All-Ireland Senior Football final - Kerry v Dublin 18/09/2011

[OverThePostsAWide]

When there is some handbags in the Premiership, the co-commentator will (often ruefully) say "he raised his hand, he has to go". I don't know what the actual rule is in Soccer but I doubt it says anything about raising hands.

In Gaelic the rule is a strike or attempted strike with the arm, elbow, hand or knee. The issue is did Connolly strike or attempt to strike Boyle?

Is a push to the chest a strike? An opened hand push to the face? A closed fist "push" to the chest or face? Traditionally, these are not normally regarded as "strikes" in Gaelic (unless they are particularly forceful and/or cause injury).

There is no "self-defense" clause and I am inclined to see Boyle, Connolly and Kavanagh actions as aggressive actions short of striking. To do anything else and be consistant would see dozens sent off every close match and at least one after every free kick that's being obstructed.

Deegan was hamstrung because he wasn't able to apply common sense to an incident he didn't actually see himself but acted on the (poor IMO) judgement of the linesman.

(Edit: whoops Hardy, I see you have been so much more eloquent in making the same points  )

[Hardy]

Not at all. I thought your points were very eloquently put.

(A lad I knew would often say coming off the pitch "you played great. How did I play?"

[blewuporstuffed]

It shows how difficult an administrator's job can be, never mind a referee's, when you have sensible, sincere people here taking dramatically opposing views of an incident we all saw clearly. It illustrates that it all comes down to interpretation.

In this case, the rule is fairly clear cut - the offence is "to strike or to attempt to strike an opponent with head, arm, elbow, hand or knee". It doesn't say anything about self defence. Neither does it say anything about what part of the opponent's body is struck. So it would seem there's not much room for interpretation.

But was it a strike? What defines a strike? This is where interpretation comes in. For me, Connolly is fending off an aggressor. He puts up his two outstretched arms with his fists closed. That's my interpretation. Others will say it was more than "putting up" his arms/fists. It was a punch.

Who's right? I don't know. I imagine the answer depends on when a push/fend off becomes a punch and I imagine that depends on the speed of movement of the hands. But there's no definition of this in the rules (or anywhere else, that I know of), so we're back to interpretation.

All I can offer is my own interpretation that it's an extreme interpretation to call either of Connolly's contacts with Boyle a strike. If we consider intent, anyone intending to strike with malice doesn't push out with his two fists straight in front of him, like a girl.

If Connolly had done exactly the same thing, but caught Boyle in the chest with both contacts, would people be calling it a red card offence? Yet the rule says nothing about a strike in the face being worse than one in the chest.

And since it's a matter of interpretation, if I was the one charged with the decision, I would err in my interpretation on the side of natural justice and attach considerable weight to Boyle's antics and the fact that Kavanagh did exactly the same to Connolly without penalty. 

Consistency of interpretation is another question altogether and that's where you have to wonder when you compare Brian Farrell's red card that stuck, Whelan's punch on Crawford and the Connolly incident.

Good post Hardy
while i feel the sending off was harsh in the first instance, the fact that it was over turned does show a huge lack of consistancy when looking at these things retrospectively

[Jinxy]

You don't push someone with a closed fist.
End of story.

[Michael Schmeichal]

It shows how difficult an administrator's job can be, never mind a referee's, when you have sensible, sincere people here taking dramatically opposing views of an incident we all saw clearly. It illustrates that it all comes down to interpretation.

In this case, the rule is fairly clear cut - the offence is "to strike or to attempt to strike an opponent with head, arm, elbow, hand or knee". It doesn't say anything about self defence. Neither does it say anything about what part of the opponent's body is struck. So it would seem there's not much room for interpretation.

But was it a strike? What defines a strike? This is where interpretation comes in. For me, Connolly is fending off an aggressor. He puts up his two outstretched arms with his fists closed. That's my interpretation. Others will say it was more than "putting up" his arms/fists. It was a punch.

Who's right? I don't know. I imagine the answer depends on when a push/fend off becomes a punch and I imagine that depends on the speed of movement of the hands. But there's no definition of this in the rules (or anywhere else, that I know of), so we're back to interpretation.

All I can offer is my own interpretation that it's an extreme interpretation to call either of Connolly's contacts with Boyle a strike. If we consider intent, anyone intending to strike with malice doesn't push out with his two fists straight in front of him, like a girl.

If Connolly had done exactly the same thing, but caught Boyle in the chest with both contacts, would people be calling it a red card offence? Yet the rule says nothing about a strike in the face being worse than one in the chest.

And since it's a matter of interpretation, if I was the one charged with the decision, I would err in my interpretation on the side of natural justice and attach considerable weight to Boyle's antics and the fact that Kavanagh did exactly the same to Connolly without penalty. 

Consistency of interpretation is another question altogether and that's where you have to wonder when you compare Brian Farrell's red card that stuck, Whelan's punch on Crawford and the Connolly incident.

I think the above is the most sensible, well made opinion on the issue that I have read.

Also from what I'm hearing last night the red card was downgraded to a yellow card as they felt what Connolly did, did not constitute striking. A sensible decision but as a few have already pointed out there is a real lack of consistency here when you look at the Brian Farrell incident.

[OverThePostsAWide]

You don't push someone with a closed fist.
End of story.

But you can. Maybe you change your mind at the last minute? 
Epilogue to your end of story.

[Hardy]

I got sent off for hitting someone a slap with my open hand. (It was soccer, though. Sorry.)

[OverThePostsAWide]

I got sent off for hitting someone a slap with my open hand. (It was soccer, though. Sorry.)

Not a good image Hardy, sorry 

[Jinxy]

I got sent off for hitting someone a slap with my open hand. (It was soccer, though. Sorry.)

In many ways, a good hard slap is much more of an insult to ones manhood than a full on punch in the gob.

[brokencrossbar1]

I got sent off for hitting someone a slap with my open hand. (It was soccer, though. Sorry.)

[squire_in_navy_slacks]

What a song..............................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6bImz_PUjU

[Hardy]

It was a hard slap, OK? Very hard. My brain turned it from a punch to a slap in mid swing as the horror of how hard I was going to hit him ... er ... struck me.

[muppet]

Not at all. I thought your points were very eloquently put.

(A lad I knew would often say coming off the pitch "you played great. How did I play?"

A midfielder I played with used to do this a lot. "you were great, how did I do?"

[spuds]

http://www.youtube.com/user/1986Lynott?blend=14&ob=5#p/a/u/0/k2-ZeHyZalM

[Hardy]

Oh good God.