National Forum

Dubs V Mayo

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To GreenandRed:  "
Replying To KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "It's important for me to point out why Sindar is wrong when he says "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action".

I know Sindar is a referee but he's not an Inter-County referee and the guidelines which were brought in back in 2018 are quite specific regarding contact to the head.

Perhaps Sindar is not up to date with the guidelines and perhaps he has no reason to be.

So what Sindar is claiming here leaves him zero wiggle room "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"

So by claiming this Sindar is saying there is absolutely no sanction on a player who makes contact with the head of an opponent because the tackler mistimes what would normally be a legitimate tackle.

And I am saying that this is absolutely not correct, the sanction is a straight red card.

And whether Small meant it or not is totally irrelevant, he mistimed it and made contact with the head of McLoughlin and the guidelines set out are clear in relation to head contact, red card.

I have no problem in backing this up but I will let Sindar respond."
I'm not a referee like Sindar is, well he is actually more than that he is a referee's tutor as well, but I don't need to be a referee to be able to read and understand rules and I really cannot understand why he has any doubt at all whether there is anything in the rule book which would have allowed the ref to send Small off and I'll explain why clearly.

So this was my view on page 55 of the thread:

"Small illegal charge on E McLoughlin, a red card all day long. It became illegal once contact was made with the head, regardless of intent"

And I stick by that completely.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder then it was legal but when he connected with his head it became illegal. Common sense really.

But Sindar disagreed with me and said:

"As for your Small comment "regardless of intent" you are completely wrong again"
"It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"


"I work from the rule book and keep myself very much up to date. When other refs ask me about scenarios (I'm a refs tutor also) I refer them to what the rules state and not what we think the correct action should be. I invite you to do the same."

So I took him up on his invite to look at the rules even though I knew the rule in any case. So what the rules list as Immediate Ordering Off Infractions (Red Cards):

1. Striking or attempting to strike with arm, elbow, hand, knee or head.
2. Kicking or attempting to kick with minimal force or with force or causing injury.
3. Behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent.
4. Spitting at an opponent.
5. Contributing to a melee.
6. Stamping.
7. Inflicting injury recklessly.
8. Abusive language towards a Referee, Umpire, Linesman or Sideline Official.

Now there is no doubt that John Small was reckless and there is no doubt that McLoughlin was injured and therefore there is no doubt a red card should have been shown.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder and even dislocated his shoulder even though McLoughlin would have been injured we could not say he was injured recklessly because the tackle was legal, but that was not the case,

Small made contact with McLoughlins head and at that point the tackle went from been legal to illegal and intent does not come into it.

It is totally immaterial what Small intended to do, society does not work that way, where a person's good intentions are not punished by their own failure to execute their good intentions properly and the responsibility lay totally with Small to execute a legal tackle properly and that he did not do.

So we have established easily that the ref could and should have sent Small off within the basic disciplinary rules of the game, we don't need to be referees to quickly establish that and therefore I was 100% correct to say "regardless of intent" in my post.

The final point regarding my contradiction of Sindar is this, he maintains "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action."

He is also wrong here as well because we have established that a player can be sent off for Inflicting injury recklessly.

So if we assume that Small went in to execute a legal tackle but he recklessly injured McLoughlin by his own failure to execute the tackle properly, then we must also say that Small did not intend to injure McLoughlin because a reckless action by the letter of the law is not an intentional action, it is a step down the ladder from intentional.

So therefore the action of Inflicting injury recklessly while being unintentional is still a red card offence and therefore Sindars view that "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action" is totally incorrect."
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :)

However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.

I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.

I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.

Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.

Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.

In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"


I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.

Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.

In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :

"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"

Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".

The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.

And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.

This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :

After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.


Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".

Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off."]If John smalls shoulder to McLoughlins head wasn't a red card offence then how was Tadhg Morley in this years league sent off an offence that looked pure accidental as he was pushed into the path of the Roscommon man? And he even failed in his appeal afterwards."]Also, can you make sure you log in with the same account AfricanGael or Kingdomboy when replying to this thread or I'll report you for giving a wrong name to the ref!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-)

Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Neither were intentional. The consequence of the tackle doesn't make it any more intentional. If Eoghan got up and walked away there might have been a card for John Small but none of this horrible clickbait media campaign against Small using a photo implying he tackled with his arm up. He plays tough aggressive football, can go over the line at times but he doesn't deserve that. No matter what our county loyalties are and if we dislike some counties he's a GAA man. His actions put a man in hospital needing surgery but I think he didn't intend to shoulder him in the head as is being implied, it was accidental. I hate this media and social media campaign against him. The game is over. Time to move on."]You're picking me up wrong green and red im not on social media and I don't really care what's going on with John small or how hard it is for him i was just asking sindar with he being a reff could explain why Morleys attempted tackle was a straight red even though it was plain to see he was pushed into the Roscommon player and smalls tackle didn't even get a yellow?

KingdomBoy1 (Kerry) - Posts: 14092 - 20/08/2021 13:33:56    2373346

Link

Jeez, the people at Hogan Stand must love Mayo v. Dublin matches. Over 1200 replies and almost a week later and the discussion is still rumbling!

Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 20/08/2021 13:35:11    2373347

Link

Replying To KingdomBoy1:  "
Replying To GreenandRed:  "[quote=KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "It's important for me to point out why Sindar is wrong when he says "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action".

I know Sindar is a referee but he's not an Inter-County referee and the guidelines which were brought in back in 2018 are quite specific regarding contact to the head.

Perhaps Sindar is not up to date with the guidelines and perhaps he has no reason to be.

So what Sindar is claiming here leaves him zero wiggle room "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"

So by claiming this Sindar is saying there is absolutely no sanction on a player who makes contact with the head of an opponent because the tackler mistimes what would normally be a legitimate tackle.

And I am saying that this is absolutely not correct, the sanction is a straight red card.

And whether Small meant it or not is totally irrelevant, he mistimed it and made contact with the head of McLoughlin and the guidelines set out are clear in relation to head contact, red card.

I have no problem in backing this up but I will let Sindar respond."
I'm not a referee like Sindar is, well he is actually more than that he is a referee's tutor as well, but I don't need to be a referee to be able to read and understand rules and I really cannot understand why he has any doubt at all whether there is anything in the rule book which would have allowed the ref to send Small off and I'll explain why clearly.

So this was my view on page 55 of the thread:

"Small illegal charge on E McLoughlin, a red card all day long. It became illegal once contact was made with the head, regardless of intent"

And I stick by that completely.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder then it was legal but when he connected with his head it became illegal. Common sense really.

But Sindar disagreed with me and said:

"As for your Small comment "regardless of intent" you are completely wrong again"
"It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"


"I work from the rule book and keep myself very much up to date. When other refs ask me about scenarios (I'm a refs tutor also) I refer them to what the rules state and not what we think the correct action should be. I invite you to do the same."

So I took him up on his invite to look at the rules even though I knew the rule in any case. So what the rules list as Immediate Ordering Off Infractions (Red Cards):

1. Striking or attempting to strike with arm, elbow, hand, knee or head.
2. Kicking or attempting to kick with minimal force or with force or causing injury.
3. Behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent.
4. Spitting at an opponent.
5. Contributing to a melee.
6. Stamping.
7. Inflicting injury recklessly.
8. Abusive language towards a Referee, Umpire, Linesman or Sideline Official.

Now there is no doubt that John Small was reckless and there is no doubt that McLoughlin was injured and therefore there is no doubt a red card should have been shown.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder and even dislocated his shoulder even though McLoughlin would have been injured we could not say he was injured recklessly because the tackle was legal, but that was not the case,

Small made contact with McLoughlins head and at that point the tackle went from been legal to illegal and intent does not come into it.

It is totally immaterial what Small intended to do, society does not work that way, where a person's good intentions are not punished by their own failure to execute their good intentions properly and the responsibility lay totally with Small to execute a legal tackle properly and that he did not do.

So we have established easily that the ref could and should have sent Small off within the basic disciplinary rules of the game, we don't need to be referees to quickly establish that and therefore I was 100% correct to say "regardless of intent" in my post.

The final point regarding my contradiction of Sindar is this, he maintains "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action."

He is also wrong here as well because we have established that a player can be sent off for Inflicting injury recklessly.

