|
Replying To oneoff: "Explain his magical recovery then?" Children must play , run along .
superbluedub (Dublin) - Posts: 2837 - 18/08/2021 14:30:47
2372736
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Sindar: " Replying To roundball: "[quote=Sindar: "No two aggressive tackles are the same so interpretation is always required. As in soccer, rugby etc., GAA referees review and discuss as many incidents as possible so that some level of standardisation can be achieved but it's never going to be perfect.
In GAA the result of an aggressive foul is not a factor in determining the disciplinary action (I think it is in rugby from what I have seen). e.g. a player could be pushed to the ground and land awkwardly dislocating a shoulder. Is that a red card? No. On the opposite side of that, a player could take a swing at an opponents head fully intending to do damage but he misses. GAA rules state that is a red card because it's all about intent.
Other posters and some pundits mentioned "duty of care", which is something that you seem to be alluding to. You won't find "duty of care" mentioned in our playing rules (with the exception of a legal liability clause which is not relevant here). There is a rule about inflicting injury recklessly (red card) which could certainly be considered in this instance but they are not the same thing imo. It's often used in rugby (I'm just a watcher of the game only) when a player goes up for a high ball and is taken out such as in a lineout or garryowen. The player tackling but who does not win the ball has a responsibility to ensure his opponent lands safely. That's duty of care and it doesn't exist in GAA." Sindar let me ask the question an other way- Do you think it is possible in Gaelic Football or Hurling for a player to break an opponent's jaw and/or inflict concussion whilst trying to make a deliberate tackle (which John Small undoubtedly was) without breaking the rue regarding recklessly endangering an opponent? Cos I cannot see how that is possible? You mentioned shoulder injury- I think that's completely different. If John Small had made contact with Eoghan McLaughlin square on with that force he may well have dislocated his shoulder/his AC joint/fractured his collarbone. I have treated players who have suffered these injuries in legitimate tackles and I suffered one myself as a player and to be honest I'm fine with this as these are not potentially life changing injuries. Head injuries, however, are potentially life changing, and for that reason most contact sports do not allow deliberate contact to an opponent's head. So how can one of the top referees in the country see that Eoghan McLaughlin has been knocked out and being placed on a spinal board and come to the conclusion that it could have been the result of a fair tackle? Does he simply not have enough evidence to send off John Small? Does he need video review to confirm it? Do referees need more education on this particular subject? Do we need to tighten the rules? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are. Like Mayo v Dublin is one of the marquee fixtures in the GAA calendar and on Saturday night two Mayo players left the field with head injuries after being "tackled" with force to the head by an opponent and the net sanction for both incidents was one yellow card. That is not a good look for the sport. I'm all for having physical contact and collisions in the sport. Unfortunately, injuries, including concussion will continue to happen during incidental collisions- we just can't eliminate that risk entirely. But we can do something about allowing dangerous tackles and I find it very disappointing that there is even a debate as to whether or not a challenge that breaks a players jaw is a red card or not."
I reffed a game a few years ago and a defender had just bent down to pick up a ball from the ground whilst also moving out of defence. As he was coming up and moving forward an opponent moved towards him with very little momentum and the arms spread out as is allowed but his chest caught the defender's head as it was coming up. It was a foul because of the illegal contact but nothing more. However, the defending player suffered a spinal injury and was immobilsed for at least 20 minutes on the pitch. I didn't issue a red card (or yellow) even though it was a foul, there was no intent and it was not reckless. Nobody was calling for red either and it was an important game.
If the severity of the injury is a factor then it would have been red. In any case, a referee is not in a position to judge the severity of an injury - some may be obvious but others are not."]Sindar, Your posts are good, but can you decide, once and for all. whether 'intent' is, or is not, a factor. I think it is not: it is not mentioned in the rules and surely you can not introduce factors that are not in the rules? I think you agree that 'intent' , for example, is not a consideration in issuing black cards. Besides, referees are surely not expected to be mind readers! This issue keeps coming up here and should be resolved.....
Aibrean (Kerry) - Posts: 263 - 18/08/2021 14:45:38
2372744
Link
1
|
|
Replying To superbluedub: "Children must play , run along ." It's a simple question to answer. Seeing as you're so sure I'm wrong you shouldn't have an issue answering it.
oneoff (UK) - Posts: 1380 - 18/08/2021 14:48:08
2372746
Link
1
|
|
Replying To superbluedub: "Children must play , run along ." Run along like Eoin after his magic recovery?
oneoff (UK) - Posts: 1380 - 18/08/2021 14:48:50
2372747
Link
2
|
|
Replying To BeJasus: "Dublin easiest win of the 6 , maybe last years victory over Mayo's inexperienced kids had a similar feel to it." Dubs only took proper control in the last ten in 2020, whereas they only got a slight scare at the end in 2018.
