(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post
|
The first qualification to work as a GAA TV analyst should be that you won an All-Ireland medal as a player. If you haven't how can you possibly be an authority on men who have? McStay should be nowhere near RTE.
Mailman98 (Galway) - Posts: 319 - 20/08/2021 08:29:30 2373247 Link 2 |
|
I don't want to see any player with broken bones or stretchered off the field. So no, I wouldn't be delighted if any Donegal player did what Small did on Sunday, no matter whether they get away with it or not.
JoeSoap (Donegal) - Posts: 1432 - 20/08/2021 09:59:18 2373257 Link 3 |
|
That's true Username. I mean i was sick when we lost. But within a few days i was over it. And i got to reflect on what the actual f*kk just happened over the last 7 years. Just feel extremely privelaged to have witnessed it as a Dub. To be a part of history!! I cant see it ever being done again. At least not in my lifetime. ConnollyDub (Dublin) - Posts: 2007 - 20/08/2021 10:33:07 2373269 Link 3 |
|
Then you probably need to remove the second o from your username!
Mailman98 (Galway) - Posts: 319 - 20/08/2021 10:40:53 2373274 Link 1 |
|
Eoghan McLoughlin has resumed training according to media reports, albeit on a bike rather than the training pitch. Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 20/08/2021 10:57:17 2373278 Link 3 |
|
Same Pal, when you think back to the late 90s and 00's to do what we did in the teens/20,s was incredible. 7 years unbeaten, it's quite staggering in the cold light of day. The team to aspire to was the Kerry team of 80s and their four in a row, we bet that by a third playing more games to achieve it. I remember after 15 hoping we had the hunger to do back to back. We've turned the whole thing on it's head. We're there to be caught now, I actually think we could be challenged in the time ahead, record are there to be broken and in sport they often are, maybe not in our lifetime, but another exceptional team will come along. The other thing is I think the level Dublin were at forced the likes of Mayo, Kerry, Tyrone, to improve to new levels they wouldn't have previously, Dublin leave their period of dominance with the game evolved and other counties with higher standards they wouldn't have achieved with out us in my opinion. Arguably this has created a smaller top table and a division in standards in the game amongst counties mind, which is why I think you will see counties go through periods of dominance and win more. That said the game might go through the rapid change of innovation and evolution we saw during the teens if we regress and could just trundle along as is without us in the vanguard. TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 4445 - 20/08/2021 10:59:15 2373279 Link 6 |
|
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :) 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!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-) Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw. KingdomBoy1 (Kerry) - Posts: 14092 - 20/08/2021 11:02:38 2373282 Link 0 |
|
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :) 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!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-) Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Who knows? Why wasn't Niall Morgans shoulder on Paddy Andrews red and why wasn't he hounded in the media like John Small? Jackeen (Dublin) - Posts: 4097 - 20/08/2021 11:25:06 2373291 Link 4 |
|
The funny thing is that a few players like John Small is exactly what Donegal are lacking, we have it good everywhere else but our defence is too light and soft and too easy run through, nobody wants to see a man getting seriously injured and I wish Mc Glaughlin well and hope he makes a speedy recovery. Small didn't set out to break the mans jaw but he tried to hit him hard as you'd want your defender to do, Fitzsimons shoulder on Keegan last year was similar only he hit him into the ribs not the head. I think the Dubs were badly mismanaged this year and maybe the appetite isn't there too after winning so much, some of the top players that have stepped away would weaken any team, they'll be back though, I have no doubt. Tirchonaill1 (Donegal) - Posts: 2756 - 20/08/2021 11:39:10 2373295 Link 3 |
|
That's great news, be brilliant if he made it back for the final, long shot I suppose.
