|
Replying To keithlemon: " Replying To jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 7907 - 03/07/2017 15:14:44
2009699
Link
0
|
|
Replying To keithlemon: " Replying To jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
Again, it's a badly drafted rule. Strictly speaking, 99% of fouls are 'deliberate collisions', but I don't see pulling a jersey as a 'collision'.
jason (Mayo) - Posts: 139 - 03/07/2017 15:17:34
2009701
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Fionn: "If you want to talk about arrogant counties then look no further than Kerry.
Much worse than Dublin could ever be claimed to be.
As for the claim by You know who - well he has opened a right auld bag of snakes here.
Let us see him back his claim up now.
The Kerry Dublin rivalry has taken to a whole new low level now.
Is it just me or does the timing of all this, in an era when Dublin are dominating Kerry in the championship, not smell a bit off... Something untoward going on here and in my opinion, as Dessie D has stated, all pre planned and calculated by a certain tv pundit.
Sad that an ex football great resorts to this in order to try to derail the Dubs and at the same time benefit his own county, in terms of distracting focus etc.
In my opinion, this is all going too far now.
Pundits are supposed to be unbiased yet then write articles in papers which clearly have anterior motives.
Not good to see at all.
If correct then why the innuendo - don't beat about the bush. Just name the person who sent the text....!
Plenty of bridges being burned at the moment though it has to be said." Dublin have the monopoly on arrogance, supporters are already planning the 3 in a row celebrations. As for Pat Spillane, he just stated the rules of the game which Connolly had obviously broken. No hidden agenda here, Pat speaks his mind, like it or not. so there's no conspiracy theory at work. I doubt very much if he is that bothered about Dublin that he had to resort to using the Connolly situation as a distraction. Gavin completely overreacted.
kerry4ever (Kerry) - Posts: 22 - 03/07/2017 15:19:47
2009702
Link
0
|
|
Replying To kerry4ever: "Dublin have the monopoly on arrogance, supporters are already planning the 3 in a row celebrations. As for Pat Spillane, he just stated the rules of the game which Connolly had obviously broken. No hidden agenda here, Pat speaks his mind, like it or not. so there's no conspiracy theory at work. I doubt very much if he is that bothered about Dublin that he had to resort to using the Connolly situation as a distraction. Gavin completely overreacted." No hidden agenda?
You absolute and out and out liar.
But no shock coming from the biggest bunch of dishonest GAA people out there.
Spending decades hidden behind this "yerra" mantra
jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 20601 - 03/07/2017 15:30:01
2009714
Link
2
|
|
Replying To TheFlaker: " Replying To keithlemon: "[quote=jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
I don't think it's a 'clear cut collision' but I can see why it was given as a black card. I agree with jason in that it is a badly drafted rule.
keithlemon (Australia) - Posts: 920 - 03/07/2017 15:36:33
2009720
Link
0
|
|
Could/Should a card have been awarded against Mayo in the following case, and if so, would the goal have stood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seybUwCI1u0
dubdec99 (Dublin) - Posts: 180 - 03/07/2017 15:40:50
2009725
Link
0
|
|
Replying To witnof: "Lads Kerry are rattled by the fact the Dubs have the Indian sign over them for the last 7 years.
We never beat them fairly, the refs beat them in '11 and '16, the weather was the reason we won in '15 ans so on.
No Dublin commentator called Kerry 'scumbags' wereas the same cannot be said in reverse.
When you see Kerry celebrating beating us in the League you know they are rattled by us.
Lap it up lads. And remember what really pees them off is that we play the best stlye of football in the country.
Shit back relax and enjoy it. Kerry are needled by us!" Everything comes in cycles. Dublin have beaten us a few times in recent years, they had a great team, though Kerry should have won the 2011 AI. They threw it away at the last minute.
Kerry have a fantastic team right now, with a mix of young players and older, experienced ones, and are considered strong contenders for this years' All Ireland. So, there's no "Indian Sign", no "fear" or anything like it. Dublin have had their barren years, and this current squad aren't going to be around forever. So enjoy these golden years because Kerry haven't gone away.
kerry4ever (Kerry) - Posts: 22 - 03/07/2017 15:55:49
2009738
Link
0
|
|
Replying To dubdec99: "Could/Should a card have been awarded against Mayo in the following case, and if so, would the goal have stood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seybUwCI1u0" Ah lads this is priceless. First of all in the first part you can barely see what actually happens but Connolly throws himself to the ground with the hands in the air. And as for the second part lol, give me a break. I could pick out a heap of other incidents during the game that were missed, that video is laughable.
TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 7907 - 03/07/2017 16:16:37
2009762
Link
0
|
|
Replying To jimbodub: " Replying To keithlemon: "[quote=jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
"What was long due to him"
That proves my point exactly.
The offence for which Lee Keegan was black carded for was not a black card offence. He may well have committed 10 black card offences during the rest of the game. That doesn't make this particular offence warrant a black card.
I could say Connolly got what was coming to him with this 12 week ban but I haven't. He has received the MINIMUM ban for the offence he committed.
Will Dublin have "got what was due to them" if a player escapes a ban later in the championship despite breaking the rules?
cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5017 - 03/07/2017 16:16:52
2009763
Link
0
|
|
Replying To keithlemon: " Replying To TheFlaker: "[quote=keithlemon: "[quote=jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
I don't think it's a 'clear cut collision' but I can see why it was given as a black card. I agree with jason in that it is a badly drafted rule."]I also agree it is badly drafted, I think it's a rubbish rule that is hard to enforce. Important club games being ruined up and down the country week in week out as well because of it.
TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 7907 - 03/07/2017 16:19:38
2009765
Link
0
|
|
Replying To cavanman47: " Replying To jimbodub: "[quote=keithlemon: "[quote=jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
"What was long due to him"
That proves my point exactly.
The offence for which Lee Keegan was black carded for was not a black card offence. He may well have committed 10 black card offences during the rest of the game. That doesn't make this particular offence warrant a black card.
I could say Connolly got what was coming to him with this 12 week ban but I haven't. He has received the MINIMUM ban for the offence he committed.
Will Dublin have "got what was due to them" if a player escapes a ban later in the championship despite breaking the rules?"]You are bang on, same thing I have said to a load of posters.
TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 7907 - 03/07/2017 16:22:46
2009773
Link
0
|
|
Replying To TheFlaker: " Replying To cavanman47: "[quote=jimbodub: "[quote=keithlemon: "[quote=jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
"What was long due to him"
That proves my point exactly.
The offence for which Lee Keegan was black carded for was not a black card offence. He may well have committed 10 black card offences during the rest of the game. That doesn't make this particular offence warrant a black card.
I could say Connolly got what was coming to him with this 12 week ban but I haven't. He has received the MINIMUM ban for the offence he committed.
Will Dublin have "got what was due to them" if a player escapes a ban later in the championship despite breaking the rules?"]You are bang on, same thing I have said to a load of posters."]Keegan knew full well that Connolly had the run on him and cynically impeded his run as much as he could without basically bear hugging him to the ground.
Do you think it was an act of blatant cynicism on Keegan's part?
jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 20601 - 03/07/2017 16:32:25
2009787
Link
0
|
|
Jimbo - it was a free in alright, he definitely dragged him back.
Do you think Keegan pulled Connoy down?
If not then you can infer cynicism all you like, it's still not a black card as defined in the rules.
jason (Mayo) - Posts: 139 - 03/07/2017 16:38:28
2009794
Link
0
|
|
Replying To jason: "Jimbo - it was a free in alright, he definitely dragged him back.
Do you think Keegan pulled Connoy down?
If not then you can infer cynicism all you like, it's still not a black card as defined in the rules." He cynically impeded his run off the ball
jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 20601 - 03/07/2017 16:43:12
2009801
Link
0
|
|
Replying To jimbodub: " Replying To TheFlaker: "[quote=cavanman47: "[quote=jimbodub: "[quote=keithlemon: "[quote=jason: "Again, I would respectfully request that you read the rulebook. In fact, I'll post the relevant section here:
Category II Infractions - Cynical Behaviour
5.10 To deliberately pull down an opponent.
5.11 To deliberately trip an opponent with hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play.
5.13 To remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2.
5.14 To threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or teammate.
PENALTY FOR THE ABOVE FOULS -
(i) Order the offender off by showing him a Black Card.
(ii) Allow a replacement from within the substitutions permitted in Rule 2.4, Rules of Specification.
(iii)Where an opponent is involved - Free kick from where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions of Rule 2.2. Where a team-mate is involved - Throw in the ball where the foul occurred except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2.
Keegan did not commit any of the above black card offences. He was definitely cynical in pulling Connolly's jersey, but he didn't pull him down. His foul does not come within the definition of a Category II infraction for 'Cynical Behaviour'. This is fact - there is no room for an alternative interpretation within the rules.
Cooper's black card was correct under 5.11 above." Would you not put Keegans infraction under 5.12: 5.12 To deliberately collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of the movement of play."
"What was long due to him"
That proves my point exactly.
The offence for which Lee Keegan was black carded for was not a black card offence. He may well have committed 10 black card offences during the rest of the game. That doesn't make this particular offence warrant a black card.
I could say Connolly got what was coming to him with this 12 week ban but I haven't. He has received the MINIMUM ban for the offence he committed.
Will Dublin have "got what was due to them" if a player escapes a ban later in the championship despite breaking the rules?"]You are bang on, same thing I have said to a load of posters."]Keegan knew full well that Connolly had the run on him and cynically impeded his run as much as he could without basically bear hugging him to the ground.
Do you think it was an act of blatant cynicism on Keegan's part?"]Lol I think you need to rewatch the video as I already stated. A quick pull of the jersey followed by a Connolly dive when there was no actual contact made. Please watch it back and tell me it didn't happen like I stated in a previous post. A quick tug of the jersey is a yellow card. I look forward to your response to what actually happened. The dive as well, can you cover that for me because Aidan O Shea gets abused online every week for an apparent dive v Fermanagh, so wondering what you thought of Dermos dive? Let me guess, he had every right to.
TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 7907 - 03/07/2017 16:43:40
2009802
Link
0
|
|
Replying To jimbodub: "He cynically impeded his run off the ball" So not a black card then?
Abd you'd want to tell the ref about your interpretation too, he clearly indicates after giving the black card that it was for a pull down.
jason (Mayo) - Posts: 139 - 03/07/2017 16:55:31
2009815
Link
0
|
|
Sorry missed the dive part of your post
He def made the most of being cynically targeted off the ball by the same player who had previously got away with it the year before.
Def made the most if it :)
That was the best part
jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 20601 - 03/07/2017 16:58:03
2009817
Link
0
|
|
Replying To jason: "So not a black card then?
Abd you'd want to tell the ref about your interpretation too, he clearly indicates after giving the black card that it was for a pull down." :)
I honestly thought cynically impeding a players run off the ball was a black card.
I never mentioned him being hauled down at any point - unlike the previous year where Keegan blatantly hauled Connolly to the ground off the ball.
But listen, I'm honest enough to be open to be corrected.
Still though... I think the black card was brought in to punish deliberate acts of blatant cynicism and well that's exactly what it did.
Yep.. Connolly made the most of it but sure why wouldn't he? He was being purposely targeted.
Keegan's act of blatant cynicism in impeding his run was clear to see and giving the context of the incident where a blatant goal chance was on the cards then I'd have done the same.
Just like I would have don't to same as Keegan, but I would have known well that what I was doing would put me at risk of receiving a black card.
I appreciated the efforts you've gone to post the exact rules.
jimbodub (Dublin) - Posts: 20601 - 03/07/2017 17:07:20
2009828
Link
0
|
|
Replying To kerry4ever: "Dublin have the monopoly on arrogance, supporters are already planning the 3 in a row celebrations. As for Pat Spillane, he just stated the rules of the game which Connolly had obviously broken. No hidden agenda here, Pat speaks his mind, like it or not. so there's no conspiracy theory at work. I doubt very much if he is that bothered about Dublin that he had to resort to using the Connolly situation as a distraction. Gavin completely overreacted." but in reality , we're not are we? Just saying things doesn't make it true. Even a quick scrawl through this forum, you will be hard pushed to see many Dubs talking about '3 in a row '. However quoting Dublin are doing this and doing that with nothing to back it up is fine if that's your thing.
As for the article. Tripe. The Sunday World rag? Investigative journo, Pat Spillane saying it as, right . If folk wanna quote the Sunday World, that is where we have reached in this debate. We deserve no better as every other angle on this incident has been done to death.
poguemahone (Dublin) - Posts: 365 - 03/07/2017 17:11:02
2009830
Link
3
|
|
Replying To jimbodub: ":)
I honestly thought cynically impeding a players run off the ball was a black card.
I never mentioned him being hauled down at any point - unlike the previous year where Keegan blatantly hauled Connolly to the ground off the ball.
But listen, I'm honest enough to be open to be corrected.
Still though... I think the black card was brought in to punish deliberate acts of blatant cynicism and well that's exactly what it did.
Yep.. Connolly made the most of it but sure why wouldn't he? He was being purposely targeted.
Keegan's act of blatant cynicism in impeding his run was clear to see and giving the context of the incident where a blatant goal chance was on the cards then I'd have done the same.
Just like I would have don't to same as Keegan, but I would have known well that what I was doing would put me at risk of receiving a black card.
I appreciated the efforts you've gone to post the exact rules." I 100% agree with everything you've posted, and to clarify, I do think Keegan's black card was within the spirit of the rule. The law is the ass with this one.
Way off topic though!
jason (Mayo) - Posts: 139 - 03/07/2017 17:14:36
2009833
Link
1
|