Gavvygavgav (Dublin) - Posts: 383 - 18/08/2021 14:51:20
2372749
Link
0
|
|
Replying To slayer: "Watched the game back (on sky sports this time).
I have to say well done to both teams for a game of drama, effort and giving the country something to talk about. It was a pulsating encounter start to finish. Might not have been the highest quality game and yes there were incidents and talking points, but it was a game that really grabbed the imagination. Well done both sides. Perhaps one thing lost in all the talking points was the quality of tackles with the hand - both teams managed to win back possession with very well timed interceptions from the hand to the ball, hardly a touch on the opposition player. With the speed at which teams can break these days, the concentration needed for those interceptions must be immense.
Sky's coverage was different to RTE. Would be interested to hear if people here favour one over the other?" Sky for the analysis. Either for the commentary and co-commentary depending who's on.
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7359 - 18/08/2021 15:04:51
2372752
Link
4
|
|
Replying To Sindar: " Replying To roundball: "[quote=Sindar: "No two aggressive tackles are the same so interpretation is always required. As in soccer, rugby etc., GAA referees review and discuss as many incidents as possible so that some level of standardisation can be achieved but it's never going to be perfect.
In GAA the result of an aggressive foul is not a factor in determining the disciplinary action (I think it is in rugby from what I have seen). e.g. a player could be pushed to the ground and land awkwardly dislocating a shoulder. Is that a red card? No. On the opposite side of that, a player could take a swing at an opponents head fully intending to do damage but he misses. GAA rules state that is a red card because it's all about intent.
Other posters and some pundits mentioned "duty of care", which is something that you seem to be alluding to. You won't find "duty of care" mentioned in our playing rules (with the exception of a legal liability clause which is not relevant here). There is a rule about inflicting injury recklessly (red card) which could certainly be considered in this instance but they are not the same thing imo. It's often used in rugby (I'm just a watcher of the game only) when a player goes up for a high ball and is taken out such as in a lineout or garryowen. The player tackling but who does not win the ball has a responsibility to ensure his opponent lands safely. That's duty of care and it doesn't exist in GAA." Sindar let me ask the question an other way- Do you think it is possible in Gaelic Football or Hurling for a player to break an opponent's jaw and/or inflict concussion whilst trying to make a deliberate tackle (which John Small undoubtedly was) without breaking the rue regarding recklessly endangering an opponent? Cos I cannot see how that is possible? You mentioned shoulder injury- I think that's completely different. If John Small had made contact with Eoghan McLaughlin square on with that force he may well have dislocated his shoulder/his AC joint/fractured his collarbone. I have treated players who have suffered these injuries in legitimate tackles and I suffered one myself as a player and to be honest I'm fine with this as these are not potentially life changing injuries. Head injuries, however, are potentially life changing, and for that reason most contact sports do not allow deliberate contact to an opponent's head. So how can one of the top referees in the country see that Eoghan McLaughlin has been knocked out and being placed on a spinal board and come to the conclusion that it could have been the result of a fair tackle? Does he simply not have enough evidence to send off John Small? Does he need video review to confirm it? Do referees need more education on this particular subject? Do we need to tighten the rules? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are. Like Mayo v Dublin is one of the marquee fixtures in the GAA calendar and on Saturday night two Mayo players left the field with head injuries after being "tackled" with force to the head by an opponent and the net sanction for both incidents was one yellow card. That is not a good look for the sport. I'm all for having physical contact and collisions in the sport. Unfortunately, injuries, including concussion will continue to happen during incidental collisions- we just can't eliminate that risk entirely. But we can do something about allowing dangerous tackles and I find it very disappointing that there is even a debate as to whether or not a challenge that breaks a players jaw is a red card or not."
I reffed a game a few years ago and a defender had just bent down to pick up a ball from the ground whilst also moving out of defence. As he was coming up and moving forward an opponent moved towards him with very little momentum and the arms spread out as is allowed but his chest caught the defender's head as it was coming up. It was a foul because of the illegal contact but nothing more. However, the defending player suffered a spinal injury and was immobilsed for at least 20 minutes on the pitch. I didn't issue a red card (or yellow) even though it was a foul, there was no intent and it was not reckless. Nobody was calling for red either and it was an important game.
If the severity of the injury is a factor then it would have been red. In any case, a referee is not in a position to judge the severity of an injury - some may be obvious but others are not."]I can imagine it, quite easily.
https://youtu.be/mosP_xbE95s
The Smalls were involved in four separate violent conduct incidents on Saturday night. And John has a bit of previous with such things in previous meetings with Mayo.
