Muineachanabu. Corduff played an Armagh team in the semi final. I can't beleive that they played this lad again in the final after being warned not to. Complete and utter stupidity!!

Alonso (Cavan) - Posts: 41 - 16/12/2010 12:48:43    833859

As a fellow Tyrone man EnolaGay you sound a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to talking about playing with in the rules, sure tyrone conty board appeal nearly every tyone player that gets sent off even when they are clearly guilty

fiannablue (Tyrone) - Posts: 326 - 16/12/2010 13:06:57    833876

Typical Cavan team sore losers. Objections must be free these days aswell if a Cavan team lodged one....

nacellabeaga (Offaly) - Posts: 700 - 16/12/2010 13:35:01    833888

dis lad scored a goal which won da game 4 corduff so if he hadn't being playing den maybe swanlinbar wud have won da game so why not object they are intitle to. maybe if he didn't score anything then it wud be stupid but not if he scored da winnin goal, rules are rules.

dunlop (UK) - Posts: 14 - 16/12/2010 13:42:01    833892

can't understand why u blamin swanlinbar 4 dis dey didn't cheat, corduff knew wat dey were doin so now dey sud face up to dere actions

sliverplate (Monaghan) - Posts: 8 - 16/12/2010 13:47:32    833895

fiannablue, I don't ever remember condoning our Co Board and/or management in the way they go about trying to defend those players who incur suspensions. Don't know where that has come out of. I'm saying that if a rule has been broken, then people/clubs/counties should expect to be punished. No matter who they are or where they come from. Nothing hypocritical in that?

EnolaGay (Tyrone) - Posts: 653 - 16/12/2010 14:15:07    833914

Greengrass

If a player is good enough for that level at 16 let him play no point letting them wait and yes it is a stupid rule , they should take there beating fair and square .

Dellboypolecat (Tyrone) - Posts: 15069 - 16/12/2010 14:38:13    833931

Not a nice situation. I'm sure Swadlinbar don't want the title, but to be fair, if Corduff knowingly put out an ineligiable player they've only themselves to blame for any action taken afterwards. Bending the rules, taking risks and turning the blind eye has this country on it's knees - there's a HUGE lesson there for everyone in this country and I'm surprised to hear some of the feckless comments regarding 'rules'. Swadlinbar have done the right thing; not the nicest thing but certainly the right thing in the truest sense of the word . If they had broke the rules on the day, I certainly would not be on this forum apologising for them or defending them.

Con Cavan (Cavan) - Posts: 894 - 16/12/2010 15:14:15    833955

If a 16 year old is good enough then they should be played. it's Hardly irresponsible as some people have said as that same player will be eligible to play in 16 days time anyway. im sure they would not have played the 16 year old if he wasn't good enough or if he wasn't phyically able to take the hits involved. After all they want to win the match so they should be allowed to play their best players regardless of age.

890202 (Wexford) - Posts: 1278 - 16/12/2010 15:36:37    833971

WEll said i was in the same position last year myself, playing adult hurling as an under 16 and i didn't see any harm in it, a very silly rule which prevents players from playing at the highest level possible for them. Some players need a challenge and when they are scoring all around them in division 4 or 5 under 16 games and making the other players look foolish in the process it is not good for anybody, so these better players need a challenge.

77981301 (UK) - Posts: 79 - 16/12/2010 15:46:12    833986

Alot of Cavan posters seem to be sticking up for Swanlinbars actions. People are saying they didn't want to do this or win the title this way, if that was the case why did they lodge an objection. Cavan Gaels did the same thing a few years ago when Ryan Bell was u-14 and played on the Ballinderry side that beat them in the Ulster Minor Club. This rule is idiotic, and the PC brigade can come out in force and say that 'rules are rules' etc but there is nothing wrong with playing a fella who is 16 in Seniors if he is ready and able. Most people would disagree with the rule, it should not be a rule at all.

geoff (Tyrone) - Posts: 377 - 16/12/2010 15:49:18    833992

what is the point in having rules in place if they are allowed to be broken? do i agree with the rule? no, but i can see why its in place.the fact remains that the rule is there....if that monaghan team knew the rule then the management have let their fans down by choosing to ignore it!!!

breakingball22 (Louth) - Posts: 419 - 16/12/2010 16:13:57    834008

If the game is refixed for the new year, will tis player be elligiable to play then as he wont be u-16 then ??? in my opionin it should'nt really be up 2 swad to object every teams panel should be sent to the ulster council before the start of the competition and if the player is not on it they should not be allowed play. and every club should know that if they break the rule they are disquillifed. i'm sure no swad player wants an ulster medal this way

boom2010 (Cavan) - Posts: 14 - 16/12/2010 16:20:20    834012

Corduff should keep the title. Swanlibar are cryers who never looked like beating corduff. The fairest thing would be a replay

MuineachanAbu (Monaghan) - Posts: 660 - 16/12/2010 16:34:39    834032

The rule is there lads, and for good reason. Over the past few years I have seen several promising footballers ruined by being played at 15 or 16 years of age at senior level. Argue with the rule if you like Dell but not Swad. Cavan have apparently breached the training ban, we're not complaining about the ban but complaining that they were so stupid to do it. Same applies to Corduff. It's a horrible position to put the other 20 odd players in..

Swad were contacted by the Ulster Council on the matter first. I've spoken to several Swad people, they all say the same, Corduff were by far the better team on the day. But Swad flopped on the day and they're thinking if they're offered another chance why shouldn't they take it? They had pulled it back to 1 point and then the INELIGIBLE player came on and scored a goal. Talented though he may be, he should not have been on the field. If things had played out differently and he had got tackled badly resulting in a bad injury, people would be questioning why he was on the field.

Some stupid comments on here calling shame on Swad, shame on Corduff management. Putting their team in that position is inexcusable, they could now be stripped of a title or best case scenario they will get a replay.

Inactive x5 (Cavan) - Posts: 1452 - 16/12/2010 16:38:32    834035

If the game is replayed next year he still won't be eligible as he must be 16 before the first of Jauary of the championship year, which means he needed to be 16 before the 1st of January 2010.
But the rules state that the mactch be awarded to the opposition in the result of a proven objection. A replay of the game could only have been called if Ulster Council were the ones who started an inquiry themselves.

hbk (Monaghan) - Posts: 35 - 16/12/2010 16:45:10    834042

i wonder if this had of happened in the senior final, wud people say it wud b wrong for glenties 2 lodge an appeal

smokinaces (Cavan) - Posts: 68 - 16/12/2010 16:47:06    834045

It is a rule- whether people think it is stupid or otherwise is beside the point. Is somebody suggesting a 'ranking of rules' where it is okay to break some (the stupid ones) and not others (smart rules!!)? If Corduff had not broken the rule there would be no issue here- seems very clear to me. I think Con cavan makes a very good point.

theweecounty27 (Louth) - Posts: 24 - 16/12/2010 17:05:03    834059

The GAA cant insist on a replay we found this out following the Leinster final debacle this year.

Anyone know if any precedent exists where a team was thrown out of a competition for playing an ineligible player ?.

I wouldn't like to call which way this could go.

If Curduff are shafted from the competition then they can blame no one but themselves.

BallsMcQ (USA) - Posts: 941 - 16/12/2010 17:08:22    834060

this rule was brought in to protect young players and i would wonder what the insurance rule is on this ? rules are rules and they broke it so take the punishment ,

hipster (Dublin) - Posts: 2509 - 16/12/2010 17:11:20    834063