Cynical fouling can be a thing of beauty when itās done right.
5 Likes
Is there all that much difference between Barrettās hit on Galvin during Clareās second goal and Mccarthyās tackle? Neither were close to getting the ball and both took the man out late.
2 Likes
Whatever about the severity of the tackle the ref applied the rule as per the rule outlined above. Itāll give other trampish corner backs a quick seconds thought before they chop down a forward on the burst through.
Sure it looked harsh but he applied the rule as he understood/interpreted it.
The goalie just stood on the line waving his hurl around without any effort at stopping the penalty. Bizarreā¦
I thought the same.
#jamesowensdidnothingwrong
FFS what has the game come to when weāre discouraging
**[quote=āTheBird, post:2089, topic:33907, full:trueā]
#jamesowensdidnothingwrong
[/quote]
#freethejamesowensone
Itās alright when itās RTE thatās showing it but gives a somewhat tainted impression when covered on the Sky platform. Our friends on the continent would appalled with what Paddy considers āa few pucks of a Sundayāā¦
fuck our friends on the continent. This is our game.
The elephant in the room is the dire and I mean fucking dire quality of the sky camera work. I. In pandemic times this isnāt fucking good enough.
The local version. I like his style - zero bullshit.
1 Like
No, he did not. The rule specifies āa goal-scoring opportunityā for, in this instance, Jake Morris. If JM was deemed to have that type of clearcut goal chance from where he was starting, this rule is seeking to solve unfairness through farce.
The fact you are trying to defend Owens says a great deal about a great deal.
2 Likes
Are you saying it was impossible for him to score from that position?
I agree itās should not have been a penalty nor a sin binning. But hey, shit happens, next time it could be us who lose out.
Jake Morris had approx 35 metres infield at an angle to cover there to get within shooting range. Absolutely ridiculous decision.
1 Like
Heās a good lad, he couldāve done it.
Absolutely he could have. But could have isnāt worth a willy, it was not a goalscoring opportunity when he was fouled. Refs canāt start going all Mystic Meg on us
1 Like
Exactly.
This new rule is not about possibility. This new rule is about likelihood ā about the specific likelihood of an individual player himself scoring a goal, not the likelihood of that player offering a goal-providing assist to a teammate (as was just teased out on TFK). This new rule pivots on a refereeās assessment that a fouled player was likely to score a goal if unfouled. The idea that Jake Morris, who had a terrific outing, was likely to score from the position in which he had possession is risible.
Your comment is beyond childish.
1 Like
In hurling, a team will now be awarded a penalty if one of their players has a goal-scoring opportunity and is pulled down, tripped, or struck carelessly with a hurley while heās inside the opposition 20-metre line or semi-circular arc.
Iām not saying it was right. But it was hilarious.