|
James Owens should not be sanctioned. Like all referees he is human but does his very best to implement the rules as he understands them. He has the support of both his linesmen and his umpires.
It seems to me that James Owens did not see the incident and when he was alerted to it... he did deal with it... he spoke to both players and dealt with it as he saw fit at the time. He deemed the incident to be of minor importance and so he spoke to the players! That is my opinion on how he dealt with the situation - by listening to the linesman and judging accordingly.
James Owens and his officials and all of us saw the incident in real time - he does not have the benefit of slowing down the incident in slow motion - hence he dealt with it as he saw fit. I think that is what we want form a referee - to deal with incidents.
As far as I understand it - referees do not have the authority/power to look at the game on tape and then write their match report. They write it - as far as I know - after the game based on what they and their officials have seen.
They see the game in real time - and so the incident may not have seemed as being as serious as many have commented on since...
Whether he dealt with it correctly is another situation. I think he acted within the powers that he has and therefore I admire his response. He saw it in real time and lets be honest - when I saw it - I took little or no notice of the incident. When I saw it in slow motion - well then the incident must be seen in a different light!
carlowman (Carlow) - Posts: 1821 - 16/08/2017 22:02:06
2034488
Link
0
|
|
Replying To carlowman: "James Owens should not be sanctioned. Like all referees he is human but does his very best to implement the rules as he understands them. He has the support of both his linesmen and his umpires.
It seems to me that James Owens did not see the incident and when he was alerted to it... he did deal with it... he spoke to both players and dealt with it as he saw fit at the time. He deemed the incident to be of minor importance and so he spoke to the players! That is my opinion on how he dealt with the situation - by listening to the linesman and judging accordingly.
James Owens and his officials and all of us saw the incident in real time - he does not have the benefit of slowing down the incident in slow motion - hence he dealt with it as he saw fit. I think that is what we want form a referee - to deal with incidents.
As far as I understand it - referees do not have the authority/power to look at the game on tape and then write their match report. They write it - as far as I know - after the game based on what they and their officials have seen.
They see the game in real time - and so the incident may not have seemed as being as serious as many have commented on since...
Whether he dealt with it correctly is another situation. I think he acted within the powers that he has and therefore I admire his response. He saw it in real time and lets be honest - when I saw it - I took little or no notice of the incident. When I saw it in slow motion - well then the incident must be seen in a different light!" As far as I know the referee is entitled to use video evidence to review any incident brought to his attention by The CCCC.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 16/08/2017 22:34:24
2034503
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Canuck: "Glad you mentioned that photo but how about the caption that specifically mentions Gleeson. No reference to Tuohy. Should it not say Gleeson/Tuohygate. BIAS HERE singling out one player for two similar infractions.
I have said already I would have no pity on Gleeson if he had been sent off.
Here is my summation again:
1.Bennett deserved his suspension ( though a certain pundit made sure to drive it home)
2. Tuohy got away with one.
3. Gleeson got away with one that looked worse than Tuohy's but the same sanction required. (the Cork player behaved like a hurler)
4. Tadgh DeBurca was unfairly suspended because of the soccer style antics of Kehoe. So he went to speak for him to cover his shame.
What is annoying is people saying that Cork would be in the All-Ireland if Gleeson was sent off. The same could be said for DeBurca if Waterford lost. In fact most of the pundits predicted they could not win without him. They dealt with it and won. There is nothing to say they would not have dealt also if Gleeson had been sent off just because Cork did not. Also on another day it is Waterford would have the advantage as the strike on Moran could have been red carded if you had a linesman like DeBurca had. Using any of these events is using a crutch for been beating. Cody, Kingston, McGrath, Ryan etc will not use them. Just posters and pundits who need something to say to earn a few bob." can you leave Tuohy out of the Austin Gleeson agrument. The referee from the Galway v Tipp game told the CCCC he had not saw the Touhy / Maher incident and please go ahead and investigate. The CCCC investigated and found Touhy had no case to answer. It's a pity that James Owens didn't have the same courage to admit he may have missed Austin Gleeson deliberately pulling Meades face guard and get the CCCC to investigate that, same as what happened Touhy. You can't put the two incidents together because one the CCCC got to review , one they did not. What do you think would have been the CCCC findings if they had investigated ? like they were allowed with Touhy. (please be honest!!)
lowandhard (Galway) - Posts: 33 - 17/08/2017 00:22:46
2034535
Link
1
|
|
can you imagine the up roar during the All Ireland final when a Galway hurler removes Austin Gleeson's helmet - Gleeson has to leave the field to get treated, James Owens refereeing the match (I would love if he got the All Ireland final better than Barry Kelly) sees nothing and tells them to play on. What would Waterford supporters reaction then be ??
lowandhard (Galway) - Posts: 33 - 17/08/2017 00:36:00
2034537
Link
1
|
|
Replying To carlowman: "James Owens should not be sanctioned. Like all referees he is human but does his very best to implement the rules as he understands them. He has the support of both his linesmen and his umpires.
