Tipp South & District League 2009/10

Why did none of the clonmel players or even their keeper make a challenge on peake player,how far from goal did he pick up the ball from the throw in.I read ye taught he was messing but the closer he got to goal ye maybe should have realised it was no joke. Not trying to critisise here just wondering how ye left him go so far.haven't said that I've yet to see a ref to use those rules of stopping a game when an injured player down unless for head injury.even he did stop it whose to say Peake would have given back the ball anyway.very bad form they'll never have any luck for it.

insidetherock i am stunned by your comments,the Peake Villa players are ashamed and mortified by what happened,Alan Leahy walked into the Town dressing room and aplogised which was more than their manager did,the villa players are physically sick over it and not even trying to defend it so dont you start

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insidetherock

There is no antagonism meant whatsoever... but I will be absolutely frank when I say that I have difficulties whenever I hear people attempt to justify something based on the "spirit of the game"

The problem in this area began because people abused teams good nature and covered themselves in the comfort blanket of "the spirit of the game"

Wheter I was at the game or not is incidental. That's another refuge of people when they wish to ignore someones opinion and it gives them an out.

There is a rule, and both teams should and I am sure do, know it. Play on unless the referee stops the game. Otherwise, the rule will, and was being, be abused

If the referee was allowing the game to continue, then Clonmel Town should have continued playing. It is as simple as that.

---

I think you may be a little confused as to what actually happened......Both teams did play on after Scully went down injured in his opponents half. Peake had gained possession and were attacking. The attack broke down and the ball ended up in the hands of the Clonmel Town Goalkeeper with Scully still down injured. The goalkeeper then put the ball out of play to allow his own player to receive attention. So no one is ignoring the rules or looking for an out!! No rule was circumvented here, and all was above board. Town had no cribs with Peaks attacking there goal with the Town player down injured and Scully was clearly, for anyone who was there after hurting himself, but not seriously enough for the ref to stop play.

So should Town then have expected Peake to throw the ball back to Ritchie Ryan????? As I said, I think yes in the Spirit of the game but Peake were maybe intitled to play away. However the manner in which Fogarty did this is what was sickening. He jogged very slowly towards Ryan with the ball, teased him a little, rounded him, went across the six yard box, turned and went back the other way, went to the goal line, stopped and then after pausing, kicked the ball into the empty goal. Ryan could be seen gesturing for Fogarty to give him the ball, and no-one expected him to do what he did, no-one!! For me it was disgusting in what was up 'till then a very tame affair, we hadn't even a caution in the match!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mega Tots

insidetherock i am stunned by your comments,the Peake Villa players are ashamed and mortified by what happened,Alan Leahy walked into the Town dressing room and aplogised which was more than their manager did,the villa players are physically sick over it and not even trying to defend it so dont you start

---

Well done Mega Tots for not trying to condone what happeaned. I'd like to see Insidetherocks reaction if it had happened to his Team!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietman

Well done Mega Tots for not trying to condone what happeaned. I'd like to see Insidetherocks reaction if it had happened to his Team!

---

how could anyone condone that,the saddest thing is there are so many good guys and genuine lads in that club and they are hurting today,donal duggan was nearly in tears,it was beyond shameful and those guys had to listen to their manager tell them he was 110% behind foggy,the club needs to act,the one thing Peake Villa never ever were was cheats and the Secretary of Peake Villa demanding his money back of Clonmel that he had paid in at the gate when he should have been apologising was the icing on the cake,how has our club ended up like this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mega Tots

those guys had to listen to their manager tell them he was 110% behind foggy............................................. .......................... and the Secretary of Peake Villa demanding his money back of Clonmel that he had paid in at the gate

---

Terrible behaviour, just terrible!!

lads, what do you think will be the outcome of this??replay?game awarded to certain team??what was the score when this happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietman

Well done Mega Tots for not trying to condone what happeaned. I'd like to see Insidetherocks reaction if it had happened to his Team!

---

I am not "condoning" anything... to do so, would be to accept that some rule had been broken, and has been repeated ad nauseum already, that it nto the case.

I also know many people would not agree with my stance, but to be quite frank, my stance is the only one which brings clarity to this whole situation, otherwise teams are left in a grey area bemoaning a contravention of the "spirit of the game"

How far does spirit of the game extend ? Every single person here knows of cases where players and teams act the maggot with the spirit of the game, and everyone here has their interpretation of what "spirit of the game" means

It's another one of these crazy interpetative things like excusing dangerous tackling because "its a mans game" or "its a contact sport"

The simple fact of the matter here, is that FIFA themselves recognised this area as a problem within the game, and issued directives to all levels of football in how to deal with it. And, it was a pretty simple directive... play on unless the referee stops the game.

