Message to Irish: Learn the Rules of Engagement!

[Karlostj]

Apples and oranges. Who threw the first punch is your preoccupation, not mine. My thesis is that enforcement of penalty is what determines the level of violence, not rules of engagement. I use O'Keefe to illustrate. He throws punches at will in IR, he did the same in 2005, but not in AFL because he isn't penalised in IR. If he'd been red carded, as he should have, then he wouldn't have had his nose bloodied because he would have been off and subsequent nastiness wouldn't have occurred. Yellow cards are slaps across the wrist with a wet lettuce, they all take breaks anyway. Preoccupation with who threw the first punch misses the point. The Australians announced their intentions, not only through the press but through history of the games. Instead of copping it, the GAA blokes stood up to them. As to who did what to whom, that's romantic nonsense. The players will do what they can get away with and the Australians get away with murder.

If you read the post immediately above yours you'll see I've changed my mind about O'Mahoney because I looked at it in slo mo and it seems to show him landing on whoever's back with both knees. He was yellow carded for it so he was punished, if a yellow card is punishment.

Finally, to clear up a misconception, I was born and grew up in the in the western suburbs of Melbourne of mixed stock. I'm not Irish.

Yes they do get away with more then they do in the AFL, however, they also copped more then what they would in the AFL. In the AFL a punch would never have been thrown by any player.... However, O'Keefe couldn't just sit back and let him or a team mate be punched. Perhaps if he knew that he was going to be suspended he wouldn't have hit the Irish guy, however the fact is that in the AFL it would never have got that far, because the first punch would never have been thrown!


I think that there needs to be stronger penalties for stuff that goes on in IR, but that being said - the knee in the first week was sited by the Aust member of the discipline panel, not by the Irish members. So who is setting the precedent for going soft on lack of discipline??? Whats more all the Irish were coming out and saying that there was nothing in it...?? Sort of reeks of hypocracy - one minute saying that they need to crack down on violence, the next minute they're pining for a guy to get off after committing a violent act.... You can't have it both ways!

As for red cards/yellow cards - we have neither in the AFL... Tribunal citings is what keeps the cheap shots out of the game - the same process is in the IR - but as mentioned above, it seems to be heavily watered down (thanks at least partly to the Irish).

Perhaps if the tribunal had cracked down on the cheap shots in the first match, the boundaries in the next would have been much more obvious and less likely to be crossed - the Irish pretty much made a cross for their own back!!

Its not just the Australians that get away with murder - the Irish do as well. Is kneeing, head butting, throwing punches allowed in the GAA??

In the end, what Aust did to the Irish was no worse then what the Irish did to the Aust, in fact it was probably less serious. Just that Aust was more noticeable because they were stronger then the skinny irish.

 

[Roundhouse]

Apples and oranges. Who threw the first punch is your preoccupation, not mine. My thesis is that enforcement of penalty is what determines the level of violence, not rules of engagement. I use O'Keefe to illustrate. He throws punches at will in IR, he did the same in 2005, but not in AFL because he isn't penalised in IR. If he'd been red carded, as he should have, then he wouldn't have had his nose bloodied because he would have been off and subsequent nastiness wouldn't have occurred. Yellow cards are slaps across the wrist with a wet lettuce, they all take breaks anyway. Preoccupation with who threw the first punch misses the point. The Australians announced their intentions, not only through the press but through history of the games. Instead of copping it, the GAA blokes stood up to them. As to who did what to whom, that's romantic nonsense. The players will do what they can get away with and the Australians get away with murder.

If you read the post immediately above yours you'll see I've changed my mind about O'Mahoney because I looked at it in slo mo and it seems to show him landing on whoever's back with both knees. He was yellow carded for it so he was punished, if a yellow card is punishment.

Finally, to clear up a misconception, I was born and grew up in the in the western suburbs of Melbourne of mixed stock. I'm not Irish.

Your "thesis" is well and truly flawed.

Your defense of the Irish is based upon them "standing up" to the physical attacks of the Aussies, and therefor you are condoning the Irish actions as retaliatory strikes.

By ignoring the "who landed the first punch" debate you are saying that it doesn't matter who threw the first punch because any subsequent retaliatory strikes are not warranted. You see the contradiction here?

