Games weekend 26th 27th May

[Jd2793]

towell appeal rejected somehow

[Calcio Jack]

towell appeal rejected somehow

Would love to hear how they reached that decision….. if there wasn’t conclusive unambiguous evidence presented by the the league then Rovers should imo go full on ‘GAA’ and consider taking this to court - otherwise the appeal process will be seen as a waste of time , no one will use it and mediocre referring standards will be embedded.

[brendy_éire]

1662571309291716608

John Mahon’s second yellow tonight,any ideas how that decision was come upon??

Maybe simulation for going down holding his face? Can't see what else it might be.

[brendy_éire]

Would love to hear how they reached that decision….. if there wasn’t conclusive unambiguous evidence presented by the the league then Rovers should imo go full on ‘GAA’ and consider taking this to court - otherwise the appeal process will be seen as a waste of time , no one will use it and mediocre referring standards will be embedded.

Court?! Need to calm down a bit.

Towell kicked out, so it's violent conduct. I don't think contact or not makes a difference in the rules. Strange that it would even be appealed.

I'm sure we'll see a red be overturned at some point, but there hasn't been justification for one yet.

I do think the rules for violent conduct are harsh, but they're being correctly applied. Lopes earlier in the season against Sligo would be an example.

[Calcio Jack]

Court?! Need to calm down a bit.

Towell kicked out, so it's violent conduct. I don't think contact or not makes a difference in the rules. Strange that it would even be appealed.

I'm sure we'll see a red be overturned at some point, but there hasn't been justification for one yet.

I do think the rules for violent conduct are harsh, but they're being correctly applied. Lopes earlier in the season against Sligo would be an example.

I’m very calm…. That’s why I prefaced my comment as I did… so to repeat if the league proved Towell deserved the red then we move on…. If their evidence was in any way vague then we should ( for both ourselves first and to benefit all as well) consider taking it further.

The Rovers hierarchy aren’t stupid and took the decision based on clear video evidence so based on that unless something further was magically revealed then we shouldn’t/don’t accept this….. albeit they may feel they have to due to concerns about further pay back at a later date ( as in life more often than not the corrupt and the bullies win).

[JC_GUFC]

I’m very calm…. That’s why I prefaced my comment as I did… so to repeat if the league proved Towell deserved the red then we move on…. If their evidence was in any way vague then we should ( for both ourselves first and to benefit all as well) consider taking it further.

The Rovers hierarchy aren’t stupid and took the decision based on clear video evidence so based on that unless something further was magically revealed then we shouldn’t/don’t accept this….. albeit they may feel they have to due to concerns about further pay back at a later date ( as in life more often than not the corrupt and the bullies win).

So first off I'd imagine the extra footage is inadmissible anyway - it's not official LoITV footage. Secondly it actually backs up the referee's decision (based on the assistant's recommendation) which would have been violent conduct. Towell's leg moves in the direction of the defender's head.

Now you can argue all you like that he's falling backwards and that was a natural movement and he didn't hit the Cork player etc. and that's fine and I'd agree with you but as per the laws of the game the decision at the time it is not blatantly incorrect.

Having seen the other appeals that have failed this season there's not a part of me that thinks Rovers thought they'd win this appeal. They've just done it to make a point of how unhappy they were with the ref.

What I would say is that I'm glad the FAI/League are sticking with the referees here. The GAA has become a total farce in how decisions are almost always overturned. This offers no respect to the referees in the GAA and the consequences of this can be seen at all levels of GAA. Football isn't great for respecting referees either but at least there has been a campaign around 'No ref, no game' and the league is sticking by its referees here, which is only right.

Fwiw I think all 3 reds of Friday looked incredibly harsh and I totally understand Rovers frustrations.

[2 Year Contract]

Towell has a reputation for leaving the boot in when the ball is gone and making it look accidental, these things eventually catch up with you. One of the worst cases of it is when he broke a young Jamie McGrath's nose 'accidentally' in a Dundalk Pats match years ago.

https://www.the42.ie/richie-towell-jamie-mcgrath-2278112-Aug2015/

[Calcio Jack]

So first off I'd imagine the extra footage is inadmissible anyway - it's not official LoITV footage. Secondly it actually backs up the referee's decision (based on the assistant's recommendation) which would have been violent conduct. Towell's leg moves in the direction of the defender's head.

