Kerry GAA Discussion Thread Mod Warning Post #4167

D'Agger

GBXI wrote: »

Again it's up to the ref. If the tackle is late/dangerous then you'd hope the ref will make the correct decision. I don't think it requires a rule change or looking at more closely just because Cooper got injured. Can't speak about your experience but of all the things the GAA could do with changing, I'd say late tackles on the kicker are closer to the bottom than top.

You mind me asking what rules should be under more scrutiny?

I think the GAA is at a very exciting time right now. We're seeing far more professionalism in training, diet, and in the past two seasons, tactics. I think the GAA is trying to adapt the game to make it more open with the introduction of the black card.

One of the reasons for my love of the rulebook as, again to compare with rugby, you look at the all blacks, the best teams will play to the absolute limit of the rules. So I think it's in the best interests of the GAA to be quite specific in what constitutes a foul/tackle/card going forwards.

Archer3083

keane2097 wrote: »

That's not "all you're saying" at all. You're saying you're bored of talking about Gooch's injury two days after it happened. A lot of people are going to be talking about it for a long time and you may get used to it.

There is reams of discussion about Castlebar's utterly deserved win over Crokes, to be honest it's not particularly interesting to talk about to me at least as one team dominated on the pitch, sideline and won easily and deservedly.

D'Agger has made some excellent posts in the last two days on the general topic of whether tackles which are made without due regard for the safety of the opposition are something which need to be sanctioned against in Gaelic football. If you find that boring then that's a shame.

Honestly Keane2097, will you let it go now. I said I'm tired of the discussion around the tackle and the player who made the tackle. I think focusing on who made the tackle is irrelevant. The game was played on Saturday, it's not 2 days since the incident. It's 3 days since the severity of the injury was reported, but realistically it was pretty much expected that the news would be bad for Gooch after the game on Saturday. So, that's enough back and forward on the subject. I've made the point. I'm sticking to it. You've made your point. You're sticking to it. Nobody's changing their opinions. That's enough of it!!!

keane2097

Archer3083 wrote: »

Honestly Keane2097, will you let it go now. I said I'm tired of the discussion around the tackle and the player who made the tackle. I think focusing on who made the tackle is irrelevant. The game was played on Saturday, it's not 2 days since the incident. It's 3 days since the severity of the injury was reported, but realistically it was pretty much expected that the news would be bad for Gooch after the game on Saturday. So, that's enough back and forward on the subject. I've made the point. I'm sticking to it. You've made your point. You're sticking to it. Nobody's changing their opinions. That's enough of it!!!

You'll have noted that there have been half a dozen unrelated posts since the one you are going back to in order to tell me to let it go.

The last person to mention the name of the tackler was about 25 posts ago.

Archer3083

DDC1990 wrote: »

You are right about Rugby protecting players when they are most vunerable.

Same goes for the NFL where "defenceless receivers" (players exposed going for a catch) cannot be hit around the head area, even accidentally. Most hits to the heads of defenceless receivers tend to be accidental now, but they are still penalized for the protection of the players that are most at risk. Its causing players to adapt their game, and players are now hitting at chest height, where there is more protection, which is safer for all players involved.

In Gaa, the man in the air and the man kicking the ball are the most vunerable. It would be nice to see them protected, but hopefully in a way that doesn't discourage genuine attempts to block the ball, a skill that is fading out of the game already.

There was an opportunity to protect the player in the air at last year's congress. Introducing the mark might have offered the player some protection. It would certainly have eliminated the 3rd man tackle in those situations. But that's not going to happen. What protection could you offer the player kicking. I'm struggling to think of options. In any case, most fouls are committed on forwards in scoring positions. It's more likely that you'd get more cynical or reckless fouls being committed around goal scoring situations. Maybe if there was a red card for a professional foul in respect of goal scoring opportunities, then players might be more reluctant tackle recklessly closer to goal.

Archer3083

keane2097 wrote: »

You'll have noted that there have been half a dozen unrelated posts since the one you are going back to in order to tell me to let it go.

The last person to mention the name of the tackler was about 25 posts ago.

Seriously, what's your problem? Can you not stop? I'm not responding to any more of this. I'm sick of you.

keane2097

Archer3083 wrote: »

Seriously, what's your problem? Can you not stop? I'm not responding to any more of this. I'm sick of you.

We already stopped talking about what you continue to whinge about, you keep bringing it back up.