 

[MF]

The original post is a bit patronising. They may be AFL's rules of engagement, but that does mean they are IR.

Some of the things done in AFL like jumper punching, is just as bad a outright punching, and the Irish players would have a whole other set of rules of engagement which the AFL players probably stepped over (as the Irish did to us).

Simple facts are, IR needs its own definition of whats allowed and whats not. Trying to transpose each codes, code of ethics is fundamentally flawed, because players simply dont know the other's code of ethics.

Excellent point. You would assume that in a game of hybrid rules that the unwritten rules of engagement would be somewhat unclear on both sides and as such I dont think either side should be held accountable. It's just something that will take time to adjust to.

 

[D Mitchell]

...the knee in the first week was sited by the Aust member of the discipline panel, not by the Irish members. So who is setting the precedent for going soft on lack of discipline??? Whats more all the Irish were coming out and saying that there was nothing in it...?? Sort of reeks of hypocracy - one minute saying that they need to crack down on violence, the next minute they're pining for a guy to get off after committing a violent act.... You can't have it both ways!

The news and press reported that the two Irish representatives thought that the incident didn’t warrant an investigation. No reasons were given although there was the suggestion that too much time had passed before Kevin Sheehan put it up. A technicality. On the substantive issue, my guess is that the incident was seen as open to a finding of accidental as any other explanation and it would certainly have been seen as a self protective measure. If you look at the video in slo motion, you’ll see why. Gilbee was the instigator and the aggressor.

Who do you mean by "all the Irish" ? The two representatives ? The players ? The Irish Times ? Who are the "they’re" of pining propensity ? If you visit the GAA board you’ll see that there is no uniformity of opinion. But even there was and that opinion was a need to crack down on violence, where’s the hypocracy if "they" believe that he was defending himself or that it was accidental ?

 

[D Mitchell]

By ignoring the "who landed the first punch" debate you are saying that it doesn't matter who threw the first punch because any subsequent retaliatory strikes are not warranted. You see the contradiction here?

There's no contradiction, it's crystal clear. The Tribunal says that in AFL football, retaliatory strikes are not only not warranted but are punishable and punished. Retaliation is no defence.

But it's different in IR because there is no effective sanction. Johnson gets suspended for a few IR games ? Big deal. He probably wouldn't have played anyway, given the huge turnover of team members. In the context of IR, where anything goes because of the lack of sanction, whether a player strikes another in initiation or retaliation has only feel good relevence. In the case of most posters to this Board on the issue, that means painting the aggressor as the victim.

 

[Roundhouse]

There's no contradiction, it's crystal clear. The Tribunal says that in AFL football, retaliatory strikes are not only not warranted but are punishable and punished. Retaliation is no defence.

But it's different in IR because there is no effective sanction. Johnson gets suspended for a few IR games ? Big deal. He probably wouldn't have played anyway, given the huge turnover of team members. In the context of IR, where anything goes because of the lack of sanction, whether a player strikes another in initiation or retaliation has only feel good relevence. In the case of most posters to this Board on the issue, that means painting the aggressor as the victim.

The contradiction is in the part you didn't highlight, where I noted how you defended the Irish players for "standing up" to the Aussies. You were in effect condoning their actions as retaliations.

The santions arguement is moot as both sides have nothing lose, and nothing to gain by starting fights. You don't see king hits being delivered to unsuspecting players before the ball is bounced in IR. Why not? If there are no consequences, why wouldn't they all just start throwing haymakers from the outset?

The players from either side don't do this because there are unwritten codes of conduct in both codes. The Aussies fired up at specific instances when they felt they, or their teamates, were dealt with unfairly (such as the kneeing and first punch on Voss). The Irish fired up in certain instances when the felt they, or their teamates, were dealt with unfairly (such as being shoved before the bounce, or when the kneeing chap was roughed up).

If there were no rules of engagement, coupled with the lack of harsh punishment that you cite as existing already, then the would be continual all in brawsl with no football played. That has never been the case in IR. There have always been certain incidents that have provoked stronger physical reactions than others.

