|
Post by decondd2 on Feb 21, 2018 18:30:27 GMT
decondd2, are you for real? Do you know the rules of football? It is bad enough that the tackle is badly refereed, and every tackle can be interpreted differently, but at least start from a point of knowing what is legal and what is not. Dessie Mone's tackle on O'Brien was perfect, a textbook tackle, a clean one-handed slap on the ball, not high, but on the ball. After the tackle, O'Brien ran into Mone's arm, and dragged them both down. Free to Monaghan. Your argument about Murphy makes even less sense: Murphy got contact on the ball, so clean tackle, then afterwards, in the act of the tackle, the man went down. No foul, play on. You say: Both tackles got the ball but had the consequence of fouling the player in the act. You are just wrong to say this is a foul. When you win the ball cleanly, any subsequent collision or contact in the act of the tackle is not a foul. There can be exceptions such as a follow through with an elbow or boot, but that did not happen in these 2 cases. I preface my remarks by saying that i am no expert on the rule book. But the interpretation that because murphy "got a touch of the ball before taking the legs from under the monaghan man" means it was not a penalty sounds to me like its an interpretation borrowed from soccer. I have read a few newspaper reports saying it wasnt a penalty but i find this strange. Where are you when we need you ciarrailar! It goes without saying that I'm not an expert either. Never refereed anything higher than a schools match (thankfully if I've missed a basic rule for the last 27 years). Ontheforty's interpretation sounds like it could be correct. Perhaps I've been watching too much rugby where intent is not taken into account (especially when it comes to contact with the head). Anyway I have no issue with being wrong, I just had a different interpretation of the rule. I can understand the frustraion with getting basic rules wrong as well. Listening to 'experts' talking about the black card is red mist territory for me. For such a basic rule (some of the most clearly defined rules in the GAA) the fact that so many analysts (Dessie fecking Dolan etc) cannot understand it is infuriating.
|
|
|
Post by Ballyfireside on Feb 21, 2018 19:58:37 GMT
I preface my remarks by saying that i am no expert on the rule book. But the interpretation that because murphy "got a touch of the ball before taking the legs from under the monaghan man" means it was not a penalty sounds to me like its an interpretation borrowed from soccer. I have read a few newspaper reports saying it wasnt a penalty but i find this strange. Where are you when we need you ciarrailar! It goes without saying that I'm not an expert either. Never refereed anything higher than a schools match (thankfully if I've missed a basic rule for the last 27 years). Ontheforty's interpretation sounds like it could be correct. Perhaps I've been watching too much rugby where intent is not taken into account (especially when it comes to contact with the head). Anyway I have no issue with being wrong, I just had a different interpretation of the rule. I can understand the frustraion with getting basic rules wrong as well. Listening to 'experts' talking about the black card is red mist territory for me. For such a basic rule (some of the most clearly defined rules in the GAA) the fact that so many analysts (Dessie fecking Dolan etc) cannot understand it is infuriating. There is to aspects to the Black Card 1. The rules 2. Refs ignoring the rules. The rules aren't so complex and now maybe the GAA has instructed Refs as they have said nil while players are confused. Will it be different for the Championship? Will the rule me enforced gradually as the League progresses? The spontaneity of the game is eroded as players have to stop and think and suffer the consequences. It is even worse for us as lads coming through have enough to contend with already, and what with the bar increasing - add to that the pressures of amateurs competing professionally. The Black Card was introduced for the good of the game and now we pretend that was not the case - what else is being dealt with similarly that we don't know about? I mean there is enough we already know too much about. Still we have good days ahead and two great games this weekend plus a big oval wan.
|
|
|
Post by piggott on Feb 22, 2018 20:47:15 GMT
I see that motion 13 for this week ends congress seeks to downgrade punishment for minor physical interference with an opposing team official. This must spring from Mr Connolly's long suspension last year.
|
|