2008 Ulster Club Championships

full back · December 03, 2008, 10:09:19 AM

SS, I think you have to accept you are mistaken on this one
BC1 would have a better idea of what happened

saffron sam2 · December 03, 2008, 10:18:44 AM

No, bcb1 is obviously biased. I reckon he would back his club mates to the hilt.

I was at the game as a neutral, I was directly in line with the incident. I spoke about in the thread the day after the game. If I was called as a witness in court my recall would be exactly the same. Even if it had been bcb1 who carried out the tackle, then I don't see how his evidence would be anymore reliable than that of an independent, neutral witness.

Whacker · December 03, 2008, 10:21:44 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 03, 2008, 10:18:44 AM
No, bcb1 is obviously biased. I reckon he would back his club mates to the hilt.

I was at the game as a neutral, I was directly in line with the incident. I spoke about in the thread the day after the game. If I was called as a witness in court my recall would be exactly the same. Even if it had been bcb1 who carried out the tackle, then I don't see how his evidence would be anymore reliable than that of an independent, neutral witness.

Would you shut up man and take it that BC1 knows alot more about the incident and was alot closer to the incident than you! Maybe he is being biased but it is first hand detailed information no matter what you saw!

thebandit · December 03, 2008, 10:26:16 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 03, 2008, 10:18:44 AM
No, bcb1 is obviously biased. I reckon he would back his club mates to the hilt.

I was at the game as a neutral, I was directly in line with the incident. I spoke about in the thread the day after the game. If I was called as a witness in court my recall would be exactly the same. Even if it had been bcb1 who carried out the tackle, then I don't see how his evidence would be anymore reliable than that of an independent, neutral witness.

ss2, I'd leave it sit, bcb was so close to the incident, you could nearly say he was stuck in the middle of it.

Hardy · December 03, 2008, 10:33:53 AM

It goes to show, frighteningly, how unreliable the evidence of even genuinely motivated eye witnesses can be and how much room for interpretation there is in the observation of any incident. It'd make you worry about ever being tried for something you didn't do.

brokencrossbar1 · December 03, 2008, 10:36:39 AM

Lads opinions are everything on discussion boards. Sam has one opinion of and incident, I have another. I do have a biased viewpoint but that doesn't make it incorrect. That is the joy of this board, everyone can express an opinion and you can be guaranteed there will be at least one dissenting voice, either genuine or wumming. It would be a poorer place if we were all lemmings and followed the throng. Let's put this one to bed and move on to Sunday's game.

BTW Sam, I am right

corn02 · December 03, 2008, 10:37:52 AM

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on December 03, 2008, 10:36:39 AM
Lads opinions are everything on discussion boards. Sam has one opinion of and incident, I have another. I do have a biased viewpoint but that doesn't make it incorrect. That is the joy of this board, everyone can express an opinion and you can be guaranteed there will be at least one dissenting voice, either genuine or wumming. It would be a poorer place if we were all lemmings and followed the throng. Let's put this one to bed and move on to Sunday's game.

BTW Sam, I am right

By the way did you notice none of us could hold our water, I have never seen an outing like it.

behind the wire · December 03, 2008, 10:41:18 AM

speak for yourself corn.

brokencrossbar1 · December 03, 2008, 10:43:29 AM

It's not like I have ever hidden much!

saffron sam2 · December 03, 2008, 10:44:20 AM

I think I am beginning to work things out now. So what you boys are saying is that you would unquestioningly take the word of the defendant above the word of a neutral witness?

If I crash my car on the way home or decide to whack one of the young men in front of me now over the head with a hammer, would the coppers just take my word because I was closest to the incident or would they maybe look for a neutral witness or two?

By the way, were any of you (apart from bcb1) at the game? If so, what was your take on the incident? I would be happy for someone to fire up a video of the incident and let all concerned posters decide.

corn02 · December 03, 2008, 10:54:10 AM

Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 03, 2008, 10:44:20 AM
I think I am beginning to work things out now. So what you boys are saying is that you would unquestioningly take the word of the defendant above the word of a neutral witness?

If I crash my car on the way home or decide to whack one of the young men in front of me now over the head with a hammer, would the coppers just take my word because I was closest to the incident or would they maybe look for a neutral witness or two?

