Longford Forum

Local Championship

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To slasher9:  "they better win this DRA case so. end of championship if it goes legal route id say. disaster"
European Court of Human Rights? ;)

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 06/09/2020 11:19:05    2290781

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "Yeah. Killashee to meet them in the final?"
I was right. Slashers made hard work of beating Fr. Manning Gaels, apparently.

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 06/09/2020 16:51:47    2290811

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "I was right. Slashers made hard work of beating Fr. Manning Gaels, apparently."
I watched it. Slashers were in control until a howler from the Slashers keeper gave Fr.Manning Gaels a lifeline and a lift. Poor fare though from both teams.

Nelson39 (Longford) - Posts: 33 - 06/09/2020 18:54:51    2290828

Link

Replying To jack99:  "While I said that was my final comment on the sad matter I simply must reply to your rather spiteful comment williesboy. I had an account here for years but hadn't been active but came on this year to discuss the championship which if you took the time to look you would see . I suggested and stand by my opinion that Mullinalaghta will win the championship unless there is a lockdown due to COVID-19. Hope not.
Anyway I have nothing against Killoe and used to admire them. However I feel they have gone too far and should have availed of the offer to lift the suspension and drop their objections to an u16 player from 2019 competition. It makes no sense.
That's my opinion and as Arcadia alludes to , I am entitled to it and know from speaking personally to other exiled longfordians in the capital from inside and outside Killoe that my opinion is shared by many.
By the way Williesboy everyone does not know what killoe want from this as you suggest, if it is to get rid of Co board officers then I believe they are elected by all the clubs each year at a convention and maybe that's how they should get rid of those they don't agee with. Democracy is what it's called . I have also taken the advice from earlier to familiarise myself more with the case and rang a contact in Longford town who confirmed what I have put up here earlier and pointed out to me that 2 Longford ccc committees (2019 and 2020) 1 Longford hearings committee (2020) and now 2 Leinster hearings Committees 2019 and 2020 have dealt with this matter and none of them have come out in favour of killoe. That's a lot of chances to put your case forward so I don't think it fair to blame one commitee as in the Co board. Is everyone out of step except my Johnny!"
Jack has egg on his face but your source will tell you something different. You may get up another account

williesboy (Leitrim) - Posts: 101 - 06/09/2020 22:30:09    2290879

Link

Killoe is back in championship!!

coach13 (Longford) - Posts: 94 - 06/09/2020 22:44:10    2290881

Link

http://www.sportsdra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20.09.06-DRA-13-2020-Decision.pdf

I suspect a lot of people on here are going to go very quiet.

TurnipAyter (Longford) - Posts: 114 - 06/09/2020 23:18:57    2290882

Link

Killoe back in the Championship!!!

DRA squashes the 48-week ban by Longford CCC and the upholding of same by Leinster HC.

Longford CCC and Longford Hearing Committee found to have erred in their interpretation and application of Rule 6.24c in imposing a 48-week ban on Killoe, because that 'draconian sanction' (as it is referred to in the report) can only be invoked for failure to pay the fine AT ALL, as opposed to failure to pay it by a due date. In effect Longford CB made a judgement that because Killoe had not paid the fine by the deadline date they had set, that gave them the right to slap a ban on the entire club, which the report clearly states they did not have the right to do at that point.

Once Killoe had paid the fine in August, the possibility of any ban became moot. If the County Board had advised Killoe at start of August that the fine deadline had passed & fine was due (instead of advising them that they were banned) and if upon receipt of that advice Killoe had continued not to pay the fine, then and only then could Rule 6.24c have been invoked. So the County board wrongly involved the rule, and wrongly applied the ban.

Leinster Council found to have erred in upholding the Longford CCC decision, and erred in upholding the decision to impose the 48 week suspension.

DRA finds that original Killoe appeal from February has not yet been heard by Leinster HC and needs to be dealt with as a matter of priority by a different Hearing Committee. That appeal relates to the legitimacy of an opposition player to play after prior red card, and the associated fine and forfeit for not fielding for the U16 Final, which (per the DRA report), the County Board was informed about by Killoe 2 days in advance of that Final, and which for reasons known only to themselves the CB failed to inform the other team and officials about prior to the fixture time.