So if we assume that Small went in to execute a legal tackle but he recklessly injured McLoughlin by his own failure to execute the tackle properly, then we must also say that Small did not intend to injure McLoughlin because a reckless action by the letter of the law is not an intentional action, it is a step down the ladder from intentional.

So therefore the action of Inflicting injury recklessly while being unintentional is still a red card offence and therefore Sindars view that "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action" is totally incorrect."
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :)

However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.

I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.

I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.

Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.

Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.

In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"


I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.

Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.

In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :

"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"

Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".

The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.

And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.

This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :

After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.


Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".

Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off."]If John smalls shoulder to McLoughlins head wasn't a red card offence then how was Tadhg Morley in this years league sent off an offence that looked pure accidental as he was pushed into the path of the Roscommon man? And he even failed in his appeal afterwards."]Also, can you make sure you log in with the same account AfricanGael or Kingdomboy when replying to this thread or I'll report you for giving a wrong name to the ref!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-)

Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Neither were intentional. The consequence of the tackle doesn't make it any more intentional. If Eoghan got up and walked away there might have been a card for John Small but none of this horrible clickbait media campaign against Small using a photo implying he tackled with his arm up. He plays tough aggressive football, can go over the line at times but he doesn't deserve that. No matter what our county loyalties are and if we dislike some counties he's a GAA man. His actions put a man in hospital needing surgery but I think he didn't intend to shoulder him in the head as is being implied, it was accidental. I hate this media and social media campaign against him. The game is over. Time to move on."]You're picking me up wrong green and red im not on social media and I don't really care what's going on with John small or how hard it is for him i was just asking sindar with he being a reff could explain why Morleys attempted tackle was a straight red even though it was plain to see he was pushed into the Roscommon player and smalls tackle didn't even get a yellow?"]Apologies Kingdomboy. Just ranting against the standards of so called journalism.

GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7973 - 20/08/2021 13:41:33    2373348

Link

Replying To Jackeen:  "
Replying To KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "It's important for me to point out why Sindar is wrong when he says "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action".

I know Sindar is a referee but he's not an Inter-County referee and the guidelines which were brought in back in 2018 are quite specific regarding contact to the head.

Perhaps Sindar is not up to date with the guidelines and perhaps he has no reason to be.

So what Sindar is claiming here leaves him zero wiggle room "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"

So by claiming this Sindar is saying there is absolutely no sanction on a player who makes contact with the head of an opponent because the tackler mistimes what would normally be a legitimate tackle.

And I am saying that this is absolutely not correct, the sanction is a straight red card.

And whether Small meant it or not is totally irrelevant, he mistimed it and made contact with the head of McLoughlin and the guidelines set out are clear in relation to head contact, red card.

I have no problem in backing this up but I will let Sindar respond."
I'm not a referee like Sindar is, well he is actually more than that he is a referee's tutor as well, but I don't need to be a referee to be able to read and understand rules and I really cannot understand why he has any doubt at all whether there is anything in the rule book which would have allowed the ref to send Small off and I'll explain why clearly.

So this was my view on page 55 of the thread:

"Small illegal charge on E McLoughlin, a red card all day long. It became illegal once contact was made with the head, regardless of intent"

And I stick by that completely.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder then it was legal but when he connected with his head it became illegal. Common sense really.

But Sindar disagreed with me and said:

"As for your Small comment "regardless of intent" you are completely wrong again"
"It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"


"I work from the rule book and keep myself very much up to date. When other refs ask me about scenarios (I'm a refs tutor also) I refer them to what the rules state and not what we think the correct action should be. I invite you to do the same."

So I took him up on his invite to look at the rules even though I knew the rule in any case. So what the rules list as Immediate Ordering Off Infractions (Red Cards):

1. Striking or attempting to strike with arm, elbow, hand, knee or head.
2. Kicking or attempting to kick with minimal force or with force or causing injury.
3. Behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent.
4. Spitting at an opponent.
5. Contributing to a melee.
6. Stamping.
7. Inflicting injury recklessly.
8. Abusive language towards a Referee, Umpire, Linesman or Sideline Official.

