Selective video evidence

[Yes I Would]

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...

[INDIANA]

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.

[Maguire01]

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.

[Tyrone Dreamer]

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.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

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! 

[pintsofguinness]

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.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

whatever keeps you warm at night pints

[David McKeown]

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

[tyssam5]

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.

[under the bar]

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?

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........

[Hardy]

The appeals culture should be tackled. All penalties should be doubled on appeal failure.

[saffron sam2]

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?

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.

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.

[SidelineKick]

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?

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.

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?

[saffron sam2]

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.

[SidelineKick]

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.