National Forum

GAA Need To Ban Hits To The Head

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


It is time for the GAA to do like rugby and take hits to the head seriously, whether they be punishments retrospectively or using a TMO.
Some of the shoulders to the head which are going unpunished for a while now are sickening to watch and need to be dealt with either in real time or by an independent panel.
It doesn't matter whether the player intended to do it or not, the fact is that they did it and whether or not it is citing or referee updating his report, something has to be done because the build of players is now so different to what it once was and players tackle differently than in my day.
A yellow card by the referee is neither here nor there. If there is a case to be answered for it being a red card, then deal with it.

ExiledInWex (Dublin) - Posts: 1259 - 12/02/2024 12:32:45    2525628

Link

Replying To ExiledInWex:  "It is time for the GAA to do like rugby and take hits to the head seriously, whether they be punishments retrospectively or using a TMO.
Some of the shoulders to the head which are going unpunished for a while now are sickening to watch and need to be dealt with either in real time or by an independent panel.
It doesn't matter whether the player intended to do it or not, the fact is that they did it and whether or not it is citing or referee updating his report, something has to be done because the build of players is now so different to what it once was and players tackle differently than in my day.
A yellow card by the referee is neither here nor there. If there is a case to be answered for it being a red card, then deal with it."
After a weekend where I watched almost as much rugby and hurling, and where we had the Jack O'Connor sending off incident in Wexford Park, I think it's a good shout.

I reckon the "no interference with another player's helmet" rule is one of those that's well-intentioned, but inconsistent with other rules, and maybe heavy-handed.

Obviously the intention is to outlaw a case where you could dangerously jerk another player's head backwards or sideways with force if he's in the air or running at full speed. But a straight red card for your hand simply landing on top of somebody else's helmet while you're coming down from a jump yourself, and possibly while blind-sided, is where it can be heavy-handed.

And either way, a relatively minor tug of somebody's faceguard (like Offaly's David King was guilty of, unseen by the referee) or laying a hand on a helmet (like O'Connor did) is probably relatively "safe" compared to some of the badly-timed or badly-aimed tackles we see, where one player's shoulder charge connects with somebody else's head.

Basically - hit him hard on the head with a shoulder charge, and you might escape with a yellow card or maybe no card at all, if it looked accidental. But give a gentle tug on a faceguard - even accidentally - and it's supposed be a straight red, no questions asked.

Inconsistent.

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 12/02/2024 13:07:10    2525638

Link

The problem in the GAA is the "it was all accident" defence. Very hard to prove intent.

I 100% agree with u. Accident or not certain offences should be a red card. Intent should only come into it when the suspension is discussed.

I think on the administration side, all suspensions should have sanctioned doubled, and if you accept the charge you should get suspension halved for guilty plea. That might get rid of these ridiculous appeals and still leave room for a genuine appeal.

Mayonman (Galway) - Posts: 1890 - 12/02/2024 13:32:40    2525646

Link

Replying To Pikeman96:  "After a weekend where I watched almost as much rugby and hurling, and where we had the Jack O'Connor sending off incident in Wexford Park, I think it's a good shout.

I reckon the "no interference with another player's helmet" rule is one of those that's well-intentioned, but inconsistent with other rules, and maybe heavy-handed.

Obviously the intention is to outlaw a case where you could dangerously jerk another player's head backwards or sideways with force if he's in the air or running at full speed. But a straight red card for your hand simply landing on top of somebody else's helmet while you're coming down from a jump yourself, and possibly while blind-sided, is where it can be heavy-handed.

And either way, a relatively minor tug of somebody's faceguard (like Offaly's David King was guilty of, unseen by the referee) or laying a hand on a helmet (like O'Connor did) is probably relatively "safe" compared to some of the badly-timed or badly-aimed tackles we see, where one player's shoulder charge connects with somebody else's head.

Basically - hit him hard on the head with a shoulder charge, and you might escape with a yellow card or maybe no card at all, if it looked accidental. But give a gentle tug on a faceguard - even accidentally - and it's supposed be a straight red, no questions asked.

