HoganStand GAA Football and Hurling

National Forum

Tadhg De Burca's red card

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post

You need to Login to Post

There is no conclusive evidence that DeBurca "intentionally" interfered with the helmet. This is not a technicality. If that term is not there you are going to have red cards every time a player's helmet comes off his head in a tackle etc. Or worse players making sure it comes off to get a player off. The lines man saw the end result of DeBurca handing off Kehoe who was impeding him going forward. Is he the only one that should make the call on intent ? In fairness there are much more deserving red cards than this one. In this game there was a player frontal charged, injured and nothing called. The rule is the rule but this is not application of it as intended. Too many here do not care about the details but only want to punish. Lets take off our county hats. Tadgh DeBurca is a young player who has graced our hurling for four years and deserves better. Would not want this to happen to any player from any county. This is not right because it is a wrong and bad call. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 04/08/2017 21:50:41 2029113 Link
A large element of any punishment system is to deter a re-occurrence of the action or behaviour that is being punished. It is tough on the individual in this case but necessary for the bigger picture to maintain a semblance of discipline in our games. Otherwise you have a free for all and chaos. Its a GAA and Irish thing - we hate our own rules. facethepuckout (Roscommon) - Posts: 214 - 04/08/2017 23:01:15 2029135 Link
Why is it that when officials don't get involved there is nothing but lads saying they are useless and when they do get involved they are wrong. catch22 (USA) - Posts: 2148 - 04/08/2017 23:36:16 2029151 Link
I think any appeal should straight up carry an automatic doubling of a suspension if upheld, deter alot of these time wasting arguments. If you did it you know well you did, if it's on camera don't appeal it and waste the time to try and gain favour like you were undeserved of the ban jonno (Kildare) - Posts: 260 - 05/08/2017 00:43:04 2029155 Link
Replying To catch22: "Why is it that when officials don't get involved there is nothing but lads saying they are useless and when they do get involved they are wrong." Because common sense isn't applied in both instances. They are either over stringent or over lenient. I'd have far more time for a referee who is strict but engaging than a referee who is strict and a dictator. Killarney.87 (Tipperary) - Posts: 2513 - 05/08/2017 01:35:45 2029156 Link
Replying To Canuck: "There is no conclusive evidence that DeBurca "intentionally" interfered with the helmet. This is not a technicality. If that term is not there you are going to have red cards every time a player's helmet comes off his head in a tackle etc. Or worse players making sure it comes off to get a player off. The lines man saw the end result of DeBurca handing off Kehoe who was impeding him going forward. Is he the only one that should make the call on intent ? In fairness there are much more deserving red cards than this one. In this game there was a player frontal charged, injured and nothing called. The rule is the rule but this is not application of it as intended. Too many here do not care about the details but only want to punish. Lets take off our county hats. Tadgh DeBurca is a young player who has graced our hurling for four years and deserves better. Would not want this to happen to any player from any county. This is not right because it is a wrong and bad call." Yes there is evidence. The linesmans and Referees Report from the time of the incident. The onus is on Waterford in their appeal to come up with evidence to show the Officials were wrong. And the fact that he is a nice guy or his past record is not evidence. Are you suggesting that every decision a referee or Official makes has to be rubber stamped by the Sunday Game or Twitter or else it doesn't count. Best of luck with them rules. How would they work at Club matches ? Who in their right mind is going to become a Referee ? You would go all the way back to the way hurling used to be played before the founding of the GAA if you were to go down this "Sure he is a nice guy and he is sorry" officiating. Cornerback1977 (Cork) - Posts: 67 - 05/08/2017 02:26:50 2029160 Link
Replying To facethepuckout: "A large element of any punishment system is to deter a re-occurrence of the action or behaviour that is being punished. It is tough on the individual in this case but necessary for the bigger picture to maintain a semblance of discipline in our games. Otherwise you have a free for all and chaos. Its a GAA and Irish thing - we hate our own rules." Facethepuckout there was no DELIBERATE foul in this instance and no requirement for punishment. For what to prove a point ? DeBurca was the one been fouled, held back. In the case of Stephen Bennett it was blatantly deliberate, missed by the officials on the field, reviewed and dealt with as should. No one trying to circumvent the rule. Why not revisit this when it was called by the officials. Mistakes take place both ways. This is a trivial perceived offence to have a player red carded when you see what is missed and was missed that day. On a scale of 1 to 10 it is not a 1. However punishment is like comfort food for some whether it is merited or not. Not saying you who is expressing an opinion but some posters. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 05/08/2017 03:00:07 2029162 Link
