All Ireland prelimQFs: Mayo/Derry, Galway/Monaghan, Tyrone/Roscommon, Louth/Cork

[Hound]

That was an absolute cast iron penalty. He raised his foot to attempt to block the ball and connected with his leg (which is attached to his foot!). Enda McGinley showed it clearly on the Saturday Game highlights show, and he laughed at Cora as she nonsensically called it 'harsh'. And it was clearly completely different to Fenton last week.

The highlights didn't show the booking, but that was just clearly an identification error.
Glass, Rogers and McKaigue are absolute warriors. Relentless

Lots of incidents happen over the course of regular time, extra time and penalties but the Mayo lad missing the handy tap over fisted point in injury time to put Mayo 2 up was unforgivable.

Ryan O'Donoghue is a terrific player but his free taking was just that bit below par these last two weeks and it has been costly.

Home advantage didn't do much for Mayo or Tyrone. Fair play to the Rossies. Highlights of that game were short enough so couldn't grasp the flow of the game, but some serious scores kicked by the Ros lads.

[thewobbler]

It would seem there are two angles for the penalty decision.

There are those who understand why the foot block rule exists; to protect the ball striker.

And there are those who think the referee should exercise discretion, but only when it suits their eye.

[JoG2]

Plenty of complaining about a penalty from the team that won the match but very little about the fact that McKaigue scored the equaliser over 1 minute past the 4 added minutes. Then blew the extra time up early before the full time had elapsed.

What are you on about - there was a stoppage for an injury during the injury time itself - this is why it is "at least 4 minutes"

Mayo man down for over a minute during the 4 mins. Would have been v unfair to blow at 4 mins

[Armagh18]

Thought Mayo were liable  to shit the bed as usual but didn't see the Rossies win coming so fair play to them, thought Monaghan would make it tricky for Galway alright and if Walsh is gone for next week they'll get it tight against anyone. Louth and Cork is 50/50.

[yellowcard]

Plenty of complaining about a penalty from the team that won the match but very little about the fact that McKaigue scored the equaliser over 1 minute past the 4 added minutes. Then blew the extra time up early before the full time had elapsed.

What are you on about - there was a stoppage for an injury during the injury time itself - this is why it is "at least 4 minutes"

Derry fans are being selective in expressing their outrage over a penalty incident. All in a match that they actually won. Take off the Derry or anti Mayo glasses and that was a penalty by any objective viewpoint.

As for the timekeeping, that's all well and good but if it's 'at least' then he failed to adhere to that rule at the end of extra time.

[JoG2]

Plenty of complaining about a penalty from the team that won the match but very little about the fact that McKaigue scored the equaliser over 1 minute past the 4 added minutes. Then blew the extra time up early before the full time had elapsed.

What are you on about - there was a stoppage for an injury during the injury time itself - this is why it is "at least 4 minutes"

Derry fans are being selective in expressing their outrage over a penalty incident. All in a match that they actually won. Take off the Derry or anti Mayo glasses and that was a penalty by any objective viewpoint.

As for the timekeeping, that's all well and good but if it's 'at least' then he failed to adhere to that rule at the end of extra time.

When we were attacking?

On the whole extra weeks break, I think it's given too much credence tbh.
3 of the 4 group toppers will probably win their quarter finals (2023?) because, at the time, they are the 4 best, in form teams.
Elite footballers will recover in a few days and will be up to match tempo with 3 games in the trot. They can rest up while the 4 group toppers bust themselves at training. More tough sessions can also mean greater chance of injury if a county is unlucky.

[Hound]

Didn't see the ET live, but sometimes the tv screen can get it wrong when extra time comes along and they need to do a reset. That happened in one of the Ulster games that was live on BBC that went to ET. Initially looked like the ref had blown up more than 30 seconds early, but then the commentator said time was actually up and the screen was wrong.

[trueblue1234]

Whatever about the foot block and real time there was at least 2 yards between McKinless and Lynch and wearing very different coloured shorts and jersies how can an intercounty referee get the yellow card so wrong

I'd be surprised if he thought Lynch was the foot block. He maybe got it for mouthing.

A foot block is a yellow card offence and he make a gesture to his foot when booking him

This is true. He gave the penalty against Lynch and booked him for a foot block.

So any argument about McKinless is totally irrelevant. Never a penalty in a million years.

Except it was a penalty, even a Derry poster agreed on here, so hardly "never in a million years". You could view it harsh, but to try and claim there was no reason is just nonsense. For me it was definitely a penalty. Tho I know foot blocks are always hotly contested.

It was not a foot block it was not a penalty.
Regardless of one confused Derry supporter.
Even Cawley was confused he didn't see it he guessed and guessed wrong.

It was a foot block 💯. Attempted to block with his foot. The fact it hit his upper leg is irrelevant. The rule states attempt to block with his foot. Which he 100% did. What came after doesn't change that fact.