Tirchonaill1 (Donegal) - Posts: 2756 - 20/08/2021 11:50:28 2373299 Link 1 |
|
Tbh I can see us going through a sustained period without an all ireland now username. Similar to the great Kerry team of the 70/80s. After their dominance it was 11 years before they won one again. Same with the great Kilkenny team of the 00's/teens. 6 years and counting since they last won one. Having said that if we were to get Jack Mac & Mannion back we'd have a great chance of winning another Sam. They've been two of the very best players in the game over the last decade. And their still only in their 20s. ConnollyDub (Dublin) - Posts: 2007 - 20/08/2021 11:53:23 2373300 Link 1 |
|
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :) 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!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-) Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]If you're goin down that road then how was Niall Morgan's hit on Paddy Andrew's jaw not a red, much more obvious in real time than Small's hit. Bottom line the aim is for consistency but in reality anywhere that human judgement is involved naturally, absolute consistency will be compromised. I see Horan not ruling out McLoughlin for the final so that's good news, Andrews was out for 3 months after Morgan's hit. sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 684 - 20/08/2021 11:58:42 2373305 Link 0 |
|
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :) 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!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-) Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]John Smalls was a red card all day long, I had one look at the rule book and could see that straight away, even though I had no doubt at all. Who would even want to be a referee though. It's a thankless job, so why bother doing it if you have to keep referring to the rule book all the time ? I had a look at the Morley incident and I could see Morley lead with his hands and connected with the Roscommon players head. I know there was a bit of a push on the Roscommon player but had Morley put his hands to his own face to protect himself or had he connected with the chest of the Roscommon player and the Roscommon player wasn't injured then it wouldn't have been a red card. But his action was deliberate, in other words his hands didn't lift accidently, he was in control of them. If Sindar thinks you KingdomBoy1 and myself are the same person, what does it say about his judgment as a referee ? :-). AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 20/08/2021 12:01:12 2373306 Link 1 |
|
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :) 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!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-) Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Neither were intentional. The consequence of the tackle doesn't make it any more intentional. If Eoghan got up and walked away there might have been a card for John Small but none of this horrible clickbait media campaign against Small using a photo implying he tackled with his arm up. He plays tough aggressive football, can go over the line at times but he doesn't deserve that. No matter what our county loyalties are and if we dislike some counties he's a GAA man. His actions put a man in hospital needing surgery but I think he didn't intend to shoulder him in the head as is being implied, it was accidental. I hate this media and social media campaign against him. The game is over. Time to move on. GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7359 - 20/08/2021 12:05:06 2373308 Link 9 |
|
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :) 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!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-) Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Neither were intentional. The consequence of the tackle doesn't make it any more intentional. If Eoghan got up and walked away there might have been a card for John Small but none of this horrible clickbait media campaign against Small using a photo implying he tackled with his arm up. He plays tough aggressive football, can go over the line at times but he doesn't deserve that. No matter what our county loyalties are and if we dislike some counties he's a GAA man. His actions put a man in hospital needing surgery but I think he didn't intend to shoulder him in the head as is being implied, it was accidental. I hate this media and social media campaign against him. The game is over. Time to move on."]Good post Greenansred. Well said. Enjoy the build up to the final. MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13717 - 20/08/2021 12:18:35 2373312 Link 5 |
|
Some posters at getting totally mixed up here regarding what intentional actually means and it's time to try and hammer this home but at the same time have consideration that all may not be able to follow it at the same speed. AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 20/08/2021 12:49:00 2373319 Link 2 |
|
The last 10 or so posts on this thread is like the final 5 minutes of the 2006 film, 'The Departed'. slayer (Limerick) - Posts: 6480 - 20/08/2021 13:03:13 2373330 Link 1 |
|
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :) 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!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-) Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Neither were intentional. The consequence of the tackle doesn't make it any more intentional. If Eoghan got up and walked away there might have been a card for John Small but none of this horrible clickbait media campaign against Small using a photo implying he tackled with his arm up. He plays tough aggressive football, can go over the line at times but he doesn't deserve that. No matter what our county loyalties are and if we dislike some counties he's a GAA man. His actions put a man in hospital needing surgery but I think he didn't intend to shoulder him in the head as is being implied, it was accidental. I hate this media and social media campaign against him. The game is over. Time to move on."]Well said GreenandRed The game is over time to move on superbluedub (Dublin) - Posts: 2837 - 20/08/2021 13:09:01 2373332 Link 0 |
|
Any chance you fellas could keep your posts readable? Tirchonaill1 (Donegal) - Posts: 2756 - 20/08/2021 13:18:47 2373337 Link 1 |
|
Im not in twitter or Snapchat but if Small is getting a hard time on social media then that is wrong. Also on Niall Morgan v Paddy Andrews I remember that incident well and both tackles were very alike. Now Morgan got an awful time over that tackle too. Morgan apologised to Andrews ré text message and said at the time he was gutted over the whole scenario and gutted for Paddy. Andrews said he had no ill will towards Niall. Those that say Morgan did nt get a rough time are wrong. Yes Morgan should have got a red card as with John Small but the cowards that abuse them on social media cause more damage than the tackles. CiarraiMick (Dublin) - Posts: 3678 - 20/08/2021 13:27:29 2373343 Link 2 |