More Thuggery on the GAA field

[ballymac]

I had heard this story, young Derrytresk player who admired O Sullivan went up to shake his hand and speak to him and was floored. I didnt believe it as I had heard O Sullivan was being jossled coming off the pitch and someone on the Derrytresk side was jeering at him and he pushed that player and was then surrounded and hit with a handbag and then ran to the tunnell. It is now clear why he was surrounded.
I owe the brother an apology as that picture makes it obvious that O Sullivan struck a 17 yr player who actually admired  O  Sullivan. I wonder what he thinks of him now. I can understand that as O Sullivan had received special treatment throughout the game that he would not have been in the best form, but the game was over and he was not surrounded by women weilding handbags at the time.
But going back to the punishments and the melee that occurred just before half time can not be condoned and needs punished, but 5 yrs suspension. Forget the fact that Derrytresk may never make it to an all ireland semi again, has the GAA SET A PRECEDENT that if a similar offence happens in any club championship then a 5yr suspension will follow, or are all ireland club finals to be treated differently to a first round junior match in any county. I think the GAA need to come and state what their stance is on it. 

[Hardy]

That's an odd reading of it Hardy. Derrytresk have been mightily restrained in all of this.

Are you serious?

I will admit my perception may be skewed by reading this board as opposed to concentrating on what the club itself has been saying. Have a look at Ballymac's last post there, for example. Apart from yet another whinge about perceived bias and injustice, is his narrative about Declan O'Sullivan's alleged behaviour acceptable on the basis of "I had heard this story"? The kangaroo court of the gaaboard couldn't hold a candle to any perceived injustices meted out by the CCCC.

[AZOffaly]

Why was a Derrytresk sub near him in the first place?
Commiserating with him no doubt.
Anyway, still pictures can be very misleading.

How is this picture misleading?

Because it doesn't show context. Is this retalliation or did O'Sullivan just walk up and clatter this fella? I don't know either way, but that's why video is much better than stills. I certainly think this was the precursor to the handbag lady alright.

does it matter?

Not really, in terms of did he strike or not, but it would matter in terms of suspension etc. It's slightly prejudicial to show a picture of lad throwing a punch without showing what lead to the punch. But the punch itself is clear enough.

[blewuporstuffed]

Why was a Derrytresk sub near him in the first place?
Commiserating with him no doubt.
Anyway, still pictures can be very misleading.

How is this picture misleading?

Because it doesn't show context. Is this retalliation or did O'Sullivan just walk up and clatter this fella? I don't know either way, but that's why video is much better than stills. I certainly think this was the precursor to the handbag lady alright.

does it matter?

Not really, in terms of did he strike or not, but it would matter in terms of suspension etc. It's slightly prejudicial to show a picture of lad throwing a punch without showing what lead to the punch. But the punch itself is clear enough.

i take your point, but just as the picture doesnt show that he lad came up and goaded an oponent, it also doesnt show a young lad coming up to shake the hand of one of the games most high profile players, from the picture you cant tell what the context is, but it does seem pretty clear that osullivan struck him.
The thing is, you cant use the logic that it was aceptable for osullivan to deck him becuase he was goading him (even though maybe understandable)
Would it then make it acceptable for the handbag woman and other players to come to a young lads aid, after seeing him being struck?

i have no bias whatso ever towards derrytresk, but i feel yet again the GAA have made a hems of handling this.
In my view any sub that entered the feild during the melee deserves a ban.
anyone that is clearly caught on video striking, deserves a ban. Derrytresk should be fined for the behaviour of thier subs/supportors.
but all this 'conributing to a melee' & 'misconduct considered to have discredited the Association' crap is far two vague and open to manipulation to suit whatever agenda the gaa or the media want to make it suit.

[AZOffaly]

That's an odd reading of it Hardy. Derrytresk have been mightily restrained in all of this.

Are you serious?

I will admit my perception may be skewed by reading this board as opposed to concentrating on what the club itself has been saying. Have a look at Ballymac's last post there, for example. Apart from yet another whinge about perceived bias and injustice, is his narrative about Declan O'Sullivan's alleged behaviour acceptable on the basis of "I had heard this story"? The kangaroo court of the gaaboard couldn't hold a candle to any perceived injustices meted out by the CCCC.

Exactly. That is completely different to the version I heard, not surprisingly, but what's the point of posting, 'Actually I heard such and such instead'. All Heresay. And that's why I didn't post anything at all about specific incidents until everyone had seen the video.

[AZOffaly]

Why was a Derrytresk sub near him in the first place?
Commiserating with him no doubt.
Anyway, still pictures can be very misleading.

