DUBLIN STAR DIARMUID Connolly may decide to take his case to the independent Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA) after exhausting the avenues of appeal available to him through GAA channels at Croke Park.
But it’s thought highly unlikely that the St. Vincent’s ace would receive an eleventh hour reprieve as the chairman of two of the GAA’s disciplinary bodies that he has already appeared before are former secretaries of the DRA, and solicitors by profession.
In recent times, GAA chiefs have been working hard behind the scenes to close any potential loopholes and they will be unhappy if Connolly is cleared to play against Mayo in Saturday’s All-Ireland football final replay.
It is understood that there is annoyance within the corridors of power that Mayo defender Kevin Keane won his recent red card appeal but that precedence alone won’t help Connolly if he ventures down the DRA route.
Connolly was handed a one-match ban after he was red-carded for a tangle with Mayo’s Lee Keegan in last Sunday’s drawn match.
Connolly has failed at Central Hearings and Central Appeals Committee levels after the GAA’s Central Competitions Control Committee proposed the suspension.
Liam Keane was the first secretary of the DRA and is the current chairman of the GAA’s Central Hearings Committee (CHC).
Another qualified solicitor, Matt Shaw, was secretary of the DRA from March 2009 until February of this year and is the current Central Appeals Committee (CAC) chairman.
The CAC heard Connolly’s appeal into the early hours of this (Friday) morning but decided that Connolly’s ban should stand.
As the bodies spearheaded by Keane and Shaw have both dismissed the Connolly case, a source close to the process told The42 it is unlikely that the DRA’s current secretary, Jack Anderson from the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast, will rule against his predecessors.
Meanwhile, a well-placed GAA source has confirmed to The42 this morning that if Saturday’s replay goes to extra-time, Connolly still won’t be eligible to play, even though it would constitute ‘a new match.’
If a player is suspended for a game, the ban covers the regulation 70 minutes plus any potential extra-time.
“upset the natural flow of the game”. can’t agree with that. you have lads throwing themselves on the ground left, right and centre which is far more disruptive in my opinion, especially in the bigger knockout games when they’re a goal up. sure they had water breaks in some matches in the last World Cup which went by almost unnoticed. time for the video ref.
Also it should be easy enough to moderate the use of video techology. I.e limit the number of times it can be referred to in a game…. each coach can call for a video replay three times and no more!
About time but I would rather see it use for cheating and simulation
You can nearly tell by looking up that Barcaloni19 page on youtube that you would get 9/11 conspiracy clips in the suggested videos. Short memories, he seems to forget the second leg at Stamford Bridge only the year before.
All club have been stung over the years by bad decisions but when it’s costs a team a trophy/promotion or indeed regelation it can be hard to swallow .
If ever there was a club that benefited from extremely dubious refereeing, Barcelona is it.
The farce at Stamford Bridge
The Thiago Motta red card with Busquets peeking through his hands to see if he could stop rolling around yet
Van Persie’s second yellow for playing the ball after as the whistle was blown
And then from this tie, the Suarez non-red, the Iniesta non-red and the Torres sending off.
You lost all credibility when you said Torres was harshly sent off last week.
In that inter game the goal Barcelona got was actually offside so if they had video ref back then that goal wouldn’t have stood, and also the ridiculous motta red card would never have happened
They weren’t in the video so clearly didn’t happen.
3 for the manager is too many. Its been in hockey for a few years at the high level and only now is it really a very good system without issue of bias or unfair advantage. Currently, each team has one video refferral, which they keep if they are proven correct or in the case of “no decision possible”. When the team refers and they are mistaken, they lose the referral. Teams must refer immediately after the incident (within 3 seconds i think) and it has to be close to a goalscoring event (can’t be at midfield). It goes upstairs to a ref who avails of different camera replays. There are still instances when cameras don’t pick up the incident or it is unclear what happened although football games have so many cameras this might not be an issue. Also, there are still complaints to referees even after video referrals! In football there would be issues surrounding interpretation – handball/ball to hand for instance but these would simply have to be cleared up by rules committees. I think aswell that referees own referrals would be useful but in rugby these are taken too much in my opinion. The system works well, there is usually 3 or 4 refferals a game and they are swift and exciting. I think it would work. 6 a game would be hefty and would lead to a scenario whereby there would be a refferal by a winning defensive team over a free kick the last minute purely to waste time/stop momentum type of thing. This is not attractive to see.
Trust no one
Didn’t need last night to prove this. Just the last 30 years of diving, cheating, handballs etc etc etc