HoganStand GAA Football and Hurling

National Forum

All Ireland Club Final, Kilmacud V Glen (Derry)

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post

You need to Login to Post

Replying To Tacaí Liatroma: "What was the Aidan McCarthy thing?" That was a hurling thing, Leitrim lad. foreveryoung (USA) - Posts: 2202 - 27/01/2023 14:41:07 2454590 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "Why would any team make 2 substitutions when they were facing a last minute 45 if not to instruct a player to remain on the field…. It certainly wasn't for time wasting as it had to be the last play… Killmscud knew exactly what they were at and took a chance on poor officiating and almost got away with it…" Or maybe they brought on 2 subs to kill the Glen 45 taker's momentum or break his concentration, or to hope that there'd be less playing time available if they didn't concede a goal. Don't think I've ever heard of late substitutions being used to illegally increase the playing numbers on the field. Tacaí Liatroma (Leitrim) - Posts: 1168 - 27/01/2023 14:41:07 2454591 Link
Lot of talk from "sources" that Kilmacud will not fulfill any replay fixture if that is what is decided. Hope that is not the case as it would completely devalue the competition and would reflect badly on Kilmacud as a club. Can't see Kilmacud players being happy with that outcome if it occurs. Delegitimizing 24 months of effort. Hawkeye2 (Wicklow) - Posts: 159 - 27/01/2023 14:43:48 2454592 Link
Replying To TheGreatRambo: "How can you say you say it's extremely extremely unlikely that the extra man made a difference then a line later say it's common sense that there is a replay. If the extra man made no difference it's game over ball burst and let everyone move on to feck." Because "extremely extremely unlikely" is not Impossible and even if there was a tiny chance that an illegal player impacted the result ( however small) , the common sense logic prevails. anotheralias (Galway) - Posts: 981 - 27/01/2023 14:46:02 2454593 Link
Replying To Greenfield: "Some details here: https://m.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/gaelic-football/dunboyne-lodge-objection-over-navans-extra-sub-25967165.html I always blamed one of the O'Mahonys bottle men for this. The game finished in acrimonious circumstances following an incident with him on the terrace side. I think after that dunboyne we're always going to appeal if there was a chance." Thanks. Includes this: "We would prefer if we didn't have to lodge an objection and instead that action would be taken by the county board because of the breaching of a rule," said Dunboyne PRO Paul Reilly. "Because we've had to take the action ourselves, we probably will be considered unsporting by a lot of people. But we've heard that in similar situations in the past, the club had to take the first step in the process." Nearly 17½ years later, here we are again. Tacaí Liatroma (Leitrim) - Posts: 1168 - 27/01/2023 15:00:42 2454596 Link
Replying To Hawkeye2: "I know Brolly usually likes to stir it up, but he is spot on in this case. The GAA 's stance on this is pathetic and really paints the authorities in a bad a light. Given their current position , they should republish the rule book and clearly mark which rules are not actually rules and in fact are only suggestions. i.e. we suggest this is how things work but when push comes to shove we'll let ye sort it out among yourselves Don't come near us on these ones unless you have an objection. Also , what other "rules" fall under the "we're not doing anything unless you object category"?" The rule that says you can hand-pass a goal of you're in possession and you hit the deck. Explicitly allowed, but goals get ruled out for it. I've been harping on about it for years. Tacaí Liatroma (Leitrim) - Posts: 1168 - 27/01/2023 15:08:31 2454597 Link
Replying To Pikeman96: "@Viking - So the committee in charge could have conducted an inquiry into it without Glen objecting ? I don't know. Just had a quick look to try see under what circumstances the committee in charge can hold an inquiry, but didn't find anything. Anyway, the other rule still looks clearcut: An Objection to the award of a Game may be made on behalf of a Team that participated in the Game concerned by the relevant Secretary. An objection may not be made otherwise by a member or any third party. Am inclined to speculate the committee in charge could maybe hold an inquiry into there being 16 or 17 men on the field. But appropriate punishment for that (and that alone) would probably be a relatively small fine. Otherwise there's precedent set whereby any match could be ordered to be replayed if one lad was a bit slow going off the field while a sub was more eager to get on. But that other rule seems clearcut that a third party (like the committee in charge) can't do anything about the award of the game. It's up to the team that participated to start that process." Seems a bit crazy that if a team objects they can be awarded the game, but if the committee in charge investigates, the non-offenders can't be awarded the game. I wonder what the logic there was... Tacaí Liatroma (Leitrim) - Posts: 1168 - 27/01/2023 15:10:01 2454598 Link
Replying To TheGreatRambo: "How can you say you say it's extremely extremely unlikely that the extra man made a difference then a line later say it's common sense that there is a replay. If the extra man made no difference it's game over ball burst and let everyone move on to feck." I will explain it to you by giving you another example via a hypothetical situation. A high ball is kicked in goalwards . It ends up going high and wide but as the ball is passing over the full back and full forward in the square the FB drags the FF clearly to the ground. Now it is extremely extremely unlikely that the FF would have jumped 12 feet in the air and got to the ball. You are the ref...do you a) award a kick out on the basis that the foul made no difference and "move on to feck" OR b) award a penalty. Your logic suggests a) Mine suggests b) Who is correct ? Let others judge that. anotheralias (Galway) - Posts: 981 - 27/01/2023 15:19:55 2454600 Link
Replying To Tacaí Liatroma: "What was the Aidan McCarthy thing?" i BELIEVE IT WAS THE MATCH V TIPPERARY IN MUNSTER HURLING AIDAN MCACRTHY WAS DISMISSED FOR 10 MINUTES UNDER THAT NEW RULE ABOUT CYNICAL FOULING IN FRONT OF GOAL ONLY THINK WAS MCCARTHY WAS ABOUT 5 YAERDS IN FROM TOUCCHLINE RULE FADED AWAY AFTER THAT CONTROVERSY clooney (Clare) - Posts: 984 - 27/01/2023 15:23:56 2454601 Link
Replying To anotheralias: "Because "extremely extremely unlikely" is not Impossible and even if there was a tiny chance that an illegal player impacted the result ( however small) , the common sense logic prevails." It really doesn't TheGreatRambo (Monaghan) - Posts: 82 - 27/01/2023 16:34:09 2454615 Link
Replying To clooney: "i BELIEVE IT WAS THE MATCH V TIPPERARY IN MUNSTER HURLING AIDAN MCACRTHY WAS DISMISSED FOR 10 MINUTES UNDER THAT NEW RULE ABOUT CYNICAL FOULING IN FRONT OF GOAL ONLY THINK WAS MCCARTHY WAS ABOUT 5 YAERDS IN FROM TOUCCHLINE RULE FADED AWAY AFTER THAT CONTROVERSY" A sad joke of a badly thought out rule with ambiguous direction to how to use. Later the same year was not used because the player was about 5 feet off to the side of the posts and given as the reason. Then low and behold the whole thing sailed off into the sunset and never called again. It's the referees I pity been given these ill structured rules and then vilified for administrating them as instructed. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3035 - 27/01/2023 16:36:56 2454616 Link
This is a nice messy one for the GAA. Super. friedporridge (Leitrim) - Posts: 23 - 27/01/2023 16:37:25 2454617 Link
Replying To Hawkeye2: "Lot of talk from "sources" that Kilmacud will not fulfill any replay fixture if that is what is decided. Hope that is not the case as it would completely devalue the competition and would reflect badly on Kilmacud as a club. Can't see Kilmacud players being happy with that outcome if it occurs. Delegitimizing 24 months of effort." The competition ended last Sunday. It really doesn't matter what happens now, it will not devalue Crokes winning on the day. If they had won because the officials missed a score or a wide, or if the subs had directly impacted on the result then yes. but that's not what happened. It made NO difference. If Mullins had not been on the line then someone else would have been. and none of them touched the ball anyway or there'd have been another 45! It is light years away even from things that we see all the time, like obvious reffing errors that turn even big games. You could fill an encyclopedia with them. Do the beneficiaries offer replays? They do in their backside. Do the losers whinge about them for ever and a day? They do not, and if they do then they need to give their head a wobble. In real life, what matters is what happens on the day. Dogs bark, the caravan passes on. BarneyGrant (Dublin) - Posts: 3510 - 27/01/2023 16:45:30 2454618 Link
So what is Peter Canavan suggesting? There should be nothing done about breaking the rules ? A game is level and one team gets a 45 and an extra defender is slipped in. The opposition may as well slide in a few players if the ball comes back down field. Yes the officials may have missed it and not done on purpose but do not open a pandora box by not dealing with it. The other argument put forward it has happened in the past with no consequences. If that was applied to crime there would be a lot more criminals walking around. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3035 - 27/01/2023 17:39:36 2454628 Link
Replying To Ban: "The Clare lad who fouled a Tipp lad along side the Ennis Road down in Limerick and the ref gave a penalty and sent Mccarthy to the line for 10 mins. Probably the strangest thing ever witnessed on a hurling field.." That's right, the rule said something about a goal scoring opportunity so the ref gave a penalty. Tacaí Liatroma (Leitrim) - Posts: 1168 - 27/01/2023 17:42:34 2454629 Link
Replying To foreveryoung: "That was a hurling thing, Leitrim lad." A hurling thing? What's that? Did you spell a word wrong? Did you mean to write curling? Sure that's not even a GAA sport. Tacaí Liatroma (Leitrim) - Posts: 1168 - 27/01/2023 17:51:02 2454631 Link
What a complete mess. The GAA were a disgrace passing the buck when they should have showed leadership. Glen obviously were very torn on what to do and opted for the objection. Personally I wouldn't have advocated that but they were well within their rights. Its now for the committee to decide how to proceed so knowing the GAA that will be as clear as mud. Jazzyjeff (Derry) - Posts: 212 - 27/01/2023 18:50:42 2454634 Link
On the positive side, the final could be back on St. Patrick's Day, which is where it clearly belongs. suckvalleypaddy (Galway) - Posts: 1732 - 27/01/2023 20:00:02 2454643 Link
Replying To clooney: "i BELIEVE IT WAS THE MATCH V TIPPERARY IN MUNSTER HURLING AIDAN MCACRTHY WAS DISMISSED FOR 10 MINUTES UNDER THAT NEW RULE ABOUT CYNICAL FOULING IN FRONT OF GOAL ONLY THINK WAS MCCARTHY WAS ABOUT 5 YAERDS IN FROM TOUCCHLINE RULE FADED AWAY AFTER THAT CONTROVERSY" When did we get a Touchline in GAA. gerry1414 (Dublin) - Posts: 56 - 27/01/2023 21:35:45 2454651 Link
Replying To Ban: "Yea, the ref resumed play as the sub, number 19 was making his way down to 14 to tell him he was subbed.. Naturally, the sub just in turned towards play and 14 continued playing oblivious to it all! I can't believe it's got so far! To say a replay is being considered is mad. What could Crokes have done to avoid the situation? The officials mucked up." Oblivious to what, you said yourself the No 19 went to tell 14 to go off. One of them is to blame, either 19 for not telling or 14 for not going off. It's on their shoulders so let either one man up and take the blame. Saynothing (Tyrone) - Posts: 2289 - 27/01/2023 21:52:45 2454653 Link