Archer3083 wrote: »

There was an opportunity to protect the player in the air at last year's congress. Introducing the mark might have offered the player some protection. It would certainly have eliminated the 3rd man tackle in those situations. But that's not going to happen. What protection could you offer the player kicking. I'm struggling to think of options. In any case, most fouls are committed on forwards in scoring positions. It's more likely that you'd get more cynical or reckless fouls being committed around goal scoring situations. Maybe if there was a red card for a professional foul in respect of goal scoring opportunities, then players might be more reluctant tackle recklessly closer to goal.

A black card for an attempted block in which a kicker's standing leg is struck by the blocker would by one idea. A black card for any reckless contact below a player's knee could work too.

Archer3083

keane2097 wrote: »

We already stopped talking about what you continue to whinge about, you keep bringing it back up.



A black card for an attempted block in which a kicker's standing leg is struck by the blocker would by one idea. A black card for any reckless contact below a player's knee could work too.

You can't let it go can you. I actually read the second part of that post in my emaill account and thought great. He's actually a pretty decent person. He's moving on and he's made a great suggestion. And now I see that first part. You're the one that was going on about backseat modding. Do you know what happens when two posters get personal and keep on about a thing. And you never apologised for being wrong. I never said Crokes were soft. I apologised when I was wrong about your post. Do you want to keep going with the insults back and forth. Does anyone really want to read posts from a slagging match.

keane2097

Archer3083 wrote: »

You can't let it go can you. I actually read the second part of that post in my emaill account and thought great. He's actually a pretty decent person. He's moving on and he's made a great suggestion. And now I see that first part. You're the one that was going on about backseat modding. Do you know what happens when two posters get personal and keep on about a thing. And you never apologised for being wrong. I never said Crokes were soft. I apologised when I was wrong about your post. Do you want to keep going with the insults back and forth. Does anyone really want to read posts from a slagging match.

I never mentioned backseat modding or said anything about Crokes having a soft underbelly. You don't seem to be sure who you are arguing with and what you are arguing about.

You have had 100 opportunities to move on as the discussion has long since moved past what you insist on complaining about. You land back in every couple of hours and dig out the last post to bring it back up.

If you keep nipping at me about it I'm going to keep replying.

If you were really interested in moving on with the discussion you would have taken the latest chance where I replied to you - "He's moving on and he's made a great suggestion." - correct.

Instead you decided to forget about that and start the bickering again.

For the record, I don't feel insulted despite you questioning my maturity earlier, I'd be amazed if I had said anything insulting towards you as a human, if I did I apologise unreservedly.

If you have any actual interest in the debate rather than the argument, now would be a good time to respond to my ideas that you decided not to bother with from the last post. I've been trying to stop this for 12 hours.

D'Agger

keane2097 wrote: »

A black card for an attempted block in which a kicker's standing leg is struck by the blocker would by one idea. A black card for any reckless contact below a player's knee could work too.

That'd be left up to referee discretion obviously but I think that might feed into what is already a grey area regarding loose balls on the ground - it's something that can be very 50/50 at the moment - player goes down on ball, oppositon player sticks in a boot to knick the ball away - you see very soft frees given for it and then you see cases of guys nearly getting blown away and play going on.

Again - it depends on how the ref sees it.

I've seen forwards buy frees in that situation and seen them have legs broken too. As it stands, for me anyway, the best way of defending in that situation is to keep the foot out, leave the player pick and put a hand in as they're rising with the ball - with your other hand in the air to show it's not on the back.

keane2097

D'Agger wrote: »

That'd be left up to referee discretion obviously but I think that might feed into what is already a grey area regarding loose balls on the ground - it's something that can be very 50/50 at the moment - player goes down on ball, oppositon player sticks in a boot to knick the ball away - you see very soft frees given for it and then you see cases of guys nearly getting blown away and play going on.

Again - it depends on how the ref sees it.

I've seen forwards buy frees in that situation and seen them have legs broken too. As it stands, for me anyway, the best way of defending in that situation is to keep the foot out, leave the player pick and put a hand in as they're rising with the ball - with your other hand in the air to show it's not on the back.

Well the rule is already a blanket statement that you can't pull on the ball if a player is going down for it isn't it?

homerjay2005

RoscommonTom wrote: »

Typical Kerry fans, can't take a beating, if it was a fella from longford or lietrim what got injured do you think theyd be talking the same rubbish, hes injured get over it,

dont see one person saying anything about the result, what we are debating however is an injury to the best player in the country.

and why would we give a f*ck about players from other counties? this is a thread for speaking about something that is a National talking point that happens to include one of our players.