Now there is no doubt that John Small was reckless and there is no doubt that McLoughlin was injured and therefore there is no doubt a red card should have been shown.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder and even dislocated his shoulder even though McLoughlin would have been injured we could not say he was injured recklessly because the tackle was legal, but that was not the case,

Small made contact with McLoughlins head and at that point the tackle went from been legal to illegal and intent does not come into it.

It is totally immaterial what Small intended to do, society does not work that way, where a person's good intentions are not punished by their own failure to execute their good intentions properly and the responsibility lay totally with Small to execute a legal tackle properly and that he did not do.

So we have established easily that the ref could and should have sent Small off within the basic disciplinary rules of the game, we don't need to be referees to quickly establish that and therefore I was 100% correct to say "regardless of intent" in my post.

The final point regarding my contradiction of Sindar is this, he maintains "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action."

He is also wrong here as well because we have established that a player can be sent off for Inflicting injury recklessly.

So if we assume that Small went in to execute a legal tackle but he recklessly injured McLoughlin by his own failure to execute the tackle properly, then we must also say that Small did not intend to injure McLoughlin because a reckless action by the letter of the law is not an intentional action, it is a step down the ladder from intentional.

So therefore the action of Inflicting injury recklessly while being unintentional is still a red card offence and therefore Sindars view that "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action" is totally incorrect."
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :)

However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.

I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.

I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.

Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.

Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.

In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"


I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.

Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.

In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :

"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"

Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".

The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.

And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.

This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :

After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.


Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".

Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off."]If John smalls shoulder to McLoughlins head wasn't a red card offence then how was Tadhg Morley in this years league sent off an offence that looked pure accidental as he was pushed into the path of the Roscommon man? And he even failed in his appeal afterwards."]Also, can you make sure you log in with the same account AfricanGael or Kingdomboy when replying to this thread or I'll report you for giving a wrong name to the ref!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-)

Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Who knows? Why wasn't Niall Morgans shoulder on Paddy Andrews red and why wasn't he hounded in the media like John Small?"]I. Don't know jackeen maybe he's being hounded because he also got away with punching O'Donaghue in the stomach and no retrospective action being taken by the gaa. On him or on Mccarthy either.

If that was Kerry or Tyrone lads that did that they'd be under the gavel at the Hague for crimes against humanity.

KingdomBoy1 (Kerry) - Posts: 14092 - 20/08/2021 13:48:34    2373352

Link

Replying To KingdomBoy1:  "
Replying To Jackeen:  "[quote=KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=KingdomBoy1:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=Sindar:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "It's important for me to point out why Sindar is wrong when he says "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action".

I know Sindar is a referee but he's not an Inter-County referee and the guidelines which were brought in back in 2018 are quite specific regarding contact to the head.

Perhaps Sindar is not up to date with the guidelines and perhaps he has no reason to be.

So what Sindar is claiming here leaves him zero wiggle room "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"

So by claiming this Sindar is saying there is absolutely no sanction on a player who makes contact with the head of an opponent because the tackler mistimes what would normally be a legitimate tackle.

And I am saying that this is absolutely not correct, the sanction is a straight red card.

And whether Small meant it or not is totally irrelevant, he mistimed it and made contact with the head of McLoughlin and the guidelines set out are clear in relation to head contact, red card.

I have no problem in backing this up but I will let Sindar respond."
I'm not a referee like Sindar is, well he is actually more than that he is a referee's tutor as well, but I don't need to be a referee to be able to read and understand rules and I really cannot understand why he has any doubt at all whether there is anything in the rule book which would have allowed the ref to send Small off and I'll explain why clearly.

So this was my view on page 55 of the thread:

"Small illegal charge on E McLoughlin, a red card all day long. It became illegal once contact was made with the head, regardless of intent"

And I stick by that completely.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder then it was legal but when he connected with his head it became illegal. Common sense really.

But Sindar disagreed with me and said:

"As for your Small comment "regardless of intent" you are completely wrong again"
"It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action"


"I work from the rule book and keep myself very much up to date. When other refs ask me about scenarios (I'm a refs tutor also) I refer them to what the rules state and not what we think the correct action should be. I invite you to do the same."