Inconsistent."
Did you see the hit on Niland? Probably not intentional but very dangerous all the same.

Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13886 - 12/02/2024 14:06:08    2525656

Link

Replying To Viking66:  "Did you see the hit on Niland? Probably not intentional but very dangerous all the same."
I did. A good example of the kind of thing we're talking about here.

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 12/02/2024 15:31:52    2525690

Link

Replying To Pikeman96:  "I did. A good example of the kind of thing we're talking about here."
Yes, that is the hit that needs to be taken out.
Whether intentional or not, the burden of caution lies with the player not in possession, not the player with the ball. How it is in rugby, if you lay a dangerous hit whether intentional or not its a red card.
It needs to be stamped out. Its dangerous and it happens at every level in the game.

ExiledInWex (Dublin) - Posts: 1259 - 12/02/2024 17:21:59    2525713

Link

Replying To ExiledInWex:  "Yes, that is the hit that needs to be taken out.
Whether intentional or not, the burden of caution lies with the player not in possession, not the player with the ball. How it is in rugby, if you lay a dangerous hit whether intentional or not its a red card.
It needs to be stamped out. Its dangerous and it happens at every level in the game."
Correct! Incidences of concussion are big in rugby.Even more so in NFL where many players retired from the sport have suffered from dementia and Parkinson's. McMahon of the Bears winning team of 1986 is a notable example. Any intentional blow to head should be punished by red card and suspension.

Ryanteam (Cork) - Posts: 385 - 12/02/2024 20:04:15    2525742

Link

Replying To Ryanteam:  "Correct! Incidences of concussion are big in rugby.Even more so in NFL where many players retired from the sport have suffered from dementia and Parkinson's. McMahon of the Bears winning team of 1986 is a notable example. Any intentional blow to head should be punished by red card and suspension."
Like the hit on Wally on Sat night

mooncat (Kilkenny) - Posts: 538 - 12/02/2024 21:01:14    2525753

Link

Replying To mooncat:  "Like the hit on Wally on Sat night"
Yes, that was another one.

And dare I mention Richie Hogan and 2019????

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 12/02/2024 21:28:41    2525761

Link

Replying To Pikeman96:  "Yes, that was another one.

And dare I mention Richie Hogan and 2019????"
Dare you not!

foreveryoung (USA) - Posts: 2096 - 13/02/2024 03:18:30    2525782

Link

IMHO I agree with the sentiments here, and there's plenty more incidents that are common place in our games that needs stamping out also.

But until we address the overall disciplinary system from start to finish it's a waste of time.

Practically speaking almost every infraction if brought far enough on appeal will be rescinded, we have a complete lack of taking responsibility within the organisation, every time an incident happens on the pitch the first question is "how can we get them off"

We need accountability for mistakes which by the way also includes the referees.

tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1427 - 13/02/2024 08:08:59    2525785

Link

I watched the RTE 1 programme, Upfront last night, presented by Katie Hannon. You'll find it on RTE Player. The topic coincidently was 'Concussion in Contact Sports'. It's an interesting programme and well worth watching. There was a Professor Doherty, a world renowned expert in this area who spoke about how delicate the brain is and how little protection it has from the skull, comparing it to a tin can of peeled tomatoes, that it's not a rubber ball but a very delicate object.
There were three others on the panel and some audience participation. Dr Kevin Moran, Mater Hospital, was representing the GAA. He was saying that the discussion was over the top, dramatic, in danger of creating mass hysteria and saying there was no evidence of long term effects from concussion. He kept saying that the GAA had addressed these issues, had guidelines and protocol in place and that the GAA, being an amateur game was safer than rugby, lesser hits and less dangerous!
If you don't believe me, watch it!
This was strongly refuted by Prof Doherty who spoke about the serious consequences of concussive and sub-concussive blows, dementia being the most serious one.
Josepha Madigan was just pathetic.
The journalist on the programme was in agreement with Prof Doherty. He says that awareness has grown in recent years and that in the US, for example, no contact whatsoever is allowed in training before a match in the NFL.
The GAA is behaving like the Catholic Church, it's in denial and dishonest with the public. Unless it changes its ways, acknowledges the problem and addresses it, the GAA pitches will be as empty as the Catholic churches on Sunday.

