Donegal vs Armagh Ulster Championship 2022

[Wildweasel74]

On the video O'Neill could be seen swinging at one if not 2 Donegal players. The Donegal sub keeper bound get a ban now, he was everywhere. I wonder why subs don't pick up bans, they should been nowhere near the field of play. Management personnel stuck in the middle of it 2 should be banned. Again I put the whole displine issue down to management who can cut this thing out. Bit of tough love might do wonders to their attitudes. There was a time red card offences cut you out of the all stars. Tom Morrisey, and Kieran McKeever not considered due to suspensions for striking.

[David McKeown]

I genuinely don't understand any of this.

Firstly and fundamentally I don't understand what a melee is and how you contribute to it. At what point does something become a melee, does the instigator of the melee escape punishment.  if you honestly feel you are going to be attacked can you respond is self defence as natural justice would say you should be entitled to etc etc.  I also can't think of any other team sport where an individual can receive sanction for the actions of others. The rule makes no sense to me.

Secondly the referee and other officials saw the incident and felt that only 5 players contributed to the melee which is a sending off offence but decided to send none of them off at the time.

The CCCC have then looked at that and decided that approach was incorrect (other wise the CCCC should also have cited those 5 players) but that a 6th player and no other should have been punished. How does that work out? Unless we loop back to what on earth is a melee and how do you contribute to it?

It's completely wrong to single out players involved on the basis they did more than others. It's a binary rule. Either they contributed or they didn't. I'd have a lot less issue had significantly more players been banned but the whole thing strikes me as trying to make examples of certain people which is fundamentally unfair.

Would it be wrong to interpret this thought pattern as "one in, all in lads... they won't know who to ban then"?

I'd have no problem with the banning everyone involved. That would be considerably fairer and far less open to potential abuse than let's just make an example of some. But again the rule would have to be in place to cover it.

I can't think of a single other sport where individuals can be sanctioned because of the actions of others. In association football for example you'd sanction the clubs for failing to control their players but unless the players committed offences in their own right you wouldn't ban them.

In basketball in what was probably the most famous incident in another sport of this kind of thing albeit to a much worse degree (the Malice at the Palace) the NBA only banned 9 players who they could identify as committing actual offences exonerating those others involved in the brawl who didn't commit offences.

My feelings are the rule is atrocious, I said that after the Tyrone game and I stand by it. It's too I'll defined. Too open to inconsistent application and to open to abuse. 

[Average Score]

Heard about Rian O'Neills likely suspension over the weekend, I'm not sure if it has been confirmed anywhere yet but looking at the video it was always going to happen once the CCC looked into it. Donegals smile from last week must be a full blown laugh at this stage.  According to people at the match they instigated the row and have now got a massive result with 4 key players for Armagh suspended. Their 2 joint captains, a key midfielder and Soupy who is one of the 4 best forwards in the county.

The timing is horrible with the fact that the next game is a championship match and the key match of the season. There is plenty of blame to go around from an Armagh viewpoint but it is going to make an already tough game even harder now.

We all want to watch the best players playing in the championship and Rian is one of the best at the moment. Why not just have league sendings off mean suspension from league matches and championship red cards applying to championship. Given the knock out and one off nature of championship it seems unfair to miss big games like this because of a game at the end of the league.

See I read stuff like that as "let's only worry about discipline when it suits us".

Imho it's the single biggest problem with Gaelic Games. I've no interest in watching a sanitised version of the games. But people don't want standards. They want get out clauses.

They want consistency,  if contributing to a melee is a banable offence Armagh and Donegal should have 13 or 14 bans each.

[Average Score]

Personally, I'd rather Donegal face a full strength Armagh. If we lose, we lose. But if the video shows O'Neill (or anyone else, whether Murphy or whoever) striking, then it has to be dealt with.

Murphy totally got away with it. O'Neills arm lift is at most just that.

[Average Score]

I genuinely don't understand any of this.

Firstly and fundamentally I don't understand what a melee is and how you contribute to it. At what point does something become a melee, does the instigator of the melee escape punishment.  if you honestly feel you are going to be attacked can you respond is self defence as natural justice would say you should be entitled to etc etc.  I also can't think of any other team sport where an individual can receive sanction for the actions of others. The rule makes no sense to me.

Secondly the referee and other officials saw the incident and felt that only 5 players contributed to the melee which is a sending off offence but decided to send none of them off at the time.

The CCCC have then looked at that and decided that approach was incorrect (other wise the CCCC should also have cited those 5 players) but that a 6th player and no other should have been punished. How does that work out? Unless we loop back to what on earth is a melee and how do you contribute to it?

It's completely wrong to single out players involved on the basis they did more than others. It's a binary rule. Either they contributed or they didn't. I'd have a lot less issue had significantly more players been banned but the whole thing strikes me as trying to make examples of certain people which is fundamentally unfair.

Would it be wrong to interpret this thought pattern as "one in, all in lads... they won't know who to ban then"?

My thoughts exactly but the GAA disciplinary board is inept especially when they seem to choose what matches to act on.

[thewobbler]

I genuinely don't understand any of this.

Firstly and fundamentally I don't understand what a melee is and how you contribute to it. At what point does something become a melee, does the instigator of the melee escape punishment.  if you honestly feel you are going to be attacked can you respond is self defence as natural justice would say you should be entitled to etc etc.  I also can't think of any other team sport where an individual can receive sanction for the actions of others. The rule makes no sense to me.

Secondly the referee and other officials saw the incident and felt that only 5 players contributed to the melee which is a sending off offence but decided to send none of them off at the time.