Now you can argue all you like that he's falling backwards and that was a natural movement and he didn't hit the Cork player etc. and that's fine and I'd agree with you but as per the laws of the game the decision at the time it is not blatantly incorrect.

Having seen the other appeals that have failed this season there's not a part of me that thinks Rovers thought they'd win this appeal. They've just done it to make a point of how unhappy they were with the ref.

What I would say is that I'm glad the FAI/League are sticking with the referees here. The GAA has become a total farce in how decisions are almost always overturned. This offers no respect to the referees in the GAA and the consequences of this can be seen at all levels of GAA. Football isn't great for respecting referees either but at least there has been a campaign around 'No ref, no game' and the league is sticking by its referees here, which is only right.

Fwiw I think all 3 reds of Friday looked incredibly harsh and I totally understand Rovers frustrations.

I’d say there’s a lot of ‘truth’ in your take …… and of course I do get how sometimes an institution feels the need to protect the guilty for the ‘so called ‘ overall good….. however we’re only too familiar in this country with how such cover ups only lead to further misdeeds …. So the pity is that the FAI couldn’t try sticking with the truth and admit there was an error ( that’s not hanging the ref/Lino out to dry as it is simply admitting what all could see) as that will help act as a catalyst to improve standards instead of validating current crap ones.

[Shinkicker]

Towell has a reputation for leaving the boot in when the ball is gone and making it look accidental, these things eventually catch up with you. One of the worst cases of it is when he broke a young Jamie McGrath's nose 'accidentally' in a Dundalk Pats match years ago.

https://www.the42.ie/richie-towell-jamie-mcgrath-2278112-Aug2015/
I don't think player reputation comes into it, the evidence would have been what the lino saw and then said to the ref. The long and the short of it is Rovers got a 2 match ban turned into a 3 match ban. Sometimes your are better taking one on the chin especially when, based on past evidence the chances of winning the appeal are very slim to no chance at all.

[2 Year Contract]

I don't think player reputation comes into it, the evidence would have been what the lino saw and then said to the ref. The long and the short of it is Rovers got a 2 match ban turned into a 3 match ban. Sometimes your are better taking one on the chin especially when, based on past evidence the chances of winning the appeal are very slim to no chance at all.

I wasn’t trying to say that the reputation came into the decision making on Friday, more so that if you consistently kick out at opponents you will sooner or later get caught doing or trying to do it and be punished for it

[JC_GUFC]

I’d say there’s a lot of ‘truth’ in your take …… and of course I do get how sometimes an institution feels the need to protect the guilty for the ‘so called ‘ overall good….. however we’re only too familiar in this country with how such cover ups only lead to further misdeeds …. So the pity is that the FAI couldn’t try sticking with the truth and admit there was an error ( that’s not hanging the ref/Lino out to dry as it is simply admitting what all could see) as that will help act as a catalyst to improve standards instead of validating current crap ones.

But it's not really an error is it? That's kind of the point.

OK it may be harsh and possibly from his angle the assistant thought there was contact but are you going to open up another can of worms around the harshness of decisions?

Like would you say it's ok for someone to aim a kick at another player and as long as they don't connect it's not a sending off offence?

[redobit]

So that's 3 (that I remember anyway) red cards that have been appealed this season. None of which have been overturned.

[redobit]

Referees are a protected species. The LOI TV highlights didnt even show Diallo tackle on Mahon, so by extension didnt show Mahons first nonsense yellow. There is no accountability, there is a referee adjudicator at matches (who are ex refs Im told, which is a joke cause they are hardly gonna be as critical on each other). FAI must be just ignoring the reports done on refs.

[Calcio Jack]

But it's not really an error is it? That's kind of the point.

OK it may be harsh and possibly from his angle the assistant thought there was contact but are you going to open up another can of worms around the harshness of decisions?

