It really, really is. Ive long said how bad the whole set up is. You can appeal a decision and then the tumeline will let you play the next game but be suspended afterwards. Or be totally guilty and appeal and appeal and waste time and delay it just yet get the same suspension. There is no reason to never appeal a red card or suspension.
In this case, both incidents in the Clare game were no worse than other cases in games this year. So im not sure why they became the ones who copped the post game suspension that others didnt. Fahy absolutely should have been sent off and suspended. No issue with the Clare ones avoiding suspension. If they got sent off during the game they could have no complaints, but theyd also have been unlucky enough too.
Why? I/C players know the context as to how and why they were struck. It is a warrior sport and players often give as good as they take.
What exactly are we looking for here, are we looking to eliminate/punish serious/over the top foul play and dangerous play or for every incident to be viewed by the letter of the law after the fact where context does not apply and have multiple suspensions every year based off someoneâs perception of a replay.
Like I said the best way to know if a strike was deserving of punishment after the fact is to ask the player on the receiving end of it.
