Games weekend 26th 27th May

**2 Year Contract** · 30/05/2023, 8:19 AM

Originally Posted by ontheotherhand

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** · 30/05/2023, 9:27 AM

Originally Posted by ontheotherhand

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** · 30/05/2023, 9:42 AM

Originally Posted by ontheotherhand

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** · 30/05/2023, 1:51 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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** · 30/05/2023, 1:54 PM

Originally Posted by ontheotherhand

Not what I meant Stu.

Well it is what you said in fairness!

**osarusan** · 30/05/2023, 2:20 PM

Originally Posted by ontheotherhand

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** · 30/05/2023, 3:42 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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** · 30/05/2023, 4:08 PM

Originally Posted by JC_GUFC

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 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** · 30/05/2023, 4:24 PM

Originally Posted by ontheotherhand

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** · 30/05/2023, 4:32 PM

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** · 30/05/2023, 4:38 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

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** · 30/05/2023, 5:12 PM

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

**Philosophizer** · 30/05/2023, 6:11 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 30/05/2023, 6:13 PM

Originally Posted by joey B

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/f...-hours-4159175

**ontheotherhand** · 30/05/2023, 6:21 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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/f...-hours-4159175

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

**Calcio Jack** · 30/05/2023, 6:37 PM

Originally Posted by Philosophizer

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** · 30/05/2023, 6:45 PM

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** · 30/05/2023, 6:50 PM

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** · 30/05/2023, 6:53 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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/f...-hours-4159175

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

**sulywaterfordfc** · 30/05/2023, 6:58 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.