The Battle of Omagh part II - Role reversal

[Hound]

One of my issues with the black card , is that a 'tackle' like that of kevin mcmenamon on mattie donnelly, still isnta  black card under the new rules.It seems a strange inconsistency to me.
How is what he did (hauling a player that had gone past him back by the neck) any less cynical than the likes of the mcnamee one?

If anything the black card encourages players to go to ground when tackled as this then fits the  description of a black card foul.

I despair as to why people want to make black cards easier to get.
They are difficult to get and thankfully the refs are in the main doing a really good job on them and I commend them for it.

What anyone's opinion of what is cynical and what is not cynical is irrelevant - you need to look at the rule book.

McNamee made no attempt to play the ball, it was clear his only intention was to pull down the player.
The Dublin incidents were tackles. The ball was in the vicinity. Poor tackles admittedly in some cases, some warranted a yellow card, but not a black card.

The match was probably a very good example of the difference between black card fouls and yellow card fouls.

[Hound]

Didn't do them much good in Celtic Park... yeeeeooooo!

Created more goal chances in Celtic Park than we did in Omagh!
Didnt make the scoresheet though because of a mixture of worst finishing and better goalkeeping.

I've said before I don't rate Morgan as a keeper (in the basic sense - his "add-ons" are excellent). He doesn't make himself big for one-on-ones, he usually turns his body and head to the side, which makes himself smaller and less able to react. Not a whole heap he could have done with the first two on Sunday, but I think a lot of keepers would have saved Macauley's.

[blewuporstuffed]

One of my issues with the black card , is that a 'tackle' like that of kevin mcmenamon on mattie donnelly, still isnta  black card under the new rules.It seems a strange inconsistency to me.
How is what he did (hauling a player that had gone past him back by the neck) any less cynical than the likes of the mcnamee one?

If anything the black card encourages players to go to ground when tackled as this then fits the  description of a black card foul.

I despair as to why people want to make black cards easier to get.
They are difficult to get and thankfully the refs are in the main doing a really good job on them and I commend them for it.

What anyone's opinion of what is cynical and what is not cynical is irrelevant - you need to look at the rule book.

McNamee made no attempt to play the ball, it was clear his only intention was to pull down the player.
The Dublin incidents were tackles. The ball was in the vicinity. Poor tackles admittedly in some cases, some warranted a yellow card, but not a black card.

The match was probably a very good example of the difference between black card fouls and yellow card fouls.

I dont want to make black cards easier to get at all, in fact i would much prefer if they had never been introduced and this is one of the reasons why. Inconsistancy.
The mcmanamon tackle was every bit as cynical as the mcnamee one, yet they didnt recieve the same punishment. That is the issue.I am well aware of the rule book and how it defines a black card tackle, I feel that this is flawed.

[Hound]

The mcmanamon tackle was every bit as cynical as the mcnamee one, yet they didnt recieve the same punishment. That is the issue.I am well aware of the rule book and how it defines a black card tackle, I feel that this is flawed.

Grand, well at least we can agree that the ref got it right, according to the rule book's definition of a cynical foul.

[blewuporstuffed]

The mcmanamon tackle was every bit as cynical as the mcnamee one, yet they didnt recieve the same punishment. That is the issue.I am well aware of the rule book and how it defines a black card tackle, I feel that this is flawed.

Grand, well at least we can agree that the ref got it right, according to the rule book's definition of a cynical foul.

i never said otherwise.
The referee applied the law according to the new rules, how ever that doesn't make the foul any less cynical.

[Stall the Bailer]

The only other incident that I saw that was worthy of a black card was Peter Harte's trip of Jason Whelan. That was a definite black card if deliberate. Hard to know for certain either way whether it was deliberate, Duffy decided to be lenient, which was probably fair enough.

Was this the one where the Dublin player tripped himself?
If it was, then it shouldn't even have been a free. If Duffy thought it was a trip by Harte then yes it should have been a black card, another bad call by him.

When Colm and Michael Darragh each got the yellow cards in the first half I thought MDMcA checked Colm's run and he should have got a black card for it. I'm not sure if this was before his goal or not.

On the high tackles, if they result in the player being pulled to the ground you could argue that they are black cards.
Also it was a trip by the goalie, so it shold have been a black card.

