LoI Fixture 6-7 April

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

You can keep saying kicking, and maybe that's what you think kicking is in Limerick? Who knows.

But yes, Caulfield clearly realised he shouldn't have encroached on the pitch, and walked away. I'm impressed that you've picked out the person who wasn't violent as the 'bully' of the incident. And the person who actually got aggressive is just a poor victim? Bizarre to say the least.

Caulfield made the wrong decision initially, in trying to get the ball.

He made the right decision in not getting involved or reacting after being pushed. The fact that you're trying to paint this as a negative is laughable. No doubt if he had reacted and gotten involved in the melee you'd slaughter him for that too.

Blame him for what he did, sure. Trying to insult him for what he didn't do, and not getting involved in the scrap, us silly.

---

Hitting something or someone with your leg is kicking or do ye not call it that in Cork (do ye call it PICKING SOMETHING UP as Caulfield does) ???
I would call the action of hitting someone with your leg violence especially since he had no business being on the pitch...
I never said Hery was a poor victim, what he did was wrong but two wrongs don't make a right!
Caulfield was right not to get involved after being pushed, he was probably in shock like a bully would be I don't know and I don't think he deserves praise for not reacting after the push, he wasn't being very restraint 5 seconds earlier.

Some amount of cr@p being spouted on here.
The Caulfield hate is quite amazing. It's actually quite satisfying that he is getting under the skin of so many opponents. Keep it up JC.

Bizarre to say the least. Trying to get the ball off someone is kicking now. Is every tackle a kick in Limerick? That's your definition of violence now?

Come off the stage.

We're accused of bias, and no question of course were inherently biased, but it's laughable that you and a few others think you're being perfectly reasonable and logical in this. There's bias all round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Bizarre to say the least. Trying to get the ball off someone is kicking now. Is every tackle a kick in Limerick? That's your definition of violence now?

Come off the stage.

We're accused of bias, and no question of course were inherently biased, but it's laughable that you and a few others think you're being perfectly reasonable and logical in this. There's bias all round.

---

Call it what you want I'd call a a kick it would obviously be different if it happens between two players during a game then we would call that a tackle.
Would you think it was OK if a non-player came onto the pitch and made contact (with foot/arm/head/whatever) with a Cork player? I'd call that person an idiot and some might even consider it a violent act by the pitch invader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

Some amount of cr@p being spouted on here.
The Caulfield hate is quite amazing. It's actually quite satisfying that he is getting under the skin of so many opponents. Keep it up JC.

---

JC and many Cork supporters (both here and on social media) have become a laughing stock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

JC and many Cork supporters (both here and on social media) have become a laughing stock

---

Sure they think we're all just jealous and picking on poor innocent Caulfield they're delusional

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blueblood

Call it what you want I'd call a a kick it would obviously be different if it happens between two players during a game then we would call that a tackle.
Would you think it was OK if a non-player came onto the pitch and made contact (with foot/arm/head/whatever) with a Cork player? I'd call that person an idiot and some might even consider it a violent act by the pitch invader.

---

I'll call it what it was. A soft tackle at most, an attempt to get the ball. He was sent off for pitch encroachment, which it was, not violent conduct. Calling that a violent act is simply nonsense. Stupid, sure. Inappropriate, yes. A sending off offence, yes. Violent, no. And 'bullying', laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

I'll call it what it was. A soft tackle at most, an attempt to get the ball. He was sent off for pitch encroachment, which it was, not violent conduct. Calling that a violent act is simply nonsense. Stupid, sure. Inappropriate, yes. A sending off offence, yes. Violent, no. And 'bullying', laughable.

---

Ok, so we've established he shouldn't have been on the pitch. Can we skip the semantics over what he done there and get to the bit where we acknowledge that it's him landing on his hole that was the petrol on the flames.

If we get that far maybe we can jump to realising that he wouldn't have been dumped on his hole, thus escalating the situation, if he wasn't on the pitch.

Or is the cognitive dissonance just too strong?