Doesn't mean the outcome of the McLoughlin incident was necessarily on purpose but it was reckless, at the very least.
Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 18/08/2021 15:17:32
2372761
Link
2
|
|
Replying To Aibrean: " Replying To Sindar: "[quote=roundball: "[quote=Sindar: "No two aggressive tackles are the same so interpretation is always required. As in soccer, rugby etc., GAA referees review and discuss as many incidents as possible so that some level of standardisation can be achieved but it's never going to be perfect.
In GAA the result of an aggressive foul is not a factor in determining the disciplinary action (I think it is in rugby from what I have seen). e.g. a player could be pushed to the ground and land awkwardly dislocating a shoulder. Is that a red card? No. On the opposite side of that, a player could take a swing at an opponents head fully intending to do damage but he misses. GAA rules state that is a red card because it's all about intent.
Other posters and some pundits mentioned "duty of care", which is something that you seem to be alluding to. You won't find "duty of care" mentioned in our playing rules (with the exception of a legal liability clause which is not relevant here). There is a rule about inflicting injury recklessly (red card) which could certainly be considered in this instance but they are not the same thing imo. It's often used in rugby (I'm just a watcher of the game only) when a player goes up for a high ball and is taken out such as in a lineout or garryowen. The player tackling but who does not win the ball has a responsibility to ensure his opponent lands safely. That's duty of care and it doesn't exist in GAA." Sindar let me ask the question an other way- Do you think it is possible in Gaelic Football or Hurling for a player to break an opponent's jaw and/or inflict concussion whilst trying to make a deliberate tackle (which John Small undoubtedly was) without breaking the rue regarding recklessly endangering an opponent? Cos I cannot see how that is possible? You mentioned shoulder injury- I think that's completely different. If John Small had made contact with Eoghan McLaughlin square on with that force he may well have dislocated his shoulder/his AC joint/fractured his collarbone. I have treated players who have suffered these injuries in legitimate tackles and I suffered one myself as a player and to be honest I'm fine with this as these are not potentially life changing injuries. Head injuries, however, are potentially life changing, and for that reason most contact sports do not allow deliberate contact to an opponent's head. So how can one of the top referees in the country see that Eoghan McLaughlin has been knocked out and being placed on a spinal board and come to the conclusion that it could have been the result of a fair tackle? Does he simply not have enough evidence to send off John Small? Does he need video review to confirm it? Do referees need more education on this particular subject? Do we need to tighten the rules? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are. Like Mayo v Dublin is one of the marquee fixtures in the GAA calendar and on Saturday night two Mayo players left the field with head injuries after being "tackled" with force to the head by an opponent and the net sanction for both incidents was one yellow card. That is not a good look for the sport. I'm all for having physical contact and collisions in the sport. Unfortunately, injuries, including concussion will continue to happen during incidental collisions- we just can't eliminate that risk entirely. But we can do something about allowing dangerous tackles and I find it very disappointing that there is even a debate as to whether or not a challenge that breaks a players jaw is a red card or not."
I reffed a game a few years ago and a defender had just bent down to pick up a ball from the ground whilst also moving out of defence. As he was coming up and moving forward an opponent moved towards him with very little momentum and the arms spread out as is allowed but his chest caught the defender's head as it was coming up. It was a foul because of the illegal contact but nothing more. However, the defending player suffered a spinal injury and was immobilsed for at least 20 minutes on the pitch. I didn't issue a red card (or yellow) even though it was a foul, there was no intent and it was not reckless. Nobody was calling for red either and it was an important game.
If the severity of the injury is a factor then it would have been red. In any case, a referee is not in a position to judge the severity of an injury - some may be obvious but others are not."]Sindar, Your posts are good, but can you decide, once and for all. whether 'intent' is, or is not, a factor. I think it is not: it is not mentioned in the rules and surely you can not introduce factors that are not in the rules? I think you agree that 'intent' , for example, is not a consideration in issuing black cards. Besides, referees are surely not expected to be mind readers! This issue keeps coming up here and should be resolved....."]Well thanks for the compliment. I would be a shocking boring pundit on games!!
To answer your question, intent is not a factor, it is THE factor. Let's assume intent and deliberate to have the same meaning.
I shall quote exactly from the Referee's Handbook which you can read yourself here https://www.gaa.ie/api/pdfs/image/upload/ogd9kegh1slxnvvuwmll.pdf.
It needs to be updated to account for recent technical rule changes but this does not affect this discussion.
Page 40 Aggressive Fouls and Carding procerdure states:
"A card (Yellow, Black (Football only) or Red) shall only be issued when the Referee deems the foul in question to be
deliberate and not accidental.
An accidental foul shall result in a free only award."
