All Ireland Senior Hurling Championship (Liam McCarthy Cup) 2021

breezy1985

cnoc wrote: »

Cork must/are thinking that Nicky Quaid has a jinx over them!

He is from the border too so I bet he's loving it

Grats

breezy1985 wrote: »

Because there are 6 teams in Leinster so a relegation playoff is needed

Yes, but both Waterford and Laois/Antrim are quarter final losers. The remaining four are semi final losers. Yet Waterford are treated the same as that four!!!

Joe_ Public

cnoc wrote: »

Cork must/are thinking that Nicky Quaid has a jinx over them!

Someone mentioned over the weekend i think it was Tommy saving a penalty in a match against Cork and Limerick going on to win. Round 1980 maybe or thereabouts. A family tradition anyway.

billyhead

Although he had a quiet enough game yesterday Tony Kelly's goal was class. The way he caught it then turned and buried it.

Rasputin11

breezy1985 wrote: »

He is from the border too so I bet he's loving it

Am I right in stating that his mother is from Galmoy in Kilkenny?

Pogue eile

Grats wrote: »

Yes, but both Waterford and Laois/Antrim are quarter final losers. The remaining four are semi final losers. Yet Waterford are treated the same as that four!!!

The four loosing semi finalists can get a bye - two of them will - Waterford can't get a bye.

PTH2009

Pogue eile wrote: »

The four loosing semi finalists can get a bye - two of them will - Waterford can't get a bye.

So the draw is basically

Winners of Loais vs Antrim vs Waterford
Wexford or Galway Vs Cork or Clare

As a Waterfordman I'd be pretty content with that draw

Montys return

Grats wrote: »

Yes, but both Waterford and Laois/Antrim are quarter final losers. The remaining four are semi final losers. Yet Waterford are treated the same as that four!!!

Why did last year's Leinster provincial finalists get a bye to semi finals, whereas Munster was an open draw?

randd1

Even though they’re small, the crowds make some difference to the games.

Joe_ Public

PTH2009 wrote: »

So the draw is basically

Winners of Loais vs Antrim vs Waterford
Wexford or Galway Vs Cork or Clare

As a Waterfordman I'd be pretty content with that draw

Waterford can't draw Cork or Clare but i think they can draw anyone else. So not certain to be winners of Laois or Antrim afaik.

Pogue eile

PTH2009 wrote: »

So the draw is basically

Winners of Loais vs Antrim vs Waterford
Wexford or Galway Vs Cork or Clare

As a Waterfordman I'd be pretty content with that draw

No!

Two loosing semi finalists will be drawn first and given a bye, the other 4 teams are then in an open draw, with the caveat of no repeat pairings.

From a Waterford perspective they can play anyone other than Clare or Cork

TheMilkyPirate

As a wexford man I hope we get Cork. I'd hate another circus that would be Clare.

breezy1985

Rasputin11 wrote: »

Am I right in stating that his mother is from Galmoy in Kilkenny?

I'm not sure. All I know is he is the 3rd Quaid in goal for Limerick and did I hear Nash is a cousin. Or maybe Nash is a cousin of the Limerick Nash's from the 90s

Frankie Machine

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm not sure. All I know is he is the 3rd Quaid in goal for Limerick and did I hear Nash is a cousin.

That's what I thought I heard on the radio yesterday.

zetecescort

Anthony Nash is a nephew of the Nash's of the 90's Limerick team. Anthony has transferred to his fathers club in Limerick AFAIK

Five Eighth

zetecescort wrote: »

Anthony Nash is a nephew of the Nash's of the 90's Limerick team. Anthony has transferred to his fathers club in Limerick AFAIK

Full back Mike Nash and corner back Declan Nash are Anthony's uncles. South Liberties is the club. Also, JP McManus' club.

Martin567

Rasputin11 wrote: »

Am I right in stating that his mother is from Galmoy in Kilkenny?

Yes, you are correct on that.

puzl

Didn't Joanne say it was an open draw? That surprised me to be honest but if that's the case then 2 semi final losers, 1 Munster and 1 Leinster, go to round 2 and the 4 left can play each other in any combination in round 1.

I would have thought they'd at least cross provinces for the round 1 draw but I guess that's not possible with 3 Leinster and 1 Munster in it.


Edit:

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_All-Ireland_Senior_Hurling_Championship


Round 1 of the qualifiers will feature the playoff winners playing a Munster quarter-finalist or semi-finalist, and a Leinster semi-finalist playing a Munster quarter-finalist or semi-finalist.


So it sounds like they are crossing for the draw, which is a good thing imo.

Waterford will be playing Galway or Wexford with the other going to round 2.

Laois /Antrim will be playing Cork or Clare with the other going to round 2.

dastardly00

randd1 wrote: »

Even though they’re small, the crowds make some difference to the games.

Yeah I totally agree

Tiger Roll

puzl wrote:

Waterford will be playing Galway or Wexford with the other going to round 2.

No, Waterford will be playing playoff winner or Wexford or Galway

puzl

Tiger Roll wrote: »

No, Waterford will be playing playoff winner or Wexford or Galway

Not according to Wikipedia, which I'll grant you might not be the most authoritative source.

Pogue eile

puzl wrote: »

Not according to Wikipedia, which I'll grant you might not be the most authoritative source.

You have read it wrong, it is clear from Wiki that Waterford can also play Laois/Antrim

PTH2009

Waterford please draw the winners of Laois vs Antrim. A possible repeat of the 2017 All Ireland final if its Galway vs Waterford.

Some cracking games possible in the qualifiers and hopefully they will let a few 1000 in for them

JeffKenna

Pogue eile wrote: »

You have read it wrong, it is clear from Wiki that Waterford can also play Laois/Antrim

Yeah either Laois/Antrim or Galway/Wexford.

puzl

Yeah I read it wrong. *facepalm*

formerlyET

Also, in regards the highlights of the week, I'd add Dublin's performance. Defensively very impressive.

And, in particular, Sutcliffe's ability to win ball.

brookville

bonzothedog wrote: »

First off I am from Clare

1- McCarthy's challenge was clumsy and deliberate and definitely a yellow card.
2- Certainly wasn't a red
3- Certainly wasn't a goal scoring chance
4- It did change the game completely
5- Clare struggled to get back into the game and actually were struggling in the first half too until Kelly's goal.
6- James Owens has been poor in Clare games before and no-one in Clare was happy to see him reffing this.
7- Tipp would have probably won the game anyway.

I'm a netural and agree with the above and it probably ruined the game.im suprised Shannagher didn't get a penalty at the end but some of clare short selection was poor and the amount of efforts dropping short must of being draining
It must be said clare got the lucky break last weekend against Waterford and they also made hay when Shane fives wasn't there.
If I remember correctly the last round of the league Ryan Taylor got a very soft penalty against deegan and James bergin could of got one but as disappointing as it is its important clare don't get too hooked up on this cause they have being impressive to date.

formerlyET

A goal scoring opportunity from out on the sideline with plenty of actual defenders in front of him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9UmfZcCkUk&ab_channel=CR%27sVideoVaults

Figerty

formerlyET wrote: »

A goal scoring opportunity from out on the sideline with plenty of actual defenders in front of him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9UmfZcCkUk&ab_channel=CR%27sVideoVaults

Yep, and a great exceptional goal.

lawred2

formerlyET wrote: »

A goal scoring opportunity from out on the sideline with plenty of actual defenders in front of him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9UmfZcCkUk&ab_channel=CR%27sVideoVaults

is that 2016 already :eek:

formerlyET

Figerty wrote: »

Yep, and a great exceptional goal.

The more I think about the arguments against the new rule and yesterday, the more I think it's a load of ****e.

Last year opposition teams were doing anything to stop players breaking the line of defence and preventing goals - stopping the play cynically.

The rule was brought in to prevent that.

As in the above example I just posted, Morris could have stuck that in the net or he could have popped it into Callanan who could have stuck it. Every time you break the line or your marker's defence there is an opportunity. And the rule is there to prevent cynical play. Sliding in and tripping someone is cynical. You could break someone's leg.

Owens was right to the letter of the law and in his interpretation. Owens is owed an apology by The Sunday Game for hanging him out to dry, both panelists are famous for anti-Tipp hatred and in their zeal they tried to bury Owens.

ChippingSodbury

formerlyET wrote: »

The more I think about the arguments against the new rule and yesterday, the more I think it's a load of ****e.

Last year opposition teams were doing anything to stop players breaking the line of defence and preventing goals - stopping the play cynically.

The rule was brought in to prevent that.

As in the above example I just posted, Morris could have stuck that in the net or he could have popped it into Callanan who could have stuck it. Every time you break the line or your marker's defence there is an opportunity. And the rule is there to prevent cynical play. Sliding in and tripping someone is cynical. You could break someone's leg.

Owens was right to the letter of the law and in his interpretation. Owens is owed an apology by The Sunday Game for hanging him out to dry, both panelists are famous for anti-Tipp hatred and in their zeal they tried to bury Owens.

I still think it wasn't a probable goal-scoring opportunity, one of the camera shots just before the foul showed (I think), one Clare defender alone on the D and two just to the far side of the goals so he probably would have been stopped.
Having said that, I'm happy enough if the ref sometimes errs on the side of stopping cynical play rather than letting all of the marginal calls go. Defenders, refs and spectators need a little bit of time to get used to the interpretation. It will never be 100% because there are no infallible referees, just like there are no players that never make a mistake.

Grats

Former ref Barry Kelly in support of Owens says that the sin bin rule was rushed in. Refs didn't have time to assess it such as in the Walsh Cup.

He also says - “It was a blatant yellow card but I couldn’t believe it was a sin-bin and a penalty. It wasn’t a cynical foul, it wasn’t Seán Cavanagh on (Conor) McManus. It was very rough but cynical has to be that there is a bit of time to think, ‘I’m pulling this lad down’ and it’s pre-meditated. McCarthy’s actions were instinctive and it was a huge moment in a game,” Kelly said.

As I said previously, the episode is about Clare, not Tipp. In acknowledging that Owens got it wrong, nobody is having a go at Tipp. But some in the minority arguing that Owens was correct are trying to make it an anti Tipp issue. Pundits, former refs, majority of supporters etc agree that Owens got it wrong. Singling out a particular pundit or supporter for unnecessary vitriol.

formerlyET

Grats wrote: »

Former ref Barry Kelly in support of Owens says that the sin bin rule was rushed in. Refs didn't have time to assess it such as in the Walsh Cup.

He also says - “It was a blatant yellow card but I couldn’t believe it was a sin-bin and a penalty. It wasn’t a cynical foul, it wasn’t Seán Cavanagh on (Conor) McManus. It was very rough but cynical has to be that there is a bit of time to think, ‘I’m pulling this lad down’ and it’s pre-meditated. McCarthy’s actions were instinctive and it was a huge moment in a game,” Kelly said.

As I said previously, the episode is about Clare, not Tipp. In acknowledging that Owens got it wrong, nobody is having a go at Tipp. But some in the minority arguing that Owens was correct are trying to make it an anti Tipp issue. Pundits, former refs, majority of supporters etc agree that Owens got it wrong. Singling out a particular pundit or supporter for unnecessary vitriol tells us all we need to know about such posters.

One particular poster agreed that it wasn't a penalty or sin bin incident yet continues to defend the decision of the ref. Pathetic conduct.

You are trying to single me out without quoting me or engaging in my argument. Also calling someone pathetic because you disagree with me on a point but you can't actually engage with the argument.

You're also misrepresenting my argument. I said I had no reffing experience and deferred to Owens knowledge and experience.

You're also denying people the chance to change their minds.

The more I think about it, it's a ridiculous argument against the Owens call. How many defenders were in front of Kyle Hayes on the weekend, Bubbles O'Dwyer in 2016, and there are countless examples.

Horgan, a present referree, was right on that podcast - an intercounty hurler breaking past his marker anywhere inside the 20 is a goal scoring opportunity.

There was an imbalance on that panel on the Sunday Game and they went at Owens. I stand by that.

Swamp_Cat

Mad about baa baas wrote: »

...it's how you deal with them


Speaking of pundits I think tommy walsh is by far and away the pick of them.. he is very passionate, knowledgeable and fair..

Very true, although in fairness some teams are more able to take advantage of having an extra man. But it did seem, from the safety of my couch, that it took the wind out of Clare for a long stretch. KK were a totally different animal w/14 men but they were not facing the Tipp forwards.

On Tommy. I agree 100% yet I think it's those exact attributes that have kept, as far as I know anyway, from any of the big boys from knocking down his door with offers. Too honest, too passionate for modern PC culture maybe. Don't think Tommy has the Irish for it(I could be way off) but he'd be great on tg4.
*It seems like the one requirement for the big 3 is the willingness to cramm yourself into the tightest jeans possible and look like a complete @ss. Forget the socks of Donal O & Jackie, them tights some of hurling's hard men love so much are quite embarrassing to look at. Forget the look, they gotta be incredibly uncomfortable. Not important, I know. Just having some fun as I've had my fill of controversy for one week even if I agree with much of the complaints about J. Owens.
What I would absolutely love to know is how their bosses rated Owens & F. Horgan's performances. I can't help but fear FH is the one who the "brains" that review refereeing performances will come down on for swallowing the whistle a bit even though it led to a fantastic match w/no dirty strokes or injuries from dangerous play.
The vast difference in applying the rules from league to championship can't be easy on refs & does nothing for the game in most cases. Fine if you want to openly trial something in the league but the difference is too much & achieves nothing other than added confusion.
I've said it before, but somehow the Camogie Association is able to bring in new rules that not only can be enforced well but actually both improve the sport & encourage more skillful play. IMO Just my 00.02.

What it boils down to is that its poor implementation of the rules by the GAA.

They see an issue and came up with a complex solution.

Can you imagine a ref in rugby trying to determine if a try scoring chance was prevented by a deliberate knock on?
They use a TMO and need to look from a few angles to analyse all the aspects(I'm referring to the ones that aren't say on the try line)

A GAA ref is now supposed to judge that along with a myriad of other issues on the fly.

Until they embrace what other sports have we're going to have issues like this.

raindodger

No one i believe thinks that this rule was brought in for the incident in the clare game.But have we tried to break a nut with a sledge hammer of a rule with the punishment out of proportion.
Iwould be in no doubt that clare were at sixes and sevens after it and never really recovered.
In my own county case Nickys save hit corks confidence especially Horgans free taking.
The rule was to be used for really blatent cynical play close to goal and should only be used for that

Rosita

formerlyET wrote: »

The more I think about the arguments against the new rule and yesterday, the more I think it's a load of ****e.

Last year opposition teams were doing anything to stop players breaking the line of defence and preventing goals - stopping the play cynically.

The rule was brought in to prevent that.

As in the above example I just posted, Morris could have stuck that in the net or he could have popped it into Callanan who could have stuck it. Every time you break the line or your marker's defence there is an opportunity. And the rule is there to prevent cynical play. Sliding in and tripping someone is cynical. You could break someone's leg.

Owens was right to the letter of the law and in his interpretation. Owens is owed an apology by The Sunday Game for hanging him out to dry, both panelists are famous for anti-Tipp hatred and in their zeal they tried to bury Owens.

Something in this. The rule doesn't state that the player himself has to have an immediate goalscoring opportunity. It is certainly arguable that had Morris not been fouled, given that he was taking the ball at pace and was about to be in the clear for a bit, that it was an actual goalscoring opportunity for either him or someone he could pass to. Maybe when the steam goes out of the shock of the match result for many people this view will get some airing.

The problem with having a rule that is too specific (and not open to interpretation) is that defenders can just play to the rule. Was talking to a guy who mentioned 'why not just have that if you're fouled in the large parallelogram it's a penalty?' which of course is the current rule. But as I said to him this rule has been introduced, among other things, to avoid rewarding fouling just outside the large parallelogram.

blackcard

There seems to be a few anomalies with the new rule which states:
"If any of the following infractions are committed, on an attacking player with a goal scoring opportunity, either inside the 20 meter line or the semi-circular arc:
To pull down an opponent or
To trip an opponent with hands, arm, leg, foot, or hurley or
To use the hurley in a careless manner
Then the following penalties shall apply:
A penalty shall be awarded to the team affected
Additional to being issued with a caution (yellow card), the offender shall be sent to the sin bin for 10 minutes.

Based on the above, you covid pull an opponents jersey, grab his hurl, wrap your hands around him between the 13 meter line and the 21 meter line and the most a referee could do is award a 20 meter free and a yellow card

breezy1985

blackcard wrote: »

There seems to be a few anomalies with the new rule which states:
"If any of the following infractions are committed, on an attacking player with a goal scoring opportunity, either inside the 20 meter line or the semi-circular arc:
To pull down an opponent or
To trip an opponent with hands, arm, leg, foot, or hurley or
To use the hurley in a careless manner
Then the following penalties shall apply:
A penalty shall be awarded to the team affected
Additional to being issued with a caution (yellow card), the offender shall be sent to the sin bin for 10 minutes.

Based on the above, you covid pull an opponents jersey, grab his hurl, wrap your hands around him between the 13 meter line and the 21 meter line and the most a referee could do is award a 20 meter free and a yellow card

All of those could come under "pull down" if you wanted to interpret it hat way. It never said pull down to the ground even though thats what we all assume it means. Bad wording alright but it wont be a problem

blackcard

As a Kilkenny supporter, I was 100% in agreement with Eoin Murphy getting a yellow card and a penalty being awarded. I also think that the new rule stopped James Maher from fouling the attacker for Wexford's first goal and also stopped Eoin Cody from being fouled for his goal.
I don't think that a penalty should have been awarded for Peter Casey's tackle or for Aidan McCarthy's tackle. Both Barry Kelly and Brian Gavin and 90% of people seem to be in agreement regarding the latter tackle

lawred2

Grats wrote: »

Former ref Barry Kelly in support of Owens says that the sin bin rule was rushed in. Refs didn't have time to assess it such as in the Walsh Cup.

He also says - “It was a blatant yellow card but I couldn’t believe it was a sin-bin and a penalty. It wasn’t a cynical foul, it wasn’t Seán Cavanagh on (Conor) McManus. It was very rough but cynical has to be that there is a bit of time to think, ‘I’m pulling this lad down’ and it’s pre-meditated. McCarthy’s actions were instinctive and it was a huge moment in a game,” Kelly said.

As I said previously, the episode is about Clare, not Tipp. In acknowledging that Owens got it wrong, nobody is having a go at Tipp. But some in the minority arguing that Owens was correct are trying to make it an anti Tipp issue. Pundits, former refs, majority of supporters etc agree that Owens got it wrong. Singling out a particular pundit or supporter for unnecessary vitriol.

That's a lot of nonsense.

Premeditation is now a requirement for cynical play!? A game where lads are making split second decisions!

blackcard

breezy1985 wrote: »

All of those could come under "pull down" if you wanted to interpret it hat way. It never said pull down to the ground even though thats what we all assume it means. Bad wording alright but it wont be a problem

How could grabbing a person's hurley be interpreted as pulling down?

blackcard

To be pedantic about the new rule, does the 10 minutes in the bin include injury time? It is not like rugby where the clock stops. Will it encourage players to go down "injured" to wind down the clock?

irelandrover

blackcard wrote: »

There seems to be a few anomalies with the new rule which states:
"If any of the following infractions are committed, on an attacking player with a goal scoring opportunity, either inside the 20 meter line or the semi-circular arc:
To pull down an opponent or
To trip an opponent with hands, arm, leg, foot, or hurley or
To use the hurley in a careless manner
Then the following penalties shall apply:
A penalty shall be awarded to the team affected
Additional to being issued with a caution (yellow card), the offender shall be sent to the sin bin for 10 minutes.

Based on the above, you covid pull an opponents jersey, grab his hurl, wrap your hands around him between the 13 meter line and the 21 meter line and the most a referee could do is award a 20 meter free and a yellow card

Worse, pulling down an opponent is a penalty and a sin in. Pushing down an opponent isn't.

Rosita

[QUOTE=blackcard;117602243

Based on the above, you covid pull an opponents jersey,

[/QUOTE]

But not if you adhered to the two-metre rule!

Happyilylost

blackcard wrote:

To be pedantic about the new rule, does the 10 minutes in the bin include injury time? It is not like rugby where the clock stops. Will it encourage players to go down "injured" to wind down the clock?

Clock doesn't stop. We've seen it in football where some players can be slow to get up.

crossman47

blackcard wrote: »

To be pedantic about the new rule, does the 10 minutes in the bin include injury time? It is not like rugby where the clock stops. Will it encourage players to go down "injured" to wind down the clock?

It will.

Clareman

blackcard wrote: »

There seems to be a few anomalies with the new rule which states:
"If any of the following infractions are committed, on an attacking player with a goal scoring opportunity, either inside the 20 meter line or the semi-circular arc:
To pull down an opponent or
To trip an opponent with hands, arm, leg, foot, or hurley or
To use the hurley in a careless manner
Then the following penalties shall apply:
A penalty shall be awarded to the team affected
Additional to being issued with a caution (yellow card), the offender shall be sent to the sin bin for 10 minutes.

Based on the above, you covid pull an opponents jersey, grab his hurl, wrap your hands around him between the 13 meter line and the 21 meter line and the most a referee could do is award a 20 meter free and a yellow card

Technically the foul was with the body not with hands, arm, leg, foot or hurley, it was with the body :pac::pac::pac:

Clareman

blackcard wrote: »

To be pedantic about the new rule, does the 10 minutes in the bin include injury time? It is not like rugby where the clock stops. Will it encourage players to go down "injured" to wind down the clock?

Absolutely, its something Clare should have done but didn't. In rugby you'll often see kickers take the full minute, couple of delayed scrums and stuff like that, game management, something Clare didn't do.