Does GAA value Camogie?

bren2001

ForestFire wrote: »

Would prefer if I compared it to a game of tiddlywinks down the playground?
I think that would be more disrespectful to the camogie ladies.

Comparing it to the elite would be much more appropriate if you want to talk about how these ladies should be treated. I taught you always compare your self to the highest level that you aspire to.

If you want to use strawman argument, go ahead. You raised the idea that since the WC is once every four years, the issue of fairness is more applicable. I countered that by saying, the WC players are professional athletes. While it should be fair and transparent for both, there is no reason why an amateur organisation should leave themselves in this position. The WC has other influencing factors it must factor in.

No, you don't automatically compare it to the highest level there is. You compare it to a professional organisation with a similar competition structure. The WC is held over one month with huge fixture congestion. There is a valid reason there why there cannot be a replay.

ForestFire wrote: »

While I agree these are valid points I have used the world cup to show that a coin toss is used in certain circumstances at the highest level without issue.

It was used once in 1990 to separate two teams. It had absolutely no bearing financially or otherwise for either of the teams involved. So yes while a coin toss has been used at the highest level without issue, it is a slightly unfair statement to make. It has never been used to eliminate a team so we have no idea about the uproar, or lack thereof, if it occurred.

ForestFire wrote: »

Yes world cup group games are played at the same time, but it is not in rugby. Both are valid options with WC benefits with the other. But it has been used in either format at the highest level. I'm not saying either should be introduced, just decide what you want to do at the start and stick to it for the competition.

Both are valid. However, the rugby one is to maximise TV revenue and is not in the interest of fairness. I have pointed out 3 different competitions that play them all at the same time, I can list many many more. You seem to want to find one competition that fits your agenda and hold that up as the beacon of light. Just because one organisation "at the highest level" does something doesn't inherently make it the correct way to do things. It just means that is their system.

ForestFire wrote: »

Unless you can get absolutely all parties to agree, then I have said before why i don't think its good to change it now:-

These are just my opinions, you don't' have to agree with them and either do the the ladies camogie association.

All parties who this directly affects agree so why not change it? Its unfair on both teams it has dragged on so long.

I don't have to agree with you nor you with me but I opted out of the discussion earlier only for you to ask me not to call your point defunct. I certainly cannot see myself agreeing with you (that is not to say logic and reason couldn't convince me otherwise).

ForestFire wrote: »

My quotes from earlier:-

Would it be any better to go out by having scored 1 less point than the other team?

What if you had a point/goal incorrectly disallowed in a match you were comfortably winning, so at the time it made not difference, but could swing this result like this?

When margins are so fine you have to accept some kind of knockout strategy

Well if everyone in the whole association agrees then yes your right, But at the moment there is no consensus. It is only the two teams in the situation that are in disagreement....so where dose that leave us?

The flip of a coin is random. There is injustice in sport. Meath 2010, Theiry Henry 2009, the Limerick minors with Hawk-Eye, the list goes on and on. People ultimately accept human error, refereeing error or even technology error. However, both teams have control over every other second on that pitch and at least have control over their destiny. With the flip of a coin, neither team has control and it is purely random. Hence, it is not an acceptable 2nd tiebreaker.

ForestFire wrote: »

Any even still this leaves the integrity of the competition open in the future...if you don't like something (Right or Wrong) just pull out...this set a dangerous precedence in my opinion

What is score difference was the deciding factor, but the losing team decided then, hey wait a minute i think it should go to a replay
Again decide the rules at the start and stick to them...

Teams have always and will always have the right to pull out if they don't like the rules. However, the majority of the time they will not have the backing of the public or other teams. In this case they do. I don't see it as a dangerous precedent, it is a unique set of circumstances that hopefully will never arise again. Fearing the implications for future events should not get in the way of justice.

ForestFire

bren2001 wrote: »

No, you don't automatically compare it to the highest level there is. You compare it to a professional organisation with a similar competition structure. The WC is held over one month with huge fixture congestion. There is a valid reason there why there cannot be a replay.

