Waterford GAA Discussion Thread 2013- Mod Warning Post #1

robopaddy

Mountainlad wrote: »

Don't think Ballysaggart/Creggan controversy will have any bearing on this game.

I think youll find it was said with tongue in cheek lad...

robopaddy

3ships wrote: »

On the Ballysaggart/Creggan issue, I just think its one iffy rule being thrown out by another iffy rule but its done now.

Is it? Has the verdict been given?

Giveitfong

On the Creggan Kickhams facebook page, it says the club hass 650 members, 28 teams and 450 players. On the club's website, they describe themselves as a "small rural club"! If that's what they are, how would you describe Ballysaggart?!

Slobbery

Giveitfong wrote: »

On the Creggan Kickhams facebook page, it says the club hass 650 members, 28 teams and 450 players. On the club's website, they describe themselves as a "small rural club"! If that's what they are, how would you describe Ballysaggart?!

That's exactly why playing the illegal players was so unfair, they have plenty to pick from.

I wonder when a decision will be made by the GAA over this?

dzilla

why is the decision being delayed. wonder is it a head in the sand job for the GAA

blue note

dzilla wrote: »

why is the decision being delayed. wonder is it a head in the sand job for the GAA

It's hard to understand the delay. Very tough on both teams.

I've heard it suggested that there will be no winner of the competition this year. In many ways that would be ghe fairest. I'm sure kickhams knocked out other teams who are furious about it as well.

hardybuck

I would bet that the delay will involve a decision in Creggan's favour. Dragging it out makes sense, as replaying a final at the end of March or early April would turn the thing into a total farce.

premierstone

blue note wrote: »

It's hard to understand the delay. Very tough on both teams.

I've heard it suggested that there will be no winner of the competition this year. In many ways that would be ghe fairest. I'm sure kickhams knocked out other teams who are furious about it as well.

Defeated semi finalists were the only other team affected as they were the only two games played in 2014, there was no ambiguity relating to the two young lads eligibility in 2013 it was very celar they were ineligible, the confusion arose when the championship entered into a new calender year.

hardybuck

premierstone wrote: »

Defeated semi finalists were the only other team affected as they were the only two games played in 2014, there was no ambiguity relating to the two young lads eligibility in 2013 it was very celar they were ineligible, the confusion arose when the championship entered into a new calender year.

This is the crux of the issue. Some people are insisting that Creggan won the 2014 championship, therefore it is a new competition. It'd be a little more straightforward if a 2013 U21 competition ran into 2014 for example. However, you can't play new transfers in the AI club semis or finals which are played in Jan and Feb...

The GAA rulebook is so complex someone will make a decision and find something in it which backs up the decision whatever way it goes. I expect them to make a fudge of this however.

premierstone

hardybuck wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue. Some people are insisting that Creggan won the 2014 championship, therefore it is a new competition. It'd be a little more straightforward if a 2013 U21 competition ran into 2014 for example. However, you can't play new transfers in the AI club semis or finals which are played in Jan and Feb...

The GAA rulebook is so complex someone will make a decision and find something in it which backs up the decision whatever way it goes. I expect them to make a fudge of this however.

I actually have sympathy for whoever has to make the ultimate decision here, its a real no win situation.

A couple of people have made the comparsison of players who transfer clubs but Im not really sure its a fair comparision, if we look at why the u-16 rules exists then to be fair to Creegan logic would dictate they are eligible once they
finish with the u16 grade.

However it is quite clear from the rules that this game was still part of the 2013 championship, I genuinely dont think that Creggan intentionally broke any rules and it was a geuine error, however on the flip side technically they did break the competition rules, fielded two ineligible players and the appropriate punishment is they be thrown out.

I can't speak on behalf of Ballysaggart but what would that achieve though, winning an AI by default, no glory in that and it would always cast a shadow over the club.

