The Battle of Omagh part II - Role reversal

[Zulu]

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

Get too much when in possession of the ball alright but they need to get the benefit of the doubt in certain situations. That's not to say they can't get black cards but you need to be sure it was deliberate and not an attempt to save a shot they were expecting to come.

[Stall the Bailer]

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.

That is not correct.
If he thought it was deliberate (cyncial = delibrate) and it resulted in him going to ground = black card

[orangeman]

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

Get too much when in possession of the ball alright but they need to get the benefit of the doubt in certain situations. That's not to say they can't get black cards but you need to be sure it was deliberate and not an attempt to save a shot they were expecting to come.

I'd agree with that and I don't the Dublin keeper should have been black carded on Sunday.

That said, I do have an issue with refs giving black cards for what is a clumsy, ill timed, poorly executed attempt at a tackle as opposed to as you rightly say, a deliberate pull down or trip etc.

[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.

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.

It's not in the rules that keepers get more leeway. You are making up scenarios to fit your argument. This aspect about deciding wether a tackle is deliberate or not, is the exact point I'm making which makes it virtually impossible to be consistent and makes the black card rules flawed. A trip or a pull down is a trip or a pull down, regardless of intent. That's the only was consistency can be achieved.

[Zulu]

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 tackle dangerous tackle. I'm sure some refs will see this as deliberate if some players/teams persit in doing it.

In any games I ref this year, if there is a foul committed and the fouled player goes to ground I'll only issue a black card if I can see a) there was no legitimate attempt to tackle the ball and b) the actions of the tackler meant the fouled player was brought to ground, i.e not that he went to ground himself.

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 you under number 2 above you 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.

I only saw it once in real time so I can't really sedate that particular tackle/foul. The point I'm making is, because a goal keeper may throw himself at the feet of an onrushing attacker in an attempt to block a shot, not tackle the ball, he may end up colliding with a forward who doesn't shoot and instead attempts to round the keeper. That is not a deliberate foul in my opinion, though a foul nonetheless. Now if the forward is being stood up by the keeper and he goes around him and the goalkeeper rugby tackles then he gets the black card same as anyone else. 

[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.

It's not in the rules that keepers get more leeway. You are making up scenarios to fit your argument. This aspect about deciding wether a tackle is deliberate or not, is the exact point I'm making which makes it virtually impossible to be consistent and makes the black card rules flawed. A trip or a pull down is a trip or a pull down, regardless of intent. That's the only was consistency can be achieved.

It's in the rule that it has to be deliberate and the nature of goalkeeping means that a goalkeeper can take down a player in a fashion that wasn't deliberate when if an outfield player did the same thing it probably would.

I entirely disagree about the black card being flawed due to the differentiation between deliberate and accidental. It is, in fact, the big advantage of the rule because it focuses in on cynical play rather than mistimed or poor tackling. In the high intensity arena of a game it is very hard to tackle properly all the time, especially with players or different heights and rapidly changing direction or ducking down etc. If any mistimed tackle was a black card then there'd be no tackling at all.

[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.

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.

It's not in the rules that keepers get more leeway. You are making up scenarios to fit your argument. This aspect about deciding wether a tackle is deliberate or not, is the exact point I'm making which makes it virtually impossible to be consistent and makes the black card rules flawed. A trip or a pull down is a trip or a pull down, regardless of intent. That's the only was consistency can be achieved.

It's in the rule that it has to be deliberate and the nature of goalkeeping means that a goalkeeper can take down a player in a fashion that wasn't deliberate when if an outfield player did the same thing it probably would.

I entirely disagree about the black card being flawed due to the differentiation between deliberate and accidental. It is, in fact, the big advantage of the rule because it focuses in on cynical play rather than mistimed or poor tackling. In the high intensity arena of a game it is very hard to tackle properly all the time, especially with players or different heights and rapidly changing direction or ducking down etc. If any mistimed tackle was a black card then there'd be no tackling at all.

In an ideal world I'd agree, but in practical terms this will lead to loads of inconsistencies as the year progresses. How can a ref decide intent? In some cases it's obvious, in most other cases it's much more difficult.

[Zulu]

Impossible to correctly adjudge intent on all occasions but it is clear refs are giving the benefit of the doubt which is correct IMO. Refs don't get all red or yellows right either but if the choice is between getting the odd black card call wrong or having no tackling at all in the game then I'm happy with a bit on inconsistency.

