Shamrock Rovers Tallaght

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erstwhile Bóz

Rule 42 (now Rule 44) deals with GAA grounds and property, saying that they are basically for GAA events and games but other shindigs can be hosted as and when sanctioned by Central Council, and (in an addendum) that Central Council can allow Lansdowne-Road games to be played in Croke Park on a temporary basis.

---

no, it specifically forbids "competiting codes" from using the pitches. it is a negative, rather than a positive, rule as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erstwhile Bóz

That's preposterous twisting and is a charge which could be levied against any organization with any stated aim.

---

its not. read it. the GAA's "consitution" specifically aims (and were specifically set up to) to turn ireland into the fantasised "green glens and fair maids" rubbish of literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

---

Explain how any sense of the word is correct in the post-foreign-game-ban context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

---

What is the facination with spellin on this website?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galwayhoop

the promotion of soccer and rugby are obviously contary to the aims and objectives of the GAA.

---

I think this proves my point. How can promoting any sport be contrary to the aims and objectives of the GAA if the GAA don't practise sporting apartness (to use an Anglicised and less emotive word)?

KOH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

no, it specifically forbids "competiting codes" from using the pitches. it is a negative, rather than a positive, rule as such.

---

The only specific mention is in the addendum, quite a remarkable one to find in an apartheid document and something everybody's quite happy to overlook (in bold here from the current Guide):

(Note: Central Council shall have the power to authorise
the use of Croke Park for games, other than those
controlled by the Association, during a temporary period
when Lansdowne Road Football Ground is closed for the
proposed development.Congress has approved that Rules 3, 4, 5, 44, 46, 47, 76(f)
and 144(g) shall allow for this for a temporary period, at
the end of which all these Rules stated shall revert to their
pre-Congress 2005 position.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

---

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0360100.html
[Quote:]
n.
1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
apartheid synonyms [/Quote]

and the above is an accurate description of rule 44 (formally rule 42) which i posted above?

BTW how did you get on in the last round of the spelling bee :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erstwhile Bóz

Explain how any sense of the word is correct in the post-foreign-game-ban context.

---

The rule explicitly segregates sports into GAA-sanctioned and others. The other aren't to be played in GAA pitches (except with centralised permission). Defining Apartheid as "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups" (thank you American Heritage Dictionary), I'm satisfied that it's reasonable to use it here, though I can see why the South African influenced connotations might cause you some concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galwayhoop

BTW how did you get on in the last round of the spelling bee :rolleyes:

---

I lost, spelling "apart" as "arphet".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

I think this proves my point. How can promoting any sport be contrary to the aims and objectives of the GAA if the GAA don't practise sporting apartness (to use an Anglicised and less emotive word)?
KOH

---

It's almost as if you're yearning for Rule 27 and the ban or something.

These are the stated aims of the GAA:


2 Basic Aim
The Association is a National Organisation which has as its
basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a
32 County Ireland through the preservation and
promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes.

3 National Games
The Association shall promote and control the National
games of Hurling, Gaelic Football, Handball and
Rounders, and such other games, as may be sanctioned
and approved by Annual Congress.

4 Additional Aims
(a) The Association shall actively support the Irish
language, traditional Irish dancing, music, song, and
other aspects of Irish culture. It shall foster an
awareness and love of the national ideals in the people
of Ireland, and assist in promoting a community spirit
through its clubs.
(b) The Association shall support the promotion of
Camogie and Ladies Gaelic Football.
(c) The Association shall support Irish Industry. All
trophies and playing equipment shall be of Irish
manufacture. Penalty for non-observance €200.
Irish paper shall be used for all official documents and
correspondence. Documents not complying shall be
ruled out of order.

5 Dedication
The Association and its resources shall be used for and
dedicated solely to the above aims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

I think this proves my point. How can promoting any sport be contrary to the aims and objectives of the GAA if the GAA don't practise sporting apartness (to use an Anglicised and less emotive word)?

KOH

---

not so. why not quote the rest of the post, namely the aims and objective are to promote their (the GAA's) own games. does the promotion of hurling form part of the aims and objectives of the FAI?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

The rule explicitly segregates sports into GAA-sanctioned and others. The other aren't to be played in GAA pitches (except with centralised permission). Defining Apartheid as "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups" (thank you American Heritage Dictionary), I'm satisfied that it's reasonable to use it here, though I can see why the South African influenced connotations might cause you some concern.

---

Preposterous. The FAI by definition segregates itself from non-FAI sports and concerns itself with association football, for example. Any grouping or organization would be apartheid, by this disingenuous reading of that (single)American Heritage Dictionary definition.

Of course a governing body has a say in what goes on on its pitches. Who the feck do you think the FAI asked if they could use Lansdowne? The Irish Cricket Union?

the fai didnt ask could they knock down hill16 and build it closer in to accommodate football though, did they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erstwhile Bóz

Preposterous. The FAI by definition segregates itself from non-FAI sports and concerns itself with association football, for example. Any grouping or organization would be apartheid, by this disingenuous reading of that (single)American Heritage Dictionary definition.

Of course a governing body has a say in what goes on on its pitches. Who the feck do you think the FAI asked if they could use Lansdowne? The Irish Cricket Union?