It seems to me that James Owens did not see the incident and when he was alerted to it... he did deal with it... he spoke to both players and dealt with it as he saw fit at the time. He deemed the incident to be of minor importance and so he spoke to the players! That is my opinion on how he dealt with the situation - by listening to the linesman and judging accordingly.
James Owens and his officials and all of us saw the incident in real time - he does not have the benefit of slowing down the incident in slow motion - hence he dealt with it as he saw fit. I think that is what we want form a referee - to deal with incidents.
As far as I understand it - referees do not have the authority/power to look at the game on tape and then write their match report. They write it - as far as I know - after the game based on what they and their officials have seen.
They see the game in real time - and so the incident may not have seemed as being as serious as many have commented on since...
Whether he dealt with it correctly is another situation. I think he acted within the powers that he has and therefore I admire his response. He saw it in real time and lets be honest - when I saw it - I took little or no notice of the incident. When I saw it in slow motion - well then the incident must be seen in a different light!" As far as I know the referee is entitled to use video evidence to review any incident brought to his attention by The CCCC.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 17/08/2017 03:46:03
2034543
Link
0
|
|
Not defending Gleeson here, but was what he did any more dangerous than the clothes line to the neck from the blind side that Patrick Horgan gave Jamie Barron in the first half, and incident in which he also raised his knee into Barron in the same foul?
My view of it is refs are reluctant to give yellows cards for blatant because the game is so fast, even the most innocuous of challenges could carry a risk of injury and will be given as yellow so they make a judgement call rather than literally apply the rules.
I think an 8 minute sin bin with a 3 yellow card system whereby a second yellow card earns a sin-binning would be better, with direct sin bin for certain incidents like a helmet grab, pushing/abusing officials, diving to get an opponent sent off, minimal striking of an opponent (a la Horgan and C Gleeson), and professional fouls in the penalty area when there's two or less defending players in the penalty area. We would still have straight red of course for serious dangerous play.
Would allow for tougher in game punishments for in some of the more serious game infractions for the ref to call upon rather than send a lad off unless he really deserved it. It would really help the refs in my view.
dblackandamber (Kilkenny) - Posts: 92 - 17/08/2017 06:49:56
2034545
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: "Are you saying Gaillimh, that after reviewing the incident, James Owens was certain in his mind that were he to refer the incident to The CCCC Austin Gleeson would have missed the final ? If that is what you are saying the inference is that James Owens saw evidence of blatant foul play and chose to ignore that it. You are saying that James Owens chose to ignore the rules and brought it upon himself to illegally clear Austin Gleeson to play. Given that James Owens is a referee and is responsible for upholding and implementing the rules that is a very serious charge to make." It is plainly obvious to anyone who watches the video replay that Gleeson deliberately pulled off the helmet. If James Owen had a clear and proper view of the incident when it occurred and/or if he watched the video replay later, it would have been obvious to him too. I don't know if he felt certain that the CCCC would hand down a suspension but the immediate reaction of everyone else who saw it was that Gleeson could be in trouble, and the idea must at least have crossed Owen's mind. By the way, I am not at all condemning the ref for his actions. I am sympathizing with the impossible situation he was placed in.
Gaillimh_Abu (Galway) - Posts: 996 - 17/08/2017 08:35:36
2034554
Link
0
|
|
http://hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=274498
Former hurling ref Pat O'Connor calling for a citing commissioner like in rugby sounds like a decent idea.
Laois76 (Laois) - Posts: 1270 - 17/08/2017 10:00:00
2034577
Link
6
|
|
Replying To Gaillimh_Abu: "It is plainly obvious to anyone who watches the video replay that Gleeson deliberately pulled off the helmet. If James Owen had a clear and proper view of the incident when it occurred and/or if he watched the video replay later, it would have been obvious to him too. I don't know if he felt certain that the CCCC would hand down a suspension but the immediate reaction of everyone else who saw it was that Gleeson could be in trouble, and the idea must at least have crossed Owen's mind. By the way, I am not at all condemning the ref for his actions. I am sympathizing with the impossible situation he was placed in." I agree with what you are saying Gaillimh . I can't agree with what James Owens has decided to declare. Ultimately the decision whether or not to ban Austin Gleeson would not have rested with him. It would have rested with The CCCC. I also agree with you that he should not have been placed in that position. A motion was brought to Congress in 2010 which would have allowed The CCCC to retrospectively investigate events without consulting with the referee when they felt events had not been dealt with by the referee. Congress being Congress rejected this eminently sensible suggestion and you see where we are now. Congress is an impediment to progress in our games. That said whilst I agree that James Owens was placed under huge pressure his decision to declare as he did is the wrong one .