Like would you say it's ok for someone to aim a kick at another player and as long as they don't connect it's not a sending off offence?

Eh…. The point is there was an error made, ie the Lino thought there was contact..hence the appeal; but it seems the Appeals committee are either accepting the Lino’s word; ignoring the video footage from LOITV which is at best inconclusive and possibly excluding de facto video evidence provide by Rovers ( if they can do that then the whole process is an even bigger farce). Nothing to do with harshness of the decision it’s all to do with the error of the decision.

[pineapple stu]

But I think the onus is on Rovers to show that the decision was clearly wrong, and I don't think ye can. I agree with JC here - Towell's boot does move towards the Cork guy's head after they land, and that does look like a kick out. Or it could be a result of the fall. But I don't think the footage shown here conclusively shows the ref made a mistake, and that's the ask in the appeal I would have thought.

[Philosophizer]

Eh…. The point is there was an error made, ie the Lino thought there was contact..hence the appeal; but it seems the Appeals committee are either accepting the Lino’s word; ignoring the video footage from LOITV which is at best inconclusive and possibly excluding de facto video evidence provide by Rovers ( if they can do that then the whole process is an even bigger farce). Nothing to do with harshness of the decision it’s all to do with the error of the decision.
You’ve admitted yourself that the video evidence is inconclusive, so how could they use that as evidence to overturn the decision? The only way they could overturn it was if the video clearly proved towell didn’t kick the lad.

[Calcio Jack]

You’ve admitted yourself that the video evidence is inconclusive, so how could they use that as evidence to overturn the decision? The only way they could overturn it was if the video clearly proved towell didn’t kick the lad.

No…. I said the LOITV footage is inconclusive , therefore the appeal committee couldn’t rely on it …. Surly natural justice means lack of conclusive evidence means you must allow the appeal …

. “….. if the kicks not clear then the red must disappear….” Apologies to Johnny Cochrane

[sulywaterfordfc]

If Towell kicked out and whether or not he made contact with the player. He deserved red on the basis of intent.

There’s no argument about contact. A player of his age and experience he should know better. You don’t expect to see this from a kids never mind a seasoned professional. He’s got no excuse.

[sidewayspasser]

No…. I said the LOITV footage is inconclusive , therefore the appeal committee couldn’t rely on it …. Surly natural justice means lack of conclusive evidence means you must allow the appeal …

. “….. if the kicks not clear then the red must disappear….” Apologies to Johnny Cochrane
I don't think this is how it works. Rather, for the appeal to be successful, it has to be proven that the on field decision was wrong. If the footage is inconclusive, you can't prove that the decision was wrong, and then it stands.

[ontheotherhand]

I wasn’t trying to say that the reputation came into the decision making on Friday, more so that if you consistently kick out at opponents you will sooner or later get caught doing or trying to do it and be punished for it

Consistently? Ah come on. You just posted a video from 2015 to somehow backup the idea that Towell had any intent at all in 2023. Even Cawley's quotes around that incident are contradictory to your take e.g “It’s very unlike Richie Towell, I know.”

The commentary on here around this card is bizarre altogether. If we can't collectively condemn absolutely awful refereeing then we are on the fast boat to VAR (or VAR lite) town folks. Mark McCadden has even freeze framed this one for people. I know you all hate Rovers but get it together for jaysus sake. I've no problem saying Cleary took down Afolabi or Mahon shouldn't have been sent off and a few of you need to take off the blinkers and call a spade a spade. If Towell had any intent he would have done serious damage at that range. He doesn't connect. He doesn't come close. Are we going to card tackles that MIGHT have been late? The Cork player gets up delighted with himself when the red is shown which is all anyone really needs to know. It was a con job. It wasn't the worst decision on the night to be fair but the evidence is there to show it wasn't a red card. It was closer to a free out than a red but a caution for both players would have been the good refereeing decision.

On a less annoyed note, fair play to the Cork fans who arranged a charity drive to show what the football community is and should be about. Respect due. Every club has a few tossers and we all need to drown them out. Enough people look down on the league and are dying to give the bad apples the air time.