[J70]

Looked a clear foot block and penalty to me, especially in real time, which is all the referee gets.

[David McKeown]

Whatever about the foot block and real time there was at least 2 yards between McKinless and Lynch and wearing very different coloured shorts and jersies how can an intercounty referee get the yellow card so wrong

Did he book him for his protest maybe?

[David McKeown]

It would seem there are two angles for the penalty decision.

There are those who understand why the foot block rule exists; to protect the ball striker.

And there are those who think the referee should exercise discretion, but only when it suits their eye.

The purpose of the rule is to protect the attacker from breaking his foot when he follows through on a kick. It therefore requires a degree of proximity. It should be expanded to prevent any type of block other than with the hands but it doesn't as it currently stands.  The block must be with the boot or attempted to be with the boot not some other part of his body that is connected.  It must also be as he is kicking it.  McKinless ran past the kicker who was running across him, he doesn't block the shot with his boot and whilst he does lift his boot its not moving towards the Mayo player as he kicks it and McKinless boot in no way endangers his safety.  Hes also not right on the kickers foot. So for me its not a penalty.

The decision to book Lynch further confuses the matter, I am not sure he is booking Lynch for the foot block rather than simultaneously saying it was a clear footblock and booking Lynch for something he said. 

   

[tbrick18]

It would seem there are two angles for the penalty decision.

There are those who understand why the foot block rule exists; to protect the ball striker.

And there are those who think the referee should exercise discretion, but only when it suits their eye.

The purpose of the rule is to protect the attacker from breaking his foot when he follows through on a kick. It therefore requires a degree of proximity. It should be expanded to prevent any type of block other than with the hands but it doesn't as it currently stands.  The block must be with the boot or attempted to be with the boot not some other part of his body that is connected.  It must also be as he is kicking it.  McKinless ran past the kicker who was running across him, he doesn't block the shot with his boot and whilst he does lift his boot its not moving towards the Mayo player as he kicks it and McKinless boot in no way endangers his safety.  Hes also not right on the kickers foot. So for me its not a penalty.

The decision to book Lynch further confuses the matter, I am not sure he is booking Lynch for the foot block rather than simultaneously saying it was a clear footblock and booking Lynch for something he said. 

   

In my view it wasn't a penalty either.
When booking Lynch the ref made an action with his leg, which to me suggested he was booking him for the footblock.
So if he was suggesting the Penalty was for what Lynch did - given Lynch never touched the ball, it begs the question did the ref see anything at all or was he just guessing from the motion of the ball?
If he did see it clearly, then there's no way on earth Lynch should have been booked for what the ref seemed to indicate he was booking him for.

Either way, the wrong decision and had it not been made, Derry prob win in normal time.

[Armagh18]

It would seem there are two angles for the penalty decision.

There are those who understand why the foot block rule exists; to protect the ball striker.

And there are those who think the referee should exercise discretion, but only when it suits their eye.

The purpose of the rule is to protect the attacker from breaking his foot when he follows through on a kick. It therefore requires a degree of proximity. It should be expanded to prevent any type of block other than with the hands but it doesn't as it currently stands.  The block must be with the boot or attempted to be with the boot not some other part of his body that is connected.  It must also be as he is kicking it.  McKinless ran past the kicker who was running across him, he doesn't block the shot with his boot and whilst he does lift his boot its not moving towards the Mayo player as he kicks it and McKinless boot in no way endangers his safety.  Hes also not right on the kickers foot. So for me its not a penalty.

The decision to book Lynch further confuses the matter, I am not sure he is booking Lynch for the foot block rather than simultaneously saying it was a clear footblock and booking Lynch for something he said. 

   

In my view it wasn't a penalty either.
When booking Lynch the ref made an action with his leg, which to me suggested he was booking him for the footblock.
So if he was suggesting the Penalty was for what Lynch did - given Lynch never touched the ball, it begs the question did the ref see anything at all or was he just guessing from the motion of the ball?
If he did see it clearly, then there's no way on earth Lynch should have been booked for what the ref seemed to indicate he was booking him for.

Either way, the wrong decision and had it not been made, Derry prob win in normal time.

Maybe he was telling Lynch that it was a foot block but was booking Lynch for mouthing?

[Brendan]

The way I referee the foot block is if it is causing danger to the kicker which McKinless wasn't, this is what has been told to me at various seminars but looking at the wording of the actual rule book has left me confused for the next time I'm out. I see it in every match a player could be 5 yards away and blocks with his foot which of course leads to groans from everyone around for a foot block which I dismiss, what is a player in that situation meant to do, throw himself to the ground to try and get a hand to it instead?

[GTP]

My understanding is a foot block is a yellow card offence. As McKinless did not get yellow carded it would strongly suggest that Lynch was being booked for the foul rather than anything he said.