|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 8:01:12 GMT
While I agree with Mick that John Small probably raised his elbow intentionally- this just shows the problem with policing by intent, we’ll never know.
That’s why the refs are supposed to police by outcome
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Apr 7, 2022 8:05:12 GMT
While I agree with Mick that John Small probably raised his elbow intentionally- this just shows the problem with policing by intent, we’ll never know. That’s why the refs are supposed to police by outcome I don't think this is similar to the ROD and GW incident because a shoulder to the head is already serious foul play.
|
|
|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 8:09:06 GMT
While I agree with Mick that John Small probably raised his elbow intentionally- this just shows the problem with policing by intent, we’ll never know. That’s why the refs are supposed to police by outcome I don't think this is similar to the ROD and GW incident because a shoulder to the head is already serious foul play. Sure a punch to the head is too
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Apr 7, 2022 8:10:29 GMT
I think where this discussion is heading is that the GAA need to change the rules such that any strike to the head is a red ...its up to the players then to be more circumspect in how they throw shoulders and fists around the place.
|
|
|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 8:11:36 GMT
I think where this discussion is heading is that the GAA need to change the rules such that any strike to the head is a red ...its up to the players then to be more circumspect in how they throw shoulders and fists around the place. But the rule is that, it’s just applied poorly
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Apr 7, 2022 8:59:09 GMT
I don't think this is similar to the ROD and GW incident because a shoulder to the head is already serious foul play. Sure a punch to the head is too A shoulder is habitually dangerous unlike punching a ball.
|
|
|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 9:03:08 GMT
Sure a punch to the head is too A shoulder is habitually dangerous unlike punching a ball. I agree with you but sure shouldering a lad is probably as common in the game as a ball being punched
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Apr 7, 2022 9:12:26 GMT
A shoulder is habitually dangerous unlike punching a ball. I agree with you but sure shouldering a lad is probably as common in the game as a ball being punched I am a little stumped now. Although maybe I would claim that we see far far more injuries from shoulders vs ball punches.
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Apr 7, 2022 9:27:04 GMT
I think where this discussion is heading is that the GAA need to change the rules such that any strike to the head is a red ...its up to the players then to be more circumspect in how they throw shoulders and fists around the place. But the rule is that, it’s just applied poorly The current rule allows for situations like where RoD hit GW as he was going for the ball. In my opinion anyway. I am talking about a new rule that imposes a red in all situations where a blow to the head occurs.... then the 'out' that a player is going for the ball is removed
|
|
|
Post by dodgyknees on Apr 7, 2022 9:28:24 GMT
Good highlights of David Clifford during the league:
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Apr 7, 2022 9:34:17 GMT
I think I have a funny analogy for Gavin White.
I cannot drive in front of you on a roundabout but if I drive onto a roundabout at 30 mph and you come up behind me at 100 mph from the previous exit then we crash but it is not my fault, is it?
Is Ryan O'Donoghue not allowed go for that ball effectively?
|
|
|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 11:11:20 GMT
I think I have a funny analogy for Gavin White. I cannot drive in front of you on a roundabout but if I drive onto a roundabout at 30 mph and you come up behind me at 100 mph from the previous exit then we crash but it is not my fault, is it? Is Ryan O'Donoghue not allowed go for that ball effectively? He is allowed go for it but he mistimed it and punched a player in the head. Nearly all cards are for mistimed challenges. I’m not saying a lad can’t challenge for a ball but if he does and then outcome is that he punches someone in the head then it is supposed to be a red card. Otherwise it would be carte Blanche for lads “leaving a bit” on players.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Apr 7, 2022 11:29:19 GMT
I think I have a funny analogy for Gavin White. I cannot drive in front of you on a roundabout but if I drive onto a roundabout at 30 mph and you come up behind me at 100 mph from the previous exit then we crash but it is not my fault, is it? Is Ryan O'Donoghue not allowed go for that ball effectively? He is allowed go for it but he mistimed it and punched a player in the head. Nearly all cards are for mistimed challenges. I’m not saying a lad can’t challenge for a ball but if he does and then outcome is that he punches someone in the head then it is supposed to be a red card. Otherwise it would be carte Blanche for lads “leaving a bit” on players. I think that is a compelling argument. Essentially we must penalise innocent players to protect players against 'guilty' players. Which goes back to the point you keep reiterating: that we cannot know intent. You have changed my mind.