STANLEY ABORAH has been banned for SIX matches for his part in the brawl at the end of the Munster derby between Waterford and Cork City.
And Blues midfielder Bastien Hery has copped a four-game ban for his part in the row on Friday night which saw him shove City boss John Caulfield to the ground.

https://www.thesun.ie/sport/football...ith-cork-city/

Jeez that seems harsh.

Wow, I would've thought Hery would've got the most severe punishment out of everyone. Wonder why that length of a ban for Aborah. Be interesting to see the bans in comparison for our lads.

Notwithstanding my obvious interest in the matter, but that seems astonishingly harsh.

Apparantly Caulfield has got 3 months in mountjoy.
Assault with a deadly weapon fair enough

What did Aborah do to deserve six matches? That seems crazy.

Was aborah considered more because his incident was in the tunnel after the event.

I have to say the description of the events reminds me of the Simpson episode where Bart got knocked down by Mr Burns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Horse

What did Aborah do to deserve six matches? That seems crazy.

---

Did he not grab Buckley(?) around the neck as he was heading for the tunnel? Still seems a bit harsh though.

I still want to know how it is considered that he was walking away before he got shoved backwards which by general consensus among Cork fans was the cause of the melee?

He didnt charge in the direction of a player/ball and then turn and contritely walk back to the dugout, as he did do when he picked himself up.

Even suggesting that Hery had a bit of a menacing look, Caulfield wouldnt turn his back on player he felt threatened by so he was backing off facing Hery when Hery himself darted forward and pushed, JC then felt he could get up, dust himself down and walk away from the flash point...makes more sense than claiming he was trying to walk away before Hery turned and heading in his direction (or that he had actually picked up the ball).

Talk of being a bully or kicking or racism is pure conjecture but so is the claim that he was trying to walk away after a rush of blood copping that he had erred.

What factually happened (as I saw it lol) - Waterford bench were making a quick throw in difficult, Hery then slapped the ball out of the Cork players hands and dribbled the ball away, JC saw this and charged toward Hery to retrieve the ball, JC didnt get the ball but Hery turned to the person who was trying to get the ball after running at him/in his direction, JC took a couple of steps back as Hery moved toward the person who had just ran at him/toward him, Hery reacts as he pushes the person or JC and JC ends up on the floor, Cork players charge to the defence of their manager and Waterford players react in kind. JC is well away from the melee by now which is closer to the Waterford bench, JC gets up and quietly walks back to his technical area, players get sent off with extras toward the tunnel and both managers are sent off.

It is my own opinion that JC didnt suddenly see the light, and that what he had done had resulted in a melee so introspectively walked to his bench, I think when the melee kicked off he moved quietly to his bench hoping that his initial encroachment or even charge/movement toward Hery would be missed or not be considered by the ref, he knew that Hery was in trouble and he was right. The melee, while not planned, he subsequently hoped would mean his own moment of madness would not register. He probably thought he was justified and I think he was after Hery had run over and taken the ball off the Cork throw in taker. I think he would be more bothered by being knocked on his ass than anything and even privately that this coud work out better for Cork than Waterford under the circumstance. Imagine of the main protaganists were Stephen Kenny in the role of JC and Greg Bolger (when at Cork as I dont think McCormack would be as daft as do what Hery did) as Hery, and try and run through the whole thing from anothers perspective!

Aborah abused the ref and had to be restrained from going after him. Also confronted Buckley going down the tunnell after the melee.

But yeah, Caulfield started it so probably a bit harsh on the lad.

Do they ever publish the finding of the disciplinary panel? Had to have been something said or something in the tunnel that wasnt on camera. What the 4th official saw would likely be most relevant as he would have a very close up view with the 4th official's dugout literally in the middle of the melee at first. On the face of it it seems harsh. Will Caulfield get a longer ban than Reynolds who seemed to do very little. Hery's 4 game ban was expected really. Was the photo of McNulty landing a nice one on a waterford player not submitted ;p