|
Could be done outside of official lines where neutral supporters give feedback. And keep a score table 5 or 6 different opinions from these people giving scores out 10 for different aspects of the referrees performance .
Could be valuable info for teams going into games knowing which refs react to different situations like a stats table on refs . As a coach we all tell our players refrain from thus that when this ref on the middle as u will be pbliwn up or carded .
Have to be neutral due to fact vested interest always clouds judgement.
Say it would be worthless exercise I fear as such lack of refs of high quality the same ones will still be used.
In fairness I do have sympathy for refs. I would nt do it for any money .
Formertownie (Wexford) - Posts: 305 - 01/10/2024 11:40:46
2572683
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Past hurler: "I was at the Thomastown v Ballyhale, the intensity in the tackling and workrate was ferocious from both teams, it was murder to win a ball and no handy tappy tappy hurling.
I can see why Kilkenny clubs do so well at provincial and All Ireland level once they win their own county." As a spectator did you feel any of the teams players were trying to buy frees ie . diving ,screaming at ref , throwing hands up or were they just getting on with it like men .
Maybe its easier to ref when there is an honesty in the way they play the game .
Formertownie (Wexford) - Posts: 305 - 01/10/2024 11:43:50
2572684
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "The County Board statement is interesting. Says Oulart did in fact lodge an objection on Wednesday, and it was to be dealt with at a CCC meeting Thursday night. But then Oulart withdrew their objection on Thursday.
The Oulart statement says "As a club we chose not appeal the incident". I suppose that's not inaccurate, but it's not telling the whole story then either. The full story would be "we first chose to appeal the incident, but then chose afterwards to change our minds and not follow through with the appeal".
County Board statement also refers to the Rule Book, so I've looked it up, and it does indeed say that for an investigation to proceed, there must be an objection from one of the clubs involved. So their statement of "In the absence of an objection, an investigation could not proceed" is accurate.
Seems to me that by wanting an investigation but not wanting to stand over an objection, Oulart basically wanted the CCC to operate outside of the Rule Book, and that would be a whole can of worms to open up.
Am guessing that Oulart wanted some action taken, e.g. maybe a replay ordered, but didn't want to be seen as "the bad guys" who initiated that action. However, the Catch 22 is that if they didn't initiate action, CCC couldn't take any action." I do not believe that is entirely true. If the referees report had that he booked two different players and there is video evidence to show that it was the same player (which there is and the CCCC are aware of it) then they have a duty to investigate how that could have happened. The result could only be that the player gave a false name the second time. Oulart should not have to appeal anything as it is in the authority of the CCCC to investigate this themselves.
Where information comes to the attention of the Competitions Control Committee or the Management Committee by other means, which suggests that a breach of Rule has taken place, either the Management Committee or the Competitions Control Committee has authority to decide whether or not Disciplinary Action is warranted.
Will the CCCC claim they were not aware of the TV footage, newspaper reports and calls to the county board from the papers asking about it?
Oulart are right to feel they have been stitched up by first the ref who has refused to take responsibility for his mistake and then by the CCCC for not taking action. Thing is given the Starlights are out of teh Football and Oulart are not in Football they could have had a reply at the weekend - had it been dealt with quickly and properly
zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1904 - 01/10/2024 13:18:35
2572690
Link
0
|
|
Replying To zinny: " Replying To Pikeman96: "The County Board statement is interesting. Says Oulart did in fact lodge an objection on Wednesday, and it was to be dealt with at a CCC meeting Thursday night. But then Oulart withdrew their objection on Thursday.
The Oulart statement says "As a club we chose not appeal the incident". I suppose that's not inaccurate, but it's not telling the whole story then either. The full story would be "we first chose to appeal the incident, but then chose afterwards to change our minds and not follow through with the appeal".
County Board statement also refers to the Rule Book, so I've looked it up, and it does indeed say that for an investigation to proceed, there must be an objection from one of the clubs involved. So their statement of "In the absence of an objection, an investigation could not proceed" is accurate.
Seems to me that by wanting an investigation but not wanting to stand over an objection, Oulart basically wanted the CCC to operate outside of the Rule Book, and that would be a whole can of worms to open up.