Wheter you believe me or not, there is an honour system in Aussie rules that dictates that you don't go king-hitting people for no reason, even if you are playing in a practice match with no sanctions. I started getting sick of the Irish thinking that our code has no honour, and is all about thuggery, so thats why I tried to outline the rules of engagement in the list. Watch any Aussie rules match from amateurs to AFL and you will see them in play.

 

[D Mitchell]

The contradiction is in the part you didn't highlight, where I noted how you defended the Irish players for "standing up" to the Aussies. You were in effect condoning their actions as retaliations.

I've consistently refuted the mantra that the GAA players were the aggressors and I've tried to put into perspective the more hysterical claims about the conduct of the GAA players. I haven't defended anyone or condoned anybody's actions. The Johnson experience says that the referees will red card extreme behaviour which a king hit is likely to fall into. That's why there are few if any and none before the start of play. Can you really blame the Irish for thinking the Australian Football Code is thuggery ?

 

[Roundhouse]

I've consistently refuted the mantra that the GAA players were the aggressors and I've tried to put into perspective the more hysterical claims about the conduct of the GAA players. I haven't defended anyone or condoned anybody's actions. The Johnson experience says that the referees will red card extreme behaviour which a king hit is likely to fall into. That's why there are few if any and none before the start of play. Can you really blame the Irish for thinking the Australian Football Code is thuggery ?

I don't neccessarily blame them. I think they are wrong, and that the misunderstanding is born out of ignorance of Aussie rules culture.

That is why I made the list to enlighten the Irish folks who visit this site as to why the Aussie's react very strongly to certain physical acts on the field, while others are condoned and even applauded.

I appreciate that it would be very hard for a GAA follower to understand, but these principles of agression have developed alongside the rules of our code for over a hundred years. They don't change overnight like certain match rules do, and they won't change overnight for the IR series.

 

[Karlostj]

The news and press reported that the two Irish representatives thought that the incident didn’t warrant an investigation. No reasons were given although there was the suggestion that too much time had passed before Kevin Sheehan put it up. A technicality. On the substantive issue, my guess is that the incident was seen as open to a finding of accidental as any other explanation and it would certainly have been seen as a self protective measure. If you look at the video in slo motion, you’ll see why. Gilbee was the instigator and the aggressor.

Who do you mean by "all the Irish" ? The two representatives ? The players ? The Irish Times ? Who are the "they’re" of pining propensity ? If you visit the GAA board you’ll see that there is no uniformity of opinion. But even there was and that opinion was a need to crack down on violence, where’s the hypocracy if "they" believe that he was defending himself or that it was accidental ?

Of course there is a differing of opinion... But the overall consensus of the GAA officials and the general population was that it was not worthy of a citing.

I'm not sure what you're saying re: the protective measure... Are you saying that it is okay to knee someone in the head if you're retaliating to someone wrestling with you????

Thats the problem with the major Irish response to the game. Australia pushes and sledges a couple of guys and thereby (according the Irish) opens the door for the Irish to retaliate in anyway they see fit.... And this along with the Australian's being stronger means the Irish have committed no wrong.... In fact they're completely justified???

I don't see how a push and some hip and shouldering can be possibly construed as warranting a punch or a knee to the back or a headbutt..?

There has to be a degree of proportionality in the response by the Irish - there is no argument that a response is warranted. But the response by the Irish was totally out of proportion with a bit of pushing, shoving and sledging.

As for AFL being thuggery - what do the Irish think of Rugby...? Ireland v Aust is regularly a blood bath! Just because the AFL values strength as well as skill doesn't make it thuggery.... As many AFL supporter will tell you, if you want to play footy, be prepared for contact, otherwise, go and play netball!

 

[King Elvis]

If he'd been red carded, as he should have, then he wouldn't have had his nose bloodied because he would have been off and subsequent nastiness wouldn't have occurred.

If Gerahty had been red carded, as he should have, for deliberately kneeing Gilbee in the head, then he wouldn't have been playing and the subsequent nastiness wouldn't have occurred.

 

[D Mitchell]

I'm not sure what you're saying re: the protective measure... Are you saying that it is okay to knee someone in the head if you're retaliating to someone wrestling with you????