So I took him up on his invite to look at the rules even though I knew the rule in any case. So what the rules list as Immediate Ordering Off Infractions (Red Cards):

1. Striking or attempting to strike with arm, elbow, hand, knee or head.
2. Kicking or attempting to kick with minimal force or with force or causing injury.
3. Behaving in any way which is dangerous to an opponent.
4. Spitting at an opponent.
5. Contributing to a melee.
6. Stamping.
7. Inflicting injury recklessly.
8. Abusive language towards a Referee, Umpire, Linesman or Sideline Official.

Now there is no doubt that John Small was reckless and there is no doubt that McLoughlin was injured and therefore there is no doubt a red card should have been shown.

Had Small connected with McLaughlin's shoulder and even dislocated his shoulder even though McLoughlin would have been injured we could not say he was injured recklessly because the tackle was legal, but that was not the case,

Small made contact with McLoughlins head and at that point the tackle went from been legal to illegal and intent does not come into it.

It is totally immaterial what Small intended to do, society does not work that way, where a person's good intentions are not punished by their own failure to execute their good intentions properly and the responsibility lay totally with Small to execute a legal tackle properly and that he did not do.

So we have established easily that the ref could and should have sent Small off within the basic disciplinary rules of the game, we don't need to be referees to quickly establish that and therefore I was 100% correct to say "regardless of intent" in my post.

The final point regarding my contradiction of Sindar is this, he maintains "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action."

He is also wrong here as well because we have established that a player can be sent off for Inflicting injury recklessly.

So if we assume that Small went in to execute a legal tackle but he recklessly injured McLoughlin by his own failure to execute the tackle properly, then we must also say that Small did not intend to injure McLoughlin because a reckless action by the letter of the law is not an intentional action, it is a step down the ladder from intentional.

So therefore the action of Inflicting injury recklessly while being unintentional is still a red card offence and therefore Sindars view that "It is never a red card in GAA for unintentional action" is totally incorrect."
Fair play for going to the rule book. I didn't think you would :)

However, did you read my post at 18/08/2021 15:40:46? It's is absolutely clear that there must be intent (deliberate) and I quoted exactly where that comes from. Also, I never said that the Small incident was not a sending off.

I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely seperate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then.

I'm not trying to be smart here but we need to define the term reckless: "without thought or care for the consequences of an action" - Oxford English Dictionary.

Let's assume Small intended to execute a legal shoulder which he obviously didn't achieve but did not intend to connect with the head. In this case, intent does not refer to connecting with the head but refers to the attempt at a legal challenge that was executed without care (reckless) and caused injury which is a red card offence.
It was reckless because he knew 1) he was coming in with a lot of force and could connect with the head, 2) the player was in a vulnerable position, and 3) there were other ways he could have legally tackled the player.

Let's take different example which might help. A player is bending down to pick up a loose ball. An opponent comes in with the boot and force to the ball. He connects with the player's head in clearing the ball. His intent was to clear the ball but he executed it recklessly and caused injury - red card.

In relation to the rulebook, It is not perfect. It can be quite difficult to understand at times and wording is all important. I have read it cover to cover dozens of times and referred to it hundreds of times when I had doubts. Any ref who doesn't cannot possibly understand it to the level required. I ref Ladies also and that rulebook is much clearer and understandable."]"I think you seem to think that intent (deliberate) and reckless are completely separate. They are not but I understand the confusion as it comes up at ref forums/sessions now and then"


I don't think they are different Sindar, I know they are different.

Something with intent would be far more serious than something which was reckless and without checking it I imagine the sanction would carry a ban as well.

In law the definition of Recklessness is as follows :

"Recklessness involves conduct that is short of actual intent to cause harm"

Because if the you are interpreting that intent (deliberate) and reckless are not separate as you said at the beginning then the rule would simply say "Inflicting injury Deliberately" rather than saying "Inflicting injury recklessly".

The principle is the same in common law, I can be driving my car recklessly with having absolutely no intention of harming anyone and a child runs out in front of me and I injure the child, it does not mean I am not guilty just because I had no intention of hitting the child, however if I intentionally ran over the child then that is an extremely more serious offence.

And that is why recklessness and intent are two completely different things.

This is what you said as well about the Small / McLoughlin incident :

After watching it a gazillion times since it could have been red but definitely a yellow - that's the interpretation between "rough play" and "behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent" - subjective.