Connacht people have some chip on their shoulder when it comes to GAA or more in particular Kerry GAA, its actually a bit disturbing but extremely gratifying how bitter and obsessed ye are. suppose all those low days and beatings you talk about, have to be out-poured somewhere.

rebel girl 15

Lads, stop making it personal and baiting each other, I'll be giving people time off now at this stage

Archer3083

keane2097 wrote: »

I never mentioned backseat modding or said anything about Crokes having a soft underbelly. You don't seem to be sure who you are arguing with and what you are arguing about.

You have had 100 opportunities to move on as the discussion has long since moved past what you insist on complaining about. You land back in every couple of hours and dig out the last post to bring it back up.

If you keep nipping at me about it I'm going to keep replying.

If you were really interested in moving on with the discussion you would have taken the latest chance where I replied to you - "He's moving on and he's made a great suggestion." - correct.

Instead you decided to forget about that and start the bickering again.

For the record, I don't feel insulted despite you questioning my maturity earlier, I'd be amazed if I had said anything insulting towards you as a human, if I did I apologise unreservedly.

If you have any actual interest in the debate rather than the argument, now would be a good time to respond to my ideas that you decided not to bother with from the last post. I've been trying to stop this for 12 hours.

I did say that it was an excellent suggestion to make it a black card offense for tackles under the knee. I would definitely like to see that introduced. I think it's a very innovative suggestion, because no body wants to see players getting cruciate injuries. I would even be happy if tackles below the knee were called 'dangerous tackles' and punished with yellow in much the same way that head high or tackles around the neck are punished with yellow. I think I'd like to see more severe punishment like a black card for a below the knee tackle because it would act as a better deterrent.

keane2097

Archer3083 wrote: »

I did say that it was an excellent suggestion to make it a black card offense for tackles under the knee. I would definitely like to see that introduced. I think it's a very innovative suggestion, because no body wants to see players getting cruciate injuries. I would even be happy if tackles below the knee were called 'dangerous tackles' and punished with yellow in much the same way that head high or tackles around the neck are punished with yellow. I think I'd like to see more severe punishment like a black card for a below the knee tackle because it would act as a better deterrent.

In these sort of discussions the problem is that usually when you come up with an idea for a solution you inadvertently and unknowingly create a different problem.

Racking my brains trying to come up with a situation where making a tackle which hits below the knee a foul/card would be problematic.

DDC1990

Archer3083 wrote: »

I did say that it was an excellent suggestion to make it a black card offense for tackles under the knee. I would definitely like to see that introduced. I think it's a very innovative suggestion, because no body wants to see players getting cruciate injuries. I would even be happy if tackles below the knee were called 'dangerous tackles' and punished with yellow in much the same way that head high or tackles around the neck are punished with yellow. I think I'd like to see more severe punishment like a black card for a below the knee tackle because it would act as a better deterrent.

I'd be inclined to put it down as a Yellow Card rather than a Black Card offense IMO.

Blacks Cards at the moment are reserved for deliberate acts of foul play- Foot Trips, Body Checks, Pulling a player to the ground.

I'd agree with you that this sort of tackle would come under dangerous play, and as such be a Yellow Card, or even in severe cases (Very late, clearly intentional targeting) A Red Card.

EDIT: Also, in the case where a player has kicked a point and is fouled afterwards, I'd be inclined to award the point AND give a free from the spot of the foul.

D'Agger

keane2097 wrote: »

Well the rule is already a blanket statement that you can't pull on the ball if a player is going down for it isn't it?

I would have thought that the foul would be if you pull on a ball that a player is picking up - if you try to nick a ball away with your toe then a forward with his back bent going down on it, but not necessarily picking up the ball, will play for a free and two times out of 3 get it - again, that's just from what I've seen and may or may not have done :pac:

Amprodude

homerjay2005 wrote: »

im sorry lads, but that tackle deserves criticism and the player involved should take responsibility for it. im sure it was an accident, but that is irrelevent.

the black card was brought in for late tackles like that.

Yeah sure it was intentional. He went out of his way to throttle and knock out the gooch. My god such nonsense.