Am guessing that Oulart wanted some action taken, e.g. maybe a replay ordered, but didn't want to be seen as "the bad guys" who initiated that action. However, the Catch 22 is that if they didn't initiate action, CCC couldn't take any action." I do not believe that is entirely true. If the referees report had that he booked two different players and there is video evidence to show that it was the same player (which there is and the CCCC are aware of it) then they have a duty to investigate how that could have happened. The result could only be that the player gave a false name the second time. Oulart should not have to appeal anything as it is in the authority of the CCCC to investigate this themselves. Where information comes to the attention of the Competitions Control Committee or the Management Committee by other means, which suggests that a breach of Rule has taken place, either the Management Committee or the Competitions Control Committee has authority to decide whether or not Disciplinary Action is warranted. Will the CCCC claim they were not aware of the TV footage, newspaper reports and calls to the county board from the papers asking about it? Oulart are right to feel they have been stitched up by first the ref who has refused to take responsibility for his mistake and then by the CCCC for not taking action. Thing is given the Starlights are out of teh Football and Oulart are not in Football they could have had a reply at the weekend - had it been dealt with quickly and properly"
Would rapparees have had to appeal to the Harriers player kehoe for that incident to be looked at
( latest high profile incident i can remember for reference)
or did the cccc do that on the back of social media campaign .
Was it the ref that admitted he was wrong there and thats why it was looked at . And if ref admitted he was wrong in rapps game would that have opened that door .
Just curious as both were punishable offences and does it make any difference to what can be looked at without a club instigating it by lodging an appeal .
Formertownie (Wexford) - Posts: 305 - 01/10/2024 14:14:37
2572696
Link
0
|
|
@zinny - that line you quote as your second paragraph ("Where information comes ... by other means") is from the Disciplinary Handbook, not from the Rule Book.
The Disciplinary Handbook refers specifically to disciplinary action. The line you quote is the provision that allows action to be taken if there's video evidence or other evidence of something that wasn't dealt with by the referee on the day and therefore isn't in the referee's report, such as the recent Richie Kehoe incident (coincidentally also involving the Rapps).
Where it would be relevant here would be e.g. if Murphy had already been sent off for two yellows earlier this year, and should therefore be liable for suspension for the second sending off that should have happened.
However, it doesn't deal with the Oulart situation, because that's not a case of disciplinary action. Instead, Oulart were surely hoping for at least a replay, and so were therefore disputing "the award of the game" (as it's put in the Rule Book).
Rule 7.4 of Part 1 of the Rule Book is the relevant rule here. It shows how for an investigation into the award of a game to be launched, an objection first needs to be lodged by one of the teams who took part in that game.
Seems Oulart did indeed lodge that objection on Wednesday afternoon and CCC were due to start their investigation on Thursday night. But then Oulart withdrew the objection before the meeting, and so the matter was closed.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 01/10/2024 14:55:17
2572700
Link
0
|
|
@formertownie - your post wasn't there when I started writing that last one, but think I've answered it anyway.
Basically, video evidence etc. can be used for disciplinary action, without anything needed from the club affected by the offence. So for example, Rapparees wouldn't have had to send in something saying basically "we want you to look at the Richie Kehoe incident and take action".
However, it can't be used just by itself to overturn the award of a game. For that to happen, there has to be an official objection sent in by the club affected.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 01/10/2024 15:01:44
2572702
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Formertownie: " Replying To zinny: "[quote=Pikeman96: "The County Board statement is interesting. Says Oulart did in fact lodge an objection on Wednesday, and it was to be dealt with at a CCC meeting Thursday night. But then Oulart withdrew their objection on Thursday.
The Oulart statement says "As a club we chose not appeal the incident". I suppose that's not inaccurate, but it's not telling the whole story then either. The full story would be "we first chose to appeal the incident, but then chose afterwards to change our minds and not follow through with the appeal".
County Board statement also refers to the Rule Book, so I've looked it up, and it does indeed say that for an investigation to proceed, there must be an objection from one of the clubs involved. So their statement of "In the absence of an objection, an investigation could not proceed" is accurate.
Seems to me that by wanting an investigation but not wanting to stand over an objection, Oulart basically wanted the CCC to operate outside of the Rule Book, and that would be a whole can of worms to open up.
Am guessing that Oulart wanted some action taken, e.g. maybe a replay ordered, but didn't want to be seen as "the bad guys" who initiated that action. However, the Catch 22 is that if they didn't initiate action, CCC couldn't take any action." I do not believe that is entirely true. If the referees report had that he booked two different players and there is video evidence to show that it was the same player (which there is and the CCCC are aware of it) then they have a duty to investigate how that could have happened. The result could only be that the player gave a false name the second time. Oulart should not have to appeal anything as it is in the authority of the CCCC to investigate this themselves. Where information comes to the attention of the Competitions Control Committee or the Management Committee by other means, which suggests that a breach of Rule has taken place, either the Management Committee or the Competitions Control Committee has authority to decide whether or not Disciplinary Action is warranted. Will the CCCC claim they were not aware of the TV footage, newspaper reports and calls to the county board from the papers asking about it? Oulart are right to feel they have been stitched up by first the ref who has refused to take responsibility for his mistake and then by the CCCC for not taking action. Thing is given the Starlights are out of teh Football and Oulart are not in Football they could have had a reply at the weekend - had it been dealt with quickly and properly"
Would rapparees have had to appeal to the Harriers player kehoe for that incident to be looked at
( latest high profile incident i can remember for reference)
or did the cccc do that on the back of social media campaign .