[2 Year Contract]

Consistently? Ah come on. You just posted a video from 2015 to somehow backup the idea that Towell had any intent at all in 2023. Even Cawley's quotes around that incident are contradictory to your take e.g “It’s very unlike Richie Towell, I know.”

As I mentioned, that incident is one of the worst I recall, not that it was the most recent. It’s next to impossible to provide a video clip of every incident from this league particularly when most go unpunished, that clip was an easy google as there were several articles written about it it was that bad. Just from watching Towell over the last few years it’s something I’ve noticed, keep an eye on it anyways as I’m sure he'll get bookings for similar.

As for Alan Cawley's quote, I wouldn’t take much notice of it as for some reason no pundit goes to town on a player that causes a serious injury. He stated that it was deliberate but then took the sting out of it by saying it’s very unlike him. For example I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen Heung Min Son seriously injure an opponent with some filthy tackles and every single time without fail the "he’s not that sort of player" line gets towed out by pundits, similarly to Harry Kane who almost every game backs into defenders who are in the air jumping which will one day result in a broken neck, yet he’s also "Not that sort of player" apparently

[JC_GUFC]

If Towell had any intent he would have done serious damage at that range. He doesn't connect. He doesn't come close. Are we going to card tackles that MIGHT have been late? The Cork player gets up delighted with himself when the red is shown which is all anyone really needs to know. It was a con job. It wasn't the worst decision on the night to be fair but the evidence is there to show it wasn't a red card. It was closer to a free out than a red but a caution for both players would have been the good refereeing decision.


But Towell was sent off for "violent conduct" not for "kicking the Cork player in the head". So the evidence backs this up.

I really don't think we should be getting to a situation where we're reviewing every decision and putting pressure on referees and assistants after the game to overturn their decision. Where does it stop? What if some referees are more open to reversing their decision than others?

The only thing I would be in favour of would be a retrospective ban of Gordon Walker for his part in getting Towell sent-off.

[pineapple stu]

He doesn't connect. He doesn't come close. Are we going to card tackles that MIGHT have been late?
Actually, tackles that might have connected are regularly carded. It's the risk of injury that counts, not whether an injury was actually caused.

So a two-footed tackle that wins the ball can still be a red card if it was reckless and potentially endangered an opposition player.

[ontheotherhand]

Actually, tackles that might have connected are regularly carded. It's the risk of injury that counts, not whether an injury was actually caused.

So a two-footed tackle that wins the ball can still be a red card if it was reckless and potentially endangered an opposition player.

Not what I meant Stu. If Towell had attempted to kick the lad and missed it would be a red. He didn't. He hasn't quite found his shooting boots for rovers but he isn't so wayward that he'd miss from 10 inches out.

[pineapple stu]

Not what I meant Stu.
Well it is what you said in fairness! :)

[osarusan]

If Towell had attempted to kick the lad and missed it would be a red.

It looks to me like he did.

There's no reason for his left leg to extend in the way it did...it's not a natural part of falling as he was.

[ontheotherhand]

Well it is what you said in fairness! :)

I said a tackle that might have been late isn't a cardable offense. You can't just invent intent. You're saying a bad tackle that doesn't connect is still a red which is correct but a different scenario. I didn't even mention the quality of the tackle. I'm talking purely about intent.

People are seeing a kick when there was no kick at all. It's odd but I get it. The combo of Richie Towell and Shamrock Rovers is clearly troubling for some!

[ontheotherhand]

But Towell was sent off for "violent conduct" not for "kicking the Cork player in the head". So the evidence backs this up.

I really don't think we should be getting to a situation where we're reviewing every decision and putting pressure on referees and assistants after the game to overturn their decision. Where does it stop? What if some referees are more open to reversing their decision than others?

The only thing I would be in favour of would be a retrospective ban of Gordon Walker for his part in getting Towell sent-off.

Maybe if I wasn't a Rovers man I'd see it your way JC. You've made reasonable points. We do disagree on the idea that there was violent conduct but we are working of pretty poor footage. I think any of us would struggle to keep our leg frozen if we were dragged on to our arse at a reasonable velocity.