Archer3083

Jonathan Lyne is out with a hamstring injury. That fella is cursed. He had a good enough outing in the league last year, got injured and pretty much had no impact on championship. Now he's out for 2-3 games.He's out for the Mayo game. He may also miss the Tyrone and Kildare game. And he got injured in that Inter Provincial competition playing for Munster.

homerjay2005

Amprodude wrote: »

Yeah sure it was intentional. He went out of his way to throttle and knock out the gooch. My god such nonsense.

nobody has said it was intentional, ,stop making up s*it or perhaps, actually read the full discussion.

Fr Tod Umptious

homerjay2005 wrote: »

nobody has said it was intentional, ,stop making up s*it or perhaps, actually read the full discussion.

But the black card is for intentional tackles, late or otherwise.
You said "the black card was brought in for late tackles like this"
Therefore you are saying it was intentional

homerjay2005

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But the black card is for intentional tackles, late or otherwise.
You said "the black card was brought in for late tackles like this"
Therefore you are saying it was intentional

intent to foul and intent to injure are two different things.

nobody has ever said that the injury was intentional.

MOTM

Anyone know the current story with bryan sheehans injuries? Is he due back at some stage this decade?

(apologies from drifting off topic from the tackle ;p

The_Honeybadger

Good to see Kerryman Paul Geaney just captained UCC to the sigerson cup.

MOTM

Gooch in recovery mode. https://fbcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/s720x720/1798239_621827557886991_1838663428_n.jpg

Boom__Boom

mickeyk wrote: »

Good to see Kerryman Paul Geaney just captained UCC to the sigerson cup.

Got MOTM as well - got through an amount of work and really led by example - he was unlucky to not get a goal when a good save by the UUJ keeper tipped an effort onto the bar.

Cox kicked some fine scores from frees ; struggled a bit in general play but some of the ball into him was definitely not of the best quality and he was left fairly isolated up-front (both Geaney and Quinlivan spent a fair amount of time out the field). He did very well to set up Geaney's goal chance.

Kelly in goal didn't have a whole lot to do in terms of shot-stopping but I thought he did very well on the kickout front mixing up long and short very smartly on a night where there was a strong wind.

Culhane and Shanahan both had very solid games, while Keane was ok in patches but struggled to get into the game and I wasn't surprised to see him subbed.

Overall the UCC defence really worked very well as a unit. The thing I was most impressed with by UCC was the intelligence of their defensive work. For the amount of pressure they came under they gave away very few frees. UUJ did miss an amount of chances but a lot of those were shots under defensive pressure.

In terms of Kerry players it was a very encouraging performance especially when you look at the quality UUJ had.

The hooter experiment was "interesting" if a little strange. There was a bit of confusion at the end of the first half when a free was given with players being on their way off the pitch after the hooter went but a free was given. However because it was so far out UUJ didnt even attempt a kick at the posts (there was no way the kick would have got their with the wind) and instead just tapped it backwards. At the end of the second half it showed that a black or red card isn't much in the way of a disincentive if you team is a point up with 10 seconds left. Given Congress have passed this and it will be used in Championship 2014 I can expect this to cause some confusion - some managers will no doubt be off to talk to the ladies to see how they deal with this in terms of tactics/strategy.

Archer3083

Did anyone catch Pat Spillane's article in the "Sunday World" today. I'm surprised that a former great Kerry footballer would write such rubbish about his own county. He certainly didn't do the Kerry team any favours when he wrote that "Last season in his new role as centre-forward he became the conductor who made heroes out of very ordinary players". This is about as insulting a remark as you will find about any team. I'm just shocked that Pat Spillane would say it about Kerry. Did Gooch make Tomás Ó Sé, Marc Ó Sé, Donnchadh Walsh, James O Donoghue, Darren O'Sullvan or Declan O'Sullivan look like heroes last year instead of ordinary players. There's nothing ordinary about any of those players. Those players would walk on to most other teams. It's a very low blow from Pat Spillane, and it's incredibly disrespectful and insulting to the current Kerry panel.

MOTM

Typical Sunday world and Spillane trash. He's an attention seeker. Ignore him

Kerrydude1981

Pat isn't happy unless he is saying or writing something controversial.

Archer3083

MOTM wrote: »

Typical Sunday world and Spillane trash. He's an attention seeker. Ignore him

I wouldn't take too much of what Pat says seriously. I normally read the column for entertainment value. He's a publicity hound, but I thought that was a new low, about his own county!

ShamoBuc

MOTM wrote: »

Typical Sunday world and Spillane trash. He's an attention seeker. Ignore him

He reminds me of a Kerry poster on here...:pac: