The problem here is the Cavan fellas hadnt the wit to tell corr to not go near the subs bench in the 2nd half. he should of been told to go down the street for a pint to cover all chances of him not getting sent off.. was a deserved red though.
i don't think anyone would argue that the offence didn't deserve a red card. . .
BUT. .
- the umpires had the ability to contact the referee at the time of the incident. - there were TWO stoppages between the incident and the half time whistle - Cavan were allowed to waste 15mins changing their tactics during half time only for all this to be undone by a referee who acted outside the laws of the game in addressing an incident that happened 3 phases of play and a half-time stoppage earlier. If it happened on the verge of half-time or after the half-time whistle then fair enough. But there must be a cut-off point for these things.
I think everyone is agreed that the strike was a red card. the issue as I see it is as follows, At what point was the offense brought to the ref's attention? and how was it brought to his attention, and by whom? If it was an appointed game official,(based on his viewing of the game and incident live) who was unable to communicate the information immediately, but got the information to the Ref at the earliest possible moment,then whether that was at half time or not makes no difference, the officials acted correctly. However, if the information was garnered from viewing the incident on RTE tv at half time, then it becomes an entirely different thing. If an un-biased game official is promted to act upon the reviews of a game at half time as provided by a tv station (who job it is to entertain, and sell advertisement space) then we find ourselves on a very slippery slope.
I hope for the sake of the game that the TV in the Ref's room was not part of the officiating decision (I have been in Breffni Park, and there is an active connected TV in the officials room)