Club football 2025

[Lone Shark]

Shamrocks are 100% right to appeal this.

The game was lost by a single point. A single point. And yet we all saw it – a so-called “2 pointer” that was blatantly inside the arc. By the rulebook, that’s not up for debate. If it’s inside the arc, it’s a 1 point score. End of story. The ref got it wrong, plain and simple, and that wrong call directly swung the result.

People saying “just get over it” – would you be saying that if it was your club on the wrong end of it? Don’t think so. Rules are there for a reason. If we don’t hold officials to account and appeal when things are black and white like this, what’s the point of even having them?

This isn’t about sour grapes, it’s about fairness. Shamrocks put in a shift and lost on a technicality that should never have stood. That’s not opinion – that’s fact.

So yeah, Shamrocks are dead right to appeal. And if that rattles a few cages, so be it. Better to stand up for yourselves than just roll over and let a mistake go unchallenged.

A few things.

(1) I've no problem with Shamrocks appealing this. If they feel that this decision was the difference between losing and not losing the game, then they're entitled to ask the question, and it's up to the Offaly CCC to decide if their claim has any merit or not. And particularly, since the players seem to be driving this decision to object, that left the executive backed into a corner. A situation has to be fairly out there to make going against your players the right thing to do.

(2) Neither do I have any time for this logic that Shamrocks were six up, so the game was in their own hands to win and that somehow detracts from the merit of the objection. The logical extension to that line of thinking is that unless you play a flawless game, you're not entitled to fair play. Say the referee awards a phantom goal to Team A who beat Team B by a point including that phantom goal, that objection shouldn't become any less legitimate just because Team B missed a penalty in the last minute, or that they shot 20 wides in the hour.

But on the flip side....

(3) It is emphatically very much "up for debate" whether Adam Egan's kick was a two-pointer or not. If you slow down the replay, his kicking foot was clearly on the arc as he went to strike the ball. The rule states that two points are awarded for a kick between the posts "having been kicked by a player who has at least one foot on or outside the 40m arc". The fact that the rule specifies one foot, and not the standing foot, makes it unclear what is the intention and the correct interpretation of the rule. The question of whether this is legitimately a two-pointer or not is possibly above the 'pay grade' of the Offaly CCC to decide, but it's absolutely not clear cut, at all. One could even argue that this is a test case for the rule, of sorts.

(4) I'm going back a few posts now, but I think the suggestion by Jimbob that the objection would be turned down by Offaly CCC because it is an "inconvenience" is way out of order, and is a way of saying that only one decision is the right one here. Offaly are very fortunate to have some very knowledgeable and experienced people on our CCC, including a former Leinster Council Chairperson. I don't expect this objection to be upheld, but whether it is or it isn't, and I say this as a Ferbane native, I would have the utmost confidence that the decision that is arrived at will be an informed, thought-out verdict, made by people with a lot more experience and understanding than me, or any of the posters on this board.

(5) The fact that the example in Mayo, where there was absolutely zero debate about whether it should have been a two-pointer or not, resulted in the objection being dismissed and Connacht Council upholding Mayo's decision, is a pretty strong precedent here. It strikes me that the question of whether this score was not recorded or incorrectly recorded, which would be the grounds required to uphold the objection, has already been asked and answered.

[Payperview1]

Don't know how you can say we all saw it wasn't a 2 pointer. Was at the match Sunday and no one around me even mentioned the fact that he might have been inside the arc. Do not remember any Shamrocks player or mentor complaining at the time either.
Only point there was any discussion over during or after the match was the one the linesman awarded in 2nd half which even several Ferbane supporters though was wide.
First I heard anyone mentioning 2 pointer was in a match report online.

[del]

Shamrocks lose their appeal . Hopefully that’s the end of it now.

[Behindthegoal]

They can now go to Leinster council if they wish, I don’t see why they wouldn’t do that if they want to appeal?

[del]

It’s clearly a futile exercise from the cases that’s have been brought to appeal recently. But look if shamrocks want to waste time and money as these things do cost money then that’s their business

[Superhans75]

To be honest if the referee or linesman didn't spot it's academic
Turkeys don't vote for Xmas
I personally think the way the game is going well need two referees
One acting as linesman swopping over at halftime
Hurling definitely needs it
Problem is we are short of good referee's
The expense would be another issue.

[Lone Shark]

They can now go to Leinster council if they wish, I don’t see why they wouldn’t do that if they want to appeal?

A lot will depend on how proceedings went last night. What I mean by that is that while the news is out that the objection was denied, only those who were in the room will know if the club feels that they got a fair hearing, if their arguments were really taken into consideration, what was the basis in rule for the decision, and what the grounds would be for an appeal and what would be their likelihood of success.

Maybe it's the case that the officials from Shamrocks walked out of the hearing feeling that the verdict was comprehensive and inarguable, maybe they walked out feeling that their interpretation of things is still the right one, and that Offaly CCC is mistaken. And I've no doubt that since they involved players in the decision to object, they will also involve the players in the decision to appeal to Leinster, or not.

The fact that the management team has walked away following the decision to object might also muddy the waters a bit, as players would presumably now have to go back into preparing for a replay under some sort of caretaker management, were any appeal to be successful. That, and the fact that their objection to the result has been very much put on the public record, might be enough to make some of the players say that they've no wish to go any further.

All will be revealed shortly no doubt, but I certainly wouldn't draw any inference from their decision to appeal or not as a sign that they didn't believe in their objection to begin with.

[jimbob17]

(4) I'm going back a few posts now, but I think the suggestion by Jimbob that the objection would be turned down by Offaly CCC because it is an "inconvenience" is way out of order, and is a way of saying that only one decision is the right one here. Offaly are very fortunate to have some very knowledgeable and experienced people on our CCC, including a former Leinster Council Chairperson. I don't expect this objection to be upheld, but whether it is or it isn't, and I say this as a Ferbane native, I would have the utmost confidence that the decision that is arrived at will be an informed, thought-out verdict, made by people with a lot more experience and understanding than me, or any of the posters on this board.

(5) The fact that the example in Mayo, where there was absolutely zero debate about whether it should have been a two-pointer or not, resulted in the objection being dismissed and Connacht Council upholding Mayo's decision, is a pretty strong precedent here. It strikes me that the question of whether this score was not recorded or incorrectly recorded, which would be the grounds required to uphold the objection, has already been asked and answered.

Out of order is a touch strong i'd feel. My assertion was based on knowledge of what one person very high up in Offaly GAA said about the incident. I never said that there is only one decision so please don't put words in my mouth.

I sensed it would be rejected (I was right) and based on the evidence available, I sensed that Shamrocks would have ground to appeal the decision to higher authority which they may or may not do. The rest is out of anyones hands but I feel that in interests of fairness, Shamrocks have a legitimate claim and have every right to appeal if they so wish.

The Mayo precedent can be taken with some caution too. Does the Fermanagh finding where appeal was upheld not set a strong precedent also where fairness was applied based on clear video footage. The nuts and bolts of this lies in applying fairness to the situation with respect to specific rule which is there regarding one foot or otherwise - I have not seen the exact ruling.

What some posters are spouting is pure horsesh*t and like Lone Shark suggests, what Shamrocks missed or didnt miss before or after does not come into it. How far they were ahead does not come into it. These are really test cases that were essentially brought on by the new rules and we will see how they pan out. I believe that players are entitled to fairness when video footage shows fairness was not applied and a score was wrongly afforded. The players put way too much in at senior level to at least get that.

[Lone Shark]

This is what you said would happen:

Offaly GAA reject appeal out of hand as it is an inconvenience to their running of championship and they'd simply prefer not to have to bother with the inconvenience.

You're saying that someone "high up in Offaly GAA" said that the objection would be rejected because it was an inconvenience? I'm afraid yeah, I think that's way out of order, it implies that the CCC are making their decision in bad faith, based on what's easier rather than what's correct.

I sensed that Shamrocks would have ground to appeal the decision to higher authority which they may or may not do.

Not trying to pick holes for the sake of it, but this is irrelevant too. There is no such thing as grounds for appeal, you can appeal anything you like (technically you object to a result, you appeal a decision). The merits of Shamrocks' case have nothing to do with whether or not they can choose to take this to Leinster, and to beyond if necessary.

The Mayo precedent can be taken with some caution too. Does the Fermanagh finding where appeal was upheld not set a strong precedent also where fairness was applied based on clear video footage.

Two things make the Mayo (and Carlow) ruling far more relevant than that in Fermanagh. Firstly, my understanding is that in the Fermanagh instance, Derrygonnelly let it be known to the Fermanagh CCC that they were very happy to play a replay, and that doing so was their preference. Humans are human, and if you're sitting there making a judgement and you know that one outcome is the one that both parties want, and that the county board will get the extra gate revenue from a second Division One league final into the bargain, then it would be seen as a bit churlish to turn around and go against that.

Secondly, on foot of that decision, again I haven't seen it but I've been led to believe that Croke Park got in touch with all counties to let them know that the correct course of action, in their view, is to let the score on the day stand. I'm open to correction on that since I have only heard it secondhand, but that's what I've heard.

I believe that players are entitled to fairness when video footage shows fairness was not applied and a score was wrongly afforded.

I'm going to keep pointing out this out - it's not clear cut that the decision was incorrect. The rule is not entirely clear, and while my gut feeling is that it probably should have gone down as a one-pointer, it's not stonewall, as was the case in the three instances mentioned above (or four, if you count that two scores were in dispute in the Fermanagh game). In fact it probably needs Jim Gavin and his people to confirm what exact way the rule should be interpreted, though Jim is fairly distracted with other things at the moment.

[llkj]

Lone Shark, if you get a minute, would you mind explaining this because I have read it a couple of times and I am trying to work it out? (I haven't seen the footage or talked to anyone about the score, so maybe that would help, but I am flying blind here)

If you slow down the replay, his kicking foot was clearly on the arc as he went to strike the ball. The rule states that two points are awarded for a kick between the posts "having been kicked by a player who has at least one foot on or outside the 40m arc". The fact that the rule specifies one foot, and not the standing foot, makes it unclear what is the intention and the correct interpretation of the rule.

Are you saying that as he kicked the ball he had his standing foot inside the arc, but the foot kicking the ball was hovering over the arc as he made contact and therefore could be interpreted as 'one foot on or outside' making it a 2-pointer?

Thanks.

[Lone Shark]

Sorry, should have explained. That snapshot probably explains better than anything, Adam Egan's left foot comes from on or just outside the arc before he swings at the ball - but does that count, or is it where is his foot when he makes contact with the ball, I genuinely don't know.

[llkj]

Ah, got it. Thanks. A picture definitely paints a thousand words in this instance. I had imagined some scenario where he was hooking one over his shoulder and the ball was nearly behind him as he made contact, and hence on the line as he made contact.

You'd want a good lawyer in your corner to get away with saying it was a 2 pointer, but it's 2025 so anything goes!

[jimbob17]

This is what you said would happen:

Offaly GAA reject appeal out of hand as it is an inconvenience to their running of championship and they'd simply prefer not to have to bother with the inconvenience.

You're saying that someone "high up in Offaly GAA" said that the objection would be rejected because it was an inconvenience? I'm afraid yeah, I think that's way out of order, it implies that the CCC are making their decision in bad faith, based on what's easier rather than what's correct.

I sensed that Shamrocks would have ground to appeal the decision to higher authority which they may or may not do.

Not trying to pick holes for the sake of it, but this is irrelevant too. There is no such thing as grounds for appeal, you can appeal anything you like (technically you object to a result, you appeal a decision). The merits of Shamrocks' case have nothing to do with whether or not they can choose to take this to Leinster, and to beyond if necessary.

The Mayo precedent can be taken with some caution too. Does the Fermanagh finding where appeal was upheld not set a strong precedent also where fairness was applied based on clear video footage.

Two things make the Mayo (and Carlow) ruling far more relevant than that in Fermanagh. Firstly, my understanding is that in the Fermanagh instance, Derrygonnelly let it be known to the Fermanagh CCC that they were very happy to play a replay, and that doing so was their preference. Humans are human, and if you're sitting there making a judgement and you know that one outcome is the one that both parties want, and that the county board will get the extra gate revenue from a second Division One league final into the bargain, then it would be seen as a bit churlish to turn around and go against that.

Secondly, on foot of that decision, again I haven't seen it but I've been led to believe that Croke Park got in touch with all counties to let them know that the correct course of action, in their view, is to let the score on the day stand. I'm open to correction on that since I have only heard it secondhand, but that's what I've heard.

I believe that players are entitled to fairness when video footage shows fairness was not applied and a score was wrongly afforded.

I'm going to keep pointing out this out - it's not clear cut that the decision was incorrect. The rule is not entirely clear, and while my gut feeling is that it probably should have gone down as a one-pointer, it's not stonewall, as was the case in the three instances mentioned above (or four, if you count that two scores were in dispute in the Fermanagh game). In fact it probably needs Jim Gavin and his people to confirm what exact way the rule should be interpreted, though Jim is fairly distracted with other things at the moment.

Whats all this nitpicking about? So far, I said what I believed would happen (that it would be rejected) based on what I heard. That has proven to be the case. There was absolutely nothing out of order. This is a discussion forum last time I checked to discuss things related to Offaly GAA. Maybe take the dramatic 'out of order' accusation elsewhere. Essentially, Offaly GAA made the call as I predicted, even if we don't know their reasoning or depth of investigation.