By the way, were any of you (apart from bcb1) at the game? If so, what was your take on the incident? I would be happy for someone to fire up a video of the incident and let all concerned posters decide.

Good post.

Hardy · December 03, 2008, 10:58:16 AM

Well my position is that if I disbelieve BC's version of the incident, I'm calling him a liar, whereas if I disbelieve yours, SS2, I'm saying you misinterpreted what you saw, which is something we all do, more often than is comfortable. And BC is not a liar.

behind the wire · December 03, 2008, 10:59:30 AM

it was no higher than his 5th rib.

saffron sam2 · December 03, 2008, 11:07:07 AM

From the various media outlets.

Irish News

QuoteThe Rangers had been reduced to 14 men by that stage, substitute brokencrossbar1 dismissed in the 46th minute for a high challenge on Slaughtneil's stand-in skipper Micheal Kelly, which seemed a harsh decision.

BBC

QuoteThen came brokencrossbar1's straight red card for serious foul play, shortly after coming on as a substitute.

RTE

QuoteThe Orchard star added a quick point after the restart, but Kelly brought it back to 1-4 to 0-6 - before brokencrossbar1 earned a straight red for serious foul play.

Newry Democrat

QuoteAs on 46 minutes he (bcb1) received a straight red, for what was deemed a high challenge.

The Crossmaglen Rangers website

QuoteOn sixteen minutes brokencrossbar1 got sent off harshly after a heavy tackle.

None the wiser. I need video evidence.

billy the kid · December 03, 2008, 11:17:57 AM

Quote from: Whacker on December 03, 2008, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on December 03, 2008, 10:18:44 AM
No, bcb1 is obviously biased. I reckon he would back his club mates to the hilt.

I was at the game as a neutral, I was directly in line with the incident. I spoke about in the thread the day after the game. If I was called as a witness in court my recall would be exactly the same. Even if it had been bcb1 who carried out the tackle, then I don't see how his evidence would be anymore reliable than that of an independent, neutral witness.

Would you shut up man and take it that BC1 knows alot more about the incident and was alot closer to the incident than you! Maybe he is being biased but it is first hand detailed information no matter what you saw!

Ok folks, I wasnt at that game and just watched highlights on tv and i dont really remember this incident as its a while back, However I would tend to believe SS2 here as he was at the game in a neutral capacity and had a good view of the incident and whacker, he has given "first hand detailed information" of the incident also and to say it doesnt matter what he saw is ridiculous.

If you were in court as a witness and said you saw with your own 2 eyes, the killer running away covered in blood holding the knife that was used, and the defendants lawer said "he didnt do it no matter what you saw" would you then say, "sorry i must be mistaken"

Also, BC1 is a Cross man and from what I gather a very proud one, and like all of us who are really proud of our clubs - we are the most biased people you will ever meet and rarely can see any thing wrong with our own house but everyone elses is a dump, and there would be no chance of admitting a wrong this long after the event, but thats one of the many things that make the Club scene of the GAA so colourful and so great. But in fairness BC1s responses have been measured and not outlandish like some of the "he says it, therefore its right and your wrong" type of things some have posted on this thread. Butt kissers

Additionally from the BC1 fan club posts it would appear that BC1 was the man sent off that day? Hardly a neutral or unbiased view of it all.

On a different note, just because Shane Kelly was wrongly dismissed against cross that year and suspended for the replay, doesnt make it right that JME is treated the same this time round. JME didnt hit Conway in the face, and I think we all know that this was what he was sent off for. He may have connected with the elbow on the 5th rib

but the contact looked minimal and would have been a harsh enough booking IMO. Hope he gets off and gets to play on Sunday, I for one really enjoyed watching him play and thought he had a v good game. Have seen Cross play 4 times in the Championship this year and thought that was his best display so far, although he was also deadly in one particular 20 minute spell against Armagh Harps.

My only worry about JME would be his comment, which basically said he had Elbowed Conway in the Ribs, getting him in trouble instead. His comment made his tackle sound alot worse than it actually was, and as someone else said on the board, the ref and the Ulster council may seize this as justification for the red as they are always reluctant to overturn Red cards. If there is any Justice JME will be playing on Sunday.