sportsfan14, the players were underage and illegal, I guarantee you if 1 of these young lads had got broken up the reaction would be "why were they out there in the first place", wouldnt it?

Pinkie (Wexford) - Posts: 4100 - 27/02/2014 16:51:08    1552063

sportsfan14

I understand that they played in the semi final as well as the drawn final. Fullen Gaels have also been impacted.

ringo (Wexford) - Posts: 384 - 27/02/2014 17:08:08    1552075

Fullen Gaels would be have some cheek to complain.

macs4eva (UK) - Posts: 107 - 27/02/2014 17:29:16    1552083

Pinkie
County: Wexford
Posts: 2913

1552063


sportsfan14, the players were underage and illegal, I guarantee you if 1 of these young lads had got broken up the reaction would be "why were they out there in the first place", wouldnt it?


I'm going to talk to you directly here. The players were not underage nor illegal. Read my previous posts before you come on here spewing informed nonsense

square_ball_69 (Westmeath) - Posts: 826 - 27/02/2014 18:14:47    1552108

what will make clubs think twice before deliberately fielding illegal players. i will tell you what. objections like these.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5522 - 27/02/2014 18:29:06    1552117

squareball the only clarity that matters will come from the authorities, which hasn't come yet. yours is irrelevant.

This argument that if the rules were broken 'they were broken by a couple of kids' dosent wash with me. The rules were broken by adults; ie creggan kickhams. It is they that put the 2 lads in the position they are in now, not Ballysaggart. to the people constantly stating that what ballysaggart are doing is against the 'spirit of the game' and the creggan acted 'in good faith' should try pull the other one. The fact that Creggan never even sought clarity on the matter before the game stinks to me. shows they just went ahead and took a chance that they would get away with it. The player small wasn't just an average 16 year old hes a marquay player and I believe they very much knew what they were doing. If they were so interested in 'the spirit of the game' themselves they surely would have sought clarity on the matter prior to the game,instead of just 'assuming' the rules would work in their favour, or that it wouldn't even be found out or questioned by the opposition.
It was to Ballysaggarts detriment that they acted in good faith by by not fielding the players they have in the same age group as the creggan lads

deisebhoy (Waterford) - Posts: 416 - 27/02/2014 20:57:11    1552166

squareball the only clarity that matters will come from the authorities, which hasn't come yet. yours is irrelevant.

This argument that if the rules were broken 'they were broken by a couple of kids' dosent wash with me. The rules were broken by adults; ie creggan kickhams. It is they that put the 2 lads in the position they are in now, not Ballysaggart. to the people constantly stating that what ballysaggart are doing is against the 'spirit of the game' and the creggan acted 'in good faith' should try pull the other one. The fact that Creggan never even sought clarity on the matter before the game stinks to me. shows they just went ahead and took a chance that they would get away with it. The player small wasn't just an average 16 year old hes a marquay player and I believe they very much knew what they were doing. If they were so interested in 'the spirit of the game' themselves they surely would have sought clarity on the matter prior to the game,instead of just 'assuming' the rules would work in their favour, or that it wouldn't even be found out or questioned by the opposition.
It was to Ballysaggarts detriment that they acted in good faith by by not fielding the players they have in the same age group as the creggan lads


How do you know that Creggan did not seek clarity?? How do you know that they knew what they were doing and took a chance?? How can you say the player was a marquee player when he hadn't played until the semis? Answer: You don't know any of these things, and if it was as straight forward as you suggest then surely the decision would have been made by now. Now, those of you who continuously refer to these two players as 'illegal' before anything has even been decided are just ludicrous and all I can say is thank god that the association is not being run by you boys. The delay, in my opinion, is to do with the grey area brought about by the rule and the fact that there has been precedence set in both sides of the argument and hence the gaa have left themselves in a dilemma.

frankbhoy77 (Antrim) - Posts: 1300 - 27/02/2014 21:27:46    1552182

deisebhoy
County: Waterford
Posts: 391

1552166
squareball the only clarity that matters will come from the authorities, which hasn't come yet. yours is irrelevant.

This argument that if the rules were broken 'they were broken by a couple of kids' dosent wash with me. The rules were broken by adults; ie creggan kickhams. It is they that put the 2 lads in the position they are in now, not Ballysaggart. to the people constantly stating that what ballysaggart are doing is against the 'spirit of the game' and the creggan acted 'in good faith' should try pull the other one. The fact that Creggan never even sought clarity on the matter before the game stinks to me. shows they just went ahead and took a chance that they would get away with it. The player small wasn't just an average 16 year old hes a marquay player and I believe they very much knew what they were doing. If they were so interested in 'the spirit of the game' themselves they surely would have sought clarity on the matter prior to the game,instead of just 'assuming' the rules would work in their favour, or that it wouldn't even be found out or questioned by the opposition.
It was to Ballysaggarts detriment that they acted in good faith by by not fielding the players they have in the same age group as the creggan lads

deisebhoy why tell another poster that his opinion is irrelevant, yet you go on to state that Creggan broke the rules and never sought clarity on the matter prior to the game.
Now tell me how do you know Creggan never sought clarity on the matter, have you this from a reliable source or are you just 'assuming' this, as that would be make your statement irrelevant if you are.

Pukefootball (Monaghan) - Posts: 377 - 27/02/2014 21:44:49    1552186

Ringo you can call creggan whatever you want, im happy with all ireland champions!

The fact of the matter is contrary to what you and Pinkie etc are saying it isnt a black and white issue in terms of legality.

What i sense has happened is that creggan have explored the possibility of playing the 2 kids and found that there has been a precedent before and as a result have exploited the loophole/grey area that existed, the blame then lies with Croke for allowing that loophole to exist. As I said previously it will not exist after this year you can guarantee that.

bumpernut (Antrim) - Posts: 1852 - 28/02/2014 10:43:48    1552250

This thing needs to be totally de-personalised. I notice a lot of Antrim posters backing up Creggan in particular, which is understandable, but I feel it may be clouding some people's judgement.

Team A may have fielder illegal players, either knowingly or unknowingly - it doesn't matter. Team B (and Team C in the semi) have been impacted by this, and are well entitled to seek clarification of the rules.

I notice from the GAA website that the fixture is described as the 'AIB GAA Hurling All Ireland Junior Club Championship 13/14', i.e. it is not a 2014 competition but retains the element of 2013 in it. Both the naming and spirit of the competition is a 2013 competition. New transfers aren't allowed, and I am pretty sure that suspensions would carry from previous stages of the competition also.

If the GAA decide to let this go they've bottled it in my opinion. Similar examples from other competitions have resulted in teams being thrown out of the competition. They would be setting a very poor precedent.

Some people have suggested that Ballysaggart would be tainted if their appeal was successful. However, I think Creggan's win would be even more tainted if rules would appear to have been ignored or if they were seen to be accomodated.

ringo (Wexford) - Posts: 384 - 28/02/2014 12:09:30    1552293

To add to my previous post, I feel that a replay may be fairest to both clubs, with clearer rules on the issue published from here on in.

ringo (Wexford) - Posts: 384 - 28/02/2014 12:12:52    1552296

Frankbhoy I am glad you are finally seeing things from my point of view. You don't know any of these things either yet you are very quick to judge ballysaggart when you don't have all the facts. If they would have sought clarity and the matter was set in stone then why is this appeal even being entertained? Your reasoning is all just heresay aswell. With regard to the young player small it was known that he is an excellent young player and if he was to play he could have been the winning of an AI. I seen him play u16 development hurling for Antrim a few months back and he is an excellent hurler, too good for junior club hurling imo. When I say player is 'illegal' obviously it hasn't been determined yet by the powers that be but I am referring 'if' they are illegal.

deisebhoy (Waterford) - Posts: 416 - 28/02/2014 12:41:35    1552318

Pukefootball yes the other posters view is irrellevant, your view is irrelevant and my view is irrelevant. The only relevant issue here is whether or not Creggan fielded 2 illegal players. And until the determination is made we should reserve judgement. Unfortunately a lot of posters on here (vast majority ulster) have come out slating ballysaggart and waterford gaa in general without even knowing the facts. Just making assumptions but Its funny when assumptions are passed in the opposite direction they don't seem to like it.

deisebhoy (Waterford) - Posts: 416 - 28/02/2014 12:43:24    1552321

But Ringo, the all Ireland club football tournaments now incorporate the black card which is a rule set out for 2014 yet by your reasoning this competition also started in 2013 so why has it not continued as such without new rules incorporated?? The 2013 winners of the all Ireland club junior hurling already have their name on it. The 2014 winners, ie kickhams creggan, will have their name placed in that particular slot.

There is a very grey area in the rules governing all of this and I don't believe that to be creggans fault

frankbhoy77 (Antrim) - Posts: 1300 - 28/02/2014 12:51:25    1552324

Deise, you have no idea what I do and don't know, nice of you to admit that you don't know any of those things I stated though. I will leave this conversation now until judgement is passed....all the best

frankbhoy77 (Antrim) - Posts: 1300 - 28/02/2014 13:07:47    1552338

frankbhoy77 - Yeah and I think that is a good point. The whole thing seems a little thrown together, and it may be just that this particular issue wasn't considered before properly.

It's not fair on either team, and there are two sides to this.

ringo (Wexford) - Posts: 384 - 28/02/2014 13:15:37    1552342

deisebhoy never have I come on here and slated Ballysaggart, I think they have every right to object if they feel that there were illegal players playing. It happen a club from my own county a few years back Corduff, and they were rightly striped of the cup as the player in question was still playing u16 at the time.
But the difference is the Creggan players are not playing u16 this year which (in my opinion) makes them entitle to play.
The euro 2016 quailifers start this year, if Ireland were to qualify do you think if there was a young lad of 16 almost 17 good enough to play you wouldn't want him to cause he wasn't old enough during the qualifers. It's the same thing the 2013 club championship was just a quailifer for the 2014 All Ireland series.

Pukefootball (Monaghan) - Posts: 377 - 28/02/2014 13:51:30    1552364

There's no point trying to apply common sense and 'reason' to the GAA official guide, there's as many holes in it as there is the bible.

bricktop (Down) - Posts: 2503 - 28/02/2014 14:00:29    1552370

Deisebhoy take your chip elsewhere, the only ulster poster to slate waterford GAA in general was ulsterman.

bumpernut (Antrim) - Posts: 1852 - 28/02/2014 14:14:42    1552378

I'm really looking forward to this silly case being thrown away. To quieten a few people on this if nothing else. Deisebhoy, my opinion might be irrelevant to you, but at least it's not wrong.

square_ball_69 (Westmeath) - Posts: 826 - 28/02/2014 18:04:05    1552513