Corduff lose their Ulster Title - Swanlinbar win appeal

thebandit · January 12, 2011, 01:12:40 PM

Corduff have been stripped of their Ulster Junior football title.

Swanlinbar are the 2010 Ulster club junior football champions after winning last night's appeal to the Ulster Council.

The Cavan club, who were defeated by Monaghan junior champions Corduff in last month's provincial decider at Kingspan Breffni Park, were awarded the title after being successful in their appeal against the legality of one of the opposition's players.

The hearing found that a Corduff substitute ,who scored a decisive goal in the game, was Under 16 last season and under GAA rules adult teams are not permitted to field Under 16 players.

As a result, the game was forfeited to Swad and they will now go on to represent Ulster in the semi-finals of the All-Ireland club JFC.

A bit of a joke......

orangeman · January 12, 2011, 01:16:42 PM

Bad form.

tonesfirstandlast · January 12, 2011, 01:37:05 PM

Can't see what the problem is. Corduff played an illegal player who had a big impact oin the result of the game. For all you know swanlinbar had an u16 player they could have played.

118cmal · January 12, 2011, 01:41:23 PM

Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 12, 2011, 01:37:05 PM
Can't see what the problem is. Corduff played an illegal player who had a big impact oin the result of the game. For all you know swanlinbar had an u16 player they could have played.

This would be my opinion as well. Rules are rules.

Also, I believe that a replay was what swad requested but I don't think there was any precedent for that.

Man Marker · January 12, 2011, 01:44:00 PM

Agree totally, rules are there for a reason, not for Corduff to do as they please.

Bingo · January 12, 2011, 01:45:55 PM

Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 12, 2011, 01:37:05 PM
Can't see what the problem is. Corduff played an illegal player who had a big impact oin the result of the game. For all you know swanlinbar had an u16 player they could have played.

I'd agree totally, we can disagree with the rule as it is but it still has to be applied and respected. By all accounts Corduff had been told of the risk they where taking.

lynchbhoy · January 12, 2011, 01:46:36 PM

Quote from: tonesfirstandlast on January 12, 2011, 01:37:05 PM
Can't see what the problem is. Corduff played an illegal player who had a big impact oin the result of the game. For all you know swanlinbar had an u16 player they could have played.

apparantly according to a Swad supporter over pints at Christmas, the Swad did indeed have two u16's they could have played but didnt.

I still find this rule a bit silly , much as I find it bad that Corduff were stripped of their title.

Man Marker · January 12, 2011, 01:48:19 PM

The rule maybe silly, or it may not be, that is irrelevant. What is the point in having rules if they aren't respected.

lynchbhoy · January 12, 2011, 02:17:45 PM

Quote from: Man Marker on January 12, 2011, 01:48:19 PM
The rule maybe silly, or it may not be, that is irrelevant. What is the point in having rules if they aren't respected.

true. The letter of the law is to be observed.
but imo its a silly rule that should be u15 not u16

HiMucker · January 12, 2011, 02:25:18 PM

I made my view clear about it on an early thread. I would be of the same opinion as you Lynchbhoy. Rules have to be respected but the punishment should also equal the crime. I was talking to a mate from the our club and he said they had similar issues in rugby in Newzealand so rather than play by age group they played by weight. If you were the right weight you played at the right level. It stopped man childs from dominating at underage and helped them improve as they played at their particular level instead. Is this not something that could be looked at?

mylestheslasher · January 12, 2011, 02:27:15 PM

Its real black and white this one lads no matter what anyone thinks. Corduff were warned not to play this player and still did so. This guy in not even elligible to play U21's.

Swads appeal was for a replay. Corduff could have agreed to this and between the 2 clubs they could have arranged this with the Ulster council. Instead Corduff decided that they were in the right (which is amazing) and went to the Ulster council and lost their title. Swad did not want to win a title in this manner.

Corduff were 100% clearly and very stupidly in breech of this rule and there was no option but to take the title away from them.

As for the rule itself. The rule is there to prevent player burnout. It is aimed at preventing young players playing football 5 days a week, 12 months a year. It is not possible to tailor a rule to each individual based on the size & strength of the player. These U16's will have plenty of opportunity to play ball when they are the correct age.

Man Marker · January 12, 2011, 02:33:44 PM

Quote from: HiMucker on January 12, 2011, 02:25:18 PM
I made my view clear about it on an early thread. I would be of the same opinion as you Lynchbhoy. Rules have to be respected but the punishment should also equal the crime. I was talking to a mate from the our club and he said they had similar issues in rugby in Newzealand so rather than play by age group they played by weight. If you were the right weight you played at the right level. It stopped man childs from dominating at underage and helped them improve as they played at their particular level instead. Is this not something that could be looked at?

the punishment reflect the crime, eh? you now making up your own rule book. They played an ineligable player, if this had of went to the DRA, Swan would have won with their eyes shut.

Whats wrong with the rule, protecting lads u16 from getting knocked rotten. Understand the weight logic and there may be merit in it, but they are still as green as grass whenever it comes to senior club championship football. Agreed with Myles

HiMucker · January 12, 2011, 02:45:35 PM

We will just have to agree to disagree. For as i can see that they were stupid to breach the rule and rules should be respected i will never think that is fair to strip a club, a parish a community of an ulster tittle on the back of playing someone who is eneligible because they are considered too young to play at that level. The rule does absoultely nothing to protect from player burn out i remember coaching under 16s and a pile of players landed to the match on their bikes, they had just cycled back from the beach which was 15 miles away! You will not stop young cubs running about flat to the mat if they want to.

Man Marker · January 12, 2011, 02:50:45 PM

Quote from: HiMucker on January 12, 2011, 02:45:35 PM
We will just have to agree to disagree. For as i can see that they were stupid to breach the rule and rules should be respected i will never think that is fair to strip a club, a parish a community of an ulster tittle on the back of playing someone who is eneligible because they are considered too young to play at that level. The rule does absoultely nothing to protect from player burn out i remember coaching under 16s and a pile of players landed to the match on their bikes, they had just cycled back from the beach which was 15 miles away! You will not stop young cubs running about flat to the mat if they want to.

Agreed on that point, but what it does protect is some young lad under 16 getting knocked stupid from a man of 28/29/35 yrs of age in a tackle he's not hear fit for

Westside · January 12, 2011, 02:55:31 PM

The point a lot of people seem to be missing is that Corduff would have been stripped of the title even without an appeal from Swad. Had Swad not appealed Corduff would have forfeited the game but it would not have been awarded to Swad. It's in the rulebook lads.

Swad pushed very hard for a replay, they didn't want this outcome. Incidentally Swad do have at least 1 under 16 that would be on their senior team without this rule.

Corduff have nobody to blame but themselves. Best of luck to Swad in the Semi Final.