We're in the Clear!!!!

[Lone Shark]

What a strange collection of viewpoints. Most of the aggression seems to have been caused by the fact that we weren't even fined - which to be fair was as I feared. Us getting off scot free in that regard was the most dangerous outcome, because it left Kildare nowhere to go. On the other hand if we were fined a token amount (I'm thinking of Albert Reynolds being awarded 1p by the courts in his case against the Sunday Indo here), then much like in that case, Kildare could claim that they were vindicated to all that would be willing to listen, while we could let them have the moral victory and go about preparing for Wexford - sadly something that I feel is being greatly impinged on by this whole debacle. You then get a lot of mindless comments along the lines of "Rules are Rules, so it should be a replay" and then the remarker disappears without trace when challenged on his/her blasé assumptions.

This is one of the things that really kills me about this debate - the supporters of the Kildare position seem to vanish into the shadows when confronted with exhaustive and comprehensive argument. The 1998 precedent gets aired on countless occasions despite being utterly unrelated, while the Westmeath game ijn 2004 never gets mentioned. Nobody comments on the Case Study because it doesn't suit. It's because of stuff like this that I'm still very sensitive on this, and that I suspect a replay if one were to happen would be a seriously bristly affair.

Tommy is as bad as anyone else on this. He makes veiled comments such as Kildare being innocent in all this, but still stops shy of saying what he actually wants. Of course that would be decisive, and as we can tell from his tone towards the Leinster Council, decisiveness is never good ....

[Lone Shark]

Unsurprisingly, the CAC found in our favour tonight. As we all suspected, it'll be on to the DRA next, unless Kildare somehow get sense and realise that fighting this cause does no-one any favours.

On to the DRA then.

[anfeardearg]

LS,

You really haven't a clue what your talking about. To be fair you're last few posts are a contradiction. No wonder we're called squirrel eating biffo's.

Cop yourself on!

[Bord na Mona man]

LS,

You really haven't a clue what your talking about. To be fair you're last few posts are a contradiction. No wonder we're called squirrel eating biffo's.

Cop yourself on!

Nice try pal.
Now shoo back home to Kildare with ya.

[Ron]

So when will the DRA sit to consider this? And will Kildare finally stop at that?


Article below taken from RTE.ie


Kildare to take subs dispute to DRA
Thursday, 08 June 2006 9:27



The blood substitution and subsequent re-introduction of Offaly's Pascal Kelleghan is at the centre of Kildare's objection

The Kildare County Board are expected to take their case about the Offaly substitutes row to the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA).

RTÉ Sport learned late last night that the GAA's Central Appeals Committee (CAC) turned down their appeal to reverse last Saturday's decision by the Leinster Council to allow the result of the match to stand.


Offaly won the Leinster SFC quarter-final clash with The Lilywhites by 3-09 to 0-15 but were seen to make six substitutions instead of the allotted five.



The row centres over Offaly full-forward Pascal Kellaghan, who was forced off in the first half, with James Coughlan replacing him under the blood substitution ruling.


However, when Kellaghan came back on for the second half, he took the place of Trevor Phelan and not Coughlan. With that counting as two substitutions in many observers' eyes, Offaly brought a further four players off their bench, plunging their victory into doubt.


The Leinster Council's Games Administration endorsed Tyrone referee Michael Hughes' match report, ruling that Offaly had not broken the rules and that they will advance to play Wexford in the Leinster semi-final this Sunday.


However, having failed at the CAC, Kildare are set to turn to the DRA to overturn the decision and secure a possible re-match with Offaly.

[Hocker]

Kildare are starting to become Some pain in the hole..... Starting to make themselves very unpopular all round leinster with their carry-on.
Why cant they accept that they aint got a hope in hell of over-turning this decision at this stage, i wouldn't mind if they were any good, but they got the shite beat out of them that day, never seen a Kildare side so bad!
Roll on the two Wexford matches now....

[Bord na Mona man]

I think there is also a certain element of Kildare being sore at losing to little Offaly.
If it was Dublin who did what Offaly did, Kildare would be too scared to risk upsetting them.

[Ron]

I agree Hocker, all this nonsense is doing Offaly no favours but its not helping Kildare either. If Offaly were to beat them in a replay it would set them back even further.

They should concentrate on the Cavan match a match they could win, and build up from there.

I hope that the Offaly team are not unsettled by all this, god knows we've been waiting long enough to get a shot at getting into leinster final.

[Lone Shark]

LS,

You really haven't a clue what your talking about. To be fair you're last few posts are a contradiction. No wonder we're called squirrel eating biffo's.

Cop yourself on!

Go on, then, I'll engage you. I won't engage that nonsense, but I'll give you the strongest points of the Offaly perspective - if you can take any of them down with fair argument rather than personal abuse, I'll be impressed. By the way stop pretending you're from Offaly - from your very first post it was obvious you weren't. Contributors from other counties are more than welcome, though I would sympathise with the obvious subconscious wish to be one of us that you're experiencing.

(1) The Treasurer's case study, presented in the other thread on this topic, detailed almost exactly this scenario. It counted the whole process as one substitution. Do you doubt the veracity of this document, do you think our case doesn't match up for some reason, or are you just choosing to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you?

(2) Comparisons with 1998, Kildare vs Sligo and the Meath Final of last year are flawed - all of those were completely different cases, with different rules under question. So either bring up a relevant blood sub precedent, or say nothing.

(3) Kildare have said that they just want "fair play" For you, what is fair play? Do you perceive that Offaly obtained a playing advantage by filling out the slips correctly, or would you be happy with a fine?

(4) If Offaly were fined a token amount - say €1 - to reflect the fact that rules were broken, but that in asking the fourth official they did all they could to adhere to them - would you still be unhappy? Or do you feel that there needs to be more?

(5) Do you feel that Kildare supporters who pay into Newbridge derbies, Kildare sponsors, and other benefactors of Kildare GAA will approve of the county spending around €20,000 on this case to obtain a change in the rules, something which they could get for free by framing a well worded motion next year?


I'll lay 50/1 that anfeardearg replies in a meaningful way to this post.

[anfeardearg]

I'll answer in a meaninful ful way. Can I still take that 50/1?

First of all I apologise over the last post. It was rather childish. Anyway to answer your post.

(1) I'm not choosing to ignore anything. Is it not a fact that under the rule it states that the injured player must replace the temp blood sub directly? This did not happen so this is the ONLY rule (or part of) that Offaly broke. I do not believe that Offaly used 6 subs.

(2) I am not directly comparing the Kildare - Sligo game with this saga. My comparisons was about breaking rules. How can one county get points deducted and another receive no sanction?

(3) For me a fine would suffice.

(4) See above

(5) A good point. Am I right in saying that rules can only be changed at Congress so maybe it is a waste of time.

Let me add that I think the fault lies solely with the rule makers in the GAA. For such a so called professional organisation they have been very slow to tighten up their rules. Is there anything to stop other counties from finding loopholes in other rules and use them to their advantage?

Coming out of Croke Park that day I didn't think we deserved to win and in no way did I want a replay or go through to meet Wexford. That didn't interest me in the slightest. However that Offaly received absolute no sanction whatsoever is rather frustrating.

[Lone Shark]

First of all I apologise over the last post. It was rather childish. Anyway to answer your post.

Fair play - a diplomatic response taking the edge out of the situation. Would that the Kildare county board were so even handed!

(1) I'm not choosing to ignore anything. Is it not a fact that under the rule it states that the injured player must replace the temp blood sub directly? This did not happen so this is the ONLY rule (or part of) that Offaly broke.

Not a fact I'm afraid. It would have saved a lot of fuss if we had done that, but the blood sub is allowed replace another player - the whole process counts as one substitution.

(2) I am not directly comparing the Kildare - Sligo game with this saga. My comparisons was about breaking rules. How can one county get points deducted and another receive no sanction?

It's down to the severity of the offence. You may as well ask how can one player who pulls a guy down get away with only a free while a guy who draws a punch get a red card. However I will say that the punishment to Kildare in the Sligo case was in excess of what one would call "natural justice". However the rules as they were framed at the time left the authorities with nowhere to go.

(3) For me a fine would suffice.

Even a token one, such as €1?

(5) A good point. Am I right in saying that rules can only be changed at Congress so maybe it is a waste of time.

Let me add that I think the fault lies solely with the rule makers in the GAA. For such a so called professional organisation they have been very slow to tighten up their rules. Is there anything to stop other counties from finding loopholes in other rules and use them to their advantage?

Of course not. Counties find loopholes all the time. The current cards system for one has given birth to the rotational fouling so long espoused by Armagh and Tyrone, and that Derry footballers brought to a new level
in the Ulster championship a few weeks ago. Obviously the preferred solution is to find and close said loopholes. However this is where the GAA being a large democracy does not help - the wheels do not turn speedily.

I will say this in our defence though - I don't think an advantage was sought. If Peirce Freaney had said to Gerry Cooney that he wasn't sure, and that we were doing it under our own risk, I'd view things very differently. If we didn't ask, I'd view things very differently. The fact that we asked makes it pretty clear to me that the aim was to stay within the rules. I do appreciate your frustration - We've known it all too well in recent years. Personally I've never felt more robbed than in the replay in Nowlan Park in 2002, when Russell told Quinn and McManus in succession that we had more time and then he blew up after the kick out. It's not a nice feeling - however these thigns do even out over time, and it's just that because midlands counties tend to be so well matched that contentious decisions are much more likely to be influential.

Coming out of that game, Kildare were entitled to be annoyed at the penalty, just as from an Offaly perspective I think Brady just got tangled up in his man when he got sent off - to call it a free was harsh, never mind a yellow. The relative effect of these two calls is up for debate, but what we do know was that James Keane coming on to touch the ball once made no odds.

And finally - always nice to have another county's perspective on board - welcome!

[The Biff]

At the risk of boring repetition, can I offer an explanation as to why Offaly did NOT break any rule?

The commonly stated "rule" in question has 3 parts to it. It is not clear in the rule about the inter-relationship of those parts; must all 3 be met or just some? However, two parts refer to the returning player and so must be mutually exclusive. Thus legally, the first part must be considered to stand on it's own merits too. That first part refers to the Blooded player being instructed to leave the field by the ref. That was what happened, hence Offaly did not break this rule.

Also remember that there used to be a Time Limit whereby a Blood Sub had to be reversed, but this rule was specifically revoked a couple of years ago.

To take Treasurer's empirical evidence, look on it like this, in incremental steps of complexity:

(A) Blooded player forced to leave field, Blood Sub comes on, exact reversal of same players later in the game .... counts as Zero substitutions.

(B) Blooded player forced to leave field, Blood Sub comes on, the Blooded player never actually returns to the game (maybe time runs out or some other reason) .... counts as Zero substitutions.

(C) Blooded player forced to leave field, Blood Sub comes on, Blooded player returns but replaces a different player .... counts as One substitution (i.e. the removal of the "different" player).

I interpret (C) above as a common-sense approach to avoid the "charade" of bringing the likes of James Coughlan off the pitch and then sending him back on. The outcome will be the same but it would just look plain stupid.

You cannot ignore the significance of the "Blood" in all this. The rule was brought in only on Health grounds, to protect the OTHER non-blooded players. The underlying assumption is that the Blooded Player does not want to go off nor do the Team Management want to take him off for tactical reasons. It's just to clean him up and get back on the field. If he goes back on for the same player, then there are no subs counted. If he goes back for a different player, then it's one sub used.

Can we make it any simpler?

[Treasurer]

I'm convinced that it's not even that the rule is ambiguous, but that it was deliberately written to allow the Kellaghan-Coughlan-Phelan scenario. It's hard to see any other reason for the removal of the paragraph from the 2001 rules (as read by Spillane), stating that the injured player must return as a direct replacement for the blood sub.

And if you take the four examples from Croke Park, three of them clearly spell out that same scenario, which again suggests the rule is deliberately worded for that reason.

(Not according to the Midland Tribune of course, which basically claims we're exploiting a loophole. Grrrrrrrrr)

[Mighty Pair O' Hands]

Thank you biff and treas because i am getting fed up reading on the hogan stand, our own wonderful tribune, rte website etc that offaly in some way got the paperwork mixed up or technically had 6 subs.

WE DID NOT BREAK THE RULES. This is why we are not being levied with a fine. Simple as.

I would not accept even a €1 fine because it implies wrongdoing.

[Treasurer]

Article from Sunday Tribune...

No bending the truth or the rules
Gerry McDermott

FACTS are stubborn things; so are rules. But if you have them on your side in an argument, they are great teammates to have. Last week in writing about the KildareOffaly sub controversy, I said that some newspapers and The Sunday Game had added to the confusion instead of clearing up the issue, by not using the facts at their disposal, ie, the rulebook.

Instead they referred to part of the rules on blood substitutions and came up with six subs for Offaly by using an a la carte method of interpretation. My comments obviously hit home with RTE's Marty Morrissey, who attempted to use his column in a local newspaper to address the slight he felt from my piece.

He claimed I was contacted by a colleague of his before The Sunday Game went out on air and that I was not sure of the rule but miraculously seven days later I knew it all.

This is totally incorrect. The true facts (that word again, Marty) are: A person who works regularly on The Sunday Game, presumably the person Marty is referring to (who was not on duty on the evening of the Offaly v Kildare game) contacted me on the telephone after the game and asked me if Offaly had broken a rule with regard to substitutions.

I told him they had not and quoted the rule regarding substitutions as I outlined in this newspaper last Sunday.

This was in the course of a private conversation that I had with this individual who regularly telephones me about rules. However, he did not say on this occasion that he was checking it out on behalf of The Sunday Game.

He did say, however, that he may be talking about it on radio (not RTE radio) at a later stage. I told him he could if he so wished quote me because I was certain that Offaly had not broken a rule.

Having watched The Sunday Game, I telephoned Marty Morrissey the following morning to tell him that Offaly did not break any rule with regard to the substitutions they introduced. In fact I went through the rule with him in great detail and he finished up by saying "Gerry, you have it very clear in your head regarding this Rule.'' However, as an RTE commentator one would expect that he and all the other analysts should know the rules of the game they are describing. If they did they should not have to telephone me to clarify certain issues regarding the rules before they go on air.

This happens regularly but the galling and unethical thing is they then quote what I have told them as if they were the experts in the first place. Who are the self-declared experts here I ask Marty Morrissey, who incidentally took great delight in describing me as a self-declared expert? I have never described myself in those terms, but from all the calls I've taken to clear up issues for RTE over the years, I might be considered by people to have an understanding of the rules. But I have never been credited on the programme for clarifying a rule.

Incidentally, I had a conversation with Marty regarding rules a few years ago in the dressing room in Croke Park before a Leinster Championship game. I pointed out to him that he was incorrectly stating the penalty with regard to a foul of 'dissent' where a player shows dissent with a referee's decision to award a free-kick to the opposing team. Up to then he was saying, "The ball has been advanced 10 yards.'' I told him at the time that the penalty was 13 metres since 1990 and, furthermore, the rulebook had gone metric for the previous 25 years. Thankfully, he has got it right ever since. Commentators should not be using slang or out of date terminology.

I make no apologies for the fact that Marty got it seriously wrong on The Sunday Game by not quoting the full rule. Why did he only quote one third of Rule 1.5(b) of the Rules of Control of the Official Guide Part 2 regarding blood injuries?