|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "Terrible isn't it pal.
I mean no wonder China has won all them world cups with their vastly larger population to everyone else
Oh wait........." The fact that soccer isn't the national sport in China probably has more to do with it. Oh wait.....
oneoff (UK) - Posts: 1380 - 19/08/2021 14:47:07
2373095
Link
2
|
|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "Terrible isn't it pal.
I mean no wonder China has won all them world cups with their vastly larger population to everyone else
Oh wait........." They dominate the Olympics
Rebel2020 (Cork) - Posts: 75 - 19/08/2021 14:59:39
2373100
Link
5
|
|
Replying To wicklowsupport: "What do you attribute this regression to? Is the regression due to retirements or would you attribute most of the reason to the loss of Jim Gavin. It is interesting that you point to the regression setting in after the 5 in a row, this would indicate that you think Jim Gavin stepping away as the primary reason why Dublin have regressed. Like yourself, I am surprised that people were shocked that Dublin lost last weekend. Their performances this year and towards the end of last year pointed to the fact that the team was operating on borrowed time and that something had changed in those 18 months. It will be interesting to see if the players who have stepped away, who are young and experienced enough rejoin the panel. Dublin and the manager definitely need the likes of Mannion and McCaffrey back as the squad seems very light weight when you look at the substitutes bench last weekend." I would put it down to a number of issues.
*Jim Gavin stepping down
*Dessie Farrells horrible conservative style of football
*Retirements
*Trouble in the camp
*HUNGER (very hard to keep the hunger when you have 6, 7 or even 8 all ireland medals in your back pocket).
Overall though the team just look tired.
That's 3 games this year they let slip/nearly let slip with massive leads.
Kerry in the league
Meath in the Leinster
Mayo last weekend.
When's the last time you've see a Dublin team wilt like they have in many games this year?
You'd have to go back to the noughties
ConnollyDub (Dublin) - Posts: 2007 - 19/08/2021 15:01:08
2373101
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "Terrible isn't it pal.
I mean no wonder China has won all them world cups with their vastly larger population to everyone else
Oh wait........." China's national game is table tennis.
Doh !
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 19/08/2021 15:02:49
2373102
Link
3
|
|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "Terrible isn't it pal.
I mean no wonder China has won all them world cups with their vastly larger population to everyone else
Oh wait........." Chinas national game is table tennis and they are World Champions, Mens: Last 8 in a row, Women: Last 13 in a row, so the Dubs are under performing.
Must try harder.
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 19/08/2021 15:11:49
2373104
Link
3
|
|
Replying To Gavvygavgav: "Who is this troll?" An embittered buffoon who used to call himself TheHermit. Also known formerly known as AnBliainainAir. He cannot accept that Dublin's incredible achievements have eclipsed that of his own county. Pay him no heed. He is about as relevant as a wasp buzzing hopelessly in a jar.
avonali (Dublin) - Posts: 1974 - 19/08/2021 15:37:52
2373111
Link
8
|
|
Replying To avonali: "Muppet." Your comment is very disrespectful to genuine muppets.
GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7359 - 19/08/2021 15:46:57
2373115
Link
6
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: "China's national game is table tennis.
Doh !" Yeah but the difference is Gaelic football isn't Dublins ''main'' sport. Not even close!
ConnollyDub (Dublin) - Posts: 2007 - 19/08/2021 16:00:20
2373118
Link
3
|
|
Replying To Sindar: " Replying To AfricanGael: "[quote=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."
However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.
I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.
I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.
Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.
Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.
In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"
I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.
Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.
In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :
"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"
Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".
The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.
And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.
This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :
After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.
Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".
Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off.
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 19/08/2021 16:01:21
2373120
Link
1
|
|
Replying To oneoff: "The fact that soccer isn't the national sport in China probably has more to do with it. Oh wait....." And you think Gaelic Football is Dublin's ''main'' sport??
Cant use the word national but same applies
ConnollyDub (Dublin) - Posts: 2007 - 19/08/2021 16:03:57
2373121
Link
2
|
|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "I would put it down to a number of issues.
*Jim Gavin stepping down
*Dessie Farrells horrible conservative style of football
*Retirements
*Trouble in the camp
*HUNGER (very hard to keep the hunger when you have 6, 7 or even 8 all ireland medals in your back pocket).
