If it can be accepted that PK returning to the field was a blood sub "reversal" then no rule was broken surely? Since he was ordered off by the ref for attention and not subbed off then what alse could he be other than a player returning to the field and thereby ending the blood sub?
It seems ridiculous to me that Kildare fell "hard done by" by something that really had absoloutely zero effect on the game or the scoreline.
It just got dirty
-
Mighty Pair O' Hands
- All Star
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:22 pm
Here is the blood rule from the 2003 GAA rules;
Treasurer, as the resident expert on the Rules
, you might confirm my interpretation of the above rule but I cannot see how Offaly even deserve a fine.
First of all,
Nowhere does it say (unlike in the 2001 rules) that the injured player has to return for the blood substitute.
Thus, if the injured player does return for someone else, it can be treated as a normal substitution. This is the logical interpretation. Mr Freaney, the sideline official who gave the okay for james Keane, appears correct. We do not even deserve a fine.
I am raging at Kildare's attitude on this because it is taking from what was a very important win. I hope the players are not being affected by all this carryon.
The amount of confusion on this subject is amazing starting with Pat Spillane quoting from the old Rulebook to the Hogan stand, to even the national papers.(b) Injuries: Blood - A player who is bleeding or
who has blood on any part of his body, playing
attire or playing equipment, as a result of an
injury sustained during play, shall on the
instruction of the Referee, immediately leave
the field of play to receive medical and/or other
attention. He shall not be allowed to return to
the field of play until the bleeding has stopped,
all blood has been cleaned off and, where
possible, the injured area has been covered,
any blood-stained playing attire has been
replaced and any blood-stained equipment has
been fully cleaned. In that circumstance, a
Temporary Substitute may be used, and the
following acts shall not count as substitutions
under Rule 2.4 (i) and (ii), Rules of
Specification.
(1) The use of the Temporary Substitute for a
player instructed to leave the field under
the Rule.
(2) The return to the field of play of the injured
(blood) player as a direct replacement for
the Temporary Substitute.
(3) The return to the field of play of the injured
(blood) player as a replacement for any
other player if the Temporary Substitute
has previously been sent off or
substituted.
Treasurer, as the resident expert on the Rules
, you might confirm my interpretation of the above rule but I cannot see how Offaly even deserve a fine. First of all,
Therefore, James coghlan for Pascal is not a full substitute - there is no time requirement so James Coghlan is viewed as a blood substitute for his involvement in the game.a Temporary Substitute may be used, and the
following acts shall not count as substitutions
under Rule 2.4 (i) and (ii), Rules of
Specification.
(1) The use of the Temporary Substitute for a
player instructed to leave the field under
the Rule.
IE if pascal had come back for James Coghlan, this also would not have counted as a full substitution(2) The return to the field of play of the injured
(blood) player as a direct replacement for
the Temporary Substitute.
ie if James coghlan had been sent off and then pascal came back for any other player(3) The return to the field of play of the injured
(blood) player as a replacement for any
other player if the Temporary Substitute
has previously been sent off or
substituted.
Nowhere does it say (unlike in the 2001 rules) that the injured player has to return for the blood substitute.
Thus, if the injured player does return for someone else, it can be treated as a normal substitution. This is the logical interpretation. Mr Freaney, the sideline official who gave the okay for james Keane, appears correct. We do not even deserve a fine.
I am raging at Kildare's attitude on this because it is taking from what was a very important win. I hope the players are not being affected by all this carryon.
Rules
Far from it M! In fact I was initially convinced that we had made a mess of the paperwork, but I've since been persuaded and am now absolutely convinced that we have done nothing wrong, as outlined above.as the resident expert on the Rules
THIS LAD SURELY KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT
THE Offaly sub controversy may have stumped some of the GAA’s best brains up until now, but barrister Aaron Shearer is adamant that Offaly are ‘in the clear’.
Shearer played corner-forward on the Na Fianna team ordered to replay a Leinster Club Championship semi-final against Sarsfields five years ago when they fielded one sub too many and claims that the wording of the rule in question is wrong.
Because there is an element of doubt over the rule, Shearer explained that it should be those responsible for drafting it (the GAA) and not the team under the microscope (Offaly) who should suffer the consequences.