Page 42 (football) and page 42 (Hurling) are very useful for referees. If reading it make sure you read every word carefully beacuse this is critical. Some aggressive fouls don't require much interpretation and some do. Nowhere in the rulebook or the handbook does it mention that a referee should take the severity of an injury into account. (Brian Cody accused James Owens of doing just that when he sent off Richie Hogan).
By the way, if a referee is in the perfect position he can sometimes tell if a deliberate aggressive foul is about to be committed. Call it a sixth sense. I played a Sigerson Cup match back in the 90's up in Jordanstown and Pat McEnaney was the ref. I heard him shout "Don't do it" as a player was about to make a swing. It worked!!
As a ref myself, it's usually very clear when an action is deliberate. Some players are good at disgusing it particulary around black cards.
Take the lad in possession swinging the elbows and catching his tackler in the head. If the elbows and arms are out then it's a red card everytime. He knows full well there is something there to connect with, though he will claim otherwise, and it would go down as reckless (not striking).
Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 18/08/2021 15:40:46
2372772
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Gleebo: " Replying To Sindar: "[quote=roundball: "[quote=Sindar: "No two aggressive tackles are the same so interpretation is always required. As in soccer, rugby etc., GAA referees review and discuss as many incidents as possible so that some level of standardisation can be achieved but it's never going to be perfect.
In GAA the result of an aggressive foul is not a factor in determining the disciplinary action (I think it is in rugby from what I have seen). e.g. a player could be pushed to the ground and land awkwardly dislocating a shoulder. Is that a red card? No. On the opposite side of that, a player could take a swing at an opponents head fully intending to do damage but he misses. GAA rules state that is a red card because it's all about intent.
Other posters and some pundits mentioned "duty of care", which is something that you seem to be alluding to. You won't find "duty of care" mentioned in our playing rules (with the exception of a legal liability clause which is not relevant here). There is a rule about inflicting injury recklessly (red card) which could certainly be considered in this instance but they are not the same thing imo. It's often used in rugby (I'm just a watcher of the game only) when a player goes up for a high ball and is taken out such as in a lineout or garryowen. The player tackling but who does not win the ball has a responsibility to ensure his opponent lands safely. That's duty of care and it doesn't exist in GAA." Sindar let me ask the question an other way- Do you think it is possible in Gaelic Football or Hurling for a player to break an opponent's jaw and/or inflict concussion whilst trying to make a deliberate tackle (which John Small undoubtedly was) without breaking the rue regarding recklessly endangering an opponent? Cos I cannot see how that is possible? You mentioned shoulder injury- I think that's completely different. If John Small had made contact with Eoghan McLaughlin square on with that force he may well have dislocated his shoulder/his AC joint/fractured his collarbone. I have treated players who have suffered these injuries in legitimate tackles and I suffered one myself as a player and to be honest I'm fine with this as these are not potentially life changing injuries. Head injuries, however, are potentially life changing, and for that reason most contact sports do not allow deliberate contact to an opponent's head. So how can one of the top referees in the country see that Eoghan McLaughlin has been knocked out and being placed on a spinal board and come to the conclusion that it could have been the result of a fair tackle? Does he simply not have enough evidence to send off John Small? Does he need video review to confirm it? Do referees need more education on this particular subject? Do we need to tighten the rules? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are. Like Mayo v Dublin is one of the marquee fixtures in the GAA calendar and on Saturday night two Mayo players left the field with head injuries after being "tackled" with force to the head by an opponent and the net sanction for both incidents was one yellow card. That is not a good look for the sport. I'm all for having physical contact and collisions in the sport. Unfortunately, injuries, including concussion will continue to happen during incidental collisions- we just can't eliminate that risk entirely. But we can do something about allowing dangerous tackles and I find it very disappointing that there is even a debate as to whether or not a challenge that breaks a players jaw is a red card or not."
I reffed a game a few years ago and a defender had just bent down to pick up a ball from the ground whilst also moving out of defence. As he was coming up and moving forward an opponent moved towards him with very little momentum and the arms spread out as is allowed but his chest caught the defender's head as it was coming up. It was a foul because of the illegal contact but nothing more. However, the defending player suffered a spinal injury and was immobilsed for at least 20 minutes on the pitch. I didn't issue a red card (or yellow) even though it was a foul, there was no intent and it was not reckless. Nobody was calling for red either and it was an important game.
If the severity of the injury is a factor then it would have been red. In any case, a referee is not in a position to judge the severity of an injury - some may be obvious but others are not."]I can imagine it, quite easily.
https://youtu.be/mosP_xbE95s
The Smalls were involved in four separate violent conduct incidents on Saturday night. And John has a bit of previous with such things in previous meetings with Mayo.