[blewuporstuffed]

The only other incident that I saw that was worthy of a black card was Peter Harte's trip of Jason Whelan. That was a definite black card if deliberate. Hard to know for certain either way whether it was deliberate, Duffy decided to be lenient, which was probably fair enough.

Was this the one where the Dublin player tripped himself?
If it was, then it shouldn't even have been a free. If Duffy thought it was a trip by Harte then yes it should have been a black card, another bad call by him.

When Colm and Michael Darragh each got the yellow cards in the first half I thought MDMcA checked Colm's run and he should have got a black card for it. I'm not sure if this was before his goal or not.

On the high tackles, if they result in the player being pulled to the ground you could argue that they are black cards.
Also it was a trip by the goalie, so it shold have been a black card.

I agree with this also. It was probably the most clear cut black card of teh day. MDMA checked cavanaghs run, when cavanagh took exception to it the referee came back and yellow carded the two of them, after consulting the linesman.

[Hound]

The only other incident that I saw that was worthy of a black card was Peter Harte's trip of Jason Whelan. That was a definite black card if deliberate. Hard to know for certain either way whether it was deliberate, Duffy decided to be lenient, which was probably fair enough.

Was this the one where the Dublin player tripped himself?
If it was, then it shouldn't even have been a free. If Duffy thought it was a trip by Harte then yes it should have been a black card, another bad call by him.

When Colm and Michael Darragh each got the yellow cards in the first half I thought MDMcA checked Colm's run and he should have got a black card for it. I'm not sure if this was before his goal or not.

On the high tackles, if they result in the player being pulled to the ground you could argue that they are black cards.
Also it was a trip by the goalie, so it shold have been a black card.

I missed the MDMA incident. If it was a body check then a black card would have been right. But given Colm didnt do his usual swan dive to the ground holding his head, I'd doubt there was much in it.

The high tackles and the penalty incident just weren't black cards under the rules. There's plenty of posts above explaining the rules that you should have a look at that will clarify this for you.

[Zulu]

Was this the one where the Dublin player tripped himself?
If it was, then it shouldn't even have been a free. If Duffy thought it was a trip by Harte then yes it should have been a black card, another bad call by him.

I don't think that is correct. It was hard to see if there was actual contact or not but it wasn't a deliberate trip anyway so not a black card.

On the high tackles, if they result in the player being pulled to the ground you could argue that they are black cards.

Again only if they deliberately dragged the player down. If you high tackle someone and they go to ground it shouldn't be a black card, if you pull them to the ground it should.

Also it was a trip by the goalie, so it shold have been a black card.

Disagree, I just saw a clip of it but not a replay and while I can see what your saying I'd be inclined to give goalkeepers a bit more leeway. For starters you get a penalty and secondly a goalkeeper in those situations may dive at the oncoming player to block an attempted shot which if it doesn't come may result in a collision. I think giving black cards for that should make a goalkeepers job in one on one situations impossible.

[EC Unique]

Dublin are taking full advantage of the new rules. Stop them whatever way you like but make sure that you stand them up in whatever "tackle" you attempt.

Dublin are thinking outside the box all the time. They've a serious back room team and nothing is left to chance. Dublin's Sam etc to lose.

That's it in a nutshell. Dublin had that sussed before a ball was kicked this year.

Didn't do them much good in Celtic Park... yeeeeooooo!

Derry wans getting a bit big for their boots. Really hope we get them in the Championship before somebody else knocks them out.

[BennyHarp]

Was this the one where the Dublin player tripped himself?
If it was, then it shouldn't even have been a free. If Duffy thought it was a trip by Harte then yes it should have been a black card, another bad call by him.

I don't think that is correct. It was hard to see if there was actual contact or not but it wasn't a deliberate trip anyway so not a black card.

On the high tackles, if they result in the player being pulled to the ground you could argue that they are black cards.

Again only if they deliberately dragged the player down. If you high tackle someone and they go to ground it shouldn't be a black card, if you pull them to the ground it should.

Also it was a trip by the goalie, so it shold have been a black card.

Disagree, I just saw a clip of it but not a replay and while I can see what your saying I'd be inclined to give goalkeepers a bit more leeway. For starters you get a penalty and secondly a goalkeeper in those situations may dive at the oncoming player to block an attempted shot which if it doesn't come may result in a collision. I think giving black cards for that should make a goalkeepers job in one on one situations impossible.