On the substantive issue, my guess is that the incident was seen as open to a finding of accidental as any other explanation and it would certainly have been seen as a self protective measure. If you look at the video in slo motion, you’ll see why. Gilbee was the instigator and the aggressor
I’m making no moral judgment on the issue, neither should you. Geraghty says he raised his knees to protect his face from Gilbee’s hands. If you look at the vision, that’s a plausible explanation.

"Australia pushes and sledges a couple of guys"
"a push and some hip and shouldering"
"the AFL values strength as well as skill"

Euphemism to unprecedented heights. Try dumping off the ball, pushing heads into the ground, driving the victim into the ground at the end of a tackle, punching, ganging up on single players (ever notice how often AFL players attack in packs and usually from behind ?), punches and elbows to the head under the guise of tackling, continuing on with tackles well after the ball is released, wrestling players to the ground well off the ball. Try two blokes sent to hospital and another taking no effective further action in the game.

 

[Karlostj]

double post...

 

[Karlostj]

On the substantive issue, my guess is that the incident was seen as open to a finding of accidental as any other explanation and it would certainly have been seen as a self protective measure. If you look at the video in slo motion, you’ll see why. Gilbee was the instigator and the aggressor
I’m making no moral judgment on the issue, neither should you. Geraghty says he raised his knees to protect his face from Gilbee’s hands. If you look at the vision, that’s a plausible explanation.

"Australia pushes and sledges a couple of guys"
"a push and some hip and shouldering"
"the AFL values strength as well as skill"

Euphemism to unprecedented heights. Try dumping off the ball, pushing heads into the ground, driving the victim into the ground at the end of a tackle, punching, ganging up on single players (ever notice how often AFL players attack in packs and usually from behind ?), punches and elbows to the head under the guise of tackling, continuing on with tackles well after the ball is released, wrestling players to the ground well off the ball. Try two blokes sent to hospital and another taking no effective further action in the game.

As has been pointed out previously, the punches only came after the Irish threw the first.... My point was that before the Irish responded with disproportionate force and violence, there was some rough stuff, but it was pretty much harmless, designed more to frustrate and annoy then inflict any sort of pain or harm.

Does holding on to a tackle to long actually hurt another player?? I'd see it as an annoyance, as with pushing a head into the ground...? Those sort of things are normal in AFL - let the other player know they've been tackled... Its more psycological then physical as it really does not hurt the player at all....

In regard to wrestling, it takes two to wrestle... and again, its hardly something that is going to hurt anyone.

Any punching is unnecessary, but Aust did not throw the first punch - the punches from Aust came in retaliation to the Irish.... While, retaliation is no excuse, it must be remembered by the Irish lot, that they were just as bad, if not worse then Aust in this regard...

As for the AFL players being in numbers - its called standing up for you team mates - its an Aussie tradition to help your mate, I'd thought the Irish would understand that... perhaps they don't have such a tradition....

In the end Aust no doubt roughed up the Irish. But to me, and most Aust, pushing, shoving, pushing heads into the ground, holding on in tackles, is all part of normal footy... Ie it happens in every game of footy.

What made the game turn ugly, was the way the Irish retaliated to this "rough play" (in Aust "normal play" - especially in a final). The retaliation was totally out of proportion to the initial roughness, and was also beyond what AFL players are use to. Knees in the back, sliding into players with their feet, and in the end punches and headbutts - none of these things occur regularly in the AFL - hence the poor reaction by the AFL players to these actions.

What Aust's are sick of in regard to the IR, is that the Irish as a whole, refuse to accept any responsibility for what has happened. It really reminds me of school yard fighting, where inevitably one of the kids says - its his fault.... The teacher, will normally go "Its both your fault". Australia has been prepared to accept responsibility... the same can't be said for the opposition - they're more concerned with laying cheap shots the addressing the issues (much like their players).

 

[D Mitchell]

As has been pointed out previously, the punches only came after the Irish threw the first.... My point was that before the Irish responded with disproportionate force and violence, there was some rough stuff, but it was pretty much harmless, designed more to frustrate and annoy then inflict any sort of pain or harm.

That is all speculative and opinionative and if your rose coloured and sanitised view of what AFL players do is any guide, completely unreliable. You and all the rest of those who worry about who threw the first punch, i.e. those you refer to as "as has been pointed out previously" have no idea what was happening outside what you saw on TV. Ironically, what you accuse the Irish of, absolving themselves of responsibility, is rife throughout your post. Your mantra, that the Australians responded to Irish initiation is rubbish. Gilbee's explicit threat, Bateman's antics before the game commenced which was visible on the TV, the commentators' explicit identification of Voss attacking un named Irish players before the game commenced identify which team was the aggressor. To selectively pick out one action by an Irish player in the middle of a mellee and label that the commencement of provocation is just too ridiculous for words. Just repeating fanciful generalisations doesn't make it true.

 

[Karlostj]

That is all speculative and opinionative and if your rose coloured and sanitised view of what AFL players do is any guide, completely unreliable. You and all the rest of those who worry about who threw the first punch, i.e. those you refer to as "as has been pointed out previously" have no idea what was happening outside what you saw on TV. Ironically, what you accuse the Irish of, absolving themselves of responsibility, is rife throughout your post. Your mantra, that the Australians responded to Irish initiation is rubbish. Gilbee's explicit threat, Bateman's antics before the game commenced which was visible on the TV, the commentators' explicit identification of Voss attacking un named Irish players before the game commenced identify which team was the aggressor. To selectively pick out one action by an Irish player in the middle of a mellee and label that the commencement of provocation is just too ridiculous for words. Just repeating fanciful generalisations doesn't make it true.

I never said that Aust wasn't the aggressor. Voss, Bateman other as well probably, all came out and roughed the Irish up - however, none of that would have hurt anyone, sure it would have ruffled them, annoyed them, but that was the whole point of it - to put the opposition off their game and make them lose focus. Its something that good AFL players like Voss do all the time, rough them up when it doesn't matter, but when the ball is there to be won, they win it and leave their opponent in their wake who is to busy worried about the man rather then the ball.

The Irish got sucked in by this, sucked in big time. For some reason they saw that the only way to respond to this physicality was by dishing out cheap shots like knees and then eventually throwing a punch. However, if, like most AFL players would, they saw it for what it was (bluff designed to put them off their game), and they then played the footy, it would have backfired on the Aussies or at least been ineffective...

Basically, the Irish were put off their game and tried to fight rather then win the ball - what happened when all the blues were going on - Stanton kicked a goal!

I have never said that one Irish player in the middle of a melee was the reason for the commencement of the melee - simply that the Irish player was largely responsible for the esculation of the violence. It was pushing shoving and wrestling until the Irish threw the punch. Whats more melees also started following knees to the back of Lappin etc...

The Irish players need to learn how to respond to "roughing up". They are obviously not use to it. But that doesn't excuse their behaviour as a consequence!

pushing the boundaries, in terms of tackling, bumping is part of a contact sport..... As is intimidation through talk and pushing etc... Ever seen the Haka (sp?) by the All Blacks?

 

[Blues_Man]

That is all speculative and opinionative and if your rose coloured and sanitised view of what AFL players do is any guide, completely unreliable. You and all the rest of those who worry about who threw the first punch, i.e. those you refer to as "as has been pointed out previously" have no idea what was happening outside what you saw on TV. Ironically, what you accuse the Irish of, absolving themselves of responsibility, is rife throughout your post. Your mantra, that the Australians responded to Irish initiation is rubbish. Gilbee's explicit threat, Bateman's antics before the game commenced which was visible on the TV, the commentators' explicit identification of Voss attacking un named Irish players before the game commenced identify which team was the aggressor. To selectively pick out one action by an Irish player in the middle of a mellee and label that the commencement of provocation is just too ridiculous for words. Just repeating fanciful generalisations doesn't make it true.

Keep trying with your fanciful allegations and unfounded biased opinions ..it appears you have convinced yourself that the Irish were innocents who were ambushed and attacked by the big Australian bullies ...but you will fail to convince us Aussies who have actually watched the game several times and witnessed the cowardly acts of driving knees into the back of players and kicking other players ...these low dog acts will never ever be tolerated by Aussies in any form of the game ...as your irish lot found out . now stop whining and attempting to deflect away from the real issue ...and that is the total smashing your country received in the game itself ..the Aussies showed you lot how the game should be played ..with far more run and skill than the home team

 

[D Mitchell]

.....and that is the total smashing your country received in the game itself ..