Doesn't mean the outcome of the McLoughlin incident was necessarily on purpose but it was reckless, at the very least."]It was funny that philly got caught pinching the stomach of the Mayo lad at the start of extra time and when the Mayo lad threw his arm back to push him away philly turned to the official and said did you see that :-)
Now these kinda things have always happened in football and in fairness its not the worst thing he's done on the field by a long shot but it was nice that he got caught by the cameras.
KingdomBoy1 (Kerry) - Posts: 14092 - 18/08/2021 16:56:47
2372802
Link
6
|
|
Replying To roundball: " Replying To Sindar: "No two aggressive tackles are the same so interpretation is always required. As in soccer, rugby etc., GAA referees review and discuss as many incidents as possible so that some level of standardisation can be achieved but it's never going to be perfect.
In GAA the result of an aggressive foul is not a factor in determining the disciplinary action (I think it is in rugby from what I have seen). e.g. a player could be pushed to the ground and land awkwardly dislocating a shoulder. Is that a red card? No. On the opposite side of that, a player could take a swing at an opponents head fully intending to do damage but he misses. GAA rules state that is a red card because it's all about intent.
Other posters and some pundits mentioned "duty of care", which is something that you seem to be alluding to. You won't find "duty of care" mentioned in our playing rules (with the exception of a legal liability clause which is not relevant here). There is a rule about inflicting injury recklessly (red card) which could certainly be considered in this instance but they are not the same thing imo. It's often used in rugby (I'm just a watcher of the game only) when a player goes up for a high ball and is taken out such as in a lineout or garryowen. The player tackling but who does not win the ball has a responsibility to ensure his opponent lands safely. That's duty of care and it doesn't exist in GAA." Sindar let me ask the question an other way- Do you think it is possible in Gaelic Football or Hurling for a player to break an opponent's jaw and/or inflict concussion whilst trying to make a deliberate tackle (which John Small undoubtedly was) without breaking the rue regarding recklessly endangering an opponent? Cos I cannot see how that is possible? You mentioned shoulder injury- I think that's completely different. If John Small had made contact with Eoghan McLaughlin square on with that force he may well have dislocated his shoulder/his AC joint/fractured his collarbone. I have treated players who have suffered these injuries in legitimate tackles and I suffered one myself as a player and to be honest I'm fine with this as these are not potentially life changing injuries. Head injuries, however, are potentially life changing, and for that reason most contact sports do not allow deliberate contact to an opponent's head. So how can one of the top referees in the country see that Eoghan McLaughlin has been knocked out and being placed on a spinal board and come to the conclusion that it could have been the result of a fair tackle? Does he simply not have enough evidence to send off John Small? Does he need video review to confirm it? Do referees need more education on this particular subject? Do we need to tighten the rules? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are. Like Mayo v Dublin is one of the marquee fixtures in the GAA calendar and on Saturday night two Mayo players left the field with head injuries after being "tackled" with force to the head by an opponent and the net sanction for both incidents was one yellow card. That is not a good look for the sport. I'm all for having physical contact and collisions in the sport. Unfortunately, injuries, including concussion will continue to happen during incidental collisions- we just can't eliminate that risk entirely. But we can do something about allowing dangerous tackles and I find it very disappointing that there is even a debate as to whether or not a challenge that breaks a players jaw is a red card or not."
Do the rules need tightening?
I don't think so. The rule on reckless play causing injury covers this and there is also the behaving in a way that endangers an opponent.
High tackles are also specifically covered and can be either yellow or red depending on the force and intent. You'll have seen in the past two years that anything above the shoulders is now a minimum yellow regardless. That didn't require a rule change but just a directive.
We need to understand that a red card is more related to punishing a team and for prevention of such tackles rather than a form of retribution on the player.
Do referees need more education?
Absolutely. Inter County refs get a lot more training than club refs. That's fair enough but much of it doesn't get rolled out to club refs or if it does it's only because we went looking for it. That can depend on the county of course but overall it needs a lot of improvement. Remember 99% of games are not played at inter County.
I don't believe for second that Conor Lane thought there was a head injury there on Saturday. If he did he would have stopped the game immediately but you'll recall it moved on so fast from the turnover.
Finally, you have to look after the health of the referees also if you want to keep them motivated to improve and get the best people into it. I don't want to overstate the mental health aspect but the hours and days after having a bad game can be very lonely places if you've had a bad game and especially if you get loads of abuse afterwards. I'm referring to the club game here as well as the top level. I've heard of refs breaking down and not going to work for a few days in these cases.
GAA refs aren't great at helping each other either. There's a macho element to it that isn't healthy.
Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 18/08/2021 20:27:53
2372852
Link
2
|
|
Replying To Sindar: " Replying To roundball: "[quote=Sindar: "No two aggressive tackles are the same so interpretation is always required. As in soccer, rugby etc., GAA referees review and discuss as many incidents as possible so that some level of standardisation can be achieved but it's never going to be perfect.
In GAA the result of an aggressive foul is not a factor in determining the disciplinary action (I think it is in rugby from what I have seen). e.g. a player could be pushed to the ground and land awkwardly dislocating a shoulder. Is that a red card? No. On the opposite side of that, a player could take a swing at an opponents head fully intending to do damage but he misses. GAA rules state that is a red card because it's all about intent.
Other posters and some pundits mentioned "duty of care", which is something that you seem to be alluding to. You won't find "duty of care" mentioned in our playing rules (with the exception of a legal liability clause which is not relevant here). There is a rule about inflicting injury recklessly (red card) which could certainly be considered in this instance but they are not the same thing imo. It's often used in rugby (I'm just a watcher of the game only) when a player goes up for a high ball and is taken out such as in a lineout or garryowen. The player tackling but who does not win the ball has a responsibility to ensure his opponent lands safely. That's duty of care and it doesn't exist in GAA." Sindar let me ask the question an other way- Do you think it is possible in Gaelic Football or Hurling for a player to break an opponent's jaw and/or inflict concussion whilst trying to make a deliberate tackle (which John Small undoubtedly was) without breaking the rue regarding recklessly endangering an opponent? Cos I cannot see how that is possible? You mentioned shoulder injury- I think that's completely different. If John Small had made contact with Eoghan McLaughlin square on with that force he may well have dislocated his shoulder/his AC joint/fractured his collarbone. I have treated players who have suffered these injuries in legitimate tackles and I suffered one myself as a player and to be honest I'm fine with this as these are not potentially life changing injuries. Head injuries, however, are potentially life changing, and for that reason most contact sports do not allow deliberate contact to an opponent's head. So how can one of the top referees in the country see that Eoghan McLaughlin has been knocked out and being placed on a spinal board and come to the conclusion that it could have been the result of a fair tackle? Does he simply not have enough evidence to send off John Small? Does he need video review to confirm it? Do referees need more education on this particular subject? Do we need to tighten the rules? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thoughts are. Like Mayo v Dublin is one of the marquee fixtures in the GAA calendar and on Saturday night two Mayo players left the field with head injuries after being "tackled" with force to the head by an opponent and the net sanction for both incidents was one yellow card. That is not a good look for the sport. I'm all for having physical contact and collisions in the sport. Unfortunately, injuries, including concussion will continue to happen during incidental collisions- we just can't eliminate that risk entirely. But we can do something about allowing dangerous tackles and I find it very disappointing that there is even a debate as to whether or not a challenge that breaks a players jaw is a red card or not."
Do the rules need tightening?
I don't think so. The rule on reckless play causing injury covers this and there is also the behaving in a way that endangers an opponent.
High tackles are also specifically covered and can be either yellow or red depending on the force and intent. You'll have seen in the past two years that anything above the shoulders is now a minimum yellow regardless. That didn't require a rule change but just a directive.
We need to understand that a red card is more related to punishing a team and for prevention of such tackles rather than a form of retribution on the player.
Do referees need more education?
Absolutely. Inter County refs get a lot more training than club refs. That's fair enough but much of it doesn't get rolled out to club refs or if it does it's only because we went looking for it. That can depend on the county of course but overall it needs a lot of improvement. Remember 99% of games are not played at inter County.
I don't believe for second that Conor Lane thought there was a head injury there on Saturday. If he did he would have stopped the game immediately but you'll recall it moved on so fast from the turnover.
Finally, you have to look after the health of the referees also if you want to keep them motivated to improve and get the best people into it. I don't want to overstate the mental health aspect but the hours and days after having a bad game can be very lonely places if you've had a bad game and especially if you get loads of abuse afterwards. I'm referring to the club game here as well as the top level. I've heard of refs breaking down and not going to work for a few days in these cases.
GAA refs aren't great at helping each other either. There's a macho element to it that isn't healthy."]Enjoyed that post Sindar and you are so right about referees and health. It's so easy to blame ref for everything but it's a thankless job and a lonely one. To err is human but when a ref errs everyone blames him or her.
CiarraiMick (Dublin) - Posts: 3678 - 18/08/2021 21:46:59
2372883
Link
1
|
|
I think Dessie Farnell has a lot of sorting to do. The mighty Dubs were no longer mighty on Saturday evening. They had been a fantastic team , a force to be reckoned with.
Other teams could only try to beat them..
We all looked at them in awe.
