Paul Galvin & indiscipline in GAA

[midfield]

May not of major significance to offaly , but what did you think of the Paul Galvin incident at the weekend. I only saw the reaction he gave towards the ref and not the tackle he got the second yellow for. A Symptom of the GAAs indiscipline problem. I wonder how long he will get in the end. I feel that because he is from one of the big counties i.e. Kerry he will get off easier than other counties would. Is it not time that we had a independent body to impose sanctions that are actually kept. The GAA seems very indisciplined in comparison to other sports and any parent looking at the GAA could be reluctant to send their son to hurl or play football if this is the message and example seen. Some teams continue to push the rules to the very edge.

[TheManFromFerbane]

I'd say this year the GAA are clamping down on indiscipline. The Dublin Meath susupensions were spot on and not changed on appeal and 6 months is about right for this case too. I think they are finally starting to send out signals that you just can't get away with this sort of thing anymore. Especially attacks on Refs.

[Sydthebeat]

i thnk the 6 month suspension is just barely adequate...... i hope it isnt reduced on appeal.. i cant see how it could be seen in any way as being harsh.

the GAA have to get serious about discipline if they want the game to develop.

[Archangel]

I've yet to talk to anyone who said he was hard done by.
Discipline needs to return to the game.

[Oskar]

Well, Liam Hayes in today's Sunday Tribune begs to differ, but then again, he would, wouldn't he?

=>Linky Dink

The CCCC's act of administrative thuggery in handing Paul Galvin a 24-week ban means he is now a man more sinned against than sinning

It was always certain to end in tears. But, thanks to the quite disgusting and downright blatant act of administrative thuggery perpetrated by the GAA's charming CCCC (Central Competitions Control Committee) men, Paul Galvin's lifespan as Kerry team captain looks like it's going to begin and end in one foolish afternoon with giant-like tears.

etc etc.

[azoffaly]

Word leaking out of Kerry tonight is that Galvin walks out a free man. Zero, nil, zilch ban. (Apart from Cork game obviously enough, even Kerry can't turn back time).

Apparently the DRA ruled that the 6 month ban was not applicable according to rules, that 3 months was the sentence proscribed. As such the whole ban is ruled null and void, and Galvin is back in harness with immediate effect.

That's just the wind I heard, and I got it confirmed in South Kerry as well, but we'll wait for the official announcement I suppose.

[bula bula]

Galvin has had his ban reduced to 3 months from the date of the incident which leaves him free to play in the All-Ireland final if Kerry make it. This is totally wrong in my opinion and shows up the Gaa`s incompetence in dealing with this type of situations again. It also shows disrespect from the players to any type of ban put down. There does not seem to be any player that accepts their ban and gets on with it. This is getting really annoying and it seems that bans and appeals and all the shit that goes on, are actually taking over. There is more coverage of these than the actual games itself which is running the games and its integrity down. Something needs to be done and as soon as possible.

[Bord na Mona man]

Well at least he didn't walk entirely free with no re-imposition of a penalty.
As happened with Rory O'Connell, Peadar Carton, the Omagh brawlers, Anthony Lynch etc.

[SearingDrive]

I agree with BNM man, if Galvin was from a weaker county the full suspension would stand. I am sick of the whingeing and cant from Kerry. Paul Galvin has a record within Kerry. Are there too many levels of appeal in the GAA, as some journalists suggest.

[swiftpost]

I agree with BNM man, if Galvin was from a weaker county the full suspension would stand. I am sick of the whingeing and cant from Kerry. Paul Galvin has a record within Kerry. Are there too many levels of appeal in the GAA, as some journalists suggest.

If he was from a "weaker" county he would not have got 6 months in the first place.

[azoffaly]

I agree 100%. If Galvin was a Carlow footballer, he'd have got 3 months.

I would be the last lad to defend Galvin, and the last of all to defend any sort of intimidation of officials, but my immediate reaction to the 6 months ban, and it's still my reaction, is that it was the GAA trying to prove to the media that it could be tough in handing out suspensions, especially where there is public outcry.

Now, putting myself in Galvin's shoes, would I be happy that I was the one being made an example of, when the minimum punishment was 3 months? If I genuinely felt that I didn't get a fair hearing, and the DRA obviously agreed with him on that, I would certainly take it as far as I could go, even on a point of principle.

I think the GAA got what they deserved for trying to play the hard man disciplinarians, instead of handing out the proper punishment, according to the rulebook, which was 3 months.

The question of whether 3 months is sufficient punishment is another point entirely, and is a moot point, but it is not relevant, nor should it be, to Galvin's case. He has to be dealt with according to the rules that currently exist, not what people feel SHOULD be there.

[bula bula]

[quote="azoffaly"]I agree 100%.
I think the GAA got what they deserved for trying to play the hard man disciplinarians, instead of handing out the proper punishment, according to the rulebook, which was 3 months.

The minimum that could be given out is 3 months and in my view what Galvin did deserved more than the minimum. What I would be unhappy with is the fact that bans are contested no matter what the severity. I am sure if Galvin had gotten 3 months from the beginning he would have appealed that and knowing the system there would probably be a louphole found and he would have received a lighter sentence. The system is wrong and the players know that they can take advantage of it. When is the last time a punishment has been accepted by someone?

[TheManFromFerbane]

When is the last time a punishment has been accepted by someone?

Dublin footballers after the brawl this year, they were the first and the last I've heard in a while anyway??

[azoffaly]

They didn't object because they were only missing the game v Westmeath, most of them. I think Brogan did object, because he was missing a championship game. I think a couple of the more recent ones didn't appeal, or didn't go beyond the first appeal. I don't think Doherty of Derry did much appealing.

Anyway, that's beside the point. It's pure conjecture to assume that Galvin would have appealed the minimum suspension. I don't believe he would have to be honest. The feeling I get is that he felt hard done by because he didn't get a proper chance to plead his case at the imposition stage (CHC) and therefore was being targetted because the media were making a big ruckus about the incident.

I think there's a lot of truth in that, and I think the DRA agreed.

Edit: Before anyone jumps on me for defending Galvin, I'm not. What he did was sheer stupidity and childish. I don't think it was major 'badness' however.

Secondly, now that I think of it , if someone were to make the point that the minimum suspension should be more for this, I would listen to that argument too, but it should be seperated from the issue of whether Galvin deserved double the minimum punishment, no matter what that might be. As an example, if the minimum punishment was 1 week, and he got 2 weeks, I would still say he was being made an example of. Likewise if it was 1 year and he got 2 years. It's the principle of the thing as far as I'm concerned.