“The way the rule was drafted (see panel), it strikes me that part 1 is meant to be read in conjunction with part 2 and 3 of the rule, but they haven’t drafted it that way. They all stand alone as far as I can see,” said the Dublin-based barrister.
“It shouldn’t be a grey area — if they had drafted the rule properly — but it seems to me that they haven’t.
“Just on a strict interpretation of the rule, it strikes me that Offaly are in the clear.
“I don’t think there should be (a replay). There might be, but I don’t think there should be.”
Shearer’s assessment backs up the claims made by Pierce Freaney, assistant to the fourth official last Sunday, as well as some senior GAA officials who believe the case against Offaly would not have a leg to stand on if it went as far as the DRA.
As it is, the Leinster Council have referred the matter to Central Council after a two-hour meeting in Portlaoise on Monday night failed to come to a definitive verdict.
Central Council will meet this Saturday and give their interpretation of the rule and the Leinster Council will apply that interpretation at a specially convened meeting of their own later that evening at six o’clock.
That should see the controversy solved before the All-Ireland qualifier draw the next evening, but the football calendar would still face a prospective upheaval if Kildare were to appeal any decision to the DRA.
The indications on Monday were that they had no desire to replay the match and county chairman Syl Merrins rejected claims yesterday that they had in fact lodged an appeal against the result of the game last Sunday.
The Nurney clubman is adamant that Kildare have no wish to see Offaly turfed out of the championship and says the county was only represented at Monday night’s Leinster Council meeting at the invitation of the Council and had not requested to be in attendance.
Merrins is however keen that the rule in relation to blood substitutions is cleared up once and for all, as he feels that there have been too many situations in recent times that have led to confusion.
Kildare teams have suffered negative results as a result of ‘six subs controversies’ in the past, but others, such as the Cork footballers in the 2002 Munster final, have escaped censure.
“Kildare have not objected to the result.
“We were invited by Leinster Council to the meeting (on Monday night), we didn’t look for it. Leinster Council asked our view on it and we gave it.
“Our view is that Offaly used six subs and we explained how we came to that view.
“We’re not saying ‘we want this match’, but if the rule is breached and it is not dealt with, it will have serious implications down the line, in all games.
“If one blood sub is misused, you could have numerous subs being used.”
While accepting that Offaly had acted in good faith, having checked with the sideline officials at the time, Merrins says that the GAA power-brokers must clear this issue up once and for all.
“We made the point that, in the case of Kildare, we had such problems with six subs before and the onus was on us to get the situation clarified. There was the Sligo situation (in 2002) when we got relegated (in the league) because we lost the two points.
“There was the Westmeath v Kildare (Leinster SHC tie last year, where Westmeath used six subs, but the result remained unchanged).
“Then you had Na Fianna using six subs against Sarsfields (in the Leinster clubs SFC semi-final in 2001). Sarsfields didn’t want to win the game that way, they offered a replay and lost. It probably cost them the Leinster title.”
Earlier yesterday, Leinster Council secretary Michael Delaney echoed Merrin’s thoughts that, regardless of Kildare’s intentions, this was an issue that needed to be addressed once and for all.
He also explained the reasoning behind the Council’s failure to make a judgement themselves.
“The situation was that both counties came in and they both made compelling arguments. Kildare made the argument that Offaly used six subs. Offaly said ‘no, we used five’. They both used the rule book to back up their cases.
“It so happens that there is, I suppose you call it a small grey area in the blood substitution rule. When we looked at it, we were divided on it so we said it’s only the Central Council that can interpret our rules and, by a happy coincidence, there’s a Central Council meeting on Saturday.
“No matter what decision we made last night, the other side was going to appeal. If we ruled in favour of Offaly, Kildare would have appealed and vice versa.
“To short circuit that we decided we’d go to Central Council, ask them to interpret the rule and that should be the end of the story.”
Shearer played corner-forward on the Na Fianna team ordered to replay a Leinster Club Championship semi-final against Sarsfields five years ago when they fielded one sub too many and claims that the wording of the rule in question is wrong.