|
|
|
Post by buck02 on Apr 7, 2022 13:07:51 GMT
I think I have a funny analogy for Gavin White. I cannot drive in front of you on a roundabout but if I drive onto a roundabout at 30 mph and you come up behind me at 100 mph from the previous exit then we crash but it is not my fault, is it? Is Ryan O'Donoghue not allowed go for that ball effectively? He is allowed go for it but he mistimed it and punched a player in the head. Nearly all cards are for mistimed challenges. I’m not saying a lad can’t challenge for a ball but if he does and then outcome is that he punches someone in the head then it is supposed to be a red card. Otherwise it would be carte Blanche for lads “leaving a bit” on players. Interesting points made by Kerrybhoy. If I went out tomorrow and eye gouged a fella during a melee, then I would rightly expect a red (and a lengthy suspension). If I went up for a high ball or in for a tackle and accidentally ended up putting a finger into a fellas eye I wouldn't expect a red. The end result would be the same, but the circumstances totally different. That's why I believe the O Donoghue incident was not a red.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2022 14:19:21 GMT
He is allowed go for it but he mistimed it and punched a player in the head. Nearly all cards are for mistimed challenges. I’m not saying a lad can’t challenge for a ball but if he does and then outcome is that he punches someone in the head then it is supposed to be a red card. Otherwise it would be carte Blanche for lads “leaving a bit” on players. Interesting points made by Kerrybhoy. If I went out tomorrow and eye gouged a fella during a melee, then I would rightly expect a red (and a lengthy suspension). If I went up for a high ball or in for a tackle and accidentally ended up putting a finger into a fellas eye I wouldn't expect a red. The end result would be the same, but the circumstances totally different. That's why I believe the O Donoghue incident was not a red. if O'Donaghue had got the ball and then got White then I'd say thet would have been OK but the fact that he took the man after the ball is gone I'd say he'd be in trouble , then you'd look at where he caught White and it was around the head area you'd be thinking it's a red. Or am I watching too much soccer?
|
|
dano
Senior Member
Posts: 530
|
Post by dano on Apr 7, 2022 14:19:43 GMT
unbelievable how unlucky Mayo have been over the last few years with injuries. I think that was one of the things that stood to Dublin. Their main core of players managed to stay healthy throughout their reign.
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Apr 7, 2022 14:30:35 GMT
He is allowed go for it but he mistimed it and punched a player in the head. Nearly all cards are for mistimed challenges. I’m not saying a lad can’t challenge for a ball but if he does and then outcome is that he punches someone in the head then it is supposed to be a red card. Otherwise it would be carte Blanche for lads “leaving a bit” on players. I think that is a compelling argument. Essentially we must penalise innocent players to protect players against 'guilty' players. Which goes back to the point you keep reiterating: that we cannot know intent. You have changed my mind. Cillian oConnor and Aiden oShea would have been red carded so for clashing heads in 2014.
|
|
Jo90
Fanatical Member
Posts: 2,687
Member is Online
|
Post by Jo90 on Apr 7, 2022 14:33:56 GMT
unbelievable how unlucky Mayo have been over the last few years with injuries. I think that was one of the things that stood to Dublin. Their main core of players managed to stay healthy throughout their reign. Yes, their key players stayed healthy and for those that did get injured or were otherwise unavailable they had quality backups. Before people gets notions about Kerry winning the All-Ireland, on top of producing the performances we are heavily relied on players not getting injured or suspended, particularly a few key positions such as full-back, centre-back and full-forward. If we build up any unassailable leads in games, I think our irreplaceable players should be subbed off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2022 14:35:05 GMT
I don’t think it is an automatic red just because you end up punching a guy in the face. Two guys going for a ball like the white incident is just one of those things.