Your point in bold is worth discussing though. I'd ask where it actually starts? Clearly things aren't working. Owen Cowzer reported (https://www.thesun.ie/sport/football/10797193/league-of-ireland-players-meeting-referees/) that players actually met the refs last week to figure out a way to communicate better. There seems to be no transparency around decisions or any ability to roll them back. The old system seemed to work better whereby a player could at least get their ban reduced if they were able to state their case in person successfully. Now it seems that we have a stricter bunch of refs with a less flexible process. I'd expected the opposite this season, at least in terms of flexibility. I think everyone was happy to hear about the new appeal process but as it stands it just seems far too difficult and even costs the clubs money.

[osarusan]

I said a tackle that might have been late isn't a cardable offense. You can't just invent intent. You're saying a bad tackle that doesn't connect is still a red which is correct but a different scenario. I didn't even mention the quality of the tackle. I'm talking purely about intent.

People are seeing a kick when there was no kick at all. It's odd but I get it. The combo of Richie Towell and Shamrock Rovers is clearly troubling for some!

Intent has nothing to do with anything. Words like intent and malice were removed from the laws a while ago. If a player attempts to punch a wasp but actually makes contact with a player's face instead, that's a red card. If he doesn't even make contact, but comes within an couple of inches of a player's face, he has endangered the safety of that player, and that's still a red card.

If Towell flicks out his foot like he did for some other reason, but it still gets that close a player's face, I've no problem with that being a red card.

The idea that we see what we want see just because it's Rovers is just childish.

[sbgawa]

The situation is a farce now.
Pay 500 appeal thrown out , no face to face meetings , automatic 3 game ban.

There is literally no chance with a personal hearing and the video footage available Towell would have got a 3 game ban last season...would have been 1.
What we have now is a farce and the clubs need to band together to get it changed.

[ontheotherhand]

Intent has nothing to do with anything. Words like intent and malice were removed from the laws a while ago. If a player attempts to punch a wasp but actually makes contact with a player's face instead, that's a red card. If he doesn't even make contact, but comes within an couple of inches of a player's face, he has endangered the safety of that player, and that's still a red card.

If Towell flicks out his foot like he did for some other reason, but it still gets that close a player's face, I've no problem with that being a red card.

The idea that we see what we want see just because it's Rovers is just childish.

Ah yes, football fans and their famous freedom from bias!

[joey B]

Tom Grivosti suffered a ruptured anterior cruciate knee ligament for Pats on Friday,seemed to very short in that area now….

[Philosophizer]

The situation is a farce now.
Pay 500 appeal thrown out , no face to face meetings , automatic 3 game ban.

There is literally no chance with a personal hearing and the video footage available Towell would have got a 3 game ban last season...would have been 1.
What we have now is a farce and the clubs need to band together to get it changed.
Do you know what footage was submitted?
If it was the footage from behind the goal I can see what the appeal was rejected because that footage doesn’t clear anything up.

[pineapple stu]

Tom Grivosti suffered a ruptured anterior cruciate knee ligament for Pats on Friday,seemed to very short in that area now….
Speaking of ACLs - which seem to be increasingly common for some reason - Colm Whelan is undergoing exploratory surgery to see the extent of his injury as tests so far have been inconclusive. I guess that sounds like a good thing?

https://www.derryjournal.com/sport/football/derry-city-striker-colm-whelans-knee-surgery-decision-to-be-determined-in-next-48-hours-4159175

[ontheotherhand]

Speaking of ACLs - which seem to be increasingly common for some reason - Colm Whelan is undergoing exploratory surgery to see the extent of his injury as tests so far have been inconclusive. I guess that sounds like a good thing?

https://www.derryjournal.com/sport/football/derry-city-striker-colm-whelans-knee-surgery-decision-to-be-determined-in-next-48-hours-4159175

I suppose it's better than being sure it was the ACL? Hope it works out for him.

[Calcio Jack]

Do you know what footage was submitted?
If it was the footage from behind the goal I can see what the appeal was rejected because that footage doesn’t clear anything up.

