|
Replying To A_Chairde: "Jim Gavin?" Word in the bank the other day was that The Downs brought up Jim Gavin for a session.
iarmhiabu (Westmeath) - Posts: 30 - 27/09/2024 09:06:04
2572054
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Claretandblue: "Strange to see those opinions considering that Eddie Kinsella the Tyrrellspass manager has commented publicly that he's been very impressed with the standard of refereeing in Westmeath. He mentioned that their first five league matches were refereed by five different referees and that each ref had been excellent. Kevin Hickey of Shandonagh also commented in local newspapers that he felt refereeing standards in their matches had been high quality. Two managers of senior clubs commenting favourably surely indicates that there are more than 2-3 decent referees." Hardly going to come out in the papers publicly and give out and then have a game the following week, There not idiots, maybe there media trained.
PowellJohn3 (Westmeath) - Posts: 49 - 27/09/2024 10:55:09
2572068
Link
3
|
|
We had 50 something new referees chomping at the whistle in the Annebrook at the beginning of the year. A countywide hunt for the next Paddy Collins. A new wave of referees that will benefit Westmeath G.A.A. for years to come. How many just signed up for the free gear? Nice bit of gear to be fair.
iarmhiabu (Westmeath) - Posts: 30 - 27/09/2024 11:47:06
2572073
Link
1
|
|
hard to believe that we have no manager in place with the 2 semi finals in the senior and intermediate on this weekend
mickcunningham (Westmeath) - Posts: 1860 - 27/09/2024 11:57:07
2572077
Link
4
|
|
Replying To iarmhiabu: "We had 50 something new referees chomping at the whistle in the Annebrook at the beginning of the year. A countywide hunt for the next Paddy Collins. A new wave of referees that will benefit Westmeath G.A.A. for years to come. How many just signed up for the free gear? Nice bit of gear to be fair." Surely thas better than 0 not saying refs perfect but sounds people think there shouldn't be Aby refs or that all of same standard unfortunately that's not case.
I get training needs to be conducted simple u wil still have some u will not like refs
Gaaforlife2023 (Longford) - Posts: 456 - 27/09/2024 13:30:38
2572098
Link
0
|
|
It's a disgrace what's happening with the underage fixtures at the moment and the club that caused all this should be ashamed of themselves. The underage board has done an excellent job the past couple of years with the way they've ran the competitions and fixtures with the best efficiency ever shown. Maybe it wasn't perfect but I wouldn't think that's not even possible given the task. The club whose second team won their quarter final had their strongest 15 named as per bye laws, so it was in effect a second string team that played that night, all above board. The way it has held up the championships for everyone else to play in the muck and rain and darkness is absurd. There's a parent I know of a young lad whose under 14 semi final has been pushed out so that it's going to be 7 weeks since their last group game, nothing since mid August...
Let's be straight here, clubs with a second team must name 15, always been the case… the idea that they're getting an upper hand by both of their teams not playing the same night is absurd, in fact it's the opposite, by insisting that both teams play the same night actually depletes the second team substantially that they could never be at full potential, and often can lead that enough players won't be available for 2 matches and lead to a walkover which benefits absolutely nobody. How would the first teams they were playing feel if told they'd have to sit a couple of their strongest eligible players out for every match, it's not fair on the kids or their teams. I would seriously question the validity of the rule that states both teams in a club must play on the same night, especially as some divisions have quarter finals and some don't, so the status quo is instantly broken here.
There are clubs who will have 30-35 players who will never ever enter a second team again because of this incident, and it will lead to a further drop off of underage players if this ruling goes ahead going forward…
How far in the fixtures do the objecting parties suggest we go back and issue re fixtures for.
I actually don't blame the fixture makers in this one, at a time of the year when daylight and appropriate pitches are in short supply, but I don't think they should have caved so easily either.
Just let the kids play.
CleanShoulder (Westmeath) - Posts: 321 - 27/09/2024 13:39:34
2572100
Link
0
|
|
Hard to follow whats happened with the underage structures, sounds like a club has appealed against a 2nd team being too strong as they were using 1st team players? Why not name the clubs involved?
martyW (Westmeath) - Posts: 333 - 27/09/2024 14:31:49
2572110
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Claretandblue: "Strange to see those opinions considering that Eddie Kinsella the Tyrrellspass manager has commented publicly that he's been very impressed with the standard of refereeing in Westmeath. He mentioned that their first five league matches were refereed by five different referees and that each ref had been excellent. Kevin Hickey of Shandonagh also commented in local newspapers that he felt refereeing standards in their matches had been high quality. Two managers of senior clubs commenting favourably surely indicates that there are more than 2-3 decent referees." Hardly going to come out in the papers publicly and give out and then have a game the following week, There not idiots, maybe there media trained.
