Codes of conduct for IC panels

[Ohtoohtobe]

Anyone catch this discussion on Newstalk?

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/83067/2/senior_intercounty_team_code_of_conduct_revealed

If you don't have time to listen, it's basically Parkinson talking about some of the rules on one inter-county team's code of conduct that he managed to get his hands on.

Some items on it:
1: An Alcohol ban is implemented on January 1st. A mid-season drink is permitted when the manager and three or four senior players allow it.
2: There should be no mention of the team or the GAA in general on social media as it is a distraction.
3: There is to be no interaction with the media allowed.
4: Football boots must be predominantly black in colour. There is a designated senior player who decides whether your boots are acceptable or not.
5: No ankle socks can be worn outside your county socks and no tape to be worn on your sleeves or socks.
6: No highlights in your hair.

Personally I think No 1 could be relaxed but can understand how you could argue for it.
The other five, however, are among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Like something out of a comedy sketch.

One of the things that concern me most is the media/social media ban. We can see this week how many people are sucked in by Ireland's 'glorious' achievement of coming in a three-way tie for first in a competition with four serious teams in it. The gains made by that sport have a lot to do with the stream of good publicity it generates for itself.

Anyway, as Babs Keating said, if a fella's afraid of a big fat journalist, what's he going to do in front of 60,000 people in Croke Park?

As for the hair, ankle sock and black boots thing... give me strength.

Would anyone argue in favour of these rules or see a benefit to them?

[theskull1]

I think such rules help keep the lid on some lads who might be overly interested in their own publicity be it via social media or a different coloured hurl.

[TheOptimist]

Has to be Laois!

[AZOffaly]

I think in a lot of cases the rules are not in place because the items are that important, I think they are put in place to see if the players can adhere to them and self-police. It's more of a test than the management team actually caring about highlights or black boots.

[Esmarelda]

Numbers 4 - 6 are hard to believe and I don't think I'd allow myself to be part of something that insisted on such standards.

Points 1 -3 are over the top, in my opinion, but at least it could be argued that they are in some way for the good of the team. The latter three cannot.

[Hardy]

I agree with banning highlights. The rest - no.

[johnneycool]

I agree with banning highlights. The rest - no.

Ah sure must be a football team, puffs the lot of them.   

Used to get a good laugh at the hair on young lads in the minor finals, some must have let their sisters dye their hair the night before the game, by the state of some of them!

[Bingo]

I'd imagine too that its from a county with little or no success either.  A county "trying" to be professional. 

Has anyone studied a County team photo yet from the NFL and identified the team with no bright boots or highlights and then crossed referenced any matching teams with the social media accounts of all the panel to name the county?

[AZOffaly]

This is a bit like a sillier version of the 'blue book' that the Dubs had a while ago.

[screenexile]

Drink bans are ridiculous. You can be sure the Irish Rugby team weren't on a drink ban throughout the 6 Nations why the fcuk are an amateur GAA team being held to higher standards. Surely in this day and age you can trust lads not to tear the arse out of it and if they do then you have reason to get rid of them.

What's the point in playing for the County if you can't go out for a few beers and shag some mucksavage jersey hugger?? The world's gone mad!!

I think Parkinson had a picture of one of the Corofin lads being interviewed and he said they never had a drink ban as long as standards of training and matches were of the required level. 2 lads were dropped because they were out the night before training and didn't make training. It was the missing training as to why they were dropped not that they were out!

[Bingo]

Drink bans are ridiculous. You can be sure the Irish Rugby team weren't on a drink ban throughout the 6 Nations why the fcuk are an amateur GAA team being held to higher standards. Surely in this day and age you can trust lads not to tear the arse out of it and if they do then you have reason to get rid of them.

What's the point in playing for the County if you can't go out for a few beers and shag some mucksavage jersey hugger?? The world's gone mad!!

I think Parkinson had a picture of one of the Corofin lads being interviewed and he said they never had a drink ban as long as standards of training and matches were of the required level. 2 lads were dropped because they were out the night before training and didn't make training. It was the missing training as to why they were dropped not that they were out!

Exactly.

[AZOffaly]

I think so too. And I know teams like Kerry allow their lads have a blow out every now and then as well. The levels you have to attain to become a county regular would mitigate the ability to be out on sessions every Sunday night anyway.

[rosnarun]

very easy for Parkinson to make these allegation when he won't name what county is involved .
some are undoubtly true but Who knows
Name and shame otherwise its just Pub Talk on the radio

[Ohtoohtobe]

That's just it AZ. Most lads I know that play inter-county are driven enough that getting locked isn't a big part of their lives in the first place, certainly not in-season. That's part of how you get that good to begin with. You just wouldn't be able to maintain the necessary standard if you were getting drunk regularly.

I feel stupid rules like these could be a factor in why we're seeing droves of players retiring at 30 when they should be only barely past their peak. The older you get the harder it is to listen to this sh*te and the more you realise other things in life are important. A more understanding approach might see lads play for longer. Kerry seem to get the best out of lads into their early to mid 30s and while I'm sure they work like dogs when it's required, they seem to have a more common sense approach earlier in the season.

The madness of that list above is summed up for me by the fact a young Mugsy would breach two or three of those rules and wouldn't be allowed on the county panel in question.

[AZOffaly]

I know what you're saying, and when you put it like that it is bananas. But just to be devil's advocate, consider the following scenario.

A county which has underachieved, and has had a recent history of poor commitment, bad attitude etc.
A management team coming in and trying to weed out the wheat from the chaf in terms of dedication.
A draconian set of silly rules, not important in the grand scheme of things, but in an attempt to see who will sacrifice in some small areas, to see if they will do what you need them to do in bigger issues.


That's my bet here. And the reason why you never hear of this in the likes of Kerry is because that panel is so self policing anyway, that any messers would not be tolerated in any case. I suspect this is a team trying to change a whole mindset, and going about it in this way. Not necessarily something I'd agree with, but it might provide a bit more context to the scenario.