Lee Keegan's red card overturned

Harry Angstrom

keeponhurling wrote: »

Aaron Findon didn't kick or punch anyone though

Pure as the driven snow, that fella......

robbiezero

fleck wrote: »

This is not the first time a player has been cleared based on the referee's wording of "attempted striking" versus "striking" (O'Leary for Cork in a Munster final about 5 years ago ).
Given that fact, is it not possible that the ref realises he was a bit harsh sending off the player and is purposely giving the country grounds for appeal?

Why are people so convinced the referee worded the report incorrectly?
Maybe he worded it to contain exactly what he thought happened or was told happened by the linesman?

GAAman

Ignoring the work of at least one troll here I think it's disgraceful this red was overturned and most certainly in the manner it was.

When Cluxton did the same thing in the league mayo fans went mad, I have a few friends from mayo and they were talking to me calling him every name under the sun, and in keegans red card they were treating him like Pontius Pilate had wrongly condemned him to death!

If this were a Dublin player in identical circumstances the country would be in uproar to say the least and we wouldn't get a word in edgeways here for people crying conspiracy and collusion between the GAA and Dublin.

Stoner

robbiezero wrote: »

Why are people so convinced the referee worded the report incorrectly?
Maybe he worded it to contain exactly what he thought happened or was told happened by the linesman?

We are all just guessing, I don't think its worth anymore debate TBH. It's done

robbiezero

Stoner wrote: »

We are all just guessing, I don't think its worth anymore debate TBH. It's done

The conspiracy theories around it on this thread and on the Mayo v Kerry thread are just ridiculous though.
He did not commit the offence he was reportedly sent off for. Therefore he must be acquitted. I cannot see what other choice the CCC had.

keane2097

robbiezero wrote: »

The conspiracy theories around it on this thread and on the Mayo v Kerry thread are just ridiculous though.
He did not commit the offence he was reportedly sent off for. Therefore he must be acquitted. I cannot see what other choice the CCC had.

His appeal argument involved admitting to another offence which carries the same sentence. It's a three card trick.

robbiezero

keane2097 wrote: »

His appeal argument involved admitting to another offence which carries the same sentence. It's a three card trick.

Would the ref have sent him off had he realised that he had not made any contact with Buckley?
Who knows. Anyway I imagine the terms of reference for the CCC are quite narrow for this sort of appeal.
"Did he do what he was reported to have done? No. Overturned so"

Correct decision to overturn the red card simple as that.

fleck

robbiezero wrote: »

The conspiracy theories around it on this thread and on the Mayo v Kerry thread are just ridiculous though.
He did not commit the offence he was reportedly sent off for. Therefore he must be acquitted. I cannot see what other choice the CCC had.

It's not a conspiracy theory it's the way these things work. The referee is given leeway to send the man off based on a strict interpretation of the rules (but in most similar cases this doesn't happen) and the CCCC is given enough leeway to reverse this when it does happen based on a strict interpretation of the referees report.

I think most players would rather the rules to be, written in way where there is less open to interpretation, applied by referees more consistently and thenthere would be less grounds for appeals. But this ain't Germany.

robbiezero

fleck wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy theory it's the way these things work. The referee is given leeway to send the man off based on a strict interpretation of the rules (but in most similar cases this doesn't happen) and the CCCC is given enough leeway to reverse this when it does happen based on a strict interpretation of the referees report.

I think most players would rather the rules to be, written in way where there is less open to interpretation, applied by referees more consistently and thenthere would be less grounds for appeals. But this ain't Germany.

Thats my point. It has nothing to do with Mayo being forced to go to Limerick, nothing to with a vendetta against Kerry etc etc...

keane2097

robbiezero wrote: »

Would the ref have sent him off had he realised that he had not made any contact with Buckley?
Who knows. Anyway I imagine the terms of reference for the CCC are quite narrow for this sort of appeal.
"Did he do what he was reported to have done? No. Overturned so"

Correct decision to overturn the red card simple as that.

I'm glad you added your last line as I wasn't fully convinced before that.

rebel girl 15

Chuck the rule book out, doesn't need to be used at all - no backing for the referee who made the CORRECT call within the rulebook but it was overruled. Attempting to kick and kick are the exact same thing under the rulebook - red card. Blame the referee for wording it incorrectly even though what he did was a straight red. He got off by admitting a straight red card offense - only in the GAA would that happen and NO suspension.

The video evidence is there, he claimed attempting to kick with minimal force a Cat II offense - baffling - referee sent him off under rule 5.1, how can it not be clear than that?

robbiezero

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Chuck the rule book out, doesn't need to be used at all - no backing for the referee who made the CORRECT call within the rulebook but it was overruled. Attempting to kick and kick are the exact same thing under the rulebook - red card. Blame the referee for wording it incorrectly even though what he did was a straight red. He got off by admitting a straight red card offense - only in the GAA would that happen and NO suspension.

The video evidence is there, he claimed attempting to kick with minimal force a Cat II offense - baffling - referee sent him off under rule 5.1, how can it not be clear than that?

