National - Matthew Fitzpatrick suspension

looks like the cccc have lost the run of themselves and seem to be so full of their own self importance that they have lost touch with reality. Hell the amount of times players blatently punching etc caught on tv and bans overturned on appeal by these same blokes makes you wonder what the heck goes on upstairs. Sure if you want to send out a message to young fellas that this is what happens if you make a mistake ??? then you'll find a lot of the weaker county players and maybe some of the middle tier players will be looking at the whole thing asking what the hell am I knocking my bolliks out for all winter i'm off to America, or i'm away to play soccer or rugby or that's it i'm finished with the gaa. looking at the statements it leaves a lot to wonder what threats were made to antrim cb to name names, also what additional evidence came in weeks later to justify being summoned to Dublin at the drop of a hat as if your life isn't already disrupted enough. Lets hope antrim cb appeal this al the way or the team stand by a fellow player who has been royally screwed

bulmccabe (Tyrone) - Posts:165 - 16/05/2017 22:02:56   1987318

Link

the CCCC is not a court of law

they surely cannot do something like that for telling a lie.
you can only be suspended for some rule you have broken
where does it say, 'do not lie' in the GAA rulebook?

valley84 (Westmeath) - Posts:1351 - 17/05/2017 00:21:16   1987373

Link

Replying To valley84:  "the CCCC is not a court of law

they surely cannot do something like that for telling a lie.
you can only be suspended for some rule you have broken
where does it say, 'do not lie' in the GAA rulebook?"
They will throw it under taking the game into disrepute. It's how they got McCann for diving, such a vague rule allows you to throw a lot of crap in with it.

gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts:4350 - 17/05/2017 01:21:46   1987383

Link

48 week ban is a ridiculous penalty - sometimes I wonder, I mean who the hell are these people dishing out bans like that? On appeal they have been repeatedly found against if you are reviewing incidents you have to look at the whole incidents very rarely for example is a punch thrown in isolation. But in this instance for not telling the truth? really is a farce.

arock (Dublin) - Posts:3393 - 17/05/2017 07:12:56   1987396

Link

for misleading a CCC investigation there is a sanction of 48 weeks - but there is no common sense, what did he really do threw one punch - did he?
Yes he deserves a sanction - a one match ban- but not 4 or 8 or even 48 weeks
Are you telling me that every Kerry, Meath, Dublin and even my own county tell the truth in these appeals and hearings----- no they don't......
They have being lambasted for giving McGeeny 12 weeks over the sideline issue and now this

cuchulainn35 (Armagh) - Posts:1421 - 17/05/2017 10:44:51   1987426

Link

The manager and the kit man have also been warned about their future conduct

It seems, to me anyway, there's possibly an element of penalising the management with this suspension too

bumpernut (Antrim) - Posts:1734 - 17/05/2017 11:04:34   1987431

Link

See what gets me is what cuchulainn35 and a few others have pointed out i.e. that does anyone really believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry who are up in front of the CCCC tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (and do the CCCC actually think all other cases up til now have been all honest)? There is no way on earth they do - you go in and try to get the best result for your player, even if it means telling half truths. Might not be right but its the way it is otherwise how do we see player after player get off with things which are witnessed by thousands in some cases. And it works both ways - I know of a case where at such a meeting where a player had been mistakenly identified and sent off in a game and when the decision was being appealed the hearing phoned the referee who said he stood over what was in his report (that the player had been striking) and the suspension held. This was despite the actual offender telling the ref at the time of the sending off that it was him and not the other guy. But no misleading of investigations in that case.

Offside_Rule (Antrim) - Posts:3370 - 17/05/2017 11:14:31   1987436

Link

The GAA is fast becoming a good joke when it comes to these matters. So someone who tells a porky and injures nobody get a ban which is a multiple of times greater than someone who breaks a leg or jaw. Obviously some official/officials have very big egos and that's nothing new. Maybe Everyone playing the game who has won anything has fouled an opponent and pleaded innocence when a free is awarded against him. Sometimes clever fouling of the opposition decides the end result of matches without any consequence! so it that type of playmaking/fouling not a type of a porky/lie, as sometimes can seen quite clearly/obviously in replay on camera.

browncows (Meath) - Posts:1492 - 17/05/2017 12:42:16   1987475

Link

Brolly is on the case :-). Also a bit more info on what went on before:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/declan-bogue/declan-bogue-why-saffrons-wont-take-a-hit-35722629.html

Offside_Rule (Antrim) - Posts:3370 - 17/05/2017 12:43:07   1987476

Link

Fitzpatrick gets 48 weeks, McGeeney gets 12 weeks. Meanwhile over the past few years issues such as alleged eye gouging and biting get glossed over and virtually ignored by Croke Park and the CCCC. It would be difficult not to conclude that these Ulster fellas are being made an example of while other far more serious issues go by the wayside.