PowellJohn3 (Westmeath) - Posts: 49 - 27/09/2024 14:34:29
2572111
Link
0
|
|
Replying To iarmhiabu: "We had 50 something new referees chomping at the whistle in the Annebrook at the beginning of the year. A countywide hunt for the next Paddy Collins. A new wave of referees that will benefit Westmeath G.A.A. for years to come. How many just signed up for the free gear? Nice bit of gear to be fair." That was predominantly for underage I understood. I know several who ref underage but wont make the move to adult football due to the abuse
martyW (Westmeath) - Posts: 333 - 27/09/2024 14:52:48
2572113
Link
1
|
|
Replying To martyW: "Hard to follow whats happened with the underage structures, sounds like a club has appealed against a 2nd team being too strong as they were using 1st team players? Why not name the clubs involved?" No first team players were used as such, clubs name their strongest 15, when both teams are playing the same time the first team would bring maybe 4 or 5 subs, these players would benefit obviously from playing a full game with the second team but a team needs subs. Sometimes the second team will have to bring players from age grade below because with up to 20 gone with first team numbers may be tight on a given evening. Still no real problem here some might say and relatively fair…
On some occasions if the games are on separate evenings the subs that would go with the first team might get a chance to start for the second team in a lower division as they're not named. Still relatively fair, probably a bit fairer to all involved some might say as everyone gets a game at their level.
The issue that arose recently is that a first team which is an amalgamation of a senior and an intermediate clubs underage, and playing under 16 devision 5, I believe, objected under rule after they were beaten by a point in a quarter final that the oppositions clubs first team that plays division 2 weren't playing simultaneously. Basically they want the opposition clubs second team to be as weak as possible.
Although there is a rule that a club with 2 teams at an age grade must name 15 that can't play for the second team, there is apparently another rule which says both teams must play simultaneously, and this is the rule that was cited in the objection to the result, and has ultimately thrown the knockout of some underage competitions into disarray.
To my mind I think it's an unfair rule and that it possibly lacks legitimacy for a couple of reasons…
Here's why… In some grades there are not the same amount of teams in all the divisions, some age grades have odd numbers in the groups, some divisions have byes every week… All this means that there are some weeks when both a clubs teams are playing, and other weeks when only one team play, so parity is lost here straight away… To add to this, some teams get straight to a semi and others to a quarter so there are scenarios where one team from a club may have a match and the other is idle…
So the fact that this club got a game struck off on appeal because the opposition clubs first team were not also playing, and because of this a load more knockout games got refixed and put back, does this mean that all the other rounds of the group stages need to be revisited so we can have parity… Where does it end??
The bigger issue is that it's unfair to clubs who are fielding a second team and making a genuine effort to provide games for all its underage members.
What has happened will lead to more clubs now deciding not to field a second team as it will pose too many challenges, why would they make the effort to recruit mentors or scrimp for players during holidays just to have their efforts thrown back in their faces. It will lead to a scenario where there are huge squads and players not catered for and dropping off.
And what happens if both a clubs teams make a final at the same grade, does it mean members must choose who they support?
Ludicrous stuff because a club wants to win an underage title in a committee room
CleanShoulder (Westmeath) - Posts: 321 - 27/09/2024 16:44:25
2572126
Link
0
|
|
Replying To westmeathman99: "Kinnegad VS The Downs… Kinnegad by 2
Lomans VS TPass... Lomans by 5
Intermediate
Rosemount VS Miltown... Rosemount by 2
Garrycastle VS Multy… Garrycastle by 8
Junior
Lomans VS CFCW… Lomans by 4
Joseph's VS Bun… Bun by 1
Junior 2
Ballingore VS Caulry… Ballingore by 8
Garrycastle VS Delvin… Delvin by 3" You left out the relegation play off Shandonagh v Moate. I Say Shandonagh will win by 5 and see Moate head back to intermediate
Undertheroad (Westmeath) - Posts: 56 - 28/09/2024 08:08:56
2572163
Link
0
|
|
Replying To CleanShoulder: "No first team players were used as such, clubs name their strongest 15, when both teams are playing the same time the first team would bring maybe 4 or 5 subs, these players would benefit obviously from playing a full game with the second team but a team needs subs. Sometimes the second team will have to bring players from age grade below because with up to 20 gone with first team numbers may be tight on a given evening. Still no real problem here some might say and relatively fair…
On some occasions if the games are on separate evenings the subs that would go with the first team might get a chance to start for the second team in a lower division as they're not named. Still relatively fair, probably a bit fairer to all involved some might say as everyone gets a game at their level.