I don't think there is a provision in the rule book but the fairest conclusion I would imagine would be to have a replay, hopefully a loophole can be found to allow this because any other outcome just leaves a bad taste to the whole thing. Can you imagine the timbering that would go on in a replay, twould be worth travelling to!!

deiseach

If Ballysaggart's appeal wasn't lodged in time then surely Creggan are All-Ireland champions. It makes sense to have a cutoff point so you don't have a situation where we have to go back to the semi-final and so on. That doesn't mean that the players were eligible though. For my money Creggan were in breach of both the letter and the spirit of the law - if you're not eligible for a team at the start of a competition you're not eligible at the end, just as the opposite is true in the case of Minors or Under-21's. I get the feeling Creggan might have been advised by someone with standing to make these rulings that yerra they're okay and some arse-covering is taking place behind the scenes.

deisedude

premierstone wrote: »

I actually have sympathy for whoever has to make the ultimate decision here, its a real no win situation.

A couple of people have made the comparsison of players who transfer clubs but Im not really sure its a fair comparision, if we look at why the u-16 rules exists then to be fair to Creegan logic would dictate they are eligible once they
finish with the u16 grade.

However it is quite clear from the rules that this game was still part of the 2013 championship, I genuinely dont think that Creggan intentionally broke any rules and it was a geuine error, however on the flip side technically they did break the competition rules, fielded two ineligible players and the appropriate punishment is they be thrown out.

I can't speak on behalf of Ballysaggart but what would that achieve though, winning an AI by default, no glory in that and it would always cast a shadow over the club.

I don't think there is a provision in the rule book but the fairest conclusion I would imagine would be to have a replay, hopefully a loophole can be found to allow this because any other outcome just leaves a bad taste to the whole thing. Can you imagine the timbering that would go on in a replay, twould be worth travelling to!!

Very good post. Initially I thought it smacked of sour grapes from Ballysaggart but at the end of the day intentionally or not Creggan broke the rules and who is to say Ballysaggart would not have won if Creggan had played 2 inferior players

Giveitfong

As far as I am aware, the GAA regards the All-Ireland series (i.e. post provincial championships) at intercounty level as separate competitions from the provincial championships. If this applied to the club championships, Creggan would have been entitled to play the two young lads as it would have been a new competition beginning in 2014. I wonder if they got advice to that effect.

Many years ago I played in a county final (not in Waterford) in which my club fielded an illegal player. The other club were aware of this (by a pure fluke, they had a player from the same parish in another county) but they didn't object (mainly because they were hammered in the final anyway). However, the county board also became aware of the illegal player and decided not to award the championship at all in that year, even thought there was no formal objection.

If it is true that the three-day period for lodging an objection begins the second the final whistle blows then it is a very stringent rule. Surely clubs should be allowed to lodge objections up to midnight on the third day after the game in question.

robopaddy

premierstone wrote: »

I genuinely dont think that Creggan intentionally broke any rules and it was a geuine error, however on the flip side technically they did break the

I wouldnt be as sure. They must have at least discussed it amongst themselves. Did they even bother to seek clarification on the matter? Or did they just assume that if someone did cop-on that they could just play dumb about it whether they were within the rules or not. conor small is well known as a young prospect up in antrim. Ballysaggart are the ones being ridiculed but I dont beleive creggan are as innocent as they make themselved out to be

Jarjohn

AFAIK the winners are crowned the 2014 Junior Club Champions. Adds to the confusion as you could argue it was a 2014 championship. Whatever happens Ballysaggart had a great run and will go very well in the Intermediate this year.

deiseach

Giveitfong wrote: »

As far as I am aware, the GAA regards the All-Ireland series (i.e. post provincial championships) at intercounty level as separate competitions from the provincial championships. If this applied to the club championships, Creggan would have been entitled to play the two young lads as it would have been a new competition beginning in 2014. I wonder if they got advice to that effect.

There were suggestions when John Mullane was sent off in the 2004 Munster final that we might try to claim the All-Ireland series was a separate competition in order so he could play against Kilkenny. How different might things have turned out for us had that been the case? But it wasn't.