Subjective ? Are you serious. You never mentioned the rule regarding "Inflicting injury recklessly" which I have highlighted at all even after watching it "a gazillion times".

Even by the way McLoughlin fell it was clear he was badly injured and the ref should have stopped play immediately, it was also clear he received a head injury due to Small recklessness and he should have been sent off."]If John smalls shoulder to McLoughlins head wasn't a red card offence then how was Tadhg Morley in this years league sent off an offence that looked pure accidental as he was pushed into the path of the Roscommon man? And he even failed in his appeal afterwards."]Also, can you make sure you log in with the same account AfricanGael or Kingdomboy when replying to this thread or I'll report you for giving a wrong name to the ref!"]You got me there sindar, I'm the Djibouti kid :-)

Serious question though, how was Tadhg Morleys foul on the Roscommon player a red card when it looked an accidental collision (because he got pushed by his own player) and smalls tackle wasn't even a yellow and he broke a man's jaw."]Who knows? Why wasn't Niall Morgans shoulder on Paddy Andrews red and why wasn't he hounded in the media like John Small?"]I. Don't know jackeen maybe he's being hounded because he also got away with punching O'Donaghue in the stomach and no retrospective action being taken by the gaa. On him or on Mccarthy either.

If that was Kerry or Tyrone lads that did that they'd be under the gavel at the Hague for crimes against humanity."]Did you watch the game KB? Did you see any indiscretions on the Mayo side at all?

Jackeen (Dublin) - Posts: 4097 - 20/08/2021 14:33:30    2373358

Link

Replying To ConnollyDub:  "Tbh I can see us going through a sustained period without an all ireland now username.
Similar to the great Kerry team of the 70/80s. After their dominance it was 11 years before they won one again.
Same with the great Kilkenny team of the 00's/teens. 6 years and counting since they last won one.

Having said that if we were to get Jack Mac & Mannion back we'd have a great chance of winning another Sam.

They've been two of the very best players in the game over the last decade. And their still only in their 20s."
On our day pal, I think we're still the best team in Ireland, but every year you have to prove it, no other county has a collection of players of the quality of Kilkenny, Con, Fenton, Howard - they just dont. Mannion and Jack would transform the starting 15, for me Paddy Small hasn't taken his chance, nor Basquel, nor Costello. Talent certainly, but you also need the steely will, temperament, composure and decision making ability - these lads haven't shown it.

I think our incredible success was built on team in 11 who had to get to where they were in the Dublin team and to an All Ireland the hard way, that created a hard working determined humble playing culture.We we're massively fortunate to have real superstars coming through in 13-15 into that culture. That fuelled the success. Now those players as senior players must to the same. We've been in the last two U20 finals, we've talent coming through, Lee Gannon, Archer, O Dell, Lavan and Luke Swan are all players who can step up and in with a fair wind, so that development and pathway now needs to be our focus.

If we got Jack and Mannion back, developed some of the lads, got a decent championship prep, Dessie recognises that we have become telegraphed and varies are play, I wouldn't bet on many to beat us.

I think the players and county have needed this challenge for a while, the more I think of it the more I think we've beaten ourselves this year.

TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 4516 - 20/08/2021 14:42:49    2373359

Link

Replying To TheUsername:  "On our day pal, I think we're still the best team in Ireland, but every year you have to prove it, no other county has a collection of players of the quality of Kilkenny, Con, Fenton, Howard - they just dont. Mannion and Jack would transform the starting 15, for me Paddy Small hasn't taken his chance, nor Basquel, nor Costello. Talent certainly, but you also need the steely will, temperament, composure and decision making ability - these lads haven't shown it.

I think our incredible success was built on team in 11 who had to get to where they were in the Dublin team and to an All Ireland the hard way, that created a hard working determined humble playing culture.We we're massively fortunate to have real superstars coming through in 13-15 into that culture. That fuelled the success. Now those players as senior players must to the same. We've been in the last two U20 finals, we've talent coming through, Lee Gannon, Archer, O Dell, Lavan and Luke Swan are all players who can step up and in with a fair wind, so that development and pathway now needs to be our focus.