All costs incurred by DRA must now be paid by Longford HC and Longford CCC.

Head over to www.sportsdra.ie and you can read the full report yourselves. All 16 pages of it. No room for error, no rumours, just cold hard facts, timelines and an objective 3rd party assessment by a team of experts.

IMO those who made those decisions in Longford CCC and Longford HC should tender their resignations, as we need a whole lot less of these sorts of bad decisions in our club games.

Now lets get back to playing ball.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 06/09/2020 23:28:36    2290883

Link

Replying To williesboy:  "Jack has egg on his face but your source will tell you something different. You may get up another account"
Williesboy you must believe everything you hear. The DRA did not get involved in the original issue at all. They simply removed the suspension nothing else. That's the the fact. It is no surprise that they would find a way to lift the suspension in as everyone agreed that the 48 week ban was excessive.

jack99 (Dublin) - Posts: 16 - 07/09/2020 07:51:37    2290893

Link

Replying To jack99:  "Williesboy you must believe everything you hear. The DRA did not get involved in the original issue at all. They simply removed the suspension nothing else. That's the the fact. It is no surprise that they would find a way to lift the suspension in as everyone agreed that the 48 week ban was excessive."
The ban wasn't lifted because it was excessive, it was quashed because the invoking of the ban by Longford CCC, Longford HC & subsequently Leinster HC was found to have been a completely incorrect interpretation and application of Rule 6.24c. That is an important distinction and the report is very clear on that specific point. The original Killoe appeal from February on the sent-off player and U16 final (which amazingly has still not properly been heard by Leinster) will now be heard by a different Leinster HC, as directed by the DRA report (section 52, page 15).

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 07/09/2020 10:39:47    2290919

Link

great to see killoe back in the championship. amazed that it was down to incorrect interpretation of the rule. i expect to see them in a final now against mullinalaghta who stole it from colmcille yesterday

slasher9 (Longford) - Posts: 31 - 07/09/2020 10:48:39    2290921

Link

Replying To slasher9:  "great to see killoe back in the championship. amazed that it was down to incorrect interpretation of the rule. i expect to see them in a final now against mullinalaghta who stole it from colmcille yesterday"
Mullinalaghta goal was surely a "square ball"?

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 07/09/2020 11:20:07    2290934

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "Mullinalaghta goal was surely a "square ball"?"
i thought it was square ball too. where did all the injury time come from??

slasher9 (Longford) - Posts: 31 - 07/09/2020 12:10:28    2290954

Link

Replying To slasher9:  "i thought it was square ball too. where did all the injury time come from??"
Don't know. Looked like ref was playing for draw/extratime. If I was from Colmcille I'd be raging over it.

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 07/09/2020 13:03:47    2290970

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "Mullinalaghta goal was surely a "square ball"?"
I replayed the goal on the streaming site today to look at play from the mark being called thru to where goal was scored. The Mullinalaghta player was not in the square when the ball was kicked, he was on the edge of the square but clearly outside it when the ball left the players foot from the mark, but was definitely in the square prior to the ball arriving in the square. Forwards being able to call a mark on a chest high foot pass is a bit of a cod to be honest. That rule could ruin a good deal of natural forward-back play. Colmcille do have a right to feel sore about one or two of the ref decisions towards the end, especially a very harsh free out which should have been a free in (though the ref was good otherwise), and they definitely threw it away. The additional time played was probably about right given the stoppages. Cracking game though.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 07/09/2020 17:47:41    2291018

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "I replayed the goal on the streaming site today to look at play from the mark being called thru to where goal was scored. The Mullinalaghta player was not in the square when the ball was kicked, he was on the edge of the square but clearly outside it when the ball left the players foot from the mark, but was definitely in the square prior to the ball arriving in the square. Forwards being able to call a mark on a chest high foot pass is a bit of a cod to be honest. That rule could ruin a good deal of natural forward-back play. Colmcille do have a right to feel sore about one or two of the ref decisions towards the end, especially a very harsh free out which should have been a free in (though the ref was good otherwise), and they definitely threw it away. The additional time played was probably about right given the stoppages. Cracking game though."
I thought the rule was that you cannot be in the square before the ball comes in from a free kick or mark kick. You can be in the square from open play from when the ball is kicked or hand passed. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case the score should have been disallowed. Didn't watch the game myself as I'm living in an area where broadband is poor.

