No more ticks / black cards

So we will no longer see the referee brandish a 'black book' as a last warning before a yellow. No rule change though.

What is this about? Apparently they say it means play will no longer be stopped. Sorry but when then is the ref gonna note the players number in his book (as he still will have to). Will they teach refs how to write down numbers while sprinting up the field and trying to follow the play at the same time? How many are gonna forget the player to be booked in the white heat of battle - or write down the wrong number 5 minutes later?

Ah sure we all know it takes about ten minutes for the ref to raise his arm over his head with his book in it and therefore inform the people who paid to see the game - ie you and I.

Can you imagine the appeals this season - 'but your honour he never said he was gonna book me next time'.

It is plain daft to keep the rule intact and remove the one action that keeps the spectator informed. Can you just imagine the confusion and the howling from the stands this year. Yet another piece of gobsmacking stupidity from our dear administrators ....

whats the old saying an irish solution to an irish problem?????

So we will no longer see the referee brandish a 'black book' as a last warning before a yellow. No rule change though.
You will but not as in the sending off yellow sense. Black book will be there as before, with the black under present rules ~(national league is finished as are those alternative meanings of the cards) all a ref has to do is make the player aware he/she has been ticked, you are not meant to stop/hold up the play ths is been going on in club games more or less since its introduction.

Ah sure we all know it takes about ten minutes for the ref to raise his arm over his head with his book in it and therefore inform the people who paid to see the game - ie you and I.
But Jayo sorry you will have to retract that I timed myself this morning 11.42mins and that was the quickest out of 14 goes.
Lads all it means is that the status quo has retuned and they are belting out all the old classics

I think the big risk is the one about ref's forgetting who they ticked. It's a lot to ask a ref to be both the decision maker and the decision recorder. I think the GAA should look at something like basketball where you have a scoring official on the sideline that monitors scores, ticks, cards, substitutions etc. With a simple mike they could keep the ref up to date on things. They could also control the clock.

RMD done in the ladies game but the only problem is that when you come down to do the little oul club in the back end of nowhere - every county has a least 4/5 of these- that have fewck all facilities and last won the championship when they all togged out in the ditch and sur' if that was good enough for us it's good enough for them aren't nterested in getting in clocks etc then you have a two tier system intercounty and club.
now the big problem is that come county final day the county board in their infinate wisdom will decide to run the final at the intercounty level rather than club and you will totally fcek players up.
If it can't be done across the board don't do it at all.
rem hard enough to get a ref and 4 umpires to a league game now try and get 2 officals there- sorry can't see it working.

JimWexford wrote:RMD done in the ladies game but the only problem is that when you come down to do the little oul club in the back end of nowhere - every county has a least 4/5 of these- that have fewck all facilities and last won the championship when they all togged out in the ditch and sur' if that was good enough for us it's good enough for them aren't nterested in getting in clocks etc then you have a two tier system intercounty and club.
now the big problem is that come county final day the county board in their infinate wisdom will decide to run the final at the intercounty level rather than club and you will totally fcek players up.
If it can't be done across the board don't do it at all.
rem hard enough to get a ref and 4 umpires to a league game now try and get 2 officals there- sorry can't see it working.

Yeah, a good point I suppose Jim, but surely there is a middle ground. Personally I think there should be more than 1 ref. In basketball, there are 3 ref's covering 10 players on a playing area that is a fraction the site of a football pitch. I know that bball is more technical but there is a very good communication between the refs and the system works very well. Why not make the linesmen refs as well?

That i would be in favouyr of. Believe it or not a lineman has very litte he can do,
1. Call the ball in or out on the line
2. report incidents off the ball
3. He cannot call something back that a ref has missed - foul be they techical or not.
4 is involved with subs @ intercounty level and in a club game he will call the refs attention for the sub to take place.

That is the jist of it.
Agree to a certain extent about giving them more power BUT i may see one thing and you another I may try and let the game go (advantage) where as you may not, we have two differnt calls.
Please note as long as people are invovled there will always be different calls because we are not robots we are all individuals who see things different

I disagree with it, I think it was a good rule, a black card was to show that you were on your last legs to getting a yellow much like a yellow is to a red.

NiamhDerry wrote:I disagree with it, I think it was a good rule, a black card was to show that you were on your last legs to getting a yellow much like a yellow is to a red.

but that is still the case.
If I black card you the next card you receive is a yellow and then red, this hasn't chanded at all.

plus the fact another way is you can get a yellow then a black and the go red.
But it hasn't gone away

Jim but the spectators are unaware of how things stand.

Nothing has changed so how can people be unaware.
Sorry its up to people to follow the game and note what is happening be it a score, a wide or a card.
Sky has ye all ruined.

RMDrive wrote:With a simple mike they could keep the ref up to date on things. They could also control the clock.

I don't think Tysomn is doing anything - so there's a simple mike that's available (say it to his face Jayo! )

I disagree with you re controlling the clock because time is a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions. Philosophers have sought an understanding of time by focusing on the broad questions of the relation between time and the physical world and the relation between time and consciousness. Those who adopt an absolutist theory of time regard it as a kind of container within which the universe exists and change takes place, and believe that its existence and properties are independent of the physical universe. According to the rival relationist theory, time is nothing over and above change in the physical universe. Largely because of Albert Einstein, it is now held that time cannot be treated in isolation from space (see space-time). Some argue that Einstein’s theories of relativity vindicate relationist theories, others that they vindicate the absolutist theory. The primary issue concerning the relation between time and consciousness is the extent, if any, to which time or aspects of time depend on the existence of conscious beings. Events in time are normally thought of in terms of notions of past, present, and future, which some philosophers treat as mind-dependent; others believe that time is independent of perception and hold that past, present, and future are objective features of the world.

Jayo Cluxton wrote:

RMDrive wrote:With a simple mike they could keep the ref up to date on things. They could also control the clock.

I don't think Tysomn is doing anything - so there's a simple mike that's available (say it to his face Jayo! )

I disagree with you re controlling the clock because time is a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions. Philosophers have sought an understanding of time by focusing on the broad questions of the relation between time and the physical world and the relation between time and consciousness. Those who adopt an absolutist theory of time regard it as a kind of container within which the universe exists and change takes place, and believe that its existence and properties are independent of the physical universe. According to the rival relationist theory, time is nothing over and above change in the physical universe. Largely because of Albert Einstein, it is now held that time cannot be treated in isolation from space (see space-time). Some argue that Einstein’s theories of relativity vindicate relationist theories, others that they vindicate the absolutist theory. The primary issue concerning the relation between time and consciousness is the extent, if any, to which time or aspects of time depend on the existence of conscious beings. Events in time are normally thought of in terms of notions of past, present, and future, which some philosophers treat as mind-dependent; others believe that time is independent of perception and hold that past, present, and future are objective features of the world.

Douglas Adams eat your heart out.