They folded so easily it was astonishing to watch. You were waiting on the comeback but it never happened.
I think that their gameplan didn't work once they were put under pressure and when the cracks started to appear they changed tactics themselves and they got involved in a lot of messy stuff.
It was fitting though that it was Mayo who finally beat them in a semi final.
They had a very long successful run.
border Gael (Monaghan) - Posts: 894 - 18/08/2021 22:33:05
2372904
Link
0
|
|
my god listened to osin mcconville make a fool out of paul flynn pure class mcconville called it right pity the other pundits wouldn't take a leaf out of his book and call a spade a spade
mayo_123 (Mayo) - Posts: 240 - 18/08/2021 23:04:10
2372912
Link
3
|
|
The Dubs are angels. Is there nothing to be said for cleaning the changing rooms. The refs need more training lol. Refs need to stop being biased when certain teams play. Some other teams find it hard to get anything until its too late to make a difference. Its all about getting the big finals.
HighStoolBandit (Tyrone) - Posts: 133 - 19/08/2021 01:22:25
2372926
Link
1
|
|
Replying To JoeSoap: "I heard Paul Flynn come out with some disappointing stuff on the Second Captains podcast yesterday. Firstly he said there was an "anti-Dublin bias in the media" which is absolutely laughable and McConville rightly called him on it. But the one I was really disappointed in, he said that players don't have any duty of care to other players, it's all on the ref. I thought that was pure guff especially from a fella that is a recent GPA CEO. Surely he knows better than that.
I was disappointed as I'd been enjoying him as an analyst and giving insight in to how the Dubs operated over the last 10 years. But he really didn't paint himself in a good light at all with those comments I thought." Flynn was 100% right. McConville since his road to Damascus moment has become an insufferable yes man. He's everywhere. He even turned up on Prime Time with his pitiful views on the border issue. I can remember a few of his teammates who weren't to worried about the health of their opponents. There's certainly at least one Mayo player who'd risk the life of an opponent and that's the sort of player you need to win the big prizes. If a player on a team we support did what Small or O'Hora did last Saturday and got away with it we'd give it a big cheer and say he's a mighty bit of stuff. Let's all admit it and move on.
Mailman98 (Galway) - Posts: 319 - 19/08/2021 08:44:34
2372935
Link
6
|
|
The reaction to the loss is fascinating, people are in shock, giddy, venting pent up frustration.
We really did a psychological number on the country.
It's our time to rest, we've earned it, the standard has been set it's up to others to try and achieve and strive toward our mark of greatness we set in football.
In a weird way it's nice to see Mayo, Tyrone and Kerry excited about getting one in the bag. Think it will come down to who isn't overwhelmed by the new experience and hold their composure to bring her home.
Of those left I think Kerry have the best players, but not the manager.
Mayo have a great manager, not as good players as Kerry, but super fitness and spirit. My worry for them is not scoring enough, they got very little from play against us on Saturday and despite us putting in one of our worst performances in a decade, there was a bit of luck in the win - not they didn't deserve it and better team - not sure they can score enough overall. Incredible fitness, intensity and conditioning.
Tyrone are a real dark horse, all fit hopefully they can bring a bit of chaos to the script, we'll capable of knocking Kerry of kilter and they have that psychological edge against them, so Kerry will have to manage that - but that might make Kerry focus, they have forwards and quality to hurt, if they get over Kerry, will be a slug fest with Mayo but they won't baulk at that and will match the intensity, they might have the better forwards.
TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 4445 - 19/08/2021 10:18:57
2372954
Link
6
|
|
McConville was laughable on RTE radio 1 commentary he was a canary/ cheer leader for Mayo there was zero objectivity from him you knew exactly where his loyalties lay through out that game, the exact same with McStay on live commentary Mayo man who had zero objectivity.
jacktheDub (Dublin) - Posts: 944 - 19/08/2021 10:20:01
2372955
Link
4
|
|
McStay is a disaster on commentary in my opinion.. He has spent this week grovelling to the Mayo public that he called the Small hit on McL wrong as he didnt see replays.. He did see replays..2 replays if im not mistaken.. I dont think he does Mayo much favours tbh.. he just talks a lot of shi** so no one listens..
McConville/Flynn was very funny.. McConville is very consistent and doesnt sugar coat anything.. which is a breath of fresh air. Flynn had clearly taken off his GPA hat and replaced it with his Dublin one.. At the end of the day we are all biased.. I laughed out loud listening to that exchange
unclegerry (Mayo) - Posts: 1222 - 19/08/2021 10:46:40
2372963
Link
3
|
|
Replying To jacktheDub: "McConville was laughable on RTE radio 1 commentary he was a canary/ cheer leader for Mayo there was zero objectivity from him you knew exactly where his loyalties lay through out that game, the exact same with McStay on live commentary Mayo man who had zero objectivity." McStay, are you for real? McStay is the least likely out of any of the RTÉ pundits to offer a Mayo-biased analysis of any game. The man has been publicly critical of both the Mayo County Board (understandably) and the players (less so) in recent years. More to the point, he has missed/downplayed several instances of dangerous tackles on Mayo players in recent years.