Waterford would be best advised to put the issue behind them now. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, he's out and that's the end of it. Carrying this on into next week is only a distraction to them and is playing into Cork hands. Anyone old enough to remember "the Keady affair" will know the truth of this. PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1903 - 05/08/2017 06:14:29 2029167 Link
Seemingly no player or County Board is prepared to accept a suspension nowadays. Inaroundehouse (Cavan) - Posts: 975 - 05/08/2017 06:56:04 2029171 Link
In spite of my view possibly being deemed tainted by bias I will add my opinion. I actually think that unfortunately the ban has to stand. The rule is there black and white to protect the players and if an official writes a report saying the incident took place, that is it and final. It is up to video evidence to prove the official wrong, not to prove De Burca's guilt. Officials are appointed as impartial referees and their report is final. It's only now with the event of tv that there can be doubt. If the pictures are inconclusive and do not prove innocence, then I'm afraid there is no case here. Waterford and the player need to suck it up and take responsibility. Anyway that's my view and it would have been the same whether the next game was against Cork or not. BaldyBadger (Cork) - Posts: 311 - 05/08/2017 08:36:51 2029181 Link
Replying To Killarney.87: "Because common sense isn't applied in both instances. They are either over stringent or over lenient. I'd have far more time for a referee who is strict but engaging than a referee who is strict and a dictator." Look, by the very nature of the game you will never get every singe call right but you have a guy on the line looking at the two lads who has a better view than you or me and 99% of the people with opinions on this and he has to make a call and that's what he done.People have to stop looking for someone else to blame all the time and accept responsibility for their actions. Sure, he was being blocked , and it's frustrating that this happens in hurling and football but it is not being punished and will continue. catch22 (USA) - Posts: 2148 - 05/08/2017 09:00:01 2029184 Link
Replying To Canuck: "Facethepuckout there was no DELIBERATE foul in this instance and no requirement for punishment. For what to prove a point ? DeBurca was the one been fouled, held back. In the case of Stephen Bennett it was blatantly deliberate, missed by the officials on the field, reviewed and dealt with as should. No one trying to circumvent the rule. Why not revisit this when it was called by the officials. Mistakes take place both ways. This is a trivial perceived offence to have a player red carded when you see what is missed and was missed that day. On a scale of 1 to 10 it is not a 1. However punishment is like comfort food for some whether it is merited or not. Not saying you who is expressing an opinion but some posters." Mistakes do take place both ways and the system is far from perfect. However it is there and the rule, though you may feel is incredibly harsh is there also. Referees have to apply rules rather than common sense. The idea being that everybody knows the rules and they are consistent rather than what one ref likes compared to another, although I know it tends to go that way regardless. In the case of Bennet, there was no in field sanction, so it was reviewed retrospectively. In De Burca's case there was a sanction and so would not have been reviewed at all as ref decision is final. Only for appeal. Therefore the appeal has to show the ref was wrong. The footage does not do that. Unfortunately for DeBurca it does not prove the ref was right either, however it is therefore the refs decision has to stand. It's sad that he misses this big game especially if the lad is as genuine as you all say, however that is sport. It can be cruel and without rules, perfect or not, the game would be in a far worse state. BaldyBadger (Cork) - Posts: 311 - 05/08/2017 09:37:56 2029194 Link
All of these appeals have to be very distracting to preparations even if he eventually does get off at the last stage of appeal it will have been at a big cost. I would be more fearful of Waterford if he wasn't playing and they built a siege mentality being honest. Meanwhile Cork are getting an un-interrupted 2-3 week lead into the semi-final to fine tune their skills and game plans Cornerback1977 (Cork) - Posts: 67 - 05/08/2017 12:09:38 2029236 Link
Replying To Canuck: "Facethepuckout there was no DELIBERATE foul in this instance and no requirement for punishment. For what to prove a point ? DeBurca was the one been fouled, held back. In the case of Stephen Bennett it was blatantly deliberate, missed by the officials on the field, reviewed and dealt with as should. No one trying to circumvent the rule. Why not revisit this when it was called by the officials. Mistakes take place both ways. This is a trivial perceived offence to have a player red carded when you see what is missed and was missed that day. On a scale of 1 to 10 it is not a 1. However punishment is like comfort food for some whether it is merited or not. Not saying you who is expressing an opinion but some posters." This is key in my mind. Lots of people say he should be punished because there are rules against interfering with face guards but same rules mention that it's an offence if deliberate. The posters who are using the rules as an argument are conveniently ignoring that important bit of detail within the rules. Killarney.87 (Tipperary) - Posts: 2513 - 05/08/2017 14:18:37 2029275 Link