My country won the game. More accurately, representatives of a professional football league situated in my country won.

 

[King Elvis]

I never said that Aust wasn't the aggressor. Voss, Bateman other as well probably, all came out and roughed the Irish up - however, none of that would have hurt anyone, sure it would have ruffled them, annoyed them, but that was the whole point of it - to put the opposition off their game and make them lose focus. Its something that good AFL players like Voss do all the time, rough them up when it doesn't matter, but when the ball is there to be won, they win it and leave their opponent in their wake who is to busy worried about the man rather then the ball.

The Irish got sucked in by this, sucked in big time. For some reason they saw that the only way to respond to this physicality was by dishing out cheap shots like knees and then eventually throwing a punch. However, if, like most AFL players would, they saw it for what it was (bluff designed to put them off their game), and they then played the footy, it would have backfired on the Aussies or at least been ineffective...

Basically, the Irish were put off their game and tried to fight rather then win the ball - what happened when all the blues were going on - Stanton kicked a goal!

I have never said that one Irish player in the middle of a melee was the reason for the commencement of the melee - simply that the Irish player was largely responsible for the esculation of the violence. It was pushing shoving and wrestling until the Irish threw the punch. Whats more melees also started following knees to the back of Lappin etc...

The Irish players need to learn how to respond to "roughing up". They are obviously not use to it. But that doesn't excuse their behaviour as a consequence!

pushing the boundaries, in terms of tackling, bumping is part of a contact sport..... As is intimidation through talk and pushing etc... Ever seen the Haka (sp?) by the All Blacks?

That's the definitive post on the issue.

Steve Waugh would've been proud - a few well chosen comments, a bit of pushing and shoving, and the Irisish mentally disintegrated.

We won the fights, and we destroyed you in the game.

Next time, try not to get sucked in so easily, you might actually be competitive.

 

[IRserious]

Re: Watch this

Just shows how rough this game is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIGREZw4Sr4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvd6bcZeKAk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEWVajd7hUI


Now if the Irish cant handle that, then they are wimps...

The whole thing is now so ridiculous, there is no hope left for this concept.

 

[IRserious]

I was at the game and a couple of people watching on TV said it didn't look that bad. I'll tell you most of the crowd around me were insenced (sp?). It seems the producers deliberately didn't show half of what was going on. I didn't see the Geraghty incident because I thought the ref had blown for a late tackle on whichever Irish player delivered the ball up the field. The Irish seemed to believe that once they dispensed with the ball they wouldn't be tackled, but they got hammered anyway. This business of driving a guys head into the ground after you lay a tackle would not just psychologically annoy the Irish. I think most would regard it as the height of macho ignorance. In this game over the last two years you have seen the Irish dispose of the ball, get tackled, want to get up to get involved in the play again but being held down. I have always watched the IR games and believe that in the last two years the Aussies were under instructions to hold the Irish players down longer than necessary to complete the tackle. Kevin Sheedy is the main reason that this series is coming to an end.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Even though it is a "compromised rules" game, these rules of engagement are still in play for the Aussies. I think unless the Irish learn them, the fights in these series' will continue, and probably escalate.

Jesus, how American.

Our behaviour, both on the field, and here, regarding Intl Rules, shows what an ignorant, self important, arrogant place and people Australia has become.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

I was at the game and a couple of people watching on TV said it didn't look that bad. I'll tell you most of the crowd around me were insenced (sp?). It seems the producers deliberately didn't show half of what was going on. I didn't see the Geraghty incident because I thought the ref had blown for a late tackle on whichever Irish player delivered the ball up the field. The Irish seemed to believe that once they dispensed with the ball they wouldn't be tackled, but they got hammered anyway. This business of driving a guys head into the ground after you lay a tackle would not just psychologically annoy the Irish. I think most would regard it as the height of macho ignorance. In this game over the last two years you have seen the Irish dispose of the ball, get tackled, want to get up to get involved in the play again but being held down. I have always watched the IR games and believe that in the last two years the Aussies were under instructions to hold the Irish players down longer than necessary to complete the tackle. Kevin Sheedy is the main reason that this series is coming to an end.

The man is a tool and a stain on our game.