So at least two pieces of video evidence presented and both being described as evidence inconclusive …. Based on any normal review procedure that would lead to the appeal being upheld.

Can you imagine in your workplace someone making an accusation against you and then you’re suspended for three weeks…. You then attend the LRC and your employer can’t provide any evidence but the suspension still stands…… would never happen in the real world…..

[pineapple stu]

The evidence is that the linesman/referee - the officials whose job it is to see these things - saw Towell kick out at an opponent on the ground.

There's no conclusive evidence that he didn't. Indeed, a number of (non-Rovers) fans have said that's exactly what it looks like from the footage shown here.

So why would an appeal succeed?

[placid casual]

Hope Grivosti and Whelan are on the road to recovery soon.
I can't say I've noticed Grivosti much other than the exotic surname but he seemed like he was doing a decent job in defence for Pats.
Whelan you couldn't fail to notice as he looks like a real prospect - hopefully these injury worries will make him more determined to succeed- I read somewhere that he has still scored more in the 90 mins he's played than any of the other derry strikers have all done all season..

[Philosophizer]

Speaking of ACLs - which seem to be increasingly common for some reason - Colm Whelan is undergoing exploratory surgery to see the extent of his injury as tests so far have been inconclusive. I guess that sounds like a good thing?

https://www.derryjournal.com/sport/football/derry-city-striker-colm-whelans-knee-surgery-decision-to-be-determined-in-next-48-hours-4159175
Crazy that he was kept on the pitch that day with his history of acl issues.

[sulywaterfordfc]

The situation is a farce now.
Pay 500 appeal thrown out , no face to face meetings , automatic 3 game ban.

There is literally no chance with a personal hearing and the video footage available Towell would have got a 3 game ban last season...would have been 1.
What we have now is a farce and the clubs need to band together to get it changed.

There’s no evidence Rovers could have supplied to get the ban removed. Towell made his intentions known when he attempted to kick out regardless if contact was made. He deserved the three game ban, he might think twice about doing it in future.

It’s like attempting to committing a robbery, failing and then complaining you’ve to face the consequences of attempted robbery as a result.

[pineapple stu]

“Convicted of a crime I didn’t even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?”
.....

[ontheotherhand]

Only one way to solve this one now. We all go for a pint at the end of the season, get the debate going until tempers rise a bit. Then I'll wrestle ten of you and reef you down on to your arses. If even one of you can keep your leg frozen after impact I'll concede that Richie Towell was attempting to kick the lad in the face and is just so bad at kicking that he couldn't connect. Pints on me if so.

[Calcio Jack]

The evidence is that the linesman/referee - the officials whose job it is to see these things - saw Towell kick out at an opponent on the ground.

There's no conclusive evidence that he didn't. Indeed, a number of (non-Rovers) fans have said that's exactly what it looks like from the footage shown here.

So why would an appeal succeed?

As there is no conclusive evidence from either video reviewed; Towell’s guilt is based solely on the opinion of the linesman , which at best is just an opinion but not proven fact.

So if you can’t prove the incident occurred despite having video evidence then natural justice means you have to allow the appeal .

What’s become very clear from this is that the clubs have agreed to an appeal process that is a farce and biased and doesn’t lend itself to the application of due process underpinned by a set of fair procedures….. a first year law student will tell you that if challenged in court it would most likely be thrown out….. with costs awarded to the party taking the case….. I’m disappointed there’s no sign of Rovers/a number of clubs doing that, hopefully behind the scenes they’ll threaten that to use as leverage to have a fair process put in place.

Otherwise refs and assistants know they are immune from any correction so will continue to operate at their current mediocre arrogant level to the detriment of all clubs.

[ontheotherhand]

Crazy that he was kept on the pitch that day with his history of acl issues.

Has that bit every been explained by Derry? It seemed awful at the time. Lad was in tears.

[pineapple stu]

As there is no conclusive evidence from either video reviewed; Towell’s guilt is based solely on the opinion of the linesman , which at best is just an opinion but not proven fact.