If we got Jack and Mannion back, developed some of the lads, got a decent championship prep, Dessie recognises that we have become telegraphed and varies are play, I wouldn't bet on many to beat us.

I think the players and county have needed this challenge for a while, the more I think of it the more I think we've beaten ourselves this year."
I would agree with a lot of that. Especially if McCaffrey and Mannion came back but there are a lot of ifs and buts. I tipped Kerry to win it this year and I don't believe Dublin beat themselves, they simply are not as good as the team from 15,16, 17. They will start next year as favourites and rightly so but the next few years are going to be far more competitive. Cooper coming to the end as well. Maybe one or two more as well. Mayo have 10 or 11 new starters from the team that lost in 17. In a very good place going forward age wise as well.

TheFlaker (Mayo) - Posts: 8380 - 20/08/2021 15:07:32    2373369

Link

Replying To TheUsername:  "On our day pal, I think we're still the best team in Ireland, but every year you have to prove it, no other county has a collection of players of the quality of Kilkenny, Con, Fenton, Howard - they just dont. Mannion and Jack would transform the starting 15, for me Paddy Small hasn't taken his chance, nor Basquel, nor Costello. Talent certainly, but you also need the steely will, temperament, composure and decision making ability - these lads haven't shown it.

I think our incredible success was built on team in 11 who had to get to where they were in the Dublin team and to an All Ireland the hard way, that created a hard working determined humble playing culture.We we're massively fortunate to have real superstars coming through in 13-15 into that culture. That fuelled the success. Now those players as senior players must to the same. We've been in the last two U20 finals, we've talent coming through, Lee Gannon, Archer, O Dell, Lavan and Luke Swan are all players who can step up and in with a fair wind, so that development and pathway now needs to be our focus.

If we got Jack and Mannion back, developed some of the lads, got a decent championship prep, Dessie recognises that we have become telegraphed and varies are play, I wouldn't bet on many to beat us.

I think the players and county have needed this challenge for a while, the more I think of it the more I think we've beaten ourselves this year."
I'd agree Username and if Jack and Mannion did come back it totally transforms us and suddenly you're looking at a stronger starting 15 and then having a McDaid, Costello, Lowndes (if he comes back also) or the likes on the bench. Not saying those are the subs but we'd have a couple of better options in terms of depth for sure. Paddy Small and Basquel I would say almost have career defining seasons ahead of them next year as there is a forward slot there to make their own but neither have done much to warrant holding onto a starting spot. Small in particular can go from sublime to infuriating in the space of a minute. Hopefully they can both kick on and not follow a similar fate to McHugh who was unreal U21 and has never made an impact at senior level.

The core group we have is still unbelievable as you mention and I'd imagine a winter of licking the wounds now will relight a fire in them lads. Tactically the shackles have got to be thrown off a lot more. We don't need to go back to the cavalier days of 2013 but we certainly need to develop a style that gets the most out of the Cons of this world.

All of the above hinges on Dessie though and whether the lads who stepped away want to come back under him. If they don't we are probably looking at another year of trudging along under him before a new man comes in and has to retire a few of the older heads and go about a fairly sizeable rebuild. There's another All Ireland there next year if a lot of the wrongs of this year can be corrected.

TrueBlue35 (Dublin) - Posts: 233 - 20/08/2021 16:01:20    2373381

Link

Why are we seeing the same post over and over again sometimes with a little added at the end. A wee bit on the driving me nuts side at this stage.

cluichethar (Mayo) - Posts: 523 - 20/08/2021 16:22:42    2373387

Link

Replying To Tirchonaill1:  "The funny thing is that a few players like John Small is exactly what Donegal are lacking, we have it good everywhere else but our defence is too light and soft and too easy run through, nobody wants to see a man getting seriously injured and I wish Mc Glaughlin well and hope he makes a speedy recovery.
Small didn't set out to break the mans jaw but he tried to hit him hard as you'd want your defender to do,
Fitzsimons shoulder on Keegan last year was similar only he hit him into the ribs not the head.
I think the Dubs were badly mismanaged this year and maybe the appetite isn't there too after winning so much, some of the top players that have stepped away would weaken any team, they'll be back though, I have no doubt."
I'd love Small in the Donegal set up. Doesn't make it any less of a red card.

JoeSoap (Donegal) - Posts: 1432 - 20/08/2021 17:52:59    2373408

Link

Replying To Gleebo:  "Eoghan McLoughlin has resumed training according to media reports, albeit on a bike rather than the training pitch.

https://hoganstand.com/County/National/Article/Index/319489

Fair play to him for his spirit if nothing else."
Absolutely fair play to him
Wish him all the best in his recovery.

superbluedub (Dublin) - Posts: 2842 - 20/08/2021 17:54:36    2373409

Link

Replying To Gleebo:  "Jeez, the people at Hogan Stand must love Mayo v. Dublin matches. Over 1200 replies and almost a week later and the discussion is still rumbling!"
Thats nothing - wait till you see the thread on the Dublin Galway 83' game which should erupt anytime now. Or indeed the thread on the time Keegan jumped up, pulled an actual satellite out of orbit and threw it at Dean Rock as he was about to kick the winning free in the AIF. If the Galway & Tyrone lads who have seen the video of that incident would just post a link to it it would keep us all occupied as we wait for the SF & Final.

timmyhogan (UK) - Posts: 290 - 20/08/2021 19:20:22    2373425

Link

Replying To JoeSoap:  "I'd love Small in the Donegal set up. Doesn't make it any less of a red card."
Man goes in for a fair shoulder tackle can't be red, if went in to take him out then it's red. maybe give him a yellow for it.

Tirchonaill1 (Donegal) - Posts: 3183 - 20/08/2021 19:32:02    2373430

Link

Great to hear, I was listening to the football pod with Paddy Andrews and Andy Moran, great listening. Anyhow Paddy talked about the time it happened to him so its a good insight.
Very enjoyable chat over all, I recommend it to Dublin and Mayo lads who have not seen it.

realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8748 - 20/08/2021 19:32:35    2373432

Link

Replying To realdub:  "Great to hear, I was listening to the football pod with Paddy Andrews and Andy Moran, great listening. Anyhow Paddy talked about the time it happened to him so its a good insight.
Very enjoyable chat over all, I recommend it to Dublin and Mayo lads who have not seen it."
It was excellent. Straight up from both also some fun. From what Paddy said it's pie in the sky by Horan leaving open a spot for McLaughlin in 4 weeks.

cluichethar (Mayo) - Posts: 523 - 20/08/2021 21:50:32    2373455

Link

Replying To JoeSoap:  "I'd love Small in the Donegal set up. Doesn't make it any less of a red card."
But it means you condone a man that hit so hard he broke a man's jaw and you're dead right to do so. Many are too PC on here to admit it but every fan would cheer if one of their own County players did what Small did last Saturday and got away with it.
Now for the love of God will ye all stop replying to the long winded novel type posts above.

Mailman98 (Galway) - Posts: 319 - 20/08/2021 21:53:48    2373457

Link

I wonder how the game was received in Spain? Did it get many viewers

brisbane (Galway) - Posts: 675 - 21/08/2021 19:57:19    2373678

Link

Replying To brisbane:  "I wonder how the game was received in Spain? Did it get many viewers"
Wouldn't be surprised if it did good numbers, I was there six years years ago for the European GAA finals and they had stands full of local people watching. Strange to hear them talking animatedly about gaelic football in Gallego!

Not the worst game as a debut either.

Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 21/08/2021 20:10:39    2373680

Link

From what I heard the fans of the smaller La Liga clubs were unanimous.
Upon watching the ref stop the game in the first half when a Dub went down with cramp/leg injury & then wave play on when McL went down unconscious from a head high hit - the reaction was : Ah so it's just like playing against Real Madrid here.

But you couldn't trust those Spaniards - they don't have the wise men from RTE to tell them what really happened during the live broadcast, they had to use their own eyes.

timmyhogan (UK) - Posts: 290 - 21/08/2021 21:15:39    2373704

Link

Replying To brisbane:  "I wonder how the game was received in Spain? Did it get many viewers"
I'd love to see it with Spanish commentary. Do you know what channel in Spain covered it?

yew_tree (Mayo) - Posts: 11563 - 22/08/2021 14:49:03    2373841

Link