No matter how people feel "sick" after the decision, be they the sinners or the sinned against, the only way of clarifying how the situation should have been dealt with, was by adhering to the rules of the game and the teams should have played on.

Someone asks what I would think if it happened to my club i.e. Cashel Town... I'd have been raging. But raging because the players were stupid enough to let a player walk in and score, not because the player had walked in and scored.

It's a lot easier to stop the goal and make an issue of it afterwards, then let it be scored and then make the issue.

Remember the first rule you were told when under 8 ? Play the whistle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insidetherock

I am not "condoning" anything... to do so, would be to accept that some rule had been broken, and has been repeated ad nauseum already, that it nto the case.

I also know many people would not agree with my stance, but to be quite frank, my stance is the only one which brings clarity to this whole situation, otherwise teams are left in a grey area bemoaning a contravention of the "spirit of the game"

How far does spirit of the game extend ? Every single person here knows of cases where players and teams act the maggot with the spirit of the game, and everyone here has their interpretation of what "spirit of the game" means

It's another one of these crazy interpetative things like excusing dangerous tackling because "its a mans game" or "its a contact sport"

The simple fact of the matter here, is that FIFA themselves recognised this area as a problem within the game, and issued directives to all levels of football in how to deal with it. And, it was a pretty simple directive... play on unless the referee stops the game.

No matter how people feel "sick" after the decision, be they the sinners or the sinned against, the only way of clarifying how the situation should have been dealt with, was by adhering to the rules of the game and the teams should have played on.

Someone asks what I would think if it happened to my club i.e. Cashel Town... I'd have been raging. But raging because the players were stupid enough to let a player walk in and score, not because the player had walked in and scored.

It's a lot easier to stop the goal and make an issue of it afterwards, then let it be scored and then make the issue.

Remember the first rule you were told when under 8 ? Play the whistle.

---

:confused:Nobody was waiting for a whistle as play had restarted from the throw in.The expectation was that Foggy would play the ball back to Ritchie Ryan. Do you not get that??:confused: The Fifa Directive you mention has no relevence here as neither team was waiting or expecting the referee to stop play to allow a player to receive attention............. He had already received attention!!!!!!!!:confused:

And to compare this incident with someone excusing dangerous tackling is just ridicules.

So please try understand what actually happened before posting..................

MOD EDIT{Anybody who tries to mess up this thread will end up as this member did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShaneM

MOD EDIT{Anybody who tries to mess up this thread will end up as this member did.

---

Insidetherock do you not understand that everyone from Peake Villa is holding their hands up and is gutted over what happened,its inexcusable,we are not trying to defend it so why you are is beyond bizarre,i just heard people on Tipp FM discussing our secretary looking for his money back after the game,i knew this would happen,what was he thinking???

I think everybod is in agreement that it was a crazy situation that shouldn't have happened-extra time should be good Monday night!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Town Fan

I think everybod is in agreement that it was a crazy situation that shouldn't have happened-extra time should be good Monday night!!

---

I am quite sure that Muiris will give an honest account- thats if he is asked and I ma sure he will

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mega tots

how could anyone condone that,the saddest thing is there are so many good guys and genuine lads in that club and they are hurting today,donal duggan was nearly in tears,it was beyond shameful and those guys had to listen to their manager tell them he was 110% behind foggy,the club needs to act,the one thing peake villa never ever were was cheats and the secretary of peake villa demanding his money back of clonmel that he had paid in at the gate when he should have been apologising was the icing on the cake,how has our club ended up like this

---

"our club" . Which club are you signed up for ? Please remind us:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Town Fan

I think everybod is in agreement that it was a crazy situation that shouldn't have happened-extra time should be good Monday night!!

---

No, I am sorry, everyone is not in agreement. I am not. And reading even more about what happened makes me even more clear about my own position.

Just for the record.

1. I have no beef with Clonmel Town or their club whatsoever. They are an honourable club, and the way they dealt with the incident that happened during the Clonmel/Cashel Town game earlier in the season gave me nothing but the absolute height of respect for the club and their committee, players and supporters (those who know what I am talking about know what I mean)

I would also like to add that I hope they are successful in the Munster Junior Cup and wish them, along with St Michaels all the best in the FAI Junior Cup.

2. I am not trying to make any excuses for Peake Villa either. I hold no remit in support of Peake, again except to say, that in all dealings I ever had with them, they too are a very honourable club.