Ulsterman (Antrim) - Posts:8610 - 17/05/2017 12:46:20   1987478

Link

Replying To Offside_Rule:  "Brolly is on the case :-). Also a bit more info on what went on before:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/declan-bogue/declan-bogue-why-saffrons-wont-take-a-hit-35722629.html"
Scathing indeed and shows the complete, two faced hypocrisy at work. If the CCCC could not positively identify Fitzpatrick on the two original clips why did they feel it was necessary to reopen the case a third time? As Declan said when you consider some of the stuff the so called bigger counties have got away with in recent times you do feel there's an agenda at work. If the ban is not overturned many within tbe county feel Antrim should tell Croke Park to stick it and walk away. The way they have treated Antrim, and Belfast, over the decades is scandalous.

Ulsterman (Antrim) - Posts:8610 - 17/05/2017 14:29:14   1987542

Link

What serious crime did he commit that he got 48 weeks? I have seen lads literally taken out of it and stretchered off and not even a yellow card?? Would it be a case of the CCC becoming bigger than the whole organisation?

border Gael (Monaghan) - Posts:576 - 17/05/2017 14:58:43   1987559

Link

Great preparation for Sunday's game into the bargain given the size of the task we already face

bumpernut (Antrim) - Posts:1734 - 17/05/2017 15:38:13   1987589

Link

Replying To neverright:  "If you can get two years for 'misleading', then I think a lot of Croke Park top brass might be in trouble."
hard to argue with that:-)

Mayonman (Galway) - Posts:386 - 17/05/2017 16:34:35   1987619

Link

Seems to be a general contempt for rules in GAA - everyone seems to point at someone that got off as a justification for their guy getting off. As opposed to he did the crime he should do the time.

48 weeks seems like a lot in fairness. I strongly believe that if you lie to one of these investigations you should get a severe penalty. 48 weeks is a lot, and without knowing the exact facts it seems severe. I don't think the fact that others did it and were not caught means he should get away with it. Maybe the findings should be published in full.

Mayonman (Galway) - Posts:386 - 17/05/2017 16:42:58   1987626

Link

The minimum suspension for misleading an investigation is 48 weeks, so they had no option but to suspend him for this length once they found him guilty. I doubt anyone on the CCC wants to see a player suspended for that length but they have to abide by the rulebook. It's up to members to change the rules and suspensions at congress each year.

Soma (UK) - Posts:1951 - 17/05/2017 16:58:30   1987630

Link

Replying To Mayonman:  "Seems to be a general contempt for rules in GAA - everyone seems to point at someone that got off as a justification for their guy getting off. As opposed to he did the crime he should do the time.

48 weeks seems like a lot in fairness. I strongly believe that if you lie to one of these investigations you should get a severe penalty. 48 weeks is a lot, and without knowing the exact facts it seems severe. I don't think the fact that others did it and were not caught means he should get away with it. Maybe the findings should be published in full."
I don't think there is contempt for the rules I think it's the lack of transparency and consistency. Mayo appeal and win Kevin Keanes suspension for a blatant strike. Nothing as obvious as that hit yet he gets off. He gets it brought down to a yellow from a red. Someone is clearly lying because that was a strike. There is no explanation for it, it's just Mayo won the appeal and it is now a yellow instead of a red. No explanation of the rule as to why it is a yellow and not a red.

Connolly win his appeal in 2015 on a technicality. What was the technicality??? No one knows. You said it yourself 'It's probably that his name wasn't in Irish'. I believe you said that earlier in the thread. If people are told what the technicality is then you may be more likely to accept punishments given.

As it stands those from certain counties feel like they are being victimised or unfairly punished by the authorities and are being treated differently. An example of this is Tiernan McCann who received a ban of 8 weeks (yes it was overturned) but yet Aidan O'Shea dived last year against Fermanagh (I don't care about the incident, i'm just highlighting it) and was only criticised for it. There was no retrospective action taken against O'Shea. Similarly a few years prior to the McCann incident Aidan O'Mahoney took a blatant dive to get a player sent off and received no retrospective ban. I didn't want O'Shea or O'Mahoney to be banned, just like I thought it was ridiculous that McCann was going to be banned. However there is serious inconsistency here from the rule makers. You could argue that they set the precedent with McCann and that's why O'Mahoney did not receive a ban. That's fair enough, but why did O'Shea not face similar punishment?
Yes I am aware the ban was lifted on McCann but there was never an explanation for the lifting of the ban. So with the precedent having been set by HQ in relation to diving Aidan O'Shea should have received a ban and then be forced to appeal.

I honestly believe if they came out and gave a detailed response as to why bans are overturned etc there would be more respect for the rules.

gotmilk (Fermanagh) - Posts:4350 - 17/05/2017 17:21:05   1987636

Link

any chance we could give Mickey Mouse his rule book back and start on a fresh page before a lot of disillusioned players turn their back on the game they love?!

SaffronDon (Antrim) - Posts:1421 - 17/05/2017 23:39:08   1987765

Link

Ban lifted. Fitzpatrick clear to play

ciaran1988 (Antrim) - Posts:71 - 18/05/2017 04:10:50   1987780

Link

Appeal upheld.......getting ridiculous if not unexpected!

How do you go from 48 weeks to being cleared.

I hope that he was cleared on the facts of the case rather than a stupid technicality i.e. wrong date on form or name in english etc

Mayonman (Galway) - Posts:386 - 18/05/2017 08:55:25   1987794

Link