The CCCC have then looked at that and decided that approach was incorrect (other wise the CCCC should also have cited those 5 players) but that a 6th player and no other should have been punished. How does that work out? Unless we loop back to what on earth is a melee and how do you contribute to it?

It's completely wrong to single out players involved on the basis they did more than others. It's a binary rule. Either they contributed or they didn't. I'd have a lot less issue had significantly more players been banned but the whole thing strikes me as trying to make examples of certain people which is fundamentally unfair.

Would it be wrong to interpret this thought pattern as "one in, all in lads... they won't know who to ban then"?

I'd have no problem with the banning everyone involved. That would be considerably fairer and far less open to potential abuse than let's just make an example of some. But again the rule would have to be in place to cover it.

I can't think of a single other sport where individuals can be sanctioned because of the actions of others. In association football for example you'd sanction the clubs for failing to control their players but unless the players committed offences in their own right you wouldn't ban them.

In basketball in what was probably the most famous incident in another sport of this kind of thing albeit to a much worse degree (the Malice at the Palace) the NBA only banned 9 players who they could identify as committing actual offences exonerating those others involved in the brawl who didn't commit offences.

My feelings are the rule is atrocious, I said that after the Tyrone game and I stand by it. It's too I'll defined. Too open to inconsistent application and to open to abuse.

Problem is that players, managers, and therefore clubs and counties don't want the rule to be defined. Attempts have been made over the years and they get knocked back before congress. I get the feeling there's a "be careful what you wish for" when it comes to tidying up some of the rougher edges of our games.

Fines for teams (counties, clubs) just don't work. All they do is take money that would have been used for something useful, out of a voluntary organisation's coffers. Players can't subsequently be fined, and don't learn from this.

Personally, i reckon 2-3 seasons of the newfangled approach to melees will go a long way to fixing the problem. BUT it cannot be solely at the referee's discretion to determine what constitutes a melee in a televised football match. Top brass need to intervene in every match.

[Average Score]

I was at the Armagh match everyone was practically involved , especially subs with no jersey numbers the video shows that also, why are some choosen others not, its balls

[JoG2]

I genuinely don't understand any of this.

Firstly and fundamentally I don't understand what a melee is and how you contribute to it. At what point does something become a melee, does the instigator of the melee escape punishment.  if you honestly feel you are going to be attacked can you respond is self defence as natural justice would say you should be entitled to etc etc.  I also can't think of any other team sport where an individual can receive sanction for the actions of others. The rule makes no sense to me.

Secondly the referee and other officials saw the incident and felt that only 5 players contributed to the melee which is a sending off offence but decided to send none of them off at the time.

The CCCC have then looked at that and decided that approach was incorrect (other wise the CCCC should also have cited those 5 players) but that a 6th player and no other should have been punished. How does that work out? Unless we loop back to what on earth is a melee and how do you contribute to it?

It's completely wrong to single out players involved on the basis they did more than others. It's a binary rule. Either they contributed or they didn't. I'd have a lot less issue had significantly more players been banned but the whole thing strikes me as trying to make examples of certain people which is fundamentally unfair.

Re melee, it would be more than 2 men taking a dig at each other. Is the 3rd man on the scene still a straight red card? Usually if its only 2 men it soon blows over.
Rules state that anyone contributing to a melee (category 3 offence) should be ordered off. So every one involved should have been red carded, could the game have even finished if this law had been enforced?
During the melee, anyone involved in category 4 infractions will get further sanctions, I'm assuming that's what happened the Armagh / Donegal players. Its frustrating as it can be unfair on certain players. But there needs to be a rule in place to ban a team / dock points / kicked out of championship etc and this embarrassing carryon (with backroom personel, subs and others in their bibs all involved) stops immediately.

[Average Score]

So how did the ref pick 5 players, its an embarrassment, lip service to the rules and no more.

[Gael80]

As a football fan, I, like many others look forward to competitive championship games, the sort that are battles from start to finish but those kind of games are now few and far between. It's disappointing we're now unlikely to see that type of match in Ballybofey following all this.

My view on it, is if players are seen to strike and there is evidence to prove it then it's difficult for the disciplinary bodies/referee to ignore it. I don't subscribe to the view of bias in the GAA amongst media, bodies etc and I like to think everybody is treated in a fair manner.

However those who provide that narrative to be fair might have some grounds when it comes to this charge of "contributing to a melee". We seen three melees in Division 1 this season - Tyrone/Armagh, Donegal/Armagh and Kerry/Dublin.

Now strikes are a different charge but in regards two of those melees the referee, GAA media and disciplinary bodies came down very hard on teams involved, with this 'contributing to a melee', yet with one of the melees it hardly got a mention, and certainly no follow up action.

It is strange and if we're honest it should be a concern. As for the latest melee, I'm not sure of depth but it would be very difficult for any county to lose four key players for a championship game and it not have a significant impact. That is why I think it unlikely we'll have the same type of championship match and Donegal on paper at least should see themselves home by the end.

As for the rest of the season, whoever it impacts the GAA have to be seen to be extrembly strict with any sort of melee and take players through the disciplinary procedures, because they have effectlvely taken a team out of their provincial championship before it begins so this type of intervention has to be consistent, which I'm not sure it was in the league.

[redzone]

HA HA ARMAGH

[Average Score]

HA HA ARMAGH

Bless its HA HA GAA.

[yellowcard]

It's time for a few former Armagh players to come out in defence of these players in the media after all that is what Dublin or Kerry would have done long before now.

[Average Score]

It's time for a few former Armagh players to come out in defence of these players in the media after all that is what Dublin or Kerry would have done long before now.

Probably afraid of losing the money. Whelan asking for sanctions lmao.

[Wildweasel74]

Defence why? After the Tyrone game how stupid are players really?