How is this picture misleading?

Because it doesn't show context. Is this retalliation or did O'Sullivan just walk up and clatter this fella? I don't know either way, but that's why video is much better than stills. I certainly think this was the precursor to the handbag lady alright.

does it matter?

Not really, in terms of did he strike or not, but it would matter in terms of suspension etc. It's slightly prejudicial to show a picture of lad throwing a punch without showing what lead to the punch. But the punch itself is clear enough.

i take your point, but just as the picture doesnt show that he lad came up and goaded an oponent, it also doesnt show a young lad coming up to shake the hand of one of the games most high profile players, from the picture you cant tell what the context is, but it does seem pretty clear that osullivan struck him.
The thing is, you cant use the logic that it was aceptable for osullivan to deck him becuase he was goading him (even though maybe understandable)
Would it then make it acceptable for the handbag woman and other players to come to a young lads aid, after seeing him being struck?

i have no bias whatso ever towards derrytresk, but i feel yet again the GAA have made a hems of handling this.
In my view any sub that entered the feild during the melee deserves a ban.
anyone that is clearly caught on video striking, deserves a ban. Derrytresk should be fined for the behaviour of thier subs/supportors.
but all this 'conributing to a melee' & 'misconduct considered to have discredited the Association' crap is far two vague and open to manipulation to suit whatever agenda the gaa or the media want to make it suit.

That picture looks bad, and striking after the match is never a good thing, but you cannot take a photo like that without taking it in context, and unless we either see it live, or on video, you can't even guess at context. One lad could say a young fella came over to shake his hand and he was so vexed at losing that he threw a box at him. Another fella could say that the lad came over to him and abused him from a height, or pushed him,  and he threw a punch.

In neither case would the fella throwing the punch be right, but the context would obviously be hugely different.

[tbrick18]

Context is irrelevant.
It's like saying, "I hit him because he hit me".... doesn't matter, if you strike you go.
How many times have we heard the reason behind a suspension being that if there is evidence there then the powers that be will use it, and this explains away the use of video/photos etc.
For me, this is evidence the #11 struck. Nothing more or nothing less....context doesn't come into it.
Based on this evidence, he could well find himself in bother.
I've said before that IMO all the DT subs that came on the pitch should have been suspended...anyone who punched should also be suspended, but that applies to all sides.
5 year ban is unbelievable. If this is a precedent, there'll be more and more of these bans. Having done this once, they have to treat all future cases in the same way. What about the incident with Louth where the referee was, lets say harrassed, by a supporter after the final with Meath....should Louth not have had a 5 year ban?
I just dont get where that came from.....and if its going to be the norm from now on, fair enough. But unless it is going to be the norm for these sorts of issues then DT have been harshly treated to say the least.

[AZOffaly]

Context is irrelevant.
It's like saying, "I hit him because he hit me".... doesn't matter, if you strike you go.
How many times have we heard the reason behind a suspension being that if there is evidence there then the powers that be will use it, and this explains away the use of video/photos etc.
For me, this is evidence the #11 struck. Nothing more or nothing less....context doesn't come into it.
Based on this evidence, he could well find himself in bother.
I've said before that IMO all the DT subs that came on the pitch should have been suspended...anyone who punched should also be suspended, but that applies to all sides.
5 year ban is unbelievable. If this is a precedent, there'll be more and more of these bans. Having done this once, they have to treat all future cases in the same way. What about the incident with Louth where the referee was, lets say harrassed, by a supporter after the final with Meath....should Louth not have had a 5 year ban?
I just dont get where that came from.....and if its going to be the norm from now on, fair enough. But unless it is going to be the norm for these sorts of issues then DT have been harshly treated to say the least.

Read what I said again. I said the striking was wrong. But context is very far from irrelevant when deciding on a suspension.

[blewuporstuffed]

Context is irrelevant.
It's like saying, "I hit him because he hit me".... doesn't matter, if you strike you go.
How many times have we heard the reason behind a suspension being that if there is evidence there then the powers that be will use it, and this explains away the use of video/photos etc.
For me, this is evidence the #11 struck. Nothing more or nothing less....context doesn't come into it.
Based on this evidence, he could well find himself in bother.
I've said before that IMO all the DT subs that came on the pitch should have been suspended...anyone who punched should also be suspended, but that applies to all sides.
5 year ban is unbelievable. If this is a precedent, there'll be more and more of these bans. Having done this once, they have to treat all future cases in the same way. What about the incident with Louth where the referee was, lets say harrassed, by a supporter after the final with Meath....should Louth not have had a 5 year ban?
I just dont get where that came from.....and if its going to be the norm from now on, fair enough. But unless it is going to be the norm for these sorts of issues then DT have been harshly treated to say the least.

good post.

alot of the sanctions handed out lately seem to be a case of 4 or 5 men sitting round going 'wait to hear this one, i've got a good one for them' with no procedure to follow or sense of consitancy

[AZOffaly]

It's the old bugbear of consistency, and I agree that there seems to be little precedent for the bans. FWIW I think the 5 year ban is daft, but I also think 4 weeks for anyone that came in from the sidelines is very weak, unless the 3 that didn't appeal got a lot longer.  Those lads were completely out of order and I don't think anyone denies that.