baire (Galway) - Posts: 1849 - 13/02/2024 10:43:31    2525808

Link

This is 100% needed, I still have occasional headaches which I put down to a full frontal shoulder to the head a couple of years back.
It is not up to the player with the ball to avoid such a hit. The duty of care is on the defender.
But the GAA will do anything but hold players to account for dirty play.

StoreysTash (Wexford) - Posts: 1785 - 13/02/2024 10:57:50    2525816

Link

Replying To Pikeman96:  "Yes, that was another one.

And dare I mention Richie Hogan and 2019????"
Some dive from Barrett

Bon (Kildare) - Posts: 2085 - 13/02/2024 13:15:35    2525840

Link

Replying To StoreysTash:  "This is 100% needed, I still have occasional headaches which I put down to a full frontal shoulder to the head a couple of years back.
It is not up to the player with the ball to avoid such a hit. The duty of care is on the defender.
But the GAA will do anything but hold players to account for dirty play."
I agree leading with the shoulder when running in to a tackle is wrong. That's the rule in Rugby. But if you are a stationary defender and a lad runs headfirst into your shoulder that's a free to you, the defender, whatever the outcome.

Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 13886 - 13/02/2024 15:21:22    2525875

Link

Replying To Bon:  "Some dive from Barrett"
At least Barrett took a fairly hefty hit, unlike the Kilkenny player in the club final where James Regan was sent off ... for what?

midlands (Westmeath) - Posts: 583 - 13/02/2024 15:50:02    2525881

Link

Replying To ExiledInWex:  "It is time for the GAA to do like rugby and take hits to the head seriously, whether they be punishments retrospectively or using a TMO.
Some of the shoulders to the head which are going unpunished for a while now are sickening to watch and need to be dealt with either in real time or by an independent panel.
It doesn't matter whether the player intended to do it or not, the fact is that they did it and whether or not it is citing or referee updating his report, something has to be done because the build of players is now so different to what it once was and players tackle differently than in my day.
A yellow card by the referee is neither here nor there. If there is a case to be answered for it being a red card, then deal with it."
Completely agree. The chances of anyone landing a shoulder to shoulder hit these days is very limited so anyone trying to do it knows they are playing the percentages and worst case will only get a yellow. They are going in to make the big hit regardless of the outcome and lets be honest we have all done it and that was exactly what went through the mind. Therefore to me that is not even accidental but the justification you hear by the commentators is just outstanding - this he didn't mean it, he is not a dirty player etc. - not sure which is worse. If the sanction was a straight red all the time it would make players think again, you may have times when the ref gets it wrong but that should never be the reason to crack down on it.

zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1900 - 14/02/2024 02:21:17    2525960

Link

The rulebooks need to be rewritten from top-to-bottom and due to this a paralysis in changing existing rules has set in. Committees have gained much more traction in adding rules than removing or modifying rules. To bridge that gap, the GAA uses groups like the GAA medical committee to give legitimacy to Rules Committees. When there's discontent amongst patrons due to shortcomings of the rulebook, the Rules Committees will then issue a directive to the referees committee citing the Medical Committee to ask them to follow their interpretation of a rule. Eventually inter-county referees will (for a short period) referee in a certain way, but that message will be diluted the whole way down to grassroots level where many referees will not know there was any message at all.

There's a romanticism about certain kind of big hits in the GAA that needs to be left behind if the game is to survive. All rules relating to physical contact need to be pulled out and replaced with clear and concise language. All high-impact hits to the head must be a dismissal regardless of intent. The biggest stumbling block for this is the shoulder-to-shoulder challenge which is already refereed inconsistently at all levels