I disagree that a goalkeeper should get extra leeway - that's just a nonsense. Plus it's not in the rules so is irrelevant. If Duffy felt a trip occurred to give a pen, he should have given a black card.

[J OGorman]

Dublin are taking full advantage of the new rules. Stop them whatever way you like but make sure that you stand them up in whatever "tackle" you attempt.

Dublin are thinking outside the box all the time. They've a serious back room team and nothing is left to chance. Dublin's Sam etc to lose.

That's it in a nutshell. Dublin had that sussed before a ball was kicked this year.

Didn't do them much good in Celtic Park... yeeeeooooo!

Derry wans getting a bit big for their boots. Really hope we get them in the Championship before somebody else knocks them out.

you really dont, not with that 'defence' of yours

[nrico2006]

Goalkeepers in hurling and football get too much protection as it is.

[Zulu]

Was this the one where the Dublin player tripped himself?
If it was, then it shouldn't even have been a free. If Duffy thought it was a trip by Harte then yes it should have been a black card, another bad call by him.

I don't think that is correct. It was hard to see if there was actual contact or not but it wasn't a deliberate trip anyway so not a black card.

On the high tackles, if they result in the player being pulled to the ground you could argue that they are black cards.

Again only if they deliberately dragged the player down. If you high tackle someone and they go to ground it shouldn't be a black card, if you pull them to the ground it should.

Also it was a trip by the goalie, so it shold have been a black card.

Disagree, I just saw a clip of it but not a replay and while I can see what your saying I'd be inclined to give goalkeepers a bit more leeway. For starters you get a penalty and secondly a goalkeeper in those situations may dive at the oncoming player to block an attempted shot which if it doesn't come may result in a collision. I think giving black cards for that should make a goalkeepers job in one on one situations impossible.

I disagree that a goalkeeper should get extra leeway - that's just a nonsense. Plus it's not in the rules so is irrelevant. If Duffy felt a trip occurred to give a pen, he should have given a black card.

How is it nonsense? And it is in the rules so it is very relevant. You'll rarely see an outfield player dive at an opponents feet or run at them and make themselves big whereas that would be very common in a one on one situation for a goalkeeper. As a result a goalkeeper may take down an opponent without there being deliberate intention to do so. Deliberate is the key part of the rule so there is leeway for the ref to interpret a keeper taking down a player as a foul but not a black card. 

[Stall the Bailer]

Was this the one where the Dublin player tripped himself?
If it was, then it shouldn't even have been a free. If Duffy thought it was a trip by Harte then yes it should have been a black card, another bad call by him.

I don't think that is correct. It was hard to see if there was actual contact or not but it wasn't a deliberate trip anyway so not a black card.

On the high tackles, if they result in the player being pulled to the ground you could argue that they are black cards.

Again only if they deliberately dragged the player down. If you high tackle someone and they go to ground it shouldn't be a black card, if you pull them to the ground it should.

Also it was a trip by the goalie, so it shold have been a black card.

Disagree, I just saw a clip of it but not a replay and while I can see what your saying I'd be inclined to give goalkeepers a bit more leeway. For starters you get a penalty and secondly a goalkeeper in those situations may dive at the oncoming player to block an attempted shot which if it doesn't come may result in a collision. I think giving black cards for that should make a goalkeepers job in one on one situations impossible.

The rules from the GAA website are
Cynical Behaviour Fouls

1. Deliberately pull down an opponent.
2. Deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
3. Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.
4. Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate.
5. Remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.

On the high tackles. If referee thinks it is a deliberate action to stop the player and the high tackle results on the player going to ground then it is a black card under number 1.
It is the deliberate part which is hard to decide on. But if you want to be cynical in stopping a player the way to do it is by a high dangerous tackle. I'm sure some refs will see this as deliberate if some players/teams persit in doing it.

On the penalty. The goal keeper can only tackle like everyone else. In the past, you could bring down a forward and only risk a penalty/or yellow card for trips etc.
Now under number 2 above you can also get a black card.
On Sunday the ball was still in Shay's hand and the goalie caught his legs. This was not trying to tackle the ball but the man.
A penalty and black card offence.