National Forum

Black card madness

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


The black card is a disaster. I cringe every time I see it being wrongly applied. It was invented because of the outcry from my own county after the Sean Cavanagh rugby tackle a few years ago and unfortunately it's biting us in the ass since. A yellow card would have been suffice for Kieran Hughes on Saturday. There were a lot more dangerous fouls than his bit of madness. He will have learnt his lesson.

border Gael (Monaghan) - Posts: 894 - 22/05/2017 16:31:56    1989462

Link

Replying To Dellboypolecat:  "Only start of championship and talking point is the black card .It was not brought in for off the ball incidents . so this is start of another season of a joke of a card"
The rule does not state whether it has to be on the ball or otherwise. Not sure why you have a problem with an incident being off the ball and a black card awarded.

Torcaill (Australia) - Posts: 204 - 22/05/2017 17:21:59    1989490

Link

I love the way everyone attacks the ref that implements the rule correctly. He tripped him, deliberately he should get a black card. Some refs bottle out of giving a black (reds as well). they should be the focus.

For the record I would much prefer to see a sin bin rule like ladies football (also the hooter while we are at it, and possible the pick off the ground). Unless it is your star player getting a black card it is not a huge advantage for the opposition.

Team fouling (Mayo last weekend) consistently between the 45's is another plague. No new rules needed just refs to be aware of what is going on and dish out the cards early to eliminate it.

Mayonman (Galway) - Posts: 1833 - 23/05/2017 09:31:51    1989687

Link

Someone needs to explain to me how the ref was at fault for the 'black card'? Don't answer with 'common sense' as there is no such think when it comes to supporters views on matches.

Don't answer it needs to be blatant (the Wolly approach) because what is blatant............when someone was sure to score? how do we know it is sure? Means only defenders will get black cards?

The rule has to be written in black and white so far I have heard no hard written defintion for a new rule. Just concepts that are even more open to interpetation than the current rule

witnof (Dublin) - Posts: 1604 - 23/05/2017 10:30:20    1989708

Link

Kieran Hughes tripped the guy - rules state black card. The ref was correct. But the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

it was a nothing challenge and had no impact on the game in any way. He was fouled first and his trip was a reaction to this. The thing is had he stood up and gave the guy a shove or a shoulder or even just squared up to him he would have stayed on the pitch. Yet all this amounts to the same thing, a reaction to something he didn't like.

That said he knows the rules as well as anyone else and he needed to hold himself together better. He has been playing some of his best football for Monaghan this year and had started the game really well with a cracking point. If Monaghan are to go far he will be needed on the pitch.

Tim_NicebutDim (Monaghan) - Posts: 347 - 23/05/2017 11:59:31    1989757

Link

Replying To witnof:  "Someone needs to explain to me how the ref was at fault for the 'black card'? Don't answer with 'common sense' as there is no such think when it comes to supporters views on matches.

Don't answer it needs to be blatant (the Wolly approach) because what is blatant............when someone was sure to score? how do we know it is sure? Means only defenders will get black cards?

The rule has to be written in black and white so far I have heard no hard written defintion for a new rule. Just concepts that are even more open to interpetation than the current rule"
Someone needs to explain to me how the ref was at fault for the 'black card'? Don't answer with 'common sense' as there is no such think when it comes to supporters views on matches.

Don't answer it needs to be blatant (the Wolly approach) because what is blatant............when someone was sure to score? how do we know it is sure? Means only defenders will get black cards?

The rule has to be written in black and white so far I have heard no hard written defintion for a new rule. Just concepts that are even more open to interpetation than the current rule

witnof (Dublin) - Posts:1105 - 23/05/2017 10:30:20

Witnof,

What is difficult to understand about Blatant!

If someone purposely trips someone, if someone purposely drags another person to the ground or if they purposely block/collide with a person (off the ball) then it is blatant and should be a black card. The ref (and this can be the difficult part) has to be able to differentiate the above from trips, blocks, colisions or incidents where players end up on the ground that occur in general play but where there is genuine attempts to play football (regardless of how bad or clumsy that might be).

A ref cannot or maybe should not black card unless they are 100% satisfied the action was intentional (defending or attacking)..