So if you can’t prove the incident occurred despite having video evidence then natural justice means you have to allow the appeal.
But lots of us have said Towell does appear to kick out in the video.

[Eminence Grise]

As there is no conclusive evidence from either video reviewed; Towell’s guilt is based solely on the opinion of the linesman , which at best is just an opinion but not proven fact.

So if you can’t prove the incident occurred despite having video evidence then natural justice means you have to allow the appeal .

What’s become very clear from this is that the clubs have agreed to an appeal process that is a farce and biased and doesn’t lend itself to the application of due process underpinned by a set of fair procedures….. a first year law student will tell you that if challenged in court it would most likely be thrown out….. with costs awarded to the party taking the case….. I’m disappointed there’s no sign of Rovers/a number of clubs doing that, hopefully behind the scenes they’ll threaten that to use as leverage to have a fair process put in place.

Otherwise refs and assistants know they are immune from any correction so will continue to operate at their current mediocre arrogant level to the detriment of all clubs.

But ... what did we do for the 125 years or so before we had video evidence?

Now, I'm no expert, so this is a layman's question and not a smart-ar5e dig (you're not usually the type to deserve that CJ, though I do think you're a bit het-up about this) - but would the same first year law student also tell you that you don't challenge this kind of thing in the courts? You sign up to the same rules and processes that every other club has has signed up to, and you can appeal, or try to, all the way to CAS?

[Philosophizer]

Has that bit every been explained by Derry? It seemed awful at the time. Lad was in tears.
I haven’t heard any explanation.
That article in the Derry Journal does have one very notable paragraph…
“The Derry City medical team have been extremely cautious in terms of Whelan's rehabilitation since arriving at the club and gently introduced him into full training having undergone and passed all the necessary tests in recent months.”
I wouldn’t have any doubt that the medical team did everything right. Medics are generally like that - they do whatever they can to protect the player.
But Higgins made the call to keep him on the pitch that time, which was foolish in the extreme. The lad could easily have done further serious damage playing on in that state.

[Calcio Jack]

But ... what did we do for the 125 years or so before we had video evidence?

Now, I'm no expert, so this is a layman's question and not a smart-ar5e dig (you're not usually the type to deserve that CJ, though I do think you're a bit het-up about this) - but would the same first year law student also tell you that you don't challenge this kind of thing in the courts? You sign up to the same rules and processes that every other club has has signed up to, and you can appeal, or try to, all the way to CAS?

The reason I keep referring to a court challenge is partly to demonstrate that the appeals process is flawed and therefore wouldn’t stand up up to scrutiny in a court… Legal advice would be that you’d win…. Business advice most likely is that it would be a pyrrhic victory , so you wouldn’t take it on.

yes all the clubs signed up however what is now clear imo is (1) they signed up to a set of unfair procedures (2) unless changed all clubs going forward will suffer under this.

I’m not overly ‘het-up’ I’m just one of those people who does get agitated when I encounter flawed one sided unfair conditions ( even if the clubs signed up to them still doesn’t make them right) that allow one party to exercise coercive control over another whilst pretending that both sides are operating on level playing field ( bad pun intended). I guess growing up in this country in the 60s/70s I’ve (rightly) had little or no respect for most institutions .

Anyway roll on Friday and we’ll get the latest round in the referring debacle 2023 and hopefully some great games as well.

Ps what did we do for 125 years before video evidence…. The same as we did before dna, fingerprinting etc. not being smart in other words you can only use the tools available at any given time

[Jack B]

Tom Grivosti suffered a ruptured anterior cruciate knee ligament for Pats on Friday,seemed to very short in that area now….

Gutted for him, hasn't had any luck this season. Has been a quality player for us, massively underrated at that, but that'll probably be the last time he plays for us you'd imagine.

Leaves us extremely light at the back now. Grivosti, Redmond, Sjoberg, Brockback out injured with McGrath having just been announced as about to be released by Coventry so who knows if he stays on. Might be a ropey next few weeks for us.

[pineapple stu]

Legal advice would be that you’d win….
What legal advice?