The Gaelic Football Thread

[Northcorkman]

Dublin should be stripped of a few football titles in the wake of jim gavin controversy

 

[bluesball]

only if it wasnt against Kerry

 

[cactus jack]

AI champions Cuala beaten yesterday

 

[cactus jack]

Slaughtneil appeal outcome of Derry SFC semi-final defeat to Newbridge

The club are understood to be contesting it on the grounds that their last score by Shane McGuigan should have been worth two points instead of one.

www.irishexaminer.com

 

[Henrys Fonda]

Slaughtneil appeal outcome of Derry SFC semi-final defeat to Newbridge

The club are understood to be contesting it on the grounds that their last score by Shane McGuigan should have been worth two points instead of one.

www.irishexaminer.com

The video I saw it definitely looks like he was inside the arc when he kicked it. I assume they must have another angle.

 

[peopleluas]

The video I saw it definitely looks like he was inside the arc when he kicked it. I assume they must have another angle.

I didn't climb the paywall or watch the video, but assuming that it's clear the ball was kicked from inside the arc then this will surely come down to whether
(a) the incorrect score was incorrectly allowed, or
(b) the correct score was correctly allowed but incorrectly recorded.

It seems clear to me that the natural interpretation of rule 7.5n in this case is that the score was incorrectly allowed rather than incorrectly recorded (recording being the mere writing of the score on the ref's notebook and documented in the score in the ref's report, consistent with the use of the term "record" throughout the rulebook).

So therefore the objection should be deemed to be out of order, on the basis (quoting the rule): "An Objection or Counter-Objection based on the Grounds that the Referee had incorrectly allowed or failed to allow a score during play shall be deemed to be out of order".

All that said, I've seen these ones being decided with very different interpretations of the rulebook!

 

[jams]

I didn't climb the paywall or watch the video, but assuming that it's clear the ball was kicked from inside the arc then this will surely come down to whether
(a) the incorrect score was incorrectly allowed, or
(b) the correct score was correctly allowed but incorrectly recorded.

It seems clear to me that the natural interpretation of rule 7.5n in this case is that the score was incorrectly allowed rather than incorrectly recorded (recording being the mere writing of the score on the ref's notebook and documented in the score in the ref's report, consistent with the use of the term "record" throughout the rulebook).

So therefore the objection should be deemed to be out of order, on the basis (quoting the rule): "An Objection or Counter-Objection based on the Grounds that the Referee had incorrectly allowed or failed to allow a score during play shall be deemed to be out of order".

All that said, I've seen these ones being decided with very different interpretations of the rulebook!

Hi Frank

 

[peopleluas]

I didn't climb the paywall or watch the video, but assuming that it's clear the ball was kicked from inside the arc then this will surely come down to whether
(a) the incorrect score was incorrectly allowed, or
(b) the correct score was correctly allowed but incorrectly recorded.

It seems clear to me that the natural interpretation of rule 7.5n in this case is that the score was incorrectly allowed rather than incorrectly recorded (recording being the mere writing of the score on the ref's notebook and documented in the score in the ref's report, consistent with the use of the term "record" throughout the rulebook).

So therefore the objection should be deemed to be out of order, on the basis (quoting the rule): "An Objection or Counter-Objection based on the Grounds that the Referee had incorrectly allowed or failed to allow a score during play shall be deemed to be out of order".

All that said, I've seen these ones being decided with very different interpretations of the rulebook!

If the ref didn't raise his two hands, and the umpire raised a white flag instead of a orange flag and was not instructed to ref to correct that, then that would be evidence that a one-point score was allowed but was then incorrectly recorded as a 2-pointer. And so the objection should succeed.

Otherwise the objection should fail. Per the rule, for the objection hearing, it doesn't matter where the player was when he kicked the ball - it only matters what score the ref allowed. So what would be interesting from the video would be whether or not the ref put his two hands in the air and what flag the umpire raised.

That's the rule - and without that rule we'd have objections to half the football matches.

 

[Henrys Fonda]

I didn't climb the paywall or watch the video, but assuming that it's clear the ball was kicked from inside the arc then this will surely come down to whether
(a) the incorrect score was incorrectly allowed, or
(b) the correct score was correctly allowed but incorrectly recorded.

It seems clear to me that the natural interpretation of rule 7.5n in this case is that the score was incorrectly allowed rather than incorrectly recorded (recording being the mere writing of the score on the ref's notebook and documented in the score in the ref's report, consistent with the use of the term "record" throughout the rulebook).

So therefore the objection should be deemed to be out of order, on the basis (quoting the rule): "An Objection or Counter-Objection based on the Grounds that the Referee had incorrectly allowed or failed to allow a score during play shall be deemed to be out of order".

All that said, I've seen these ones being decided with very different interpretations of the rulebook!

I just watched the video and it didn’t look to me that it was a two pointer.

 

[peopleluas]

I just watched the video and it didn’t look to me that it was a two pointer.

I just read the RTE report and I realise that the objection is to the effect that it was recorded as a one pointer and should have been a two pointer. So I had it the wrong way around

That shouldn't matter for the objection hearing anyway. If the score the ref recorded was the score the ref allowed, then there are no grounds for an objection (by rule). I just saw the video now myself. The ref raised one hand and the umpire raised a white flag. Totally clear that the ref allowed a one point score. Zero grounds for objection per rule as far as I can see, because the rule is that what the ref allowed stands.

If on the other hand the ref raised his two hands and the umpire raised an orange flag, i.e. the ref allowed a 2 pointer, but then the ref recorded a one pointer. Then that is grounds by rule for objection.