Because there is an element of doubt over the rule, Shearer explained that it should be those responsible for drafting it (the GAA) and not the team under the microscope (Offaly) who should suffer the consequences.
“The way the rule was drafted (see panel), it strikes me that part 1 is meant to be read in conjunction with part 2 and 3 of the rule, but they haven’t drafted it that way. They all stand alone as far as I can see,” said the Dublin-based barrister.
“It shouldn’t be a grey area — if they had drafted the rule properly — but it seems to me that they haven’t.
“Just on a strict interpretation of the rule, it strikes me that Offaly are in the clear.
“I don’t think there should be (a replay). There might be, but I don’t think there should be.”
Shearer’s assessment backs up the claims made by Pierce Freaney, assistant to the fourth official last Sunday, as well as some senior GAA officials who believe the case against Offaly would not have a leg to stand on if it went as far as the DRA.
As it is, the Leinster Council have referred the matter to Central Council after a two-hour meeting in Portlaoise on Monday night failed to come to a definitive verdict.
Central Council will meet this Saturday and give their interpretation of the rule and the Leinster Council will apply that interpretation at a specially convened meeting of their own later that evening at six o’clock.
That should see the controversy solved before the All-Ireland qualifier draw the next evening, but the football calendar would still face a prospective upheaval if Kildare were to appeal any decision to the DRA.
The indications on Monday were that they had no desire to replay the match and county chairman Syl Merrins rejected claims yesterday that they had in fact lodged an appeal against the result of the game last Sunday.
The Nurney clubman is adamant that Kildare have no wish to see Offaly turfed out of the championship and says the county was only represented at Monday night’s Leinster Council meeting at the invitation of the Council and had not requested to be in attendance.
Merrins is however keen that the rule in relation to blood substitutions is cleared up once and for all, as he feels that there have been too many situations in recent times that have led to confusion.
Kildare teams have suffered negative results as a result of ‘six subs controversies’ in the past, but others, such as the Cork footballers in the 2002 Munster final, have escaped censure.
“Kildare have not objected to the result.
“We were invited by Leinster Council to the meeting (on Monday night), we didn’t look for it. Leinster Council asked our view on it and we gave it.
“Our view is that Offaly used six subs and we explained how we came to that view.
“We’re not saying ‘we want this match’, but if the rule is breached and it is not dealt with, it will have serious implications down the line, in all games.
“If one blood sub is misused, you could have numerous subs being used.”
While accepting that Offaly had acted in good faith, having checked with the sideline officials at the time, Merrins says that the GAA power-brokers must clear this issue up once and for all.
“We made the point that, in the case of Kildare, we had such problems with six subs before and the onus was on us to get the situation clarified. There was the Sligo situation (in 2002) when we got relegated (in the league) because we lost the two points.
“There was the Westmeath v Kildare (Leinster SHC tie last year, where Westmeath used six subs, but the result remained unchanged).
“Then you had Na Fianna using six subs against Sarsfields (in the Leinster clubs SFC semi-final in 2001). Sarsfields didn’t want to win the game that way, they offered a replay and lost. It probably cost them the Leinster title.”
Earlier yesterday, Leinster Council secretary Michael Delaney echoed Merrin’s thoughts that, regardless of Kildare’s intentions, this was an issue that needed to be addressed once and for all.
He also explained the reasoning behind the Council’s failure to make a judgement themselves.
“The situation was that both counties came in and they both made compelling arguments. Kildare made the argument that Offaly used six subs. Offaly said ‘no, we used five’. They both used the rule book to back up their cases.
“It so happens that there is, I suppose you call it a small grey area in the blood substitution rule. When we looked at it, we were divided on it so we said it’s only the Central Council that can interpret our rules and, by a happy coincidence, there’s a Central Council meeting on Saturday.
“No matter what decision we made last night, the other side was going to appeal. If we ruled in favour of Offaly, Kildare would have appealed and vice versa.
“To short circuit that we decided we’d go to Central Council, ask them to interpret the rule and that should be the end of the story.”
-
Plain of the Herbs
- All Star
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:47 pm
- Club: Lusmagh
The more I look at the more I realise that there is no rule to say that James Coughlan becomes permanent when Kellaghan replaced Phelan. Kellaghan himself becomes Offaly's third permanent sub on his re-introduction, according to the rule (can't think of the rule number!!)