---

My local soccer club can choose to rent out its pitch. The owners of Lansdowne can choose to rent out their pitch. There are no rules stopping this, or requiring special permission of a Grand Council of Wizards. I would think that the difference is clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wws

the fai didnt ask could they knock down hill16 and build it closer in to accommodate football though, did they?

---

You spelled "North Stand" wrong. ;)

Dublin City Council don't own Croke Park and therefore never to my knowledge voted that it be altered to accommodate football.

Bigot! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

Defining Apartheid as "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups" (thank you American Heritage Dictionary), I'm satisfied that it's reasonable to use it here

---

seperate mens and womens changing rooms.... APARTHEID
ryanair passengers check in at ryanair check in desks .......APARTHEID
away fans sitting on hill 16 .......... APARTHEID
no supporters allowed onto the pitch ........... APARTHEID
staff only ........... APARTHEID
only those with tickets may go beyond this point ........ APARTHEID
need to have passed 5 leaving cert. subjects to do this course .......... APARTHEID
disabled only parking ............. APARTHEID

PC gone raving mad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

My local soccer club can choose to rent out its pitch. The owners of Lansdowne can choose to rent out their pitch. There are no rules stopping this, or requiring special permission of a Grand Council of Wizards. I would think that the difference is clear.

---

But the GAA Central Council and in certain situations Congress (both presumably the Grand Council of Wizards :D in question) are the equivalents of "my local soccer club" and "owners of Lansdowne" here. Presumably there are some procedures the owners of Lansdowne/the top bods at your football club follow when deciding on the use of their property.

Rule 42 was hand in hand with Rule 27. These two rules sought to supress "foreign"games (soccer and rugby) in Ireland by banning their playing on GAA land and banning GAA members from playing them.

Rule 27 was rescinded due to being unforceable as farcical scenes around the country were being played out on a weekly basis with country GAA players turning out as AN Other in soccer matches.

Rule 42 was left in the rulebook, though not adhered strictly to, as evidenced by the subsequent decision to allow boxing and American football (and numerous non-Irish musical acts) to be held at Croke Park.

Therefore its clear to see that Rule 42 had its basis in the anti-English/garrison position of the GAA which has persisted since its foundation.

The only difference is that over time the number of members supporting the anti-English position has dropped.

There is a distinct difference between a sporting organisation promoting its own sport (as all do) and having a stated aim to develop your sport through the supression of other rival sports. This is the zero sum game I referred to above. The GAA bigots hide behind a cloak of competition for hearts and minds of Ireland's sporting public but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what is good for rugby and soccer is automatically bad for the GAA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Rule 42 was hand in hand with Rule 27. These two rules sought to supress "foreign"games (soccer and rugby) in Ireland by banning their playing on GAA land and banning GAA members from playing them.

Rule 27 was rescinded due to being unforceable as farcical scenes around the country were being played out on a weekly basis with country GAA players turning out as AN Other in soccer matches.

---

36 yeeeeeeaaarrs ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Rule 42 was left in the rulebook, evidenced by the subsequent decision to allow boxing and American football (and numerous non-Irish musical acts) to be held at Croke Park.

---

...such other purposes not in conflict with the
Aims and Objects of the Association [see a few posts above], that may be
sanctioned from time to time by the Central Council...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Therefore its clear to see that Rule 42 had its basis in the anti-English/garrison position of the GAA which has persisted since its foundation.

The only difference is that over time the number of members supporting the anti-English position has dropped.

---

A reasonable reading of its origins. Is the second paragraph not a good thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

There is a distinct difference between a sporting organisation promoting its own sport (as all do) and having a stated aim to develop your sport through the supression of other rival sports. This is the zero sum game I referred to above. The GAA bigots hide behind a cloak of competition for hearts and minds of Ireland's sporting public but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what is good for rugby and soccer is automatically bad for the GAA.

---

...and then they let rugby and soccer into Croker, thus throwing a spanner in the works of the name-callers and implying that they no longer see those sports as detrimental and dangerous to the stated Aims of the organization, whether they remain completely abhorrent to the Aims or not.

Can you not see the new context of Rule 42 (44)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erstwhile Bóz

...and then they let rugby and soccer into Croker, thus throwing a spanner in the works of the name-callers and implying that they no longer see those sports as detrimental and dangerous to the stated Aims of the organization, whether they remain completely abhorrent to the Aims or not.

Can you not see the new context of Rule 42 (44)?

---

Of course I can, and I disagree that it is anything near an admission that they no longer see soccer and rugby as contrary to the aims of the organisation, otherwise they would have got rid of the rule totally.

Taking this back to Tallaght, the GAA are seeking to leverage opening one ground out of x thousand around the country, for a couple of years, to demand access to a ground that they don't need.

Any public monies given to the GAA for infrastructure goes into GAA only grounds by dint of Rule 42. Therefore the government are required to fund other sports infrastructure separately (a ridiculous and inefficient concept when compared with the municipal stadium ownership which prevails around the world).

The GAA are trying to have their cake and eat it. By all means campaign to get additional funding for GAA grounds, but given they won't let anyone on their patch, what right have they to interfere in someone elses?