Tyrone V Monaghan AIQF 2015

[muppet]

You Nordies get uptight about your Queen's English

Weren't you from Armagh?

[headoftheroad]

 
Posts: 20725
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)







Re: Tyrone V Monaghan AIQF 2015

« Reply #1077 on: Today at 04:10:46 PM »


Quote





Quote from: headoftheroad on Today at 04:07:03 PM

You Nordies get uptight about your Queen's English




Weren't you from Armagh?

I Think not. A County who ambushed the wee Cavan lads with apples last year.

[Throw ball]

As I have said before there is a complete county setup who have clearly no integrity.
look this sanction is clearly going to fail but next year Tyrone have again forced the hand of the Gaa to bring new rules like the black card as they have a total disrespect for the rules.

What new rules have Tyrone forced the GAA to bring in?  As far as I am aware there is already a rule in place for what happened last weekend.

I asked the question previously about the yellow card for diving. I have been told that it was introduced following Tyrone's All Ireland victory in 2003. Do not know though.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

It wasn't in the 2001 Rule book - http://homepage.eircom.net/~briderovers/micell/GAA%20Rules.pdf

But it was in the 2003 Rule book - http://www.dohenygaa.com/downloads/rules.pdf



I wonder what happened in 2002 that made it go into the rule book 

[orangeman]

Question is - can this make 100 pages ?

[Armamike]

It wasn't in the 2001 Rule book - http://homepage.eircom.net/~briderovers/micell/GAA%20Rules.pdf

But it was in the 2003 Rule book - http://www.dohenygaa.com/downloads/rules.pdf



I wonder what happened in 2002 that made it go into the rule book 

It wasn't implemented in 2003 either.

[Throw ball]

It wasn't in the 2001 Rule book - http://homepage.eircom.net/~briderovers/micell/GAA%20Rules.pdf

But it was in the 2003 Rule book - http://www.dohenygaa.com/downloads/rules.pdf



I wonder what happened in 2002 that made it go into the rule book 

Interestingly the 2003 rule book is dated December 2003. I wonder what persuaded the change?

[omaghjoe]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

This is my favourite line from this thread so far. And someone accused Tyrone of having a lack of perspective. 

It wasn't me that brought criminal law into the debate. It was Joe Brolly. I don't know how to point out my disagreement without reference to the criminal law.

So you decided upon the measured approach of comparing it to Milosevic's murder and genocide? We have officially lost the run of ourselves.

In fairness the analogy was pointing out that someone could be charged for a lesser crime or a more serious one. I tend to disagree, but I can see the difference between using an analogy to emphasise a point, for example 'one might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb', and losing perspective, 'he said he should be hung!'.

No one seriously thinks that he was comparing McCann's act to Milosevic's.

Bolix Muppet

He knew rightly what he was at, why did he choose the worst possible crime imaginable? He was trying to exaggerate the severity of this whole thing.

This is also coming from the same guy who doesn't want Tiernan McCann mentioned in the same sentence as Jonah Sherdian but thinks its ok to mention genocide in a discussion about sports. He's a vindictive slabber and whats worse an insult to the 1000s that were killed in Bosnia

Not to mention the fact that the point he was trying to make is confirmation that he doesnt have a clue what he is talking about

[omaghjoe]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

Did you actually write that, oh sorry its you Hardy, that explains all. Why use genocide in this conversation to illustrate a point? Why? Your trying to exaggerate the level of the alleged offence to some how compare it with the worst possible crime imaginable. Your a silly sick individual that would do such a thing.

As for your attempt at trying to justify the legality of the ban. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the legal system that the GAA uses? Is it common or civil?

Assuming its civil your talking shite because then it explicitly states the offence and punishment.

Assuming its common your still talking shite because there has been prior precedence set of not punishing the offence of feigning injury retrospectively.

Your just full of stupid hateful prejudice Hardy, taking a stupid snigger at all this media created mayhem which you fed into. And sorry to break your bubble but Meath in the 80 and 90s were not in the slightest bit manly, they were a filthy, cowardly shower of thugs. If they behaved the way that they did in the street as they did on the pitch they would have been locked up.

And BTW trying to act like you know more than a legal professional makes you look like an idiot.

If there's anything more annoying than being abused ungramatically it's being abused illogically.

"Your just full of stupid hateful prejudice Hardy", in the same breath as:
"Your a silly sick individual"
"Meath in the 80 and 90s ... were a filthy, cowardly shower of thugs."

Hateful prejudice begins at home for you, joe.

The glaring omission of any attempt to address my points is not unsurprising but I dont know where you got this one from?

[Jinxy]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

This is my favourite line from this thread so far. And someone accused Tyrone of having a lack of perspective. 

It wasn't me that brought criminal law into the debate. It was Joe Brolly. I don't know how to point out my disagreement without reference to the criminal law.

So you decided upon the measured approach of comparing it to Milosevic's murder and genocide? We have officially lost the run of ourselves.

In fairness the analogy was pointing out that someone could be charged for a lesser crime or a more serious one. I tend to disagree, but I can see the difference between using an analogy to emphasise a point, for example 'one might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb', and losing perspective, 'he said he should be hung!'.

No one seriously thinks that he was comparing McCann's act to Milosevic's.

Bolix Muppet

He knew rightly what he was at, why did he choose the worst possible crime imaginable? He was trying to exaggerate the severity of this whole thing.