How do you know he worded it incorrectly? Maybe he saw the incident incorrectly?

keane2097

Abandon thread time I think. Best of luck with the cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics folks.

rebel girl 15

robbiezero wrote: »

How do you know he worded it incorrectly? Maybe he saw the incident incorrectly?

Thats how Mayo got it overturned - the report was written as "kicking" rather than attempting to kick. Now what is baffling beyond belief is that the same rule under which he got off on is the same rule as he was sent off under.

robbiezero

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Thats how Mayo got it overturned - the report was written as "kicking" rather than attempting to kick. Now what is baffling beyond belief is that the same rule under which he got off on is the same rule as he was sent off under.

Maybe that's what the referee thought he saw or what the linesman told him he saw.

rebel girl 15

robbiezero wrote: »

Maybe that's what the referee thought he saw or what the linesman told him he saw.

But it doesn't matter - what he saw was Lee Keegan kicking out at a player - under the rulebook it didn't matter if he connected or not, it was a red card!

robbiezero

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

But it doesn't matter - what he saw was Lee Keegan kicking out at a player - under the rulebook it didn't matter if he connected or not, it was a red card!

Of course it matters. He may not have sent him off if he had realised how harmless the incident was - rulebook or not.
If you refereed every single game exactly to the rulebook, you would have multiple sendings off. In that incident alone, Buckley would have had to walk too.

DoctaDee

If I was a Mayo supporter, I'd be just happy that he's cleared to play .. the word jumble that's ensued here is plain ridiculous tbh

rebel girl 15

robbiezero wrote: »

Of course it matters. He may not have sent him off if he had realised how harmless the incident was - rulebook or not.
If you refereed every single game exactly to the rulebook, you would have multiple sendings off. In that incident alone, Buckley would have had to walk too.

The referee was correct to send him off, and its been overruled - first two or three games there would be multiple sendings off, but very quickly teams learn. Either implement the rule book, or don't bother with any of it - wording of that rule will have to be changed to the ladies version, where striking is red and attempting and missing is yellow and sin bin

fleck

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

first two or three games there would be multiple sendings off, but very quickly teams learn.

When was the first of these games scheduled for? was it last Sunday? well no one told the players.

I'm sure the players would be very happy if the rules were applied strictly and consistently but that hasn't happened and it is unfair to strictly apply the rules just last Sunday.

This exact situation (with regards to appeal) has happened numerous times previously and nobody has made it a priority to change the appeals process, it's not seen to be an issue.

Amprodude

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm a bit disturbed by this emerging narrative that Buckley punched Keegan in the ribs. He clearly - clearly - punched the ball.

He really did do a mike tyson on him and should have been red carded!

DDC1990

Amprodude wrote: »

He really did do a mike tyson on him and should have been red carded!

The Gaa have retroactively banned Kerry Senior Footballer, Johnny Buckley after his viscous assault on Mayo's Lee Keegan, in Sunday's All Ireland Senior Football Championship Semi-Final, in Croke Park. Buckley lashed out at Keegan with a tirade of blows to the ribs and testicles, causing the Westport man's leg to jerk violently. To compound matters, Kerry's Donnacha Walsh proceeded to shamefully berate the referee until he gave in and produced a Red Card, not to Buckley but to the stricken victim in the assault. Thankfully on Thursday night, justice was done, and in a victory for common sense, the gallant Covey was cleared. Justice has also been done, with the banning of Buckley, prompting a parade around the Mall in Castlebar, culminating in a tear jerking oration from our glorious Taoiseach, Enda Kenny from the balcony of the County Council offices. The All Ireland Semi Final replay will take place in McHale Park Castlebar on Tuesday night at 7:30, after Kenny intervened in the "Limerick Saga" at the eleventh hour, leading to the fixture being fixed in a more suitable venue. It is thought that the high number of tickets sold in Kerry was deemed an unfair advantage to the 36 times All Ireland Champions, and Castlebar was a more suitable venue, to ensure a 50:1 attendance ratio.

Good to see the Gaa finally acting on the big issues at hand, and showing a bit of initiative.

Amprodude

DDC1990 wrote: »

Good to see the Gaa finally acting on the big issues at hand, and showing a bit of initiative.

36 times actually.

DDC1990

Thanks, edited. Much more accurate now.

byhookorbycrook

Though I thought it was handbags (worsened by a certain Kerry player making a gesture to imply it was a knee to the groin) and that a sending off wasn't warranted in some ways, a rule IS a rule, will it come down to trying to prove the amount of force used?
The player either got a straight red or the incident was ignored, it was not a yellow card offense under letter -to-the law rules.

Molester Stallone II

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Though I thought it was handbags (worsened by a certain Kerry player making a gesture to imply it was a knee to the groin) and that a sending off wasn't warranted in some ways, a rule IS a rule, will it come down to trying to prove the amount of force used?
The player either got a straight red or the incident was ignored, it was not a yellow card offense under letter -to-the law rules.

Ridiculous drivel

DoctaDee

Ok guys we're not progressing anything here, he's available tomorrow and that's the long and short of it. Closed