www.uibhfhaili.com

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 3:42 pm**

Wexford could get a bye to the Leinster decider
29 May 2006

Offaly’s mistake in using a sixth substitute in their provincial quarter-final win over Kildare could see Wexford progress to the Leinster football final without having to meet any opposition in the semi-final.

As it stands now Offaly, despite any information they received on the day, have broken GAA rules by using a sixth substitute in their quarter-final win over Kildare. They introduced James Coughlan as a blood substitute for Pascal Kellaghan but when Kellaghan came back onto the field of play it was another player, not Coughlan, who was withdrawn. According to GAA rules a blood sub must make way for the player he replaced or else it immediately becomes a permanent substitution.

Leinster Council meet on Monday night to discuss the matter with Offaly and Kildare county boards set to be present at the meeting.

Kildare have the option to object and under GAA rules it appears they have a water tight case to be awarded the game. If the Lilywhites wish to make an appeal they must do so by tonight’s meeting.

However, should Kildare officials decide to accept the result then Leinster Council could still decide to take action under a new rule brought in at this year’s Congress. The provincial body could either fine the Offaly county board or throw the Faithful County out of the championship. In that case, and if Kildare have not appealed, Wexford would be given a bye straight to the Leinster final.

Teams have been thrown out of championships before and a case in Meath hit national headlines late last year when Navan O’Mahony’s used one substitute too many in their SFC semi-final win over Dunboyne. The beaten club appealed and were awarded the game by the Meath county board – a decision that was later upheld by both the Leinster Council and the Disputes Resolution Authority.

Dunboyne went on to claim the Meath title - the second in the clubs history - and the man in charge when they picked up their first title in 1998 was none other than Offaly’s current stand in manager, Gerry Cooney.

What are to make of this ?

By my reckoning, if Offaly valued Pascal as a blood sub and Jimmy Coghlan as Phelan's replacement, we are in the clear.

IE

Reynolds for Quinn - 1st Sub
Coghlan for Keelaghan - Blood Sub
Rafferty for O’Sullivan - 2nd Sub

HT
Keelaghan for Coughlan - Blood
Coughlan for Phelan - 3rd Sub

Hunt for Coghlan - 4th sub
Keane for Reynolds - 5th Sub

Anybody know who will be attending the meeting from Offaly ?

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 3:52 pm**

It would be a disgrace if this were to end in tears for us! God knows we've had our fair share of being shafted with things like this.

If the 4th official had all the relevant information and aid it was ok then this should've been put to bed last night once and for all. I'm worried that there seems to be an anti-Offaly bias on this story all day.

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 4:18 pm**

Irony of ironies given that Offaly supporters had been tearing their hair out for the last 2 years as the current regime rarely made substitutions when they were needed. Now we could get done for making too many.

Be careful what you wish for!

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 6:12 pm**

="Mighty Pair O' Hands
Keelaghan for Coughlan - Blood
Coughlan for Phelan - 3rd Sub

I haven't had a chance to look up the relevant rule, but from memory the scenario outlined by MPOH is the one outlined in the rules.

If it were to happen during play (ie other than during half time) Coughlan would have had to come to the line, let Paschal on then wait for Phelan to leave the play.

Ollie Daly on the 5.30 bulletin on Today FM said Offaly are in the clear because the 4th official's secretary told him so. That doesn't automatically make it right. The official can make a mistake too.

On the Sunday Game, Marty Morrissey was introduced as the man with all the answers. He outlined the various too-ings and fro-ings as MPOH has outlined, then he proceeded to say, yeah, Offaly have a problem here. Plonker.

I think we shoukld be OK here tho'.

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 10:01 pm**

It appears the Leinster council have referred it to Central Council. What that means in real terms I don't know.

I guess I won't be booking a flight home for the semi just yet then though.

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 10:23 pm**

Looks like the ruke book is been upheld....seen as your a staunch defender of the rules shark! EVEN WHEN THEY BITE YOU?

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 11:16 pm**

Quote from http://www.gaa.ie

“BANK OF IRELAND LEINSTER SENIOR FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP QUARTER-FINAL

Having listened to the submissions of both Offaly and Kildare the Leinster Games Administration Committee has decided to seek an interpretation from Central Council on Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Specification and the Blood Rule.”

Central Council will meet next Saturday to make its interpretation this will then be sent back to the Lenister Council who will make their decision at a meeting next Monday night in Portlaoise, So it looks like we’ll have this hanging over us for another week. It’s a pity because it takes a lot of enjoyment out of what was a great day in Croker yesterday,

Posted: **Mon May 29, 2006 11:53 pm**

far from croghan hill wrote:Looks like the rule book is being upheld....seen as your a staunch defender of the rules shark! EVEN WHEN THEY BITE YOU?

We don't know that they broke the rules yet. We do know that if they had swapped Kelleghan for Coughlan and then Coughlan for Phelan in succession they'd be fine, while we also know that before making the final switch they sought clarification from the only official available - Freeney, the fourth official.

If you want to start comparing and contrasting, maybe that would be the place to begin.

We also know that no advantage was gained from this transgression, or none was sought, at least. Again witness the contrast.

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 9:39 am**

Hopefully Central Council will realise it was a paperwork mistake. The net effect was that Offaly made 5 subs and a blood sub, entirely within the rules. Unfortunately the paperwork differed from this slightly. But we didn't get any extra benefit from it.
It would be a hugely embarrassing to start giving byes, forcing replays and kicking teams out of one of the GAA's premier competitions.
I know that's not a strong defence to take, but hopefully Central Council will let the worthy winners continue in the competition.

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 10:27 am**

The Leinster GAC have "wimped out" in my opinion. By escalating this to the Central Council, they have reneged on their own authority to make a decision. This disappoints me greatly and also makes me much more worried about the ultimate decision.

Also, it would now appear to me that Kildare's Officials must be unwilling to accept "defeat". I would be very surprised if they wished to get the semi-final place in this way. However, maybe they are still smarting because they actually ran out of valid subs themselves on Sunday.

Whatever the motives, it is the failure of the Leinster GAC to stand up to the task before them that causes me most concern. Now on Central Council, we may have a few "Frank Murphy types" deciding to "teach the little county a lesson". As per the decision to play the games in sodden Portlaoise a week ago, this wouldn't happen if it was one of the big counties involved.

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 10:36 am**

Agree with Biff.

i think they passed the buck alright.

then again, central council meets saturday they said on the wireless. if there is to be a re-fixture it will delay the entire championship - big time!

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 11:23 am**

Good point Turk. It will most likely be result stands or Offaly forfeit.
Agree that the Leinster Council have acted in a very shivery manner.

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 11:41 am**

I've been on the gaaboard venting my feelings on this too (as Whiteboots).
I hope you're right Turk, the possibility of a quick replay has been missed if it was to happen.
Throwing Offaly out would mean a bye for Wexford and nobody would like to see that happen either (not least Wexford I'd imagine).

They should fine Offaly for messing up the piece of paper if that indeed is what happened. At the end of the day we used 5 subs and one blood sub end of story. It's not like we had an extra man more than what we should have in the second half.

Remember PK was sent off for medical attention and not withdrawn by the management.

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 12:51 pm**

Gaelic Games
Substitute dispute to go to Central Council
Leinster football controversy
Seán Moran reports
Offaly and Kildare will have to wait until the weekend at least before they know whether they will have to replay their provincial championship quarter-final. At a meeting last night in Portlaoise, the Leinster Council’s Games Administration Committee decided to refer the rule governing substitutions during a match to Saturday’s meeting of the GAA’s Central Council.

Controversy concerning the match, won by Offaly, arose when it emerged that the winners may have made six substitutions during the match, one more than permitted. As a result, the provincial council invited the counties to discuss the matter.

Leinster secretary Michael Delaney said after last night’s meeting that there had been sufficient ambiguity to merit the referral.

“We heard strong arguments on either side and we decided that the best course of action was to get a definitive interpretation. The DRA (Disputes Resolution Authority) has made it clear that only Central Council can hand down such interpretations, so we are asking for a ruling on Rule 2.4 of the Rules of Specification (this deals with the number of substitutions and blood replacements allowed to any team during a match). There’s a meeting this weekend.

“We felt we had to do this for clarity in case Kildare decided to lodge an objection to the result, which could be appealed up to Central Council and even to the DRA. They didn’t say that was their intention, but they have until Wednesday to decide.”

The situation arose during Sunday’s Leinster championship match between Offaly and Kildare. In the first half, Offaly’s Pascal Kellaghan was temporarily replaced by James Coughlan under the blood rule.

Any of the team panel of 30 players may be used for this type of substitution, which does not count as one of the team’s permitted five changes – providing that the recovered player returns to the field in exchange for the player who temporarily replaced him.

Offaly made five other substitutions during the match, and questions arose concerning the blood replacement.

On Sunday Kellaghan came back on to the field after the half-time break but did not replace Coughlan.

Instead, he took the place of Trevor Phelan. This, argued Kildare, had the strict effect of turning Kellaghan’s earlier replacement by Coughlan into one of the five substitutions permitted under rule and rendered his return another of those five, so that by the end of the match Offaly had made six substitutions.

Under the GAA’s Match Regulation 11, “A temporary substitution (blood), which is under the control of the referee, can be made from any one of the allowable panel (up to 30 in senior, 24 in other intercounty)”.

Farther on, at 11.2 Control – Player with blood injury resuming playing, the rule states: “(i) When the player who had the blood injury is ready to resume playing, he shall present himself to the linesman at the substitution zone and await authorisation from the linesman before entering the field of play.

“(iii) The player shall only enter the field of play on the authorisation of the linesman.”

Kellaghan did not present himself to the linesman when re-taking the field and he was announced as replacing Trevor Phelan, not Coughlan. This is not compatible with blood replacement.

Rule 11 (above) also states that a temporary substitution only comes within the definition if the injured player returns as a direct replacement for the temporary substitute or for any other player if the temporary substitute has previously been sent off or substituted.

If it was Offaly’s wish to replace Phelan, the correct formulation of the substitution paper, which team officers hand to the fourth official, should have been “Coughlan for Phelan” rather than “Kellaghan for Phelan”, which implied that Kellaghan had already been replaced earlier in the match.

On Sunday, Pierce Freaney, the fourth official, who is entrusted with monitoring substitutions and blood replacements, outlined why he believed Offaly’s actions had been in order: “The list of the substitutions is very simple, in our book anyway,” said Freaney. “There were five substitutions made and one blood (replacement). In the 15th minute James Coughlan came in for

Pascal Kellaghan as a blood sub, but Kellaghan is entitled to come back on, which he

did, and he doesn’t need to replace the

player who replaced him.”

As can be seen above, under Rule 11 (i),

(ii) and (iii) this is questionable.

More positively from Offaly’s viewpoint

is that the Leinster Council, even if it

receives an interpretation from Central

Council deeming Offaly’s actions

contrary to rule, is not required

to make Offaly forfeit the

match or even order a replay.

An amended rule, passed at

this year’s congress, gives

options depending on how

serious the breach of rule is

considered.

Given Offaly’s sixth replacement came on in the last

minute, the breach of rule – if

that is what it is – could not be

said to have had a serious

bearing on the result and the

Leinster Council might conclude a fine is in order.

From this, i gather the following;

1. Kildare did put forward an argument last night against the result.
2. They have until wednesday though to officially object.
3. Offaly do appear to have fecked up the paperwork for Pascal's reintroduction
4. The croke park official also was confused by this and called it wrong
5. Offaly did not get any advantage as only 20 players were used, Pascal was genuinely injured, and the last sub was when offaly were out of sight and did not affect the game at all
6. Thus The lack of any advantage accruing should mean that central council can go with the very sensible option of a fine.

Posted: **Tue May 30, 2006 1:13 pm**

I would also add to that by pointing out that the changes that resulted on the field could have been possible legally, at the end of the day it didn't matter to the lads on the field what colour the slip of paper was or what was written on it.

If a mistake has been made here then its a clerical error. It would be ridiculous to punish a team who have trained hard all year for that. If they couldn't decide after 2 hours last night whether or not a rule had been broken then how in the name of god are sideline officials and management expected to know straight away.

There's obviously a lack of clarity in the rules somewhere but thats not the fault of the Offaly team, so why should they be punished for it?

www.uibhfhaili.com

5 or 6 subs ??????????????????

5 or 6 subs ??????????????????

Re: 5 or 6 subs ??????????????????

Wimps