First you dismiss my arguments now you get to decide the boundaries of the augment to suit you needs?

bren2001 wrote: »

It has never been used to eliminate a team so we have no idea about the uproar, or lack thereof, if it occurred.

But it is in the rule book to be used when needed and everyone knows about it

bren2001 wrote: »

You seem to want to find one competition that fits your agenda and hold that up as the beacon of light. Just because one organisation "at the highest level" does something doesn't inherently make it the correct way to do things. It just means that is their system.

I am using ALL competions as examples to show other codes have these rules. Again I will say Camogie should decide its own rules and stick with them what ever they are and whoever they want to take experiance from

bren2001 wrote: »

All parties who this directly affects agree so why not change it? Its unfair on both teams it has dragged on so long.

Have all parties agreed? Who are all the parties that are affected (not just the two teams). What happens if this match goes to a reply? Does it affect the future games, the awaiting next team, venue dates and any TV coverage (Final/TG4?)?

bren2001 wrote: »

I don't have to agree with you nor you with me but I opted out of the discussion earlier only for you to ask me not to call your point defunct. I certainly cannot see myself agreeing with you (that is not to say logic and reason couldn't convince me otherwise).

No we certainly don't have to agree, that is right.
But you did not simply "opt out", You blatantly dismiss my argument as irrelevant without any substance (At the time)

And here again you accuse me of no logic and reason, when I provide examples and options, but you try to decide the boundaries of the debate and what I can and can't compare it too.

bren2001 wrote: »

With the flip of a coin, neither team has control and it is purely random. Hence, it is not an acceptable 2nd tiebreaker.

They had control. They finished even (According to the current rules)
The rules say flip a coin to separate. Not the best solution, and yes other factors can be used before getting to a coin flip, or try to avoid it completely if you want to change the rules

bren2001 wrote: »

Teams have always and will always have the right to pull out if they don't like the rules. However, the majority of the time they will not have the backing of the public or other teams. In this case they do. I don't see it as a dangerous precedent, it is a unique set of circumstances that hopefully will never arise again. Fearing the implications for future events should not get in the way of justice.

I don't actually mind if they want to play a match to decide, as I have said before as long as Everyone agrees

Pandiani

They have been offered a play off in Thurles on Saturday, winners to face Wexford on Monday

racso1975

Pandiani wrote: »

They have been offered a play off in Thurles on Saturday, winners to face Wexford on Monday

48 hour turn around will be tough going. Wonder will they accept it

Pandiani

racso1975 wrote: »

48 hour turn around will be tough going. Wonder will they accept it

Semis are 22nd so they could have given them a week you would think.

bren2001

ForestFire wrote: »

First you dismiss my arguments now you get to decide the boundaries of the augment to suit you needs?

I am not trying to decide the boundaries of the argument to suit my needs. I am trying to point out what I believe to be logic flaws in your argument. The point I was trying to make is that you compare like with like and the World Cup has a wide range of external influences that greatly affect the structure of the tournament. The AI has a completely different set of influences so I don't think it is fair to compare them. Comparing it to the hurling, gaelic or ladies football championship is far better imo as they have similar structures and influences. I have been trying to explain why I think the WC point is defunct.


(I decided not to do a multiquote on everything as I don't want to address each point individually).

I think we agree on some things:
1. The rule is stupid and should be changed.

What we disagree on is:
1. When the rule should be changed.

I'm glad to see common sense prevailed (not an attack at you FF) and a match is happening.

ForestFire

Pandiani wrote: »

They have been offered a play off in Thurles on Saturday, winners to face Wexford on Monday

Is this compromise heavily taking into account Wexfords needs (As it should in my opinion)

Maybe they don't want to be hanging around for extra weeks, with no competitive games while the opponents have good game time inbetween?

Wexford I guess have prepared themselves for this weekend and the training/condition to suit this.

Do we have any idea of Wexfords stance on the whole situation?

ForestFire

bren2001 wrote: »

I think we agree on some things:
1. The rule is stupid and should be changed.

What we disagree on is:
1. When the rule should be changed.

I'm glad to see common sense prevailed (not an attack at you FF) and a match is happening.

point 1. and 1. Yes Agreed:D

And I have said a few times,including the very post before confirming the match:cool:, if everyone agrees then it okay

As per my last post, I now think Wexford may have been the main party to get a final agreement with

Flukey

It is good that common sense has prevailed over rules and that there will be a play-off. Up the Dubs.

Larbre34

They shouldnt stop there, ask Wexford to agree to postpone to the free week and tell the CA thats what theyre doing

ProudDUB

Flukey wrote: »

It is good that common sense has prevailed over rules and that there will be a play-off. Up the Dubs.

It really hasn't, not when the winning county will only have one day in between this game and the next. Having a play off game, is a vast improvement to a coin toss, but it's still very, very far being from the ideal situation.

KevIRL

Can't believe they missed the obvious solution of a game of rock paper scissors (best of three)

Larbre34

ProudDUB wrote: »

It really hasn't, not when the winning county will only have one day in between this game and the next. Having a play off game, is a vast improvement to a coin toss, but it's still very, very far being from the ideal situation.

Wexford have offered the weeks deferral (very sporting) but the CA have said no due to club fixtures blah blah

The CA are on the ropes due to their own foolishness, Wexford and the other winner should play the game whenever the flip they like.

blue note

Sounds to me like the teams are being punished for causing a fuss.

ProudDUB

Larbre34 wrote: »

Wexford have offered the weeks deferral (very sporting) but the CA have said no due to club fixtures blah blah

The CA are on the ropes due to their own foolishness, Wexford and the other winner should play the game whenever the flip they like.

Yep. Did you hear yer woman from CA on Off The Ball earlier, trying to justify all this mad carry on?
I've heard more plausible face saving from Bertie Ahern & Brian Cowen, when they were in front of the banking tribunal.:rolleyes:

theoneeyedman

ProudDUB wrote: »

Yep. Did you hear yer woman from CA on Off The Ball earlier, trying to justify all this mad carry on?
I've heard more plausible face saving from Bertie Ahern & Brian Cowen, when they were in front of the banking tribunal.:rolleyes:

Have to say she didn't come across too well IMHO. She was fine when rhyming off her prepared stuff, but when molloy started asking questions she came across very snappy.... seemed to me like a person not used to listening to other people's opinions or having her POV challenged. Also, the compromise appears to be a big F. U. to both sides for speaking up out of turn.

diusmr8a504cvk

Make a poll OP.

blue note

ProudDUB wrote: »

Yep. Did you hear yer woman from CA on Off The Ball earlier, trying to justify all this mad carry on?
I've heard more plausible face saving from Bertie Ahern & Brian Cowen, when they were in front of the banking tribunal.:rolleyes:

I listened to it last night. In fairness, she was in an impossible position really - trying to defend the indefensible. There was no reasonable reason to insist on the coin toss yet they did it. It's baffling that scoring difference wasn't used ahead of a coin toss, but she had to try to defend that. And the one day off before the quarter final is a disgrace, particularly when Wexford have offered to delay it a week, but she had to defend that too. It's very hard to come across well when what you're arguing is so obviously wrong.

And just a little point that is unimportant, but still extremely stupid. The order of metrics to decide who goes through is;

1. Points - fine whoever has more points obviously goes through. If level on points it goes to
2. Head to head. Again fine. If level on head to head it goes to
3. Goals scored against each other. Again fine, have to use something. If that doesn't seperate the teams it goes to
4. Points scored against each other. Now, if the teams drew and scored the same amount of goals against each other, under what scenario could they have scored a different amount of points? I know it doesn't matter, but someone actually decided that this was a worthwhile metric. Maybe it shows how much thought was put into it.

bren2001

blue note wrote: »

I listened to it last night. In fairness, she was in an impossible position really - trying to defend the indefensible. There was no reasonable reason to insist on the coin toss yet they did it. It's baffling that scoring difference wasn't used ahead of a coin toss, but she had to try to defend that. And the one day off before the quarter final is a disgrace, particularly when Wexford have offered to delay it a week, but she had to defend that too. It's very hard to come across well when what you're arguing is so obviously wrong.

And just a little point that is unimportant, but still extremely stupid. The order of metrics to decide who goes through is;

1. Points - fine whoever has more points obviously goes through. If level on points it goes to
2. Head to head. Again fine. If level on head to head it goes to
3. Goals scored against each other. Again fine, have to use something. If that doesn't seperate the teams it goes to
4. Points scored against each other. Now, if the teams drew and scored the same amount of goals against each other, under what scenario could they have scored a different amount of points? I know it doesn't matter, but someone actually decided that this was a worthwhile metric. Maybe it shows how much thought was put into it.

Why not just start it a week earlier and allow a play off? I wouldn't be a fan of using score difference when you can schedule in an extra match with not too much hassle.

blue note

bren2001 wrote: »

Why not just start it a week earlier and allow a play off? I wouldn't be a fan of using score difference when you can schedule in an extra match with not too much hassle.

At the moment wexford have offered to play the quarter final a week later but on condition that they put the semi final back a week too. Bit the CA have refused because of the inconvenience this would cause to wexford and the other semi finalist. It's simply a punishment for clare / Dublin for refusing to accept the coin toss.

bren2001

blue note wrote: »

At the moment wexford have offered to play the quarter final a week later but on condition that they put the semi final back a week too. Bit the CA have refused because of the inconvenience this would cause to wexford and the other semi finalist. It's simply a punishment for clare / Dublin for refusing to accept the coin toss.

I actually misread your post, I thought you were suggesting an order of tie-breakers as opposed to listing off the moronic ones the camogie have.

It's stupid stuff, theres no real reason to not push it back a week. This would never happen in the GAA

ProudDUB

blue note wrote: »

I listened to it last night. In fairness, she was in an impossible position really - trying to defend the indefensible. There was no reasonable reason to insist on the coin toss yet they did it. It's baffling that scoring difference wasn't used ahead of a coin toss, but she had to try to defend that. And the one day off before the quarter final is a disgrace, particularly when Wexford have offered to delay it a week, but she had to defend that too. It's very hard to come across well when what you're arguing is so obviously wrong.

She would have made a much better impression, if she stopped digging and stopped trying to defend the indefensible. That just makes things worse. If you hold your hands up, admit that you made a mistake and that going forward, every effort will be made to make sure it never happens again, that is often good enough to get people back on your side. She never did that. Maybe if you have been getting it in the neck for as long as she probably has, the siege mentality sets in and you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

Either way, she came across as very condescending, in even offering up the one game play off, when that itself is very flawed as there will only one a one day break for the winner. When she was asked if that was fair, she waffled and said that its time for people to put this all behind them, move on and support the players from here on in, as that is what sport is all about at the end of the day. I mean what kind of nonsense is that? What "it" is all about, is athletes giving their all in order to get a fair and equal shot at a medal. It's not blind unquestioning adherence to bureaucracy.

rebel girl 15

This always happens in ladies sports, and I've been involved in them 10 years in administration and as a vice President in one.

The competition rules were stated at the start of the competition and agreed on at Ard Comharile level by all counties. Nobody thought that this would happen, where two teams would end up drawing against each other and finishing level on points. But that is the problem with ladies sport - it is being run shortsighted people who are in the game mostly for their own gain or because their daughter was playing. There are very few people in ladies sports who are in it purely for the game and to help improve it. Ladies sport is under the spotlight more than ever, and it is showing up the glaring problems within the game. The heads of the football spit feathers about the camogie and vice versa, rather than getting over the b*tching and working together.

I'm glad the issue of the Cork ladies and Clare ladies dual players came further into the spotlight - it is not the first nor the last time that this will happen, where our elite players will be asked to play two games in the space of a day. It has happened previously and it is not at all fair. It could possibly happen again, and the LGFA definitely will not hear of moving the game as they have TG4 coverage.

What grills me the most is lads and ladies coming onto forums and commenting on these issues and having no clue. Plenty of posts here mention the GAA, which has NOTHING to do with ladies gaelic games - they have their own two independent bodies to manage the games. While the camogie got some very bad press for this, they followed their own rulebook correctly. They shouldn't be getting abuse for following the rules while the teams involved claim ignorance. The association should most certainly be questioned about the planning and organisation of their competitions, but because those at the top are so far withdrawn from the life of the lowly player and out of touch with the grass roots they don't think about these things until they actually happen and they look like idiots because of it. It is a harsh lesson, but I've sat through many a meeting where clubs whinge and moan about things during the year, and then come AGM time when they can actually do something, submit a motion to the AGM to change the things they were whinging and moaning about, and more than likely will still be moaning the following year!

The other thing about this sport, and I will probably be lambasted for pointing this out, is that in men's sport, where meetings get heated and argumentative, it is forgotten about after the meeting, i.e. the delegates don't end up holding grudges against each other as much as what happens in the ladies game. I've been in heated meetings, and I know delegates who won't sit near certain people because of what happened at a meeting last year and that sort of rubbish! I'm not saying it happens across the board, but from what I've discussed and heard about, it happens a damn sight more in ladies sports!

zetecescort

Dublin win the playoff

Realt Dearg Sec

zetecescort wrote: »

Dublin win the playoff

Amazing how little interest it generated in comparison with the interest in the balls up that led to it being played!

dastardly00

And Wexford have defeated Dublin 0-13 to 1-7 this afternoon.

blue note

dastardly00 wrote: »

And Wexford have defeated Dublin 0-13 to 1-7 this afternoon.

Pity Dublin lost. They played very well, but really struggled to score from play. Still though, they brought it back to a point right at the end. Another day it could have swung in their favour.

rebel girl 15

Nice picture going around of the Clare jerseys in the washing line drying, saying that they are behind Dublin prior to the game today

ForestFire

So another controversy arises in the ladies game.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2015/0819/722298-wexford-appeal-result-of-camogie-semi-final/


"Wexford believe video evidence shows a 45 that the umpires awarded was incorrectly ruled wide by the referee (rule 41.5) and that he played the wrong amount of time (rule 41.6)."

I don't know the ins and outs of the rules quoted, but normally (Hurling, Football for example) the referee has final say on the awarding of points? He can overrule the umpires and this has happen numerous times in the past in GAA.

On the added time, do they not indicate the minimum amount of time? Is it not at the discretion of the referee as well on the actually amount of time played. What would happen if he went 1 second over the time indicated rather than 2 minutes?

Again I don't know the details of this match, but was there additional delays after the 2 mins was displayed, delay tactics by one of the teams.

There is the famous game Clare was involved in were the ref blew up early, but as far as i remember that did not even get into extra time?

Do Wexford feel they are owed something for accommodating the last controversy?

galwaylad14

ForestFire wrote: »

So another controversy arises in the ladies game.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2015/0819/722298-wexford-appeal-result-of-camogie-semi-final/


"Wexford believe video evidence shows a 45 that the umpires awarded was incorrectly ruled wide by the referee (rule 41.5) and that he played the wrong amount of time (rule 41.6)."

I don't know the ins and outs of the rules quoted, but normally (Hurling, Football for example) the referee has final say on the awarding of points? He can overrule the umpires and this has happen numerous times in the past in GAA.

On the added time, do they not indicate the minimum amount of time? Is it not at the discretion of the referee as well on the actually amount of time played. What would happen if he went 1 second over the time indicated rather than 2 minutes?

Again I don't know the details of this match, but was there additional delays after the 2 mins was displayed, delay tactics by one of the teams.

There is the famous game Clare was involved in were the ref blew up early, but as far as i remember that did not even get into extra time?

Do Wexford feel they are owed something for accommodating the last controversy?

Without knowing the ins and outs of the rules I was listening to this with interest today. As far as I'm concerned they have no case whatsoever. I've always had the understanding that the referees decision on the awarding of a score is final and nothing can be done about it after the match even if it can be proved he was wrong. For example the 2013 minor semi final when Limerick were the victim of an incorrect hawkeye call against us.

And as regards the time they definitely have no case there. The additional time is at the referee's discretion.

The only situations where you ever see a replay being given is if there's an ineligible player or if the full 70 minutes (possibly 60 in camogie?) isn't played.