[nrico2006]

You would like to think that come championship time that if there are cynical tackles (e.g. McManamon) that aren't explicitly stated in the rules then through common sense and initiative a black card should still be issued.

[Zulu]

It can't be issued for such a tackle but it can always be added to the list of 5 if people feel it deserves to be, though it doesn't IMO.

[take_yer_points]

You would like to think that come championship time that if there are cynical tackles (e.g. McManamon) that aren't explicitly stated in the rules then through common sense and initiative a black card should still be issued.

So leave it up to the ref to make up the rules as he goes along??

[trueblue1234]

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.

It's not in the rules that keepers get more leeway. You are making up scenarios to fit your argument. This aspect about deciding wether a tackle is deliberate or not, is the exact point I'm making which makes it virtually impossible to be consistent and makes the black card rules flawed. A trip or a pull down is a trip or a pull down, regardless of intent. That's the only was consistency can be achieved.

It's in the rule that it has to be deliberate and the nature of goalkeeping means that a goalkeeper can take down a player in a fashion that wasn't deliberate when if an outfield player did the same thing it probably would.
I entirely disagree about the black card being flawed due to the differentiation between deliberate and accidental. It is, in fact, the big advantage of the rule because it focuses in on cynical play rather than mistimed or poor tackling. In the high intensity arena of a game it is very hard to tackle properly all the time, especially with players or different heights and rapidly changing direction or ducking down etc. If any mistimed tackle was a black card then there'd be no tackling at all.

Is there anything in the rules to say a goalkeeper can tackle differently? I didn't think so but could be open to correction. I'd have assumed a keeper could only tackle similar to outfield player ie - dive to block the kick or to make themselves big against the shot. At no point do I think a dive to block a shot should be deemed a black card as it's a dying art as it is. But I don't think that's what the keeper did on Sunday. He dived but dragged the man down rather than attempting to disposses. For me, it was a clear black card according to the rules, and the fact it wasn't implemented is part of the reason I didn't want to see it brought in. I've seen serious inconsistency so far in the league with the calls on black cards. Hopefully it will level out as I accept Refs are just getting used to it at the minute.

[Stall the Bailer]

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 tackle dangerous tackle. I'm sure some refs will see this as deliberate if some players/teams persit in doing it.

In any games I ref this year, if there is a foul committed and the fouled player goes to ground I'll only issue a black card if I can see a) there was no legitimate attempt to tackle the ball and b) the actions of the tackler meant the fouled player was brought to ground, i.e not that he went to ground himself.

So you would have gave McManoman black card on Sunday going by your points A&B.

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 you under number 2 above you 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.

I only saw it once in real time so I can't really sedate that particular tackle/foul. The point I'm making is, because a goal keeper may throw himself at the feet of an onrushing attacker in an attempt to block a shot, not tackle the ball, he may end up colliding with a forward who doesn't shoot and instead attempts to round the keeper. That is not a deliberate foul in my opinion, though a foul nonetheless. Now if the forward is being stood up by the keeper and he goes around him and the goalkeeper rugby tackles then he gets the black card same as anyone else.

I don't see any difference in the McNammee black card for Tyrone and the keepers tackle. In both, the man with ball went past the tackler. The tackler made no attempt in going for the ball and tripped the man with the ball.

Did you also look back at the Dublin player tripping himself or only see it live?

[Zulu]

A goal keeper can't tackle differently but as they are mainly shot stoppers rather than tacklers, unlike outfield players, they are more likely to trip a player while attempting to block a shot than a defender who usually is trying to dispossess an attacker. The foul on Sunday may well have deserved a black card, I'm talking more about generalities with goalkeepers rather than that specific foul.

[Zulu]

So you would have gave McManoman black card on Sunday going by your points A&B.

No, I think McM was trying to tackle the ball and I think the Tyrone man could stay on his feet. Being knocked due to a collision of bodies is different than dragging a guy down.

I don't see any difference in the McNammee black card for Tyrone and the keepers tackle. In both, the man with ball went past the tackler. The tackler made no attempt in going for the ball and tripped the man with the ball.

Did you also look back at the Dublin player tripping himself or only see it live?

Maybe I'm thinking of a different McM tackle but the Tyrone man wasn't past McM in the yellow card incident as I recall.

I saw the replay of the trip but I couldn't see the contact and if there was one it wasn't deliberate so it was either no free or a free in but no black card.