81DLSAM (Donegal) - Posts: 281 - 23/05/2017 14:33:12    1989826

Link

Replying To 81DLSAM:  "Someone needs to explain to me how the ref was at fault for the 'black card'? Don't answer with 'common sense' as there is no such think when it comes to supporters views on matches.

Don't answer it needs to be blatant (the Wolly approach) because what is blatant............when someone was sure to score? how do we know it is sure? Means only defenders will get black cards?

The rule has to be written in black and white so far I have heard no hard written defintion for a new rule. Just concepts that are even more open to interpetation than the current rule

witnof (Dublin) - Posts:1105 - 23/05/2017 10:30:20

Witnof,

What is difficult to understand about Blatant!

If someone purposely trips someone, if someone purposely drags another person to the ground or if they purposely block/collide with a person (off the ball) then it is blatant and should be a black card. The ref (and this can be the difficult part) has to be able to differentiate the above from trips, blocks, colisions or incidents where players end up on the ground that occur in general play but where there is genuine attempts to play football (regardless of how bad or clumsy that might be).

A ref cannot or maybe should not black card unless they are 100% satisfied the action was intentional (defending or attacking).."
So then the ref was right in the Hughes case. Where is the problem?

witnof (Dublin) - Posts: 1604 - 23/05/2017 15:12:35    1989840

Link

probably one of the best articles yet by our very own Hogan Stand.

http://www.hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=270736

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5518 - 25/05/2017 12:37:38    1990607

Link

If players have to resort to the body check and the deliberate drag-down they should be punished accordingly.

We want to take those two things out of the game
It has brought on the use of correct tackles and left the cynicism at home whats the problem with that?

Hunter077 (Roscommon) - Posts: 52 - 25/05/2017 14:37:05    1990672

Link

There is nothing wrong with the black card, the problem lies with referees who aren't using it correctly

890202 (Wexford) - Posts: 1278 - 25/05/2017 15:08:55    1990688

Link

Replying To 890202:  "There is nothing wrong with the black card, the problem lies with referees who aren't using it correctly"
Was rightly peed off by Mayo tactical fouling last week. All when Sligo on the break but not in scoring territory. This is as cynical as black card offences. I think there should be a rule like bsketball where after x number of fouls by team, penalty is free shots to opposition. So after x number of fouls regardless of where on the pitch, the free is say a 45 if coming from own half or 13m if in opposition half. Not only that, black cards give automatic 13m free and maybe make them worth 2 points.

Another is to given the wronged team possession on half way line after they take their black card free,regardless of whether time is up or not.

Problem with black card is punishment doesn't fit the crime and we always hear of taking one for the team. If team is a goal down and black card given, then if they got 2 points and possession it would make things interesting.

Iwas at an Afl game recently where a water carrier crossed the pitch between a player and his mark. 50m penalty which meant a goal. The players know not to do it.

Bawner (Sligo) - Posts: 39 - 27/05/2017 07:52:47    1991159

Link

Replying To Bawner:  "Was rightly peed off by Mayo tactical fouling last week. All when Sligo on the break but not in scoring territory. This is as cynical as black card offences. I think there should be a rule like bsketball where after x number of fouls by team, penalty is free shots to opposition. So after x number of fouls regardless of where on the pitch, the free is say a 45 if coming from own half or 13m if in opposition half. Not only that, black cards give automatic 13m free and maybe make them worth 2 points.

Another is to given the wronged team possession on half way line after they take their black card free,regardless of whether time is up or not.

Problem with black card is punishment doesn't fit the crime and we always hear of taking one for the team. If team is a goal down and black card given, then if they got 2 points and possession it would make things interesting.

Iwas at an Afl game recently where a water carrier crossed the pitch between a player and his mark. 50m penalty which meant a goal. The players know not to do it."
I agree a lot with the sentiment of this post. I don't like the punishment involved with a black card.

I'd like all cynical fouls to be brought forward 14 yards automatically.

A cynical foul inside the 21 and D should be a penalty.

You'd still get people complaining about the decisions. I don't know why people give out so much about black card decisions being wrong. Penalties, free kicks, red cards get messed up all the time. It doesn't mean they should be gotten rid of.

