I honestly do not know, which is why I said I would pose the question, both in particular and in general.
Mr Milton could help? Should we email him or just send him a tweet?
Ah⌠Haycock, handball.
1 Like
Agent Lawlor giving Lohan every opportunity to say something to get himself into trouble there. The penalty decision mystified the Tipp crowd around me on the open stand. We were fierce rusty today.
3 Likes
We got lucky for a change.
We wonât get away with it v Limerick
Agreed, but getting beat first day out is nawful.
We get a bit of big day experience with a serious team. Good for manager in waiting Mr Egan to soak up a Munster Final day regardless.
1 Like
I would have initially said Owens was an idiot with that decision. But the way the rule is written is all sorts of wrong. I donât think the rule should be interpreted that way regardless of how the rule is written. That for me, and pretty much everyone, is not how that rule should work if itâs to be in. It needs rewriting or at least some clarification that itâs a clear goal scoring chance that the attacker is on the verge of a goal shot, not that the play could lead to a goal chance.
He still shouldnât have given it
3 Likes
There was a simpler solution to the problem, widen the parallelogram (love that description btw) perhaps 5m each side and extend to the 20 line.
A foul on the man inside that is a penalty.
In other news I see that a comishee has been formed to reassess the sliotar.
1 Like
Of course he shouldnât. I donât think anyone anywhere expected him to give it. But the point being he has the rule to back him, which shouldnât be the case. Regardless of the rule, he should have used common sense and not make such a stupid decision.
I think heâd have had a good case if an assessor tried giving him shit for not giving that.
The denial of the stonewall penalty to Clare wont exactly make him a prime candidate for any further games this year either.
The only solution there is to increase the weight a bit.
I know that a lot of referees were unhappy with the initial wording of the rule and did indeed seek clarification on a number of issues, particularly on what constitutes a goalscoring opportunity.
What theyâve been asked to do is consider the number of players between the attacking (fouled) player and the goal and the likelihood of a shot on goal occurring. Itâs also important to point out, as @Malarkey has raised, the opportunity should arise to the player in possession and should not take into account the possibility of a pass to another player.
In fact, it was for this reason that the bodycheck is NOT one of the three prescribed cynical fouls as opposed to it being one of the five black card offences in football.
Owens got it wrong today. It was certainly a cynical foul and a yellow card, as it would have been in any other area of the pitch. However, it is too far from goal, at an unfavourable angle and there were three, possibly four, covering defenders for it to be considered an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
8 Likes
Or perhaps they could use common sense and ask Referees from other Counties to be umpires who can make more technical calls than the current lads who only put up the paw of a lads is cut in two.
Iâd have no problem with a rule brought in where a defender hauls down an attacker with no real attempt to play the ball - be it a cynical or tactical foul like the foul on Morris on the one on Shanagher which I mentioned earlier when he won an aerial ball and turned his man but was hauled down before he got in stride whereby the defender is yellowed and sin binned.
I think that would be a fairer punishment for those two incidents and the same with the Fives one last week. Adding a penalty on top is too big a price to pay unless the attacker is bearing down on goal and about to pull the trigger.
2 Likes
Agreed. But asking rule makers to use nuance is a big stretch.
There shouldnât be nuance in rules. They should be clearly set out.
2 Likes