This is also coming from the same guy who doesn't want Tiernan McCann mentioned in the same sentence as Jonah Sherdian but thinks its ok to mention genocide in a discussion about sports. He's a vindictive slabber and whats worse an insult to the 1000s that were killed in Bosnia

Not to mention the fact that the point he was trying to make is confirmation that he doesnt have a clue what he is talking about

Leave Big Jonah out of this.

[muppet]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

This is my favourite line from this thread so far. And someone accused Tyrone of having a lack of perspective. 

It wasn't me that brought criminal law into the debate. It was Joe Brolly. I don't know how to point out my disagreement without reference to the criminal law.

So you decided upon the measured approach of comparing it to Milosevic's murder and genocide? We have officially lost the run of ourselves.

In fairness the analogy was pointing out that someone could be charged for a lesser crime or a more serious one. I tend to disagree, but I can see the difference between using an analogy to emphasise a point, for example 'one might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb', and losing perspective, 'he said he should be hung!'.

No one seriously thinks that he was comparing McCann's act to Milosevic's.

Bolix Muppet

He knew rightly what he was at, why did he choose the worst possible crime imaginable? He was trying to exaggerate the severity of this whole thing.

This is also coming from the same guy who doesn't want Tiernan McCann mentioned in the same sentence as Jonah Sherdian but thinks its ok to mention genocide in a discussion about sports. He's a vindictive slabber and whats worse an insult to the 1000s that were killed in Bosnia

Not to mention the fact that the point he was trying to make is confirmation that he doesnt have a clue what he is talking about

Ok, yes he was comparing a dive in a match with genocide.  But shur he might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. And for clarification, I am not calling for the hanging of anyone, although you take offence at every word and every possible idiotic context, so you probably won't read this bit.

As for Big Joe. His notorious moment was that he tried to score a goal from a sitting position. He might have messed it up but it was obvious what he was trying to do. It is also obvious to us what Tiarnan McCann was trying to do. And yet you are offended by the comparison of the two. I bet Big Joe is far more offended.

[BennyHarp]

What McCann did was specifically covered by a rule. To say that this overall rule can be brought in any time we fancy it makes a mockery of the rule book.

It is entirely bizarre.

See my reply to Benny. The same applies in civil law. People are charged with the most serious offence. The DPP decides what law to prosecute under. Milosevic could have been charged with murder or genocide. McCann can be done for diving or discrediting the association. It's perfectly in order. The fact that it's rare doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, letting this shite grow into the cancer it has was the error the Association made, not deciding to throw the book at McCann.

I'm off for a pint. I don't think I can add to what I've said, but if rrhf or Omadjoe want to continue the whinging I'll be here in the morning.

This is my favourite line from this thread so far. And someone accused Tyrone of having a lack of perspective. 

It wasn't me that brought criminal law into the debate. It was Joe Brolly. I don't know how to point out my disagreement without reference to the criminal law.

So you decided upon the measured approach of comparing it to Milosevic's murder and genocide? We have officially lost the run of ourselves.

In fairness the analogy was pointing out that someone could be charged for a lesser crime or a more serious one. I tend to disagree, but I can see the difference between using an analogy to emphasise a point, for example 'one might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb', and losing perspective, 'he said he should be hung!'.

No one seriously thinks that he was comparing McCann's act to Milosevic's.

Bolix Muppet

He knew rightly what he was at, why did he choose the worst possible crime imaginable? He was trying to exaggerate the severity of this whole thing.

This is also coming from the same guy who doesn't want Tiernan McCann mentioned in the same sentence as Jonah Sherdian but thinks its ok to mention genocide in a discussion about sports. He's a vindictive slabber and whats worse an insult to the 1000s that were killed in Bosnia

Not to mention the fact that the point he was trying to make is confirmation that he doesnt have a clue what he is talking about

Ok, yes he was comparing a dive in a match with genocide.  But shur he might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. And for clarification, I am not calling for the hanging of anyone, although you take offence at every word and every possible idiotic context, so you probably won't read this bit.

As for Big Joe. His notorious moment was that he tried to score a goal from a sitting position. He might have messed it up but it was obvious what he was trying to do. It is also obvious to us what Tiarnan McCann was trying to do. And yet you are offended by the comparison of the two. I bet Big Joe is far more offended.

I don't really want to return to this and of course he wasn't comparing the two (well at least I hope he wasn't) but your sheep and lamb comparison is bugging me. That's a well known phrase and I understand your point about hanging, but who says in passing conversation "ah sure Milosevic's crimes could be regarded as murder and genocide so diving in football can be either a yellow or disrepute?" It's a mental context to put it into and in my opinion shows a bit of an eejit trying to hyperbole things and the terminology used all week in various media outlets has attempted to do the same.

[T Fearon]

Tyrone taking mopery to new levels? Barry Mc Elduff MLA complains about RTE bias all because the Sunday Game Twitter account favourited a tweet from Meath's Anthony Moyles criticising Tiernan Mc Cann?

[BennyHarp]

Tyrone taking mopery to new levels? Barry Mc Elduff MLA complains about RTE bias all because the Sunday Game Twitter account favourited a tweet from Meath's Anthony Moyles criticising Tiernan Mc Cann?

Hardly mopery - we did win the game you know!

[T Fearon]

So did Unionists in the North of Ireland but that doesn't stop them moping