a brain would realise this is madness

Lets face it - the brits did it 'cos of da foreigners'

And the foreigners have never been spilling into the country quicker

Even the far right looney bins can see that?  No?

My god there are some crying hoors in the GAA who want everything for free, I surely hope they are over represented on this board or the organisation is truely in trouble.

Crying about the price of tickets to games, and the price of diesel to get to games, and how much a feed costs, and having to get a ticket for the wains, and not getting to see every game on FTA tv, and the game they just saw was lateral shite, and the forward mark, and the studio analysis, and negative managers, and people coming to the door selling tickets for their club, and the amount of money the GAA has, and the lack of money the GAA gives our club, ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum.

And then thinking they are great GAA men when they've not ever wore a shirt or even washed a shirt.

I would say the vast majority of posters on here are not even GAA members.

Keyser, in my experience a good auld moan and gripe is the common language of humanity. I've spent plenty of time abroad and worked with many nationalities and the average gaa fan or poster on this board is no different to the majority everywhere else (well west coast USA with their unwavering positivity might be the exception).
And as for your comment on posters probably not being members, I suspect the vast majority of us are pretty involved with gaa at some level. We are the diehards or we wouldn't be on here in the first place. Not that many people find discussions on the kickout strategies of Armagh all that interesting you know....

There certainly are diehards on here but a majority, definitely not.

There was a thread on ticket selling on here recently.

Not only was there just one poster, of the many who contributed to the thread, who had actually gone out to sell tickets, but there were quite a few who were complaining about being asked to buy a ticket by clubs coming to their door, and there were even a few calling for it to be banned.

Like what sort of GAA person would begrudge being ASKED to voluntarily contribute a few quid to the GAA, by a person who is giving up their time to travel around the country to raise funds for their local club. The people selling the tickets are diehards, people whinging about it on Gaaboard are blowhards.

So no I don't agree that a majority are GAA diehards, their diehardness extends to going to county matches and complaining their hole off on GAA board about stuff they probably know very little about.

And yes that would indeed include Armagh kickout strategies

You seem to have a very narrow agenda.

I've:

- played football for 35 years.
- coached and selected at teams from under-8 to senior, including the past 8 years unbroken.
- spent over 15 years on our club committee, including 5 as treasurer.
- served as our county board rep for a couple of years and on a county board subcommittee for a year.
- acted as a team liaison for our county minors for two years.

And my sincere opinion is that if a club from say County Derry cannot find the funds within their own parish, community, town, county to build whatever it they think they need, then they've no business asking people from say County Down to put their hands in their pockets and pay for it.

Am I not GAA enough to be entitled to this opinion?

No issue with you holding that opinion at all.

My opinion would be that the GAA is a national organisation and one which raison d'etre was to promote Irish games and pastimes on a national basis.  (Just checked there - the words Nation/National are mentioned in the preface to the Official Guide 10 times).

My sincerely held opinion is that there should be zero issue with clubs fundraising on a national basis (if practicalities allowed).

I think we should take it as a source of pride that members a club in Antrim would see fit to contribute to a club in Kerry (or vice versa).  Indeed, it is entirely in line with the aims and ethos of the association.

The parish/town/county element of it should be left to the actual games only.

If you feel so strongly about it, you can always just emmm... not buy them?