National Forum

Should James Owens be sanctioned?

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To suckvalleypaddy:  "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."
Agreed. The big issue for me is the different treatment of both players. Barry Kelly did refer Touhy to CCCC (Thanks Barry)but luckily for Galway there was no television proof to ban Touhy. James Owen's did not give CCCC the opportunity to review the Austin Gleeson incident. This is not fair and the two incidences were not treated the same.

lowandhard (Galway) - Posts: 33 - 17/08/2017 15:14:55    2034724

Link

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."
Do you think if Touhy had been banned by the CCCC, would James Owens opinion of his refereeing display last Sunday been different ? And the CCCC given the opportunity to reviewed the Austin Gleeson incident.

lowandhard (Galway) - Posts: 33 - 17/08/2017 15:22:45    2034732

Link

Replying To Oldtourman:  "I though Denton of Wexford was referee in 2001"
Sorry Denton was referee in '89. However 2001 was the year in which Limerick Clare, Cork Waterford and Wexford were all in their turn unhappy with refs.

Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4496 - 17/08/2017 15:31:08    2034738

Link

Replying To Oldtourman:  "Sorry Denton was referee in '89. However 2001 was the year in which Limerick Clare, Cork Waterford and Wexford were all in their turn unhappy with refs."
everybody is always unhappy with the referee,unless they win.
never the players fault,always somebody else.

perfect10 (Wexford) - Posts: 3929 - 17/08/2017 15:43:05    2034743

Link

Replying To perfect10:  "everybody is always unhappy with the referee,unless they win.
never the players fault,always somebody else."
Spot on P10

Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4496 - 17/08/2017 16:00:24    2034752

Link

Replying To Fairplayalways:  "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...."
Too much ambiguity and difficulty in assessing the criteria to dish out red cards let alone how they were reviewed in any of these cases. You who seem to be an astute reasonable observer struggling with assessment.
Broken record. Bad rule. The problem with a bad red card rule is it brings up every other incident in a game that is worse and not red carded. Last Sunday their was at least two incident before Gleeson's brain fart that could have been red carded. One of them caused an injury. Do I want everyone thing reviewed. No but if you are sending my player to the line for a non injury foul then don't expect me not to refer to an incident that was. Not accidental contact either.
"Up the Deise" and "Up the Tribesmen" also. No incidents and lets have a fun time together. The cup could not go to a better place no matter who wins.

Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3062 - 17/08/2017 16:02:18    2034754

Link

Replying To Laois76:  "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."
How about Tuohy's ? Easy to asses also ? Look I make no excuses for Gleeson's brain fart but there is a definite bias to nail Waterford players and conveniently ignore others. Using video and pictures of slowed down video. Fine if that is how you want to make your point. However when there was no conclusive video to exonerate or crucify DeBurca the same posters and punter were saying the lineman's ruling has to stand. Get the result you would like to see is the object. (not talking about you)

Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3062 - 17/08/2017 16:17:33    2034760

Link

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."
Can you not understand plain English ? The incident concerning Tuohy was referred to The CCCC by the match referee. The CCCC investigated and found that there was not enough evidence of intent. James Owens as a result of his declaration that he is satisfied with how he dealt with the incident has prevented The CCCC from dealing with the incident involving Austin Gleeson . James Owens was wrong to do what he did. You feel both players should have been suspended yet only the incident involving Adrian Tuohy was investigated by The CCCC. Austin Gleeson is the player who received preferential treatment.

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6180 - 17/08/2017 16:46:11    2034778

Link

Replying To Fairplayalways:  "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...."
The straps of Maher's helmet were not attached to the helmet when the incident occurred . That probably helped Tuohy's case .

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6180 - 17/08/2017 16:50:59    2034779

Link

Replying To Canuck:  "How about Tuohy's ? Easy to asses also ? Look I make no excuses for Gleeson's brain fart but there is a definite bias to nail Waterford players and conveniently ignore others. Using video and pictures of slowed down video. Fine if that is how you want to make your point. However when there was no conclusive video to exonerate or crucify DeBurca the same posters and punter were saying the lineman's ruling has to stand. Get the result you would like to see is the object. (not talking about you)"
The problem with De Burca Canuck is that once the stipulated procedure to send off a player has been followed then the player when appealing has to disprove the charge in the referees report. I had sympathy for De Burca because even though there was a doubt surrounding his sending off he did not have video footage of sufficient quality to definitively disprove the charge.