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 17/08/2017 11:11:41
2034613
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Laois76: "http://hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=274498
Former hurling ref Pat O'Connor calling for a citing commissioner like in rugby sounds like a decent idea." Don't talk to me about that man he cost us an all ireland In 2001 with the decisions he gave against Galway.
bud14 (Galway) - Posts: 296 - 17/08/2017 12:21:27
2034641
Link
2
|
|
firstly, I am a big fan of Austin Gleeson, seen some things he done in his time and wouldn't approve of them, but like most "stars" he has that devilish streak in him which adds to their pedigree...secondly how can the referee say he was satisfied with his game handling on Sunday when he didn't apparently see anything wrong (both at the time and retrospectively) with what Austin Gleeson done..if you didn't see it at the time, or saw it and thought "ah that wasn't as bad as it looks etc." and then be told later it was bad and see the evidence, surely he (the referee) would say then "actually I am not satisfied with how I handled the game when I see what happened...I think Waterford are getting a break this year off the field of play they wouldn't have got maybe other years on the field of play..maybe it is their year and things pan out that way...but how the referee can say he was satisfied with the way he handled the game is very strange, given he is unwilling to highlight the helmet incident retrospectively.
Fairplayalways (Offaly) - Posts: 1034 - 17/08/2017 12:51:10
2034652
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: "I agree with what you are saying Gaillimh . I can't agree with what James Owens has decided to declare. Ultimately the decision whether or not to ban Austin Gleeson would not have rested with him. It would have rested with The CCCC. I also agree with you that he should not have been placed in that position. A motion was brought to Congress in 2010 which would have allowed The CCCC to retrospectively investigate events without consulting with the referee when they felt events had not been dealt with by the referee. Congress being Congress rejected this eminently sensible suggestion and you see where we are now. Congress is an impediment to progress in our games. That said whilst I agree that James Owens was placed under huge pressure his decision to declare as he did is the wrong one ." good post...
Fairplayalways (Offaly) - Posts: 1034 - 17/08/2017 12:54:52
2034654
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: "I agree with what you are saying Gaillimh . I can't agree with what James Owens has decided to declare. Ultimately the decision whether or not to ban Austin Gleeson would not have rested with him. It would have rested with The CCCC. I also agree with you that he should not have been placed in that position. A motion was brought to Congress in 2010 which would have allowed The CCCC to retrospectively investigate events without consulting with the referee when they felt events had not been dealt with by the referee. Congress being Congress rejected this eminently sensible suggestion and you see where we are now. Congress is an impediment to progress in our games. That said whilst I agree that James Owens was placed under huge pressure his decision to declare as he did is the wrong one ." Look up the Gaa's comhdhail bhliaintuil & look at the make up of all the committees, it's made up of those who populate Congress & those who are full time employees in the Association. Now look up your County board committees & see how the same names crop up again, I have one guy on over 10 different committees, it's absurd. Many brin in friends & family members, the whole thing is a cosy cartel populated with yes men all following the same agenda. Too many chasing the dream of climbing the ladder within the Association so hence decision making ends in a fudge & progression is non existent as politics dominates.
moc.dna (Galway) - Posts: 1212 - 17/08/2017 14:08:05
2034686
Link
0
|
|
Replying To lowandhard: "can you leave Tuohy out of the Austin Gleeson agrument. The referee from the Galway v Tipp game told the CCCC he had not saw the Touhy / Maher incident and please go ahead and investigate. The CCCC investigated and found Touhy had no case to answer. It's a pity that James Owens didn't have the same courage to admit he may have missed Austin Gleeson deliberately pulling Meades face guard and get the CCCC to investigate that, same as what happened Touhy. You can't put the two incidents together because one the CCCC got to review , one they did not. What do you think would have been the CCCC findings if they had investigated ? like they were allowed with Touhy. (please be honest!!)" Wrong they are the same and if you reversed them I would still same the same. You want to say and judge Tuohy's as not intentional to wear your Galway hat. I am not willing to say that about Gleeson's but can not see how the two cases could be treated differently. In other words both should be suspended. What is you opinion on DeBurca's suspension comparing with both of these incidents because if you want to cite a difference surly this is it ?
The rule is the problem as viewed and implemented.
Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 17/08/2017 14:22:38
2034691
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Canuck: "Wrong they are the same and if you reversed them I would still same the same. You want to say and judge Tuohy's as not intentional to wear your Galway hat. I am not willing to say that about Gleeson's but can not see how the two cases could be treated differently. In other words both should be suspended. What is you opinion on DeBurca's suspension comparing with both of these incidents because if you want to cite a difference surly this is it ?
The rule is the problem as viewed and implemented." I cannot see from the current footage available how bad De Burca's was, so I am going to go with that it was intentional etc..Touhy and Gleeson were not looking at what they were doing, but still managed to pull off the helmets with an clear motion of the hand, in real time, Touhy might, and its a big might, argue that his hand pulled off the helmet when trying to pull his hand back up alongside his body and he was in front of Maher, but as I say that is a big big might, and hard to credit...Gleeson was on his hunkers getting up and while not looking the pace was much slower and had to know what he was at, which I think he did. Anyway....
Fairplayalways (Offaly) - Posts: 1034 - 17/08/2017 14:38:16
2034700
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bud14: "Don't talk to me about that man he cost us an all ireland In 2001 with the decisions he gave against Galway." I though Denton of Wexford was referee in 2001
Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4321 - 17/08/2017 14:38:26
2034701
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Laois76: "http://hoganstand.com/ArticleForm.aspx?ID=274498
Former hurling ref Pat O'Connor calling for a citing commissioner like in rugby sounds like a decent idea." There may be merit in this. However it will not change the controversy if the rule is not a good one to begin. If you are going to have an automatic red card the infringement has to be easily seen. Like hitting a player on the head when there is no ball there. No clash of sticks or any maybes'. Otherwise it has to be yellow.
This helmet one was never going to be straight forward as much as some think it is. Was it intentional. The rule says it has to be. Go inside the guys head to get that answer. Did it constitute the danger of injury as intended. Can the rule be used by a player to get another sent off. Was the strap open to begin and when jumping up the elbow knocked off the opponent's helmet. etc. etc. There can not be an ambiguity when issuing red cards to these amateur players who give their time to entertain us.
Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 17/08/2017 14:44:52
2034708
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Canuck: "Wrong they are the same and if you reversed them I would still same the same. You want to say and judge Tuohy's as not intentional to wear your Galway hat. I am not willing to say that about Gleeson's but can not see how the two cases could be treated differently. In other words both should be suspended. What is you opinion on DeBurca's suspension comparing with both of these incidents because if you want to cite a difference surly this is it ?
The rule is the problem as viewed and implemented." The thread is actually about the ref. being punished for not allowing the CCCC to do their job. He could have told the truth and said he did not see the Gleeson incident. The CCCC did look at the Tuohy case already. That is the whole issue. Glad for Waterford and Galway to have escaped helmet penalty. May the best team win.
suckvalleypaddy (Galway) - Posts: 1669 - 17/08/2017 14:51:15
2034713
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Canuck: "Wrong they are the same and if you reversed them I would still same the same. You want to say and judge Tuohy's as not intentional to wear your Galway hat. I am not willing to say that about Gleeson's but can not see how the two cases could be treated differently. In other words both should be suspended. What is you opinion on DeBurca's suspension comparing with both of these incidents because if you want to cite a difference surly this is it ?
The rule is the problem as viewed and implemented." Both incidences relate to interference with a players face guard/ helmet.But the two cases have been treated differently (unfairly) - Touhy was referred to CCCC, Gleeson was not - do you agree up to this point? Touhy would have been suspended if the CCCC were able to find a case for him to answer but they were not able to find enough evidence to proceed. If Owens had not made the call he made and the CCCC got the opportunity to review the Gleeson incident do you think there was sufficient television evidence for a ban ? So Touhy and Gleeson incidences were treated differently.
lowandhard (Galway) - Posts: 33 - 17/08/2017 15:03:18
2034719
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Canuck: "There may be merit in this. However it will not change the controversy if the rule is not a good one to begin. If you are going to have an automatic red card the infringement has to be easily seen. Like hitting a player on the head when there is no ball there. No clash of sticks or any maybes'. Otherwise it has to be yellow.
This helmet one was never going to be straight forward as much as some think it is. Was it intentional. The rule says it has to be. Go inside the guys head to get that answer. Did it constitute the danger of injury as intended. Can the rule be used by a player to get another sent off. Was the strap open to begin and when jumping up the elbow knocked off the opponent's helmet. etc. etc. There can not be an ambiguity when issuing red cards to these amateur players who give their time to entertain us." In most cases it's easy to see if it was intentional.
Austin put the hand back and gripped the helmet. He wasn't looking for a clump of grass to see which way the wind was blowing. You wouldn't need to be a psychologist getting inside his head for that one.
Laois76 (Laois) - Posts: 1270 - 17/08/2017 15:10:03
2034721
Link
6
|