Overall though the team just look tired.
That's 3 games this year they let slip/nearly let slip with massive leads.
Kerry in the league
Meath in the Leinster
Mayo last weekend.
When's the last time you've see a Dublin team wilt like they have in many games this year?
You'd have to go back to the noughties" I agree. I think Jim Gavin set the tone for the whole setup. Obviously there was a huge number of great players who retired in a short period of time. It resembles what happened in Kilkenny but I suppose the difference is that Brian Cody stayed at the helm where Jim didn't. It is interesting that you list 'trouble in the camp'; does this mean that the manager needs to be changed especially if some of the players that stepped away, stay away because of the manager? If this is the case then surely the manager needs to be replaced as it doesn't seem that the current squad are capable of winning the All Ireland (in my opinion) without an injection of fresh blood. It seems strange to be writing this when there is such a lack of formidable teams around.
wicklowsupport (Wicklow) - Posts: 1913 - 19/08/2021 16:13:18
2373123
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "I would put it down to a number of issues.
*Jim Gavin stepping down
*Dessie Farrells horrible conservative style of football
*Retirements
*Trouble in the camp
*HUNGER (very hard to keep the hunger when you have 6, 7 or even 8 all ireland medals in your back pocket).
Overall though the team just look tired.
That's 3 games this year they let slip/nearly let slip with massive leads.
Kerry in the league
Meath in the Leinster
Mayo last weekend.
When's the last time you've see a Dublin team wilt like they have in many games this year?
You'd have to go back to the noughties" But nonetheless it wasn't always plain sailing for Dublin during the 2010s either. Some moments of wilting there too, just not always punished for it.
2019 v Kerry drawn game
2016 v Mayo drawn game
2016 v Kerry (first half)
2015 v Mayo drawn game
2014 v Donegal
2012 v Meath
2010 v Meath
I thought the dubs were pretty flawless in the first half Saturday evening. Second half they were poor and couldn't live with Mayo's running game.
97Cavans (Cavan) - Posts: 322 - 19/08/2021 17:20:38
2373149
Link
0
|
|
It's no mystery why Dublin lost.
Here's some of the subs that Dublin would bring in to win a match.
Kevin McManamin
Eoghan OGara
Micheal Dara McAuley
Paul Mannion
Even the Brogans at one point were sprung from the
bench.
15 retirements in two years is the issue.
Dublin have played great football in the last decade.
But let's face it, it's a good thing that they lost but I'm sure they will be back.
carlovia (None) - Posts: 1517 - 19/08/2021 17:56:48
2373160
Link
2
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: " Replying To Sindar: "[quote=AfricanGael: "[quote=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."
However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.
I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.
I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.
Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.
Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.
In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"
I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.
Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.
In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :
"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"
Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".
The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.
And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.
This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :
After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.
Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".
Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off."]If John smalls shoulder to McLoughlins head wasn't a red card offence then how was Tadhg Morley in this years league sent off an offence that looked pure accidental as he was pushed into the path of the Roscommon man? And he even failed in his appeal afterwards.
KingdomBoy1 (Kerry) - Posts: 14092 - 19/08/2021 18:07:19
2373161
Link
0
|
|
Replying To 97Cavans: "But nonetheless it wasn't always plain sailing for Dublin during the 2010s either. Some moments of wilting there too, just not always punished for it.
2019 v Kerry drawn game
2016 v Mayo drawn game
2016 v Kerry (first half)
2015 v Mayo drawn game
2014 v Donegal
2012 v Meath
2010 v Meath
I thought the dubs were pretty flawless in the first half Saturday evening. Second half they were poor and couldn't live with Mayo's running game." You're right, it wasn't plain sailing at all during the past decade. But I can't recall disorder, group deflation and lack of belief until we go back to the noughties, when wilting was what Dublin teams did as a matter of course (the 07 semi v Kerry being the exception, pipped at the post). Gavin engendered the attitude of "playing in the present", ignoring the occasion and opposition, which allowed them to come through such challenges as they faced. May beat them upstairs as well as physically. Hats off to Horan.