Was it the ref that admitted he was wrong there and thats why it was looked at . And if ref admitted he was wrong in rapps game would that have opened that door .
Just curious as both were punishable offences and does it make any difference to what can be looked at without a club instigating it by lodging an appeal ."]The ref could have admitted he missed something in his report I.e.his umpire told him after the game or the CCCC could have been "made aware" of the incident through other channels and decided to do the investigation off the back of it. Like all the intercounty games you see on TV, the official line is wait for the referees report before they take any further action but they do admit that because its been seen on TV they are made aware - it's really impossible to deny and have any credibility. In this case the ref and the County Board have nobleg to stand on.
zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1904 - 01/10/2024 15:23:49
2572707
Link
0
|
|
Replying To WEX98: "Floyd Murphy from the Rapps got two yellow cards but wasn't sent off. Rapps knew and substituted him straight after. He scored a point before been replaced and his replacement also scored a point....." Surely there is a responsibility on the player, and his manager, here to get off the pitch asap after the second yellow? Don't think there would be many complaints if both got a suspension over this.
Timbertony (Wexford) - Posts: 309 - 01/10/2024 15:29:20
2572709
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@zinny - that line you quote as your second paragraph ("Where information comes ... by other means") is from the Disciplinary Handbook, not from the Rule Book.
The Disciplinary Handbook refers specifically to disciplinary action. The line you quote is the provision that allows action to be taken if there's video evidence or other evidence of something that wasn't dealt with by the referee on the day and therefore isn't in the referee's report, such as the recent Richie Kehoe incident (coincidentally also involving the Rapps).
Where it would be relevant here would be e.g. if Murphy had already been sent off for two yellows earlier this year, and should therefore be liable for suspension for the second sending off that should have happened.
However, it doesn't deal with the Oulart situation, because that's not a case of disciplinary action. Instead, Oulart were surely hoping for at least a replay, and so were therefore disputing "the award of the game" (as it's put in the Rule Book).
Rule 7.4 of Part 1 of the Rule Book is the relevant rule here. It shows how for an investigation into the award of a game to be launched, an objection first needs to be lodged by one of the teams who took part in that game.
Seems Oulart did indeed lodge that objection on Wednesday afternoon and CCC were due to start their investigation on Thursday night. But then Oulart withdrew the objection before the meeting, and so the matter was closed." I'd bet Oulart got some feedback after lodging the appeal and hence withdrew it.
WEX98 (Wexford) - Posts: 474 - 01/10/2024 16:59:58
2572717
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Timbertony: "Surely there is a responsibility on the player, and his manager, here to get off the pitch asap after the second yellow? Don't think there would be many complaints if both got a suspension over this." I suppose if he wasn't shown a red then technically he wasn't sent off?
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 01/10/2024 18:07:42
2572727
Link
0
|
|
@zinny @formertownie - yes, referee could have said in his report that he made an error, and he would like CCC to take appropriate action when considering his report. This would have opened up a whole other avenue. But he appears he didn't do that, for reasons best known to himself.
As for zinny's last line - contrary to what you say there, CCC wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if they'd gone and taken action anyway in the circumstances they were in. As previously stated, they'd have been operating outside of the Rule Book.
I don't know why the referee didn't admit to his error, or why Oulart didn't want to stand over their appeal, but if either of those things had happened, the outcome could have been different.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 01/10/2024 19:12:39
2572728
Link
0
|
|
Replying To WEX98: " Replying To Pikeman96: "@zinny - that line you quote as your second paragraph ("Where information comes ... by other means") is from the Disciplinary Handbook, not from the Rule Book.
The Disciplinary Handbook refers specifically to disciplinary action. The line you quote is the provision that allows action to be taken if there's video evidence or other evidence of something that wasn't dealt with by the referee on the day and therefore isn't in the referee's report, such as the recent Richie Kehoe incident (coincidentally also involving the Rapps).
Where it would be relevant here would be e.g. if Murphy had already been sent off for two yellows earlier this year, and should therefore be liable for suspension for the second sending off that should have happened.