Beyond that, I said, Shamrocks may appeal because they may feel they have grounds to do so. I may or may not be correct but you are nitpicking again. Of course having grounds for appeal is relevant. These things cost money. They are not going to appeal if they feel they dont have a case. The only reason you would appeal something like this is because you feel you have grounds for such. Having grounds for it is central to that decision to appeal or not appeal - even if you can appeal anything you like as you say.

The picture is fairly clear cut to me. The standing right leg as he kicks the ball is most definitely inside the arc, and the left leg is inside the arc also as the ball is struck. It happens straight in front of the referee who is 5 or 6 meters away. A two pointer is given. Its a stonewall wrong call. The match should have finished a draw and Shamrocks have every right to feel aggrieved, without Ferbane or anyone else calling sour grapes on them.

Maybe put up a picture a second later as the ball is struck by the left foot to add clarity to the situation.

What Ferbane or Derrygonnelly or anyone else thinks is not relevant and opposition teams should not be consulted on this. The question is, did fair play apply to affected team in the awarding of the two pointed score? The standing decision committee make a judgement call based on the facts presented and you go from there, applying the rules as they stand with respect to what happens next. If that happens and all is above board and fairness applies, I have no issue with what way it falls.

Do you know that Mayo were correct in deciding as they did? Fermanagh called it right on giving replay in my opinion - and what Derrygonnelly thought should never come in to it. Have you been told by Derrygonnelly that they were asked what they thought or is that second hand information? The decision committee should make the decision and whatever happens next, happens then.

[Lone Shark]

You'd want a good lawyer in your corner to get away with saying it was a 2 pointer, but it's 2025 so anything goes!

Ah yeah, and I ain't a lawyer, never mind a good one, so I'm not the one to make that case. The only reason I'm pointing it out (repeatedly! ) is that it's just not cut and dried, and some people are saying it's the same as the Mayo case, where the referee got his arcs mixed up. If it was awarded as a one point score, I don't think anyone would quibble, but the very fact that it's debatable introduces an extra element, that's all.

[Lone Shark]

What Ferbane or Derrygonnelly or anyone else thinks is not relevant and opposition teams should not be consulted on this. The question is, did fair play apply to affected team in the awarding of the two pointed score? The standing decision committee make a judgement call based on the facts presented and you go from there, applying the rules as they stand with respect to what happens next. If that happens and all is above board and fairness applies, I have no issue with what way it falls.

You can say they should not be consulted, but the rules of the GAA state that if one party objects to a result, the other party are offered the right to make a counterpoint. So whether or not they should be, the rules say they have to be.

Also, there's reasonable evidence to suggest that AI will take over the world and replace humanity sooner than we think, but in the mean time, we still have humans making decisions. And while it's all very well to take the robotic view and say that you should only look at things through the prism of right and wrong, our whole legal system is based around the premise that if the prosecution and the defence both agree that a certain course of action is fair, the judge steps out of it.

In an amateur world like the GAA where we're all closely connected, it's even more understandable that the members of a CCC in a very small county like Fermanagh, with just 20 clubs in total, when asked to make a decision between two clubs that BOTH WANT THE SAME OUTCOME, and when there is no downside to that outcome, they come to that conclusion. You can say it's right or wrong but either way, it's very human and I think I'd have done the same, regardless of what the letter of the law says.

Do you know that Mayo were correct in deciding as they did? Fermanagh called it right on giving replay in my opinion - and what Derrygonnelly thought should never come in to it. Have you been told by Derrygonnelly that they were asked what they thought or is that second hand information? The decision committee should make the decision and whatever happens next, happens then.

No, I don't KNOW that Mayo were correct. Here's what I know. After, and because of, the Fermanagh decision, Croke Park got in touch with all counties to give an explainer on how the rules should work in cases like this. Following that, Mayo made their decision, Hollymount-Carramore appealed to Connacht GAA, and Connacht GAA upheld the ruling.

Now nobody is infallible, but if the good people of the Mayo CCC and the Connacht Council both came to the same conclusion, based on Croke Park advice, I'm not going to say they're wrong. The DRA might say it, but Hollymount-Carramore didn't ask the question. Likewise with Shamrocks, I'd be fairly confident they'd have to go as far as the DRA before there's any chance of a different outcome.

And it was an Ulster reporter who covered the Fermanagh story that told me that Derrygonnelly let it be known they were happy with a replay. He's a very reliable sort, so I would trust him.