Ballyvoile Boy

If Pat Bennett had kept his bloody mouth shut about the ref, no one would be giving out about Ballysaggart, calling them sore losers etc. Rules are there to ensure there is a level playing field for all and one team gained an advantage over another here by fielding ineligible players.

Yeah sure, Ballysaggart could go away and do the "decent thing". Would you do that if it was your club though? After battling away all year and through the drawn game, only to find out your victorious opponents had broke one of the most fundamental rules there could be in any competition - age eligibiilty - and done it with 2 players.

I would say most in Waterford would like to see a replay, but apart from that, probably the 2nd best result for Ballysaggart now would be that the result stands and Kickhams are champions, with their complaint being blatantly ignored by Croke Park. At least everyone there would be no anti-climax for them of being awarded a title with no replay.

The replay would be the best for everyone in the circumstances, but would the rules provide for it?

Ballyvoile Boy

On another topic, can anyone make head or tail of the fixtures on the Waterford GAA website? Half the links don't work. Looks like they could do with someone with a bit of computer experience.

alllcounty

Great result by WIT to beat LIT by a point after extra time. The game on tv tomorrow at 4pm will be worth watching with about 8 Waterford players playing between WIT and UCC. WIT always seem to over achieve when Colm Bonner is in charge so fair play.

pmy.murphy

alllcounty wrote: »

Great result by WIT to beat LIT by a point after extra time. The game on tv tomorrow at 4pm will be worth watching with about 8 Waterford players playing between WIT and UCC. WIT always seem to over achieve when Colm Bonner is in charge so fair play.

Who played well for WIT?

Deise_2012

alllcounty wrote: »

Great result by WIT to beat LIT by a point after extra time. The game on tv tomorrow at 4pm will be worth watching with about 8 Waterford players playing between WIT and UCC. WIT always seem to over achieve when Colm Bonner is in charge so fair play.

UCC didn't win yet

alllcounty

pmy.murphy wrote: »

Who played well for WIT?

I don't know as I was only looking at LIT twitter page.
https://twitter.com/LITSports

Correction UCC and CIT game not played yet but UCC are red hot favourites to do the 3 in a row.

avonmore

alllcounty wrote: »

I don't know as I was only looking at LIT twitter page.
https://twitter.com/LITSports

Correction UCC and CIT game not played yet but UCC are red hot favourites to do the 3 in a row.

Half time. CIT 1-12 UCC 0-7

avonmore

40 mins CIT 1-13 UCC 0-12.

avonmore

50 mins CIT 1-13 UCC 0-16.

avonmore

55 mins CIT 1-15 UCC 0-18.

avonmore

Full Time CIT 1-17 UCC 0-19.

Wow, that's some result for CIT, what an upset!

It should be some final tomorrow.

robopaddy

avonmore wrote: »

Full Time CIT 1-17 UCC 0-19.

Wow, that's some result for CIT, what an upset!

It should be some final tomorrow.

Thats a big surprise. Sounded like some game. Is ray barry with CIT?

robopaddy

pmy.murphy wrote: »

Who played well for WIT?

Paudie mahony scored another 0-16.that makes it over 60 points for club and college in under 2 weeks (so far!) Not bad for a fellah apparantly 'not fit to wear the waterford jersey'

cul beag

robopaddy wrote: »

Thats a big surprise. Sounded like some game. Is ray barry with CIT?

I looked out for that myself but he's not involved with them this year. I watched the last 5 mins online of the ucc/cit game and it looked hectic. Jamie Barron showed great stick work in the final seconds but then took the wrong option by shooting for the equaliser himself rather than handpassing to the substitute inside him. Ucc scored 10pts on the trot in the second half but still came up short. Looking forward to the final on TV tomorrow at 4pm. Here's hoping WIT pull it off it would be great for the college and of course for the Waterford lads involved.
16pts from Padraig mahony is some shooting at any level let alone a Fitz semi final. He really is firing on all cylinders at the moment. Long may it continue.