However, it doesn't deal with the Oulart situation, because that's not a case of disciplinary action. Instead, Oulart were surely hoping for at least a replay, and so were therefore disputing "the award of the game" (as it's put in the Rule Book).
Rule 7.4 of Part 1 of the Rule Book is the relevant rule here. It shows how for an investigation into the award of a game to be launched, an objection first needs to be lodged by one of the teams who took part in that game.
Seems Oulart did indeed lodge that objection on Wednesday afternoon and CCC were due to start their investigation on Thursday night. But then Oulart withdrew the objection before the meeting, and so the matter was closed." I'd bet Oulart got some feedback after lodging the appeal and hence withdrew it."
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 02/10/2024 06:26:40
2572747
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: " Replying To WEX98: "[quote=Pikeman96: "@zinny - that line you quote as your second paragraph ("Where information comes ... by other means") is from the Disciplinary Handbook, not from the Rule Book.
The Disciplinary Handbook refers specifically to disciplinary action. The line you quote is the provision that allows action to be taken if there's video evidence or other evidence of something that wasn't dealt with by the referee on the day and therefore isn't in the referee's report, such as the recent Richie Kehoe incident (coincidentally also involving the Rapps).
Where it would be relevant here would be e.g. if Murphy had already been sent off for two yellows earlier this year, and should therefore be liable for suspension for the second sending off that should have happened.
However, it doesn't deal with the Oulart situation, because that's not a case of disciplinary action. Instead, Oulart were surely hoping for at least a replay, and so were therefore disputing "the award of the game" (as it's put in the Rule Book).
Rule 7.4 of Part 1 of the Rule Book is the relevant rule here. It shows how for an investigation into the award of a game to be launched, an objection first needs to be lodged by one of the teams who took part in that game.
Seems Oulart did indeed lodge that objection on Wednesday afternoon and CCC were due to start their investigation on Thursday night. But then Oulart withdrew the objection before the meeting, and so the matter was closed." I'd bet Oulart got some feedback after lodging the appeal and hence withdrew it."
Wexford People
Mon 30 Sep 2024 at 13:29
The Pettitt's Senior hurling championship quarter-finals will proceed as scheduled this weekend, after fears of a delay due to a refereeing error in the second-half of Rapparees' win over Oulart-The Ballagh in the previous round were allayed.
The Oulart-The Ballagh club brought clarity to the issue on Sunday when they issued the following statement:
"In the course of the Preliminary Quarter Final, a Rapparees players (sic) was twice cautioned and yellow carded. However no red card was issued. This error occurred at a vital time near the end of the match and we believe had a significant impact on the result.
"This error was mentioned on the live broadcast of the game, on social media and raised with Wexford GAA by our club seeking an investigation into the incident on Monday. Video evidence is circulating on social media and both Oulart-The Ballagh and Wexford GAA are in possession of the video.
"As a club we chose not to appeal this incident. However we feel that for the integrity of this competition and all future Wexford GAA competitions when errors occur and there is evidence to confirm the error the Wexford Competitions Control Committee (CCC) should initiate an investigation.
"While understanding mistakes can be made by players and officials, we feel that it is unacceptable to brush them under the carpet. We were the victims of this error, but other players and clubs could pay the price in the future if it continues.
Responding to the statement on Monday, Colm Lambert, Co. PRO, issued the following on behalf of Wexford County Board:
"The Competitions Control Committee (CCC) of CLG Loch Garman is responsible for running adult competitions within the county and dealing with matters arising, and does so in accordance with the GAA Official Rule Book.
"The rules state that for an investigation into the award of a game to be launched, a formal objection must be lodged by the club which is seeking an investigation. In this instance, an objection was lodged by Oulart-The Ballagh GAA Club on Wednesday afternoon, and the members of the CCC were due to consider it at a meeting the following night.
"However, Oulart-The Ballagh GAA Club subsequently withdrew the objection on Thursday. In the absence of an objection, an investigation could not proceed, and the matter was closed.
wexfordwin (Wexford) - Posts: 188 - 02/10/2024 10:51:50
2572767
Link
0
|
|
Weekend games
Senior
Shels v c/beg shels by 8
Rapps v annes anners by 5
Martins v ferns win for martins by 3
Hars v gorey draw win for gorey extra time
Intermediate
Rath v Rocks Rath by 10+
Bunclody v fethard draw fethard after extra time
James v horeswood James by 4
Alley v askamore . Askamore by 2 can't believe I m actually typing that one.
