Midleton, Nobody has claimed that Horgan hit O'Brien. He isn't a dirty player. If he hadn't been sent off, I don't know would many people be complaining but the decision made has undermined the referees who have been instructed to clamp down on such incidents.

By rescinding the card, future incidents will go unpunished because referees are afraid of getting the same treatment as McGrath did

KK4Life (Kilkenny) - Posts: 56 - 26/07/2013 14:39:55    1443163

Midleton

Being honest he does not have to answer that question. There is nothing in the rule book about it being deliberate or otherwise. Its all about the action and not the intention. Hurlingdub is as knowlegable as anybody on here about hurling. I think everybody knows that it was a clumsy effort from Hoggy but not deliberate or malicious.

ClubGAA

Awbeg's comments were representative of him only. They certainly would not be my feelings or that of anybody else I know.

Ban

You are right. Rules are rules. The same rules should be applied to every team in every match. They are not though.

bennybunny (Cork) - Posts: 3917 - 26/07/2013 14:40:05    1443164

BennyBunny, HurlingDub doesn't have to answer any question, of course, if he doesn't want to. But I am not asking what is written in the rule book; I am asking him his personal opinion as to whether he thinks Horgan struck O'Brien deliberately, or not. It's a really simple question, and no matter what way he answers, I won't comment further on it. You're the second person on here who has tried to answer for him. Surely he can answer for himself.

Midleton (Cork) - Posts: 644 - 26/07/2013 14:56:51    1443182

Midleton, I made it clear that I didn't think that his offence was as bad as others in that he wasn't intending to do serious damage. However, McGrath has to apply the rule book which makes strinking with the hurl on the head a sending off offence. It is still offence even if it is clumsy rather than malicious. Besides McGrath could not have known what his intentions were, nor is that pertinent to his having to make an instant call.

I appreciate the magnamity of O'Brien and others in the Limerick camp but there'd have been uproar had McGrath not acted!

hurlingdub (Dublin) - Posts: 6978 - 26/07/2013 15:11:35    1443198

Folks, Another poster addressed this to my satisfaction some time ago. To 'strike' by the basic definition in most dictonaries (and a dictionary will try to convey the meaning of a word as most people understand it) implies intent. One cannot 'strike' accidentally, though one can of course make accidental contact.

Most people agree that what Horgan did was not deliberate. Therefore, by the mnost commonly undersood definition of the word, it was not a 'strike.' If he did not 'strike' he did not break the rules. Case closed, common sense prevails, and players are allowed to swing their hurleys at the ball without fear of being sent off.

Culchie (Cork) - Posts: 799 - 26/07/2013 15:33:58    1443235

Just one final message to AWBEG, regarding the USA, not sure how the "worlds Policeman" comment relates to this thread. However, the club which purchases more hurleys than anyone else in the WORLD is Milwaukee Hurling Club in Wisconsin USA. And by the way, started by a Norwegian American by the name of Dave Olsen. Hurling is growing here in the US at an unbelievable rate. Thankfully the players over here don't come into contact with the likes of your superior arrogance too often.

Dubfan Abroad (Dublin) - Posts: 282 - 26/07/2013 15:35:40    1443240

Culchie

Unfortunately, the word strike is ambiguous in terms of whether there is intention or not. For example one definition of the word strike is as follows:

to hit or dash on or against something, as a moving body does; come into forcible contact; collide.

This does not have the connotation of intention attached. In fact, given that collisions can be entirely accidental, one could say that this definition incorporates accidents. It is entirely valid definition, though not the only one. The GAA have tried to clarify this ambiguity by stating the following rule:

RULE 5 - AGGRESSIVE FOULS

5.2 To strike or to attempt to strike an opponent
with a hurley, with minimal force.

Horgan's did strike with minimal force. The GAA have ordered the following penalty for such offences:

Penalty for the above Fouls -
(i) Order offender off.

Anyway, we are past debating whether he was right or wrong to send him off or whether it was malicious or not (I think we are unanimous on this). This is about undermining referees, the CCCC and consistently applying the rules...i.e. a red card for Horgan should have meant a red card for Power also..with both players suspended for Sunday. Both are playing. That is the way it is. The GAA really needs to get a grip on what rules it wants to apply and to whom. when we get consistency all of this nonsense will clear up.

bennybunny (Cork) - Posts: 3917 - 26/07/2013 16:50:32    1443336

Bennybunny, the rule you quoted is kind of irrelevant 'cause it contaions the word 'strike.' That's what's at issue here. I couldn't be bothered looking up a whole load of dictionaries, but the one I did look up (after another poster made my point here) certainly implied that a strike was , by definition, deliberate. However you have produced a definition that seesm to imply that a strike could be accidental.

Thus, as you say, there is ambiguity. It is not as clear cut as; 'he definitely broke the rules.' I would suggest that there was enough ambiguity for common sense to prevail. Either way, the GAA should define what they mean by 'strike.'But I'll bet that whoever wrote the rule, intended the word to convey intent. Anybody who ever played hurling knows that fingers and hands, in particular, are continually banged up. Whoever wrote the rule knew that was the case. Surely s/he did not intend for everybody who accidentally hit another mans finger, to get sent off?

Culchie (Cork) - Posts: 799 - 26/07/2013 17:03:44    1443343

Hurlingdub ---thank you

I'm a referee in a weak county. I referee club, school and college games. If the same incident happened again I would sent the offender off.

Each year we go to Croke Park ( because there is so few hurling referees)and brought through various clips/videos etc and we comment on particular incidents - this one will be commented upon next year ( Jan/Feb) and i can guarantee you all the refs, the referee's assesor etc will say the same thing - red cardwas correct

Now lets say the same incident happens this Sunday in Asbourne between Antrim and Waterford in the minor championship, regardless of who is the victim/agressor - there will be no highprofile media driven case to have the red card recinded, it will be mentioned it was dangerous play etc and the offender deserved his punishment......

Which comes to main argument - in hurling certain counties, Kilkenny/Cork/Tipp can and do get away with'murder' on the pitch, other counties wouldn't have the platform/media profile to exhororate an individual....

The player in question made contact with the head (helmet) with his hurl - the ball was no where near him - red card was correct - but no we blame the ref because hes from westmeath and they're not a premier hurling county -
McGrath was correct and well done!!!

cuchulainn35 (Armagh) - Posts: 1688 - 26/07/2013 17:52:03    1443391

Culchie

But I'll bet that whoever wrote the rule, intended the word to convey intent.

I think you are almost certainly right. It then raises the question of judging what is intentional or not intentional? And as anybody knows that has played the game, judging this is nearly impossible (in fact I was out of the game for over a year with an injury that the ref did not even give a free for as he judged was an accidental collision and which I judged to be a certain dangerous late tackle with the intention of causing hurt though probably not the damage that resulted). We must trust the referees in this case.

The debate has long since moved on from the decision to send him off or otherwise. It is about supporting referees, respecting rule (if rules are considered stupid we have the opportunity to change them at congress until then they should be ). Horgan's red card should NOT have been rescinded. As CuChulainn has correctly stated, if the same thing happened to players in other counties they would have to accept their punishment. Cork should have done the sporting thing (perceived injustice aside) and accepted it. Horgan's presence matters not a jot as KK will give us such a pasting tomorrow that 10 P Horgans wouldn't save us (sorry if I am being negative).

bennybunny (Cork) - Posts: 3917 - 27/07/2013 12:59:04    1443737