Remains to be seen if the GAA do the same thing the next time something like this happens, and I hope they do, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't.

Unless it's a club from Ulster again

[tbrick18]

Context is irrelevant.
It's like saying, "I hit him because he hit me".... doesn't matter, if you strike you go.
How many times have we heard the reason behind a suspension being that if there is evidence there then the powers that be will use it, and this explains away the use of video/photos etc.
For me, this is evidence the #11 struck. Nothing more or nothing less....context doesn't come into it.
Based on this evidence, he could well find himself in bother.
I've said before that IMO all the DT subs that came on the pitch should have been suspended...anyone who punched should also be suspended, but that applies to all sides.
5 year ban is unbelievable. If this is a precedent, there'll be more and more of these bans. Having done this once, they have to treat all future cases in the same way. What about the incident with Louth where the referee was, lets say harrassed, by a supporter after the final with Meath....should Louth not have had a 5 year ban?
I just dont get where that came from.....and if its going to be the norm from now on, fair enough. But unless it is going to be the norm for these sorts of issues then DT have been harshly treated to say the least.

Read what I said again. I said the striking was wrong. But context is very far from irrelevant when deciding on a suspension.

I did read what you said, I just don't necessarily agree. The rules state what the punishment should be for striking. That is the minimum suspension that should be handed out. If you start to take context into it, it follows that he could have less than the minimum suspension....or conversely more than the minimum suspension depending on what happened before the strike.

If he was to get more, he would had to have broken another of the rules, IMO, in which case there should be a minimum suspension for that rule and it gets added to the suspension for striking.

But if you were to try to put a context on him striking, at what point in a game do you start applying context? Do you do it on the throw in, or when the teams arrive at the ground, or when one team asks for their supporters to get segregated? Potentially any of these things could be considered as putting the strike into context.

You could take mitigating circumstances into every yellow/red card and say he only tripped that player as 5 mins before he himself had been fouled but didn't get a free. It just wouldn't work.

If you strike, you should get the minimum suspension for striking regardless of context.

[Hound]

FWIW I think the 5 year ban is daft, but I also think 4 weeks for anyone that came in from the sidelines is very weak, unless the 3 that didn't appeal got a lot longer.  Those lads were completely out of order and I don't think anyone denies that.

The subs who didnt appeal got 8 weeks.

I take it O'Sullivan wasn't one of the Dromid players who got suspended?

[AZOffaly]

Nope. #4 and #5 were the Dromid Suspendees. I think Derrytresk players and subs got off lightly enough. 8 weeks is the same as 4 weeks in this context nearly. I presume they only have to miss the All Ireland Final , and I know that's a sickener, but I thought a couple of them subs would be looking at 16 weeks or more.

[ziggysego]

That's an odd reading of it Hardy. Derrytresk have been mightily restrained in all of this.

Are you serious?

I will admit my perception may be skewed by reading this board as opposed to concentrating on what the club itself has been saying. Have a look at Ballymac's last post there, for example. Apart from yet another whinge about perceived bias and injustice, is his narrative about Declan O'Sullivan's alleged behaviour acceptable on the basis of "I had heard this story"? The kangaroo court of the gaaboard couldn't hold a candle to any perceived injustices meted out by the CCCC.

Derrytresk can't be held responsable for anything that is said on the gaaboard, in favour or against them. If they did, I wish to lodge a complaint with Kerry GAA about profilic poster Mike Sheehy.

[Applesisapples]

Why was a Derrytresk sub near him in the first place?
Commiserating with him no doubt.
Anyway, still pictures can be very misleading.

How is this picture misleading?

Because it doesn't show context. Is this retalliation or did O'Sullivan just walk up and clatter this fella? I don't know either way, but that's why video is much better than stills. I certainly think this was the precursor to the handbag lady alright.

What hypocrisy, the row started because a Derrytresk player retaliated, you can't have your cake and eat it. Derrytresk were tried by the court of public opinion. The sadest part of all of this is an anti Northern bias both on here and in the southern media which is nothing short of shameful.