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6180 - 17/08/2017 16:57:59    2034784

Link

Replying To Greengrass:  "The problem with De Burca Canuck is that once the stipulated procedure to send off a player has been followed then the player when appealing has to disprove the charge in the referees report. I had sympathy for De Burca because even though there was a doubt surrounding his sending off he did not have video footage of sufficient quality to definitively disprove the charge."
Again we can not leave this poor guy alone. Guess what the latest picture of who is refereeing the All-Irelamd is ? There must be other picture of Horgan at hi first holy communion or something.

Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3062 - 17/08/2017 17:17:58    2034795

Link

Replying To Canuck:  "Again we can not leave this poor guy alone. Guess what the latest picture of who is refereeing the All-Irelamd is ? There must be other picture of Horgan at hi first holy communion or something."
A perfect picture. You won't get away with your shenanigans in the final. Up Galway!

Cockney_Cat (UK) - Posts: 2792 - 17/08/2017 17:31:22    2034807

Link

Replying To Greengrass:  "Can you not understand plain English ? The incident concerning Tuohy was referred to The CCCC by the match referee. The CCCC investigated and found that there was not enough evidence of intent. James Owens as a result of his declaration that he is satisfied with how he dealt with the incident has prevented The CCCC from dealing with the incident involving Austin Gleeson . James Owens was wrong to do what he did. You feel both players should have been suspended yet only the incident involving Adrian Tuohy was investigated by The CCCC. Austin Gleeson is the player who received preferential treatment."
I think I am o.k. with the English language and will not require any lessons from you. When it suits people like you want the referee's word to be final. Like for example DeBurca's and there were lots of them. Which is it ? All case referred to the CCCC irrespective of what the ref's report is ? Or may be selective ones depending on your bias ?

Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3062 - 17/08/2017 17:31:41    2034808

Link

Replying To Cockney_Cat:  "A perfect picture. You won't get away with your shenanigans in the final. Up Galway!"
From a supporter of a county than got away with the most shenanigans.

Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3062 - 17/08/2017 17:41:47    2034823

Link

Replying To Canuck:  "From a supporter of a county than got away with the most shenanigans."
Great to see a Knight of the Whistle from the Premier Countyappointed for the Final. Tipperary have produced some truly great referees like John Moloney, Phil Purcell and Johnny Ryan.

Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4496 - 17/08/2017 17:50:43    2034828

Link

Replying To Canuck:  "I think I am o.k. with the English language and will not require any lessons from you. When it suits people like you want the referee's word to be final. Like for example DeBurca's and there were lots of them. Which is it ? All case referred to the CCCC irrespective of what the ref's report is ? Or may be selective ones depending on your bias ?"
Sorry you were not answering me. However I want to make the point.

Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 3062 - 17/08/2017 17:55:47    2034829

Link

Replying To Canuck:  "From a supporter of a county than got away with the most shenanigans."
I'm going to pistol whip the next person that says shenanigans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok85BmPyl_I

CletusVanDamme (Kerry) - Posts: 63 - 17/08/2017 17:59:15    2034832

Link

Replying To Canuck:  "I think I am o.k. with the English language and will not require any lessons from you. When it suits people like you want the referee's word to be final. Like for example DeBurca's and there were lots of them. Which is it ? All case referred to the CCCC irrespective of what the ref's report is ? Or may be selective ones depending on your bias ?"
Read back on what I have already said In relation to adjustments that need to. E made to the rules . You'll get your answer . Under the rules as currently framed Austin Gleeson was the beneficiary of preferential treatment .

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6180 - 17/08/2017 18:04:09    2034835

Link

Replying To CletusVanDamme:  "I'm going to pistol whip the next person that says shenanigans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok85BmPyl_I"
I'm going to pistol whip the next person who says " pistol whip ".

catch22 (USA) - Posts: 2148 - 17/08/2017 18:40:54    2034843

Link

Replying To Canuck:  "How about Tuohy's ? Easy to asses also ? Look I make no excuses for Gleeson's brain fart but there is a definite bias to nail Waterford players and conveniently ignore others. Using video and pictures of slowed down video. Fine if that is how you want to make your point. However when there was no conclusive video to exonerate or crucify DeBurca the same posters and punter were saying the lineman's ruling has to stand. Get the result you would like to see is the object. (not talking about you)"
I'm not anti Austin Gleeson, Waterford or anyone.

But what annoys me and i have no sympathy for is stupidity in players. Like Austin with all the helmet talk and his own team mate suspended and he does that.

Connolly of Dublin nearly missing a season over a sideline ball against Carlow. Paul Galvin's antics over the years. People say heat of the moment, short fuse etc but to me it's stupidity!!

Laois76 (Laois) - Posts: 1270 - 17/08/2017 19:09:59    2034855

Link