The issue that arose recently is that a first team which is an amalgamation of a senior and an intermediate clubs underage, and playing under 16 devision 5, I believe, objected under rule after they were beaten by a point in a quarter final that the oppositions clubs first team that plays division 2 weren't playing simultaneously. Basically they want the opposition clubs second team to be as weak as possible.
Although there is a rule that a club with 2 teams at an age grade must name 15 that can't play for the second team, there is apparently another rule which says both teams must play simultaneously, and this is the rule that was cited in the objection to the result, and has ultimately thrown the knockout of some underage competitions into disarray.
To my mind I think it's an unfair rule and that it possibly lacks legitimacy for a couple of reasons…
Here's why… In some grades there are not the same amount of teams in all the divisions, some age grades have odd numbers in the groups, some divisions have byes every week… All this means that there are some weeks when both a clubs teams are playing, and other weeks when only one team play, so parity is lost here straight away… To add to this, some teams get straight to a semi and others to a quarter so there are scenarios where one team from a club may have a match and the other is idle…
So the fact that this club got a game struck off on appeal because the opposition clubs first team were not also playing, and because of this a load more knockout games got refixed and put back, does this mean that all the other rounds of the group stages need to be revisited so we can have parity… Where does it end??
The bigger issue is that it's unfair to clubs who are fielding a second team and making a genuine effort to provide games for all its underage members.
What has happened will lead to more clubs now deciding not to field a second team as it will pose too many challenges, why would they make the effort to recruit mentors or scrimp for players during holidays just to have their efforts thrown back in their faces. It will lead to a scenario where there are huge squads and players not catered for and dropping off.
And what happens if both a clubs teams make a final at the same grade, does it mean members must choose who they support?
Ludicrous stuff because a club wants to win an underage title in a committee room" Good post there CleanShoulder.
Unfortunately I think the result of this appeal will be to the detriment of juvenile footballers in the years ahead. The second teams are entered into the lower divisions to give games to players who train just as hard as everyone else in the panel but due to the competitive nature of championships higher up the divisions might not get rewarded with as much game time as the first 15. We will probably be looking at 15-17 subs togging out next year for some of these clubs and that only leads to one thing at these age grades, player drop out.
Also I must defend the minor board on this one, I believe they attended the hearing and tried to fight the appeal but ultimately were informed that the appeal had succeeded. It is a slap in the face for them after their efforts over the last number of years to grow player numbers. I guess the club who appealed were able to use the influence of their members on the county board to get the game they lost fairly and squarely replayed. Don't get me wrong if a club plays a named player in their second team they should be punished, as happened to a rather large club last year, but this is not the case here. Its not very sporting and I know many of the members of the appealing club are unhappy with the unsporting nature of the appeal.
Anyway, not much can be done about it at this stage. I agree with the previous poster "Ludicrous stuff" is appropriate.
Highball_Lowball (Westmeath) - Posts: 3 - 28/09/2024 11:36:26
2572183
Link
0
|
|
Replying To westmeathman99: "Kinnegad VS The Downs… Kinnegad by 2
Lomans VS TPass... Lomans by 5
Intermediate
Rosemount VS Miltown... Rosemount by 2
Garrycastle VS Multy… Garrycastle by 8
Junior
Lomans VS CFCW… Lomans by 4
Joseph's VS Bun… Bun by 1
Junior 2
Ballingore VS Caulry… Ballingore by 8
Garrycastle VS Delvin… Delvin by 3" Kinnegad VS The Downs… Downs by 4-6
Lomans VS TPass... Lomans by 2-4
Intermediate
Rosemount VS Miltown... One of the hardest ones to call but Rosemount by 1 or 2
Garrycastle VS Multy… Garrycastle by 8-10
Junior
Lomans VS CFCW… Another one hard to call, CFCW by 1 or 2
Joseph's VS Bun… Josephs by 4-6
Junior 2
Ballingore VS Caulry… Ballingore by 8-10
Garrycastle VS Delvin… Garrycastle by 6-8
CleanShoulder (Westmeath) - Posts: 321 - 28/09/2024 11:44:12
2572185
Link
0
|
|
Replying To CleanShoulder: "Kinnegad VS The Downs… Downs by 4-6
Lomans VS TPass... Lomans by 2-4
Intermediate
Rosemount VS Miltown... One of the hardest ones to call but Rosemount by 1 or 2
Garrycastle VS Multy… Garrycastle by 8-10
Junior
Lomans VS CFCW… Another one hard to call, CFCW by 1 or 2
Joseph's VS Bun… Josephs by 4-6
Junior 2
Ballingore VS Caulry… Ballingore by 8-10
Garrycastle VS Delvin… Garrycastle by 6-8" Joseph bub in junior championship no?
Anyway I can see bun winning and kinnegad could shock the downs
Gaaforlife2023 (Longford) - Posts: 456 - 28/09/2024 13:53:46
2572197
Link
0
|
|
CFCW much the better side today. Capitulation from Lomans in the second half but CFCW will take some beating.
Bluelake (Westmeath) - Posts: 119 - 28/09/2024 16:10:11
2572209
Link
0
|
|
Replying To CleanShoulder: "No first team players were used as such, clubs name their strongest 15, when both teams are playing the same time the first team would bring maybe 4 or 5 subs, these players would benefit obviously from playing a full game with the second team but a team needs subs. Sometimes the second team will have to bring players from age grade below because with up to 20 gone with first team numbers may be tight on a given evening. Still no real problem here some might say and relatively fair…
On some occasions if the games are on separate evenings the subs that would go with the first team might get a chance to start for the second team in a lower division as they're not named. Still relatively fair, probably a bit fairer to all involved some might say as everyone gets a game at their level.
The issue that arose recently is that a first team which is an amalgamation of a senior and an intermediate clubs underage, and playing under 16 devision 5, I believe, objected under rule after they were beaten by a point in a quarter final that the oppositions clubs first team that plays division 2 weren't playing simultaneously. Basically they want the opposition clubs second team to be as weak as possible.
Although there is a rule that a club with 2 teams at an age grade must name 15 that can't play for the second team, there is apparently another rule which says both teams must play simultaneously, and this is the rule that was cited in the objection to the result, and has ultimately thrown the knockout of some underage competitions into disarray.
To my mind I think it's an unfair rule and that it possibly lacks legitimacy for a couple of reasons…
Here's why… In some grades there are not the same amount of teams in all the divisions, some age grades have odd numbers in the groups, some divisions have byes every week… All this means that there are some weeks when both a clubs teams are playing, and other weeks when only one team play, so parity is lost here straight away… To add to this, some teams get straight to a semi and others to a quarter so there are scenarios where one team from a club may have a match and the other is idle…
So the fact that this club got a game struck off on appeal because the opposition clubs first team were not also playing, and because of this a load more knockout games got refixed and put back, does this mean that all the other rounds of the group stages need to be revisited so we can have parity… Where does it end??
The bigger issue is that it's unfair to clubs who are fielding a second team and making a genuine effort to provide games for all its underage members.
What has happened will lead to more clubs now deciding not to field a second team as it will pose too many challenges, why would they make the effort to recruit mentors or scrimp for players during holidays just to have their efforts thrown back in their faces. It will lead to a scenario where there are huge squads and players not catered for and dropping off.
And what happens if both a clubs teams make a final at the same grade, does it mean members must choose who they support?
Ludicrous stuff because a club wants to win an underage title in a committee room" No club is looking to win an underage title in a committee room. They are looking for fair play and the rules to be adhered to. The relevance of it being the amalgamation of a senior and intermediate teams underage team is irrelevant but those said clubs despite being very rural without any footfall from towns struggle to field every year and is a testament to those involved that they field and have teams albeit in Division 5. You can be sure they would much prefer to have the numbers available other clubs have and competing at a higher level but giving kids football and those clubs the chance of players coming through when they reach adult level is the main priority. The county board made the rule and it was brought to their attention before the matches were played but they still insisted on the games going ahead. This could have been avoided but they let it go ahead and then in the appeal they lost so I don't see how anyone can be blamed here but them despite you and their attempts to lay the blame on the appealing club.
mintyfresh (Westmeath) - Posts: 239 - 28/09/2024 17:39:11
2572216
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Highball_Lowball: "Good post there CleanShoulder.
Unfortunately I think the result of this appeal will be to the detriment of juvenile footballers in the years ahead. The second teams are entered into the lower divisions to give games to players who train just as hard as everyone else in the panel but due to the competitive nature of championships higher up the divisions might not get rewarded with as much game time as the first 15. We will probably be looking at 15-17 subs togging out next year for some of these clubs and that only leads to one thing at these age grades, player drop out.
Also I must defend the minor board on this one, I believe they attended the hearing and tried to fight the appeal but ultimately were informed that the appeal had succeeded. It is a slap in the face for them after their efforts over the last number of years to grow player numbers. I guess the club who appealed were able to use the influence of their members on the county board to get the game they lost fairly and squarely replayed. Don't get me wrong if a club plays a named player in their second team they should be punished, as happened to a rather large club last year, but this is not the case here. Its not very sporting and I know many of the members of the appealing club are unhappy with the unsporting nature of the appeal.
Anyway, not much can be done about it at this stage. I agree with the previous poster "Ludicrous stuff" is appropriate." "they should be punished, as happened to a rather large club last year"
If it's the episode I know off, the underage player was given a 12 week suspension and missed a county final. The player did not want to play on the 2nd team but was pressurised to play. Both 1st and 2nd team should have been penalised, not the player. The young lad never received an explanation or apology from the club and no longer plays GAA.
ExiledCuCu (Cavan) - Posts: 235 - 28/09/2024 18:54:30
2572227
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Highball_Lowball: "Good post there CleanShoulder.
Unfortunately I think the result of this appeal will be to the detriment of juvenile footballers in the years ahead. The second teams are entered into the lower divisions to give games to players who train just as hard as everyone else in the panel but due to the competitive nature of championships higher up the divisions might not get rewarded with as much game time as the first 15. We will probably be looking at 15-17 subs togging out next year for some of these clubs and that only leads to one thing at these age grades, player drop out.
Also I must defend the minor board on this one, I believe they attended the hearing and tried to fight the appeal but ultimately were informed that the appeal had succeeded. It is a slap in the face for them after their efforts over the last number of years to grow player numbers. I guess the club who appealed were able to use the influence of their members on the county board to get the game they lost fairly and squarely replayed. Don't get me wrong if a club plays a named player in their second team they should be punished, as happened to a rather large club last year, but this is not the case here. Its not very sporting and I know many of the members of the appealing club are unhappy with the unsporting nature of the appeal.
Anyway, not much can be done about it at this stage. I agree with the previous poster "Ludicrous stuff" is appropriate." Did you say the county board attended an appeal and tried to "fight it"? Fight an appeal where they broke the rules.... and as indicated in other comments they were made aware of this situation before hand and still continued with the rule breaking??? ... now that's very concerning happenings.... the most important thing here is the integrity of the game and this was obviously compromised greatly in this case....
Will sanctions be imposed on the perpetrators?
LoughLeneKing (Westmeath) - Posts: 4 - 28/09/2024 18:58:45
2572228
Link
1
|
|
Some turnaround by Moate in the three weeks since they were well beaten by Shandonagh in the championship round robin. Deserved winners this evening although Shandonagh staged a late comeback with a flurry of points in the closing minutes. Moate played far more attacking football than usual and got their reward. Shandonagh corner back suffered a serious injury and game was delayed for fifteen mins. Hopefully he's recovering. Disappointing end to Shandonagh's year although their performances all year have been average at best.
Claretandblue (Westmeath) - Posts: 1831 - 28/09/2024 18:59:38
2572229
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Bluelake: "CFCW much the better side today. Capitulation from Lomans in the second half but CFCW will take some beating." Wait I thought St Loman's had the junior already won?? Kinnegad so close to shocking The Downs. The Downs got home by the width of their whiskers. Niall Mitchell was non existent but it shows they can win games without him too. I fancy them to beat St Loman's in the final.
iarmhiabu (Westmeath) - Posts: 30 - 28/09/2024 19:45:29
2572239
Link
0
|