Formertownie (Wexford) - Posts: 305 - 02/10/2024 10:58:55
2572772
Link
0
|
|
@viking66 @wexford win - I'd be inclined to believe the County Board statement.
It's one thing for them to be accused of not taking action when they "should" have, even if the Rule Book didn't allow it. Would be whole other thing altogether for them to tell bare-faced lies about an objection first being lodged and then being withdrawn, if things didn't really happen that way at all.
Would also bet any money that if it wasn't true that an objection was first sent in but later withdrawn, then Oulart would already have responded to that.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 02/10/2024 11:48:58
2572776
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Formertownie: "Weekend games
Senior
Shels v c/beg shels by 8
Rapps v annes anners by 5
Martins v ferns win for martins by 3
Hars v gorey draw win for gorey extra time
Intermediate
Rath v Rocks Rath by 10+
Bunclody v fethard draw fethard after extra time
James v horeswood James by 4
Alley v askamore . Askamore by 2 can't believe I m actually typing that one." Shels v cross shels by 4
Rapps v annes not sure if liam ryan is back or who rapps are missing but st annes to win by 6
st martins v ferns st martins are moving very well id expect them to win by 4, not sure if jack o connor is back yet
harriers v gorey harriers to cause the bit of surprise by 2
Rathnure v tara rocks rathnure by 15
Bunclody v fethard Fethard by 1
Alley v askamore askamore very impressive last round i fancy them to win by 3
st james v horeswood st james by 2
lefty (Wexford) - Posts: 221 - 02/10/2024 12:44:48
2572783
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@viking66 @wexford win - I'd be inclined to believe the County Board statement.
It's one thing for them to be accused of not taking action when they "should" have, even if the Rule Book didn't allow it. Would be whole other thing altogether for them to tell bare-faced lies about an objection first being lodged and then being withdrawn, if things didn't really happen that way at all.
Would also bet any money that if it wasn't true that an objection was first sent in but later withdrawn, then Oulart would already have responded to that." They would have been perfectly within the rule book to look into this without any objection. You still do not see it? The same player was booked twice but two different names in the book - the only way that could happen is if the player gave a different name - they are 100% within the rules to investigate that matter and for what its worth its their duty to investigate it once they were made aware of it This may not have resulted in a replay but the fact that they didn't do anything smacks lets try and bury this one.
zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1904 - 02/10/2024 14:13:38
2572788
Link
0
|
|
Be interesting to see the difference in the senior games on Sat & Sun. 2 of the best refs in the county have both games on Sat, not so much for Sunday. I'd expect a good flow to the games on Sat and plenty of actual hurling.
countyman2022 (Wexford) - Posts: 742 - 02/10/2024 14:58:15
2572796
Link
0
|
|
@zinny - with all due respect, seems you're the one who's still failing to see something. They were entitled to look into the circumstances of the second yellow card without an objection, but not to change the award of the game. And who's to say they didn't look into that second yellow?
So for example, if they investigated and found that Murphy did indeed give somebody else's name at the time of the second booking, they could have taken disciplinary action against him. Or as previously stated, if he'd already been sent off on two yellows earlier this year and would therefore be liable for suspension if he was sent off again, they could have imposed that suspension anyway.
The word out there however is that Murphy didn't give somebody else's name. Instead, what's said to have happened is that since the referee is one of those who likes to think he knows all the players, he didn't actually ask for a name, wrongly identified Murphy himself as another Rapps player, and wrote down that other name instead.
For what it's worth, the Wexford GAA TV commentator at first wrongly identified the player for that second booking as well. And this is not a dig at Wexford GAA TV in any way - it's just to point out how such things can happen.
Anyway, still the case that if they did all that and determined why a player wasn't sent off after seeing two yellow cards, they still couldn't overturn the award of the game to the Rapparees, and order a replay instead. For the award of a game to be investigated or overturned, there has to be a formal objection.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2648 - 02/10/2024 16:24:36
2572809
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@viking66 @wexford win - I'd be inclined to believe the County Board statement.
It's one thing for them to be accused of not taking action when they "should" have, even if the Rule Book didn't allow it. Would be whole other thing altogether for them to tell bare-faced lies about an objection first being lodged and then being withdrawn, if things didn't really happen that way at all.
Would also bet any money that if it wasn't true that an objection was first sent in but later withdrawn, then Oulart would already have responded to that." I hadn't read the county board statement when I posted that. I was told earlier in the week by an Oulart clubman that an objection hadn't been lodged, but that was before Wednesday. In my experience the Board aren't liars. And neither is the Oulart clubman concerned.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 14123 - 02/10/2024 17:30:43
2572819
Link
0
|