Stato53 (Longford) - Posts: 11 - 07/09/2020 18:21:33    2291027

Link

Replying To Stato53:  "I thought the rule was that you cannot be in the square before the ball comes in from a free kick or mark kick. You can be in the square from open play from when the ball is kicked or hand passed. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case the score should have been disallowed. Didn't watch the game myself as I'm living in an area where broadband is poor."
My understanding (which I am happy to be corrected on)... In open play a player cannot be in the square before the ball is played. From a set piece a player cannot be in the square before the ball. My understanding is that a mark from a kick-out is a 'Set Play' but a mark from open play is not, and this was therefore not a set play. Therefore the player cannot be in the square before the ball is 'played', and in this instance the Mullinalaghta player was not in the square when the ball was played. Hence goal is good.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 08/09/2020 12:49:02    2291113

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "My understanding (which I am happy to be corrected on)... In open play a player cannot be in the square before the ball is played. From a set piece a player cannot be in the square before the ball. My understanding is that a mark from a kick-out is a 'Set Play' but a mark from open play is not, and this was therefore not a set play. Therefore the player cannot be in the square before the ball is 'played', and in this instance the Mullinalaghta player was not in the square when the ball was played. Hence goal is good."
Was it not a free kick?

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 08/09/2020 13:15:07    2291115

Link

Replying To keeper7:  "Was it not a free kick?"
Jason Matthews called a mark on a ball sent in to him, and from that mark he kicked the ball into the square where James McGivney came from outside the square to catch it and boot it to the net. I've replayed it a few times and McGivney was in the square before the ball, no doubt. Won't matter now anyway, fair play to them for not giving up on it, that's a sign of winners I guess.

arcadia (Longford) - Posts: 163 - 08/09/2020 17:18:58    2291172

Link

Replying To arcadia:  "My understanding (which I am happy to be corrected on)... In open play a player cannot be in the square before the ball is played. From a set piece a player cannot be in the square before the ball. My understanding is that a mark from a kick-out is a 'Set Play' but a mark from open play is not, and this was therefore not a set play. Therefore the player cannot be in the square before the ball is 'played', and in this instance the Mullinalaghta player was not in the square when the ball was played. Hence goal is good."
Both marks are a 'Set play'. They have differences, but are both set plays, ball has to be in square before player on set play. Colmcille can feel hard done by in that case. But ultimately, you must see a game through to the end regardless of the amount of minutes played extra, or poor decisions from a ref. This is where habit and experience won out for Mullinalaghta. They may not have been great, but teams have won championships before and not played great. I would put them as slight favourites now, ahead of Killoe. Nice to see the CB are 'delighted' that Killoe are back.

botheyesclosed (Longford) - Posts: 76 - 08/09/2020 20:49:13    2291201

Link

Replying To botheyesclosed:  "Both marks are a 'Set play'. They have differences, but are both set plays, ball has to be in square before player on set play. Colmcille can feel hard done by in that case. But ultimately, you must see a game through to the end regardless of the amount of minutes played extra, or poor decisions from a ref. This is where habit and experience won out for Mullinalaghta. They may not have been great, but teams have won championships before and not played great. I would put them as slight favourites now, ahead of Killoe. Nice to see the CB are 'delighted' that Killoe are back."
I suppose Colmcille maybe robbed Mullinalaghta last year. One good turn deserves another...?

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 3869 - 08/09/2020 22:47:06    2291227

Link