A guy making a run with the ball and the defender tries to stop him but ends up punching him, that is a red regardless of intent. That is more reckless.
|
|
|
Post by greengold35 on Apr 7, 2022 14:49:47 GMT
He was 100% going for the ball but you don’t referee intent, you referee outcome. So, for example, if I go to tackle a player but I’m late and punch him in the face then I’ve punched him in the face. You can’t police by intent as otherwise you’re deciding on different players characters and making a decision based on that On the John Small example, you’d be applying different rules to different players based on your opinion of the player and their intent. Sure that’s a complete nonsense I am not sure about intent/outcome; Jack Barrys tackle on Flynn looked a black card for obstruction but he got a yellow probably for dangerous play - if the ref knew the outcome, broken ankle, then it’s a red card. If you go for a ball & punch someone in the head then it’s accidental not deliberate; if your punch knocks a player out , even though you are going for the ball, is that a red card? Is it more accurate to describe deliberate vs accidental - many accidental clashes can lead to bad injuries and all black cards are for deliberate actions - admittedly this leaves a lot of discretion to the ref but that’s the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Apr 7, 2022 15:13:48 GMT
He was 100% going for the ball but you don’t referee intent, you referee outcome. So, for example, if I go to tackle a player but I’m late and punch him in the face then I’ve punched him in the face. You can’t police by intent as otherwise you’re deciding on different players characters and making a decision based on that On the John Small example, you’d be applying different rules to different players based on your opinion of the player and their intent. Sure that’s a complete nonsense I am not sure about intent/outcome; Jack Barrys tackle on Flynn looked a black card for obstruction but he got a yellow probably for dangerous play - if the ref knew the outcome, broken ankle, then it’s a red card. If you go for a ball & punch someone in the head then it’s accidental not deliberate; if your punch knocks a player out , even though you are going for the ball, is that a red card? Is it more accurate to describe deliberate vs accidental - many accidental clashes can lead to bad injuries and all black cards are for deliberate actions - admittedly this leaves a lot of discretion to the ref but that’s the way it is. The outcome in question isn't the injury but what happened. E.g. a fist to the head in the case of ROD rather than e.g. a head injury.
|
|
Jo90
Fanatical Member
Posts: 2,687
Member is Online
|
Post by Jo90 on Apr 7, 2022 15:17:49 GMT
David Clifford's goal against Mayo has made me change my mind against the offensive mark. Clifford caught the ball on the hop so didn't have the option of a mark, but say he had caught it on the full, the stats guy in the backroom staff would probably have done the analysis for the best return from that spot and would have instructed the players to call for a mark from there and go for a point with an 85% likelihood of a point. The statistics would have shown the likelihood of getting a goal from there by playing on would only be 5%. The offensive mark is removing a lot of the x-factor and player's intuition.
Or maybe someone with sense would just tell the players or David Clifford in particular to decide yourself whether to call for a mark or play on. On the other hand, against Cork in 2020 a couple of times players played on and missed when there were easy marks available, and in the end those scores would have won the game for Kerry.
|
|
|
Post by Annascaultilidie on Apr 7, 2022 15:34:22 GMT
David Clifford's goal against Mayo has made me change my mind against the offensive mark. Clifford caught the ball on the hop so didn't have the option of a mark, but say he had caught it on the full, the stats guy in the backroom staff would probably have done the analysis for the best return from that spot and would have instructed the players to call for a mark from there and go for a point with an 85% likelihood of a point. The statistics would have shown the likelihood of getting a goal from there by playing on would only be 5%. The offensive mark is removing a lot of the x-factor and player's intuition. Or maybe someone with sense would just tell the players or David Clifford in particular to decide yourself whether to call for a mark or play on. On the other hand, against Cork in 2020 a couple of times players played on and missed when there were easy marks available, and in the end those scores would have won the game for Kerry. Clifford is more or less on record saying he doesn't go in for the stats of the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2022 15:57:57 GMT
David Clifford's goal against Mayo has made me change my mind against the offensive mark. Clifford caught the ball on the hop so didn't have the option of a mark, but say he had caught it on the full, the stats guy in the backroom staff would probably have done the analysis for the best return from that spot and would have instructed the players to call for a mark from there and go for a point with an 85% likelihood of a point. The statistics would have shown the likelihood of getting a goal from there by playing on would only be 5%. The offensive mark is removing a lot of the x-factor and player's intuition. Or maybe someone with sense would just tell the players or David Clifford in particular to decide yourself whether to call for a mark or play on. On the other hand, against Cork in 2020 a couple of times players played on and missed when there were easy marks available, and in the end those scores would have won the game for Kerry. I am not sure I know anyone whoever thought that offensive mark was a good idea. I
|
|
|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 16:28:21 GMT
He was 100% going for the ball but you don’t referee intent, you referee outcome. So, for example, if I go to tackle a player but I’m late and punch him in the face then I’ve punched him in the face. You can’t police by intent as otherwise you’re deciding on different players characters and making a decision based on that On the John Small example, you’d be applying different rules to different players based on your opinion of the player and their intent. Sure that’s a complete nonsense I am not sure about intent/outcome; Jack Barrys tackle on Flynn looked a black card for obstruction but he got a yellow probably for dangerous play - if the ref knew the outcome, broken ankle, then it’s a red card. If you go for a ball & punch someone in the head then it’s accidental not deliberate; if your punch knocks a player out , even though you are going for the ball, is that a red card? Is it more accurate to describe deliberate vs accidental - many accidental clashes can lead to bad injuries and all black cards are for deliberate actions - admittedly this leaves a lot of discretion to the ref but that’s the way it is. You’ve misunderstood outcome, the outcome wasn’t a broken ankle, the outcome was a body check. The broken ankle is a result of him hitting the ground
|
|
|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 16:30:41 GMT
I am not sure about intent/outcome; Jack Barrys tackle on Flynn looked a black card for obstruction but he got a yellow probably for dangerous play - if the ref knew the outcome, broken ankle, then it’s a red card. If you go for a ball & punch someone in the head then it’s accidental not deliberate; if your punch knocks a player out , even though you are going for the ball, is that a red card? Is it more accurate to describe deliberate vs accidental - many accidental clashes can lead to bad injuries and all black cards are for deliberate actions - admittedly this leaves a lot of discretion to the ref but that’s the way it is. The outcome in question isn't the injury but what happened. E.g. a fist to the head in the case of ROD rather than e.g. a head injury. Exactly you can punch someone and not really hurt them but you’ve still punched them. If we start to work off the players resulting injury or perceived injury then you will get lads feigning injury to get others sent off
|
|
|
Post by boherbee on Apr 7, 2022 17:16:47 GMT
I am not sure about intent/outcome; Jack Barrys tackle on Flynn looked a black card for obstruction but he got a yellow probably for dangerous play - if the ref knew the outcome, broken ankle, then it’s a red card. If you go for a ball & punch someone in the head then it’s accidental not deliberate; if your punch knocks a player out , even though you are going for the ball, is that a red card? Is it more accurate to describe deliberate vs accidental - many accidental clashes can lead to bad injuries and all black cards are for deliberate actions - admittedly this leaves a lot of discretion to the ref but that’s the way it is. You’ve misunderstood outcome, the outcome wasn’t a broken ankle, the outcome was a body check. The broken ankle is a result of him hitting the ground If you don’t mind me saying so, that’s a bit of a stretch, why did he hit the ground ? Maybe the mistimed shoulder into the chest had something to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Apr 7, 2022 17:35:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kerrybhoy06 on Apr 7, 2022 17:57:18 GMT
You’ve misunderstood outcome, the outcome wasn’t a broken ankle, the outcome was a body check. The broken ankle is a result of him hitting the ground If you don’t mind me saying so, that’s a bit of a stretch, why did he hit the ground ? Maybe the mistimed shoulder into the chest had something to do with it. Yeah but the shoulder to the chest was the infringement by Barry. As I stated earlier if you police the end result to the player then everyone who is even looked at awkwardly will go down holding their head, like as happens in soccer
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Apr 7, 2022 18:04:45 GMT
Kerrybhoy...this is like that film 12 ANGRY MEN in reverse. You have changed Annascauls mind ...only 11 to go.
|
|