On a side note the specifics of what constitutes a black card is a little strange. It's very easy to get away with a jersey pull as long as you don't drag the player to the ground. It's no less cynical.

Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4235 - 27/05/2017 10:18:31    1991172

Link

During the Monaghan, Cavan game today as C Mc Manus went through on goal Connor Moynagh had a clear opportunity to bring him down and prevent a certain goal and in the process take a black card for the team. The BBC analysts questioned his lack of cuteness/ruthlessness in not doing so. Mc Manus was asked in the post match interview should Moynagh have taken him out, he did not give a direct answer but the smile on his face suggested he should have.
Now I have 2 questions, one, do you think the way the rule is that he should have "taken one for the team"? and, given that the black card was introduced to eliminate cynical play how can we have arrived at a situation where the use of a black card is encouraged to include cynical play as was evident in BBC analysis? (sorry to those who can't access it)
This farce must come to an end now Pat

mhunicean_abu (Monaghan) - Posts: 1044 - 11/06/2017 20:53:22    1998110

Link

Replying To mhunicean_abu:  "During the Monaghan, Cavan game today as C Mc Manus went through on goal Connor Moynagh had a clear opportunity to bring him down and prevent a certain goal and in the process take a black card for the team. The BBC analysts questioned his lack of cuteness/ruthlessness in not doing so. Mc Manus was asked in the post match interview should Moynagh have taken him out, he did not give a direct answer but the smile on his face suggested he should have.
Now I have 2 questions, one, do you think the way the rule is that he should have "taken one for the team"? and, given that the black card was introduced to eliminate cynical play how can we have arrived at a situation where the use of a black card is encouraged to include cynical play as was evident in BBC analysis? (sorry to those who can't access it)
This farce must come to an end now Pat"
Moynagh should have taken him out. Moynagh could have been replaced. He wasn't playing well anyway.

Cavan_Slasher (Cavan) - Posts: 10253 - 11/06/2017 22:47:18    1998184

Link

Replying To mhunicean_abu:  "During the Monaghan, Cavan game today as C Mc Manus went through on goal Connor Moynagh had a clear opportunity to bring him down and prevent a certain goal and in the process take a black card for the team. The BBC analysts questioned his lack of cuteness/ruthlessness in not doing so. Mc Manus was asked in the post match interview should Moynagh have taken him out, he did not give a direct answer but the smile on his face suggested he should have.
Now I have 2 questions, one, do you think the way the rule is that he should have "taken one for the team"? and, given that the black card was introduced to eliminate cynical play how can we have arrived at a situation where the use of a black card is encouraged to include cynical play as was evident in BBC analysis? (sorry to those who can't access it)
This farce must come to an end now Pat"
It's Sean Cavanagh and Tyrone's fault.

Ulsterman (Antrim) - Posts: 9706 - 11/06/2017 23:29:46    1998197

Link

Replying To Ulsterman:  "It's Sean Cavanagh and Tyrone's fault."
Rumour is the Lions are calling him up for the first test against the all-blacks.

Joxer (Dublin) - Posts: 4700 - 11/06/2017 23:55:17    1998206

Link

Replying To 890202:  "There is nothing wrong with the black card, the problem lies with referees who aren't using it correctly"
Disagree.

We currently have a rule in place that actually encourages players to dive and go to ground whilst other sports are trying to take measures to stamp out that kind of play.

The black card is one of the most flawed rules ever introduced. Not fit for purpose, not even properly defined and doesn't actually discourage players from still carrying out the same fouls. Not only that it actively encourages other more unsavoury aspects such as exaggeration and going to ground/diving.

The very reasoning behind the black card put out as an explanation was flawed from the start. Apparently they want to punish the player but don't want to see the team punished, but it's a bloody team sport to begin with!

Referees have a tough enough job to begin with and this black card fiasco only made it tougher for them.

tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1349 - 12/06/2017 08:02:38    1998237

Link

Last week Conor McManus got through for one of the goals of the championship because the Cavan defender knew he was getting a black card if he hauled him down. Today Eoin McHugh got through for a great goal chance because Matty Donnelly knew if he hauled him down he was getting a black card. The failings of the black card are well highlighted but there are many occasions when it works very well.

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 18/06/2017 21:16:18    2001397

Link