But as well as this etheral "spirit of the game", the rules of the game are the rules of the game. And, in this specific case, the FAI themselves, on recommendation from FIFA baldy laid out a directive at the beginning of the season. That recommendation was simple. Only the referee has the power to decide to stop a game for an injury.

I take the point that Quietman made.. there was an "expectation"... but should there have been ? And, whether there was or there wasn't, as soon as Peake Villa threw the ball to a Peake Villa player and not a Town player.. Town should have been switched on to defend the attack.

Perhaps afterwards, they could have admonished Peake about bad sportsmanship, but while the ball is "in play", then you play the game as normal.

As for not understanding what happened.. please, less of the condescension

I understand completely, I simply don't agree with you.

There is a lot of talk in sport about "sportsmanship", and I completely agree that games should be played in a sportsmanlike manner...

But, is deliberately encroaching within 10 yards at a free kick displaying "good sportsmanship" ?

Is deliberately holding onto an attacking player at a corner kick in an attempt to gain an advantage from him, "good sportsmanship" ?

Is kicking a ball the whole lenght of the field away where a throw in was given, because a team put the ball out to facilitate an injured player "good sportsmanship" ?

In my mind, no, none of the above are.. but they are excused as "cute hoorism" or "smart play" by teams when they get away with it.

Therefore, you have rules to govern a game and if both teams know, understand and play by the rules, the games can go ahead without ever having to worry about "good sportsmanship". That just becomes a bonus.

So, in this case, once it became clear that Peake were going to continue playing, did the Clonmel Town players simply stop playing ? If they did, then they really cannot complain about the outcome.

I am sorry if people think that sounds unfair or dogmatic, but its the rules of the game.

It's amazing what the unsporting action of 1 player has done to the image of a club. This has been a PR disaster for Peake Villa. If they do manage to win the league how many people will come on here and congratulate them or will most still refer to this distasteful episode. If they don't beat Michaels on Sunday they could well need a result when they play Town again in this re-scheduled fixture. And will Town need any more motivation to beat them now?? All because of the stupid action of one silly boy, how short sighted of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roberto

It's amazing what the unsporting action of 1 player has done to the image of a club. This has been a PR disaster for Peake Villa. If they do manage to win the league how many people will come on here and congratulate them or will most still refer to this distasteful episode. If they don't beat Michaels on Sunday they could well need a result when they play Town again in this re-scheduled fixture. And will Town need any more motivation to beat them now?? All because of the stupid action of one silly boy, how short sighted of him.

---

That is true, and unfortunately any re-scheduled game will most likely be venomous. But, if the referee had stuck firmly to the rules of the game, then it should never have needed to be re-scheduled.

In fact, in my opinion, the game should be re-started from where it finished i.e. at 55 minutes, with Peake Villa 1-0 up, and with Clonmel a player down.

Again, that may outrage people, but that would be within the laws of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roberto

It's amazing what the unsporting action of 1 player has done to the image of a club. This has been a PR disaster for Peake Villa. If they do manage to win the league how many people will come on here and congratulate them or will most still refer to this distasteful episode. If they don't beat Michaels on Sunday they could well need a result when they play Town again in this re-scheduled fixture. And will Town need any more motivation to beat them now?? All because of the stupid action of one silly boy, how short sighted of him.

---

And, it is unfair to call the Peake Villa player a "silly boy". He was the one playing the game within the rules. It was a lot sillier of the defenders to allow him to walk unhindered into the goal don't you think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietman

:confused:Nobody was waiting for a whistle as play had restarted from the throw in.The expectation was that Foggy would play the ball back to Ritchie Ryan. Do you not get that??:confused: The Fifa Directive you mention has no relevence here as neither team was waiting or expecting the referee to stop play to allow a player to receive attention............. He had already received attention!!!!!!!!:confused:

And to compare this incident with someone excusing dangerous tackling is just ridicules.

So please try understand what actually happened before posting..................

---

Had the Villa players at any time intimated that they were giving the ball back, it just seems crazy that any defence would allow someone to get that close to the goal without defending it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insidetherock

That is true, and unfortunately any re-scheduled game will most likely be venomous. But, if the referee had stuck firmly to the rules of the game, then it should never have needed to be re-scheduled.

---

Again I still don't think you understand!!!! The referee didn't stop play because of the injury. Play was stopped when Clonmel Towns keeper put the ball out of play. Play then correctly restarted with a throw in to Peake. Fogarty then scored and the goal was allowed........................:confused: So how do you now accuse the referee of not firmly sticking to the rules????? The match was abandoned because of the behaviour of both teams afterwards....................