He failed to call out Mick Fitzsimons' shoulder charge into Lee Keegan's chest last year, which was very obvious in real time.
He failed to call out John Small's dangerous, head high tackle on Eoghan McLoughlin at the weekend, despite several clear replays at the time.
And he was protesting Dean Rock's frontal charge into Tommy Conroy as a harsh yellow card!
It's gotten to the point where many of us are wondering if he has spent so long managing Roscommon teams that he's gone native.
And before any of you jump in, I don't expect any pundit from Mayo to offer a "Mayo view" on national TV. But what I do expect is for any pundit, irrespective of where they hail from, is to call such things out where they see them, particularly if the replays are crystal clear.
Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 19/08/2021 10:56:38
2372966
Link
4
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: "It's important for me to point out why Sindar is wrong when he says "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action".
I know Sindar is a referee but he's not an Inter-County referee and the guidelines which were brought in back in 2018 are quite specific regarding contact to the head.
Perhaps Sindar is not up to date with the guidelines and perhaps he has no reason to be.
So what Sindar is claiming here leaves him zero wiggle room "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"
So by claiming this Sindar is saying there is absolutely no sanction on a player who makes contact with the head of an opponent because the tackler mistimes what would normally be a legitimate tackle.
And I am saying that this is absolutely not correct, the sanction is a straight red card.
And whether Small meant it or not is totally irrelevant, he mistimed it and made contact with the head of McLoughlin and the guidelines set out are clear in relation to head contact, red card.
I have no problem in backing this up but I will let Sindar respond." I'm not a referee like Sindar is, well he is actually more than that he is a referee's tutor as well, but I don't need to be a referee to be able to read and understand rules and I really cannot understand why he has any doubt at all whether there is anything in the rule book which would have allowed the ref to send Small off and I'll explain why clearly.
So this was my view on page 55 of the thread:
"Small illegal charge on E McLoughlin, a red card all day long. It became illegal once contact was made with the head, regardless of intent"
And I stick by that completely.
Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder then it was legal but when he connected with his head it became illegal. Common sense really.
But Sindar disagreed with me and said:
"As for your Small comment "regardless of intent" you are completely wrong again"
"It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"
"I work from the rule book and keep myself very much up to date. When other refs ask me about scenarios (I'm a refs tutor also) I refer them to what the rules state and not what we think the correct action should be. I invite you to do the same."
So I took him up on his invite to look at the rules even though I knew the rule in any case. So what the rules list as Immediate Ordering Off Infractions (Red Cards):
1. Striking or attempting to strike with arm, elbow, hand, knee or head.
2. Kicking or attempting to kick with minimal force or with force or causing injury.
3. Behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent.
4. Spitting at an opponent.
5. Contributing to a melee.
6. Stamping.
7. Inflicting injury recklessly.
8. Abusive language towards a Referee, Umpire, Linesman or Sideline Official.
Now there is no doubt that John Small was reckless and there is no doubt that McLoughlin was injured and therefore there is no doubt a red card should have been shown.
Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder and even dislocated his shoulder even though McLoughlin would have been injured we could not say he was injured recklessly because the tackle was legal, but that was not the case,
Small made contact with McLoughlins head and at that point the tackle went from been legal to illegal and intent does not come into it.
It is totally immaterial what Small intended to do, society does not work that way, where a person's good intentions are not punished by their own failure to execute their good intentions properly and the responsibility lay totally with Small to execute a legal tackle properly and that he did not do.
So we have established easily that the ref could and should have sent Small off within the basic disciplinary rules of the game, we don't need to be referees to quickly establish that and therefore I was 100% correct to say "regardless of intent" in my post.
The final point regarding my contradiction of Sindar is this, he maintains "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action."
He is also wrong here as well because we have established that a player can be sent off for Inflicting injury recklessly.
So if we assume that Small went in to execute a legal tackle but he recklessly injured McLoughlin by his own failure to execute the tackle properly, then we must also say that Small did not intend to injure McLoughlin because a reckless action by the letter of the law is not an intentional action, it is a step down the ladder from intentional.
So therefore the action of Inflicting injury recklessly while being unintentional is still a red card offence and therefore Sindars view that "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action" is totally incorrect.
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 19/08/2021 11:40:15
2372993
Link
4
|