Replying To catch22: "Look, by the very nature of the game you will never get every singe call right but you have a guy on the line looking at the two lads who has a better view than you or me and 99% of the people with opinions on this and he has to make a call and that's what he done.People have to stop looking for someone else to blame all the time and accept responsibility for their actions. Sure, he was being blocked , and it's frustrating that this happens in hurling and football but it is not being punished and will continue." Keenan wasn't going to do anything about it until Kehoe started whingeing to him. This isn't the first he let others sway his opinion. He hasn't a clue what he is doing and shouldn't be let near an inter county hurling game. Killarney.87 (Tipperary) - Posts: 2513 - 05/08/2017 14:23:03 2029276 Link
Replying To Killarney.87: "This is key in my mind. Lots of people say he should be punished because there are rules against interfering with face guards but same rules mention that it's an offence if deliberate. The posters who are using the rules as an argument are conveniently ignoring that important bit of detail within the rules." The key detail you are missing is the ref deemed it intentional. The subsequent tv footage have neither proved or disproved this so his decision stands. It's simple. You are making it more difficult. Think about what precedent is set if we go by your reasoning. Players will be let off on technicalities all over the place as you can never say 100% something was intentional or not. BaldyBadger (Cork) - Posts: 311 - 05/08/2017 15:30:34 2029298 Link
Replying To BaldyBadger: "The key detail you are missing is the ref deemed it intentional. The subsequent tv footage have neither proved or disproved this so his decision stands. It's simple. You are making it more difficult. Think about what precedent is set if we go by your reasoning. Players will be let off on technicalities all over the place as you can never say 100% something was intentional or not." Yeah fair enough, you make some great points there. Then the rule is badly written. Maybe remove the word intentional from it. Imo it's a joke he is suspended over this. Like the Bennett one against Cork was a straightforward suspension in comparison. Killarney.87 (Tipperary) - Posts: 2513 - 05/08/2017 16:31:06 2029317 Link
Replying To Killarney.87: "Yeah fair enough, you make some great points there. Then the rule is badly written. Maybe remove the word intentional from it. Imo it's a joke he is suspended over this. Like the Bennett one against Cork was a straightforward suspension in comparison." The Bennett suspension for a deliberate action and a lesson to anyone who does this. DeBurca suspension will open the gates for cheating with straps left open. Players making sure they run to the lines man when their helmet comes off pointing out an opponent. That is what happened in this case when the lines man reacted to Harry Kehoe's war dance. Two precedences set here. The first one a good one but the second will be a disaster with no other option only to issue a suspension irrespective of how incidental the contact is. So no excuses in the when a player jumps for a ball and knock a helmet off their opponents. Hopefully we are not going down the same road as soccer players faking to get a player off. Already in a league game this year we saw this. A player giving stick to his opponent and when slight retaliation took place rolled around like he was shot. Red card again in this instance. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 05/08/2017 20:37:38 2029439 Link
the galway no.2 ripped off tipp mans helmet today in the beginning of the game...tipp were up 3 points to 1. tipp player highlighted this to the referee, nada, nothing, niente...and it was clear as crystal as cameraman had zoomed in close. no consistency with the GAA. how can tadgh be banned and this galway player not be? juniorjudge (Waterford) - Posts: 383 - 06/08/2017 19:43:39 2029883 Link
It's a tough one, but unfortunately intent, etc. has nothing to do with it. I'm guessing the GAA were very deliberate (maybe I'm giving them too much credit!) when they made this rule as harsh as they did, with no shades of grey. No-one needs lecturing about the dangers of neck injury and the intent seems simple to me: mess or touch with another players helmet, no matter what, is a red card with the hope that this become inculcated in the player culture to the point where this kind of incident just stops. But the previous poster is correct: for this kind of culture to develop, the GAA have to be ruthless and consistent in its application, or they're just wasting their time. (At this point I could point out the difference in treatment a certain Dublin footballer got, versus a certain inter-county hurling manager when it comes to their interaction with sideline officials... wouldn't consistency be a lovely thing?) festinog (Galway) - Posts: 3097 - 06/08/2017 20:00:15 2029893 Link