Gavvygavgav (Dublin) - Posts: 383 - 19/08/2021 18:33:09
2373172
Link
2
|
|
Must pay homage to a great team in Dublin for all they've achieved in the past 6 years. Also well done to Mayo for being the outfit who defeated this great team.
Shearer (Louth) - Posts: 829 - 19/08/2021 18:37:22
2373174
Link
2
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: " Replying To Sindar: "[quote=AfricanGael: "[quote=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."
However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.
I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.
I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.
Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.
Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.
In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"
I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.
Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.
In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :
"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"
Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".
The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.
And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.
This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :
After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.
Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".
Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off."]I don't know what I did all that referee training for. Maybe you should put a whistle where your mouth is seen as you already know everything?
Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 19/08/2021 20:00:21
2373191
Link
0
|
|
Replying To KingdomBoy1: " Replying To AfricanGael: "[quote=Sindar: "[quote=AfricanGael: "[quote=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."
However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.
I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.
I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.
Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.
Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.
In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"
I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.
Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.
In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :
"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"
Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".
The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.
And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.
This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :
After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.
Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".
Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off."]If John smalls shoulder to McLoughlins head wasn't a red card offence then how was Tadhg Morley in this years league sent off an offence that looked pure accidental as he was pushed into the path of the Roscommon man? And he even failed in his appeal afterwards."]Also, can you make sure you log in with the same account AfricanGael or Kingdomboy when replying to this thread or I'll report you for giving a wrong name to the ref!
Sindar (Roscommon) - Posts: 348 - 19/08/2021 20:05:19
2373193
Link
2
|
|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "I would put it down to a number of issues.
*Jim Gavin stepping down
*Dessie Farrells horrible conservative style of football
*Retirements
*Trouble in the camp
*HUNGER (very hard to keep the hunger when you have 6, 7 or even 8 all ireland medals in your back pocket).
Overall though the team just look tired.
That's 3 games this year they let slip/nearly let slip with massive leads.
Kerry in the league
Meath in the Leinster
Mayo last weekend.
When's the last time you've see a Dublin team wilt like they have in many games this year?
You'd have to go back to the noughties" I'd have:
* Lads stepping away in their prime
* Injury
* Covid training thing, Dessies ban and impact on preparation.
When you weigh it all up, I think it's Dublin who really beat Dublin this year. All credit to Mayo mind.
That said I'm kind of happy the lads are getting a good rest and a new challenge next year, I think we've needed both for a coupl of years now.
It's just ridiculous going unbeaten in the Championship for 7 years, it's amazing when you think about it. You can't be anything but beaming , satisfied and proud.
TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 4445 - 19/08/2021 20:35:10
2373195
Link
11
|
|
Replying To JoeSoap: "You're talking absolute guff, just like Flynn. Anti-Dublin media bias? Are you for real? They are the most lauded team to ever play the game, and rightly so. Then Flynn says there is an anti-Dublin bias because a few pundits and journalists have the gall to call out the poor discipline of the Dublin team in the 2nd half last Saturday? There's some big conspiracy when you point out that the likes of McCarthy lost their discipline? All the country are against the poor little Dubs because people are saying Small should've seen the line? Pure nonsense.
McConville didn't call out Flynn about the duty of care comment, he just quoted the rule book and Flynn tried to belittle him for that. I am calling Flynn out for his comment about players not having to give a damn about other players on the pitch. It is absolutely disappointing and outright stupid to suggest that the ref is the only one responsible for the players' health and safety on the pitch. Of course I'd be delighted with Neil McGee if he times a shoulder perfectly but if he breaks a man's jaw he should be sent off and there can be no questions about it. From a Donegal POV McGee did something disgraceful down in Tralee in a bad tempered league match and rightly saw the line. Saying players' don't have a duty of care to one another just means "do absolutely everything you can get away with" which is a nonsense. There's a world of difference between winding up your opponent to try and gain an advantage and niggling at them and then breaking bones and having them carted off the pitch on a stretcher." If Neil Magee did what John Small did on Sunday and got away with it you'd be absolutely delighted. You might in the back if your mind think he deserved a card but that's not the point.
Mailman98 (Galway) - Posts: 319 - 20/08/2021 08:21:00
2373246
Link
2
|