As far as I can see, Offaly broke NO rule. They should stick with this line of defence.
When going to court, its the wording of the law which is being interpreted and NOT what may or may not be INTENDED but has been omitted. The alarming events this week in the Supreme Court have shown this.
Interesting to see even Martin Breheny is on our side in this one. Wrote that, if Offaly are sanctioned the GAA should put the 'for sale' sign up over Croke Park and close the whole nationwide operation down!
As far as I can see, Offaly broke NO rule. They should stick with this line of defence.
When going to court, its the wording of the law which is being interpreted and NOT what may or may not be INTENDED but has been omitted. The alarming events this week in the Supreme Court have shown this.
Interesting to see even Martin Breheny is on our side in this one. Wrote that, if Offaly are sanctioned the GAA should put the 'for sale' sign up over Croke Park and close the whole nationwide operation down!
DRA?
So this dispute looks certain to go to the DRA whatever the Central Council decide, that begs the question, when would the DRA sit to consider this? Is this the "ultimate" court now that Kildare said they'd go to or could it still end up in the high court to the detrement of the Leinster Champ?
-
Lone Shark
- All Star
- Posts: 5715
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:21 pm
- Club: Ferbane
- Location: Roscommon
- Contact:
-
Bord na Mona man
- All Star
- Posts: 4315
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:34 am
- Club: Clara
Re: Gist
Who wrote that?Treasurer wrote:The gist of it was how we made an awful blunder by using six subs, fans angry etc.!! Feck's sake!
The man made of wire?
Eureka!
Lads, after much searching over the last couple of days, I finally unearthed a document that I knew I had buried somewhere but was nearly afraid to mention for fear that I would find it and that it would say the exact opposite to what I hoped...
Anyway, I found it - clarification on the blood sub rule faxed from no less than Croke Park in February 2002. The document contains 4 case studies with step by step possible scenarios for applying the blood sub rule. Case No. 2 is most interesting....
Case No. 2
Time 5 mins
No. 5 taken off (sprained ankle)
No. 18 sent on as a substitute
Subs used 1
Subs remaining 4
Players used 16
Time 10 mins
No. 7 taken off (shoulder dislocated)
No. 19 sent on as a substitute
Subs used 2
Subs remaining 3
Players used 17
(Ok, here's the interesting bit....)
Time 15 mins
No. 6 has blood injury (cut above eye) [even the injury is the same
]
No. 16 sent on as temporary replacement
Subs used 2
Subs remaining 3
Players used 18
Time 20 mins
No. 6 ready to resume playing
But no. 4 comes off - NOT no. 16
No. 6 goes on
This counts as an ordinary substitution
Subs used 3
Subs remaining 2
Players used 18
Q.E.D.!
We can accept nothing less than absolute exoneration from tomorrow's meetings!
Back to the football........
Anyway, I found it - clarification on the blood sub rule faxed from no less than Croke Park in February 2002. The document contains 4 case studies with step by step possible scenarios for applying the blood sub rule. Case No. 2 is most interesting....
Case No. 2
Time 5 mins
No. 5 taken off (sprained ankle)
No. 18 sent on as a substitute
Subs used 1
Subs remaining 4
Players used 16
Time 10 mins
No. 7 taken off (shoulder dislocated)
No. 19 sent on as a substitute
Subs used 2
Subs remaining 3
Players used 17
(Ok, here's the interesting bit....)
Time 15 mins
No. 6 has blood injury (cut above eye) [even the injury is the same
]No. 16 sent on as temporary replacement
Subs used 2
Subs remaining 3
Players used 18
Time 20 mins
No. 6 ready to resume playing
But no. 4 comes off - NOT no. 16
No. 6 goes on
This counts as an ordinary substitution
Subs used 3
Subs remaining 2
Players used 18
Q.E.D.!
We can accept nothing less than absolute exoneration from tomorrow's meetings!
Back to the football........
-
Lone Shark
- All Star
- Posts: 5715
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:21 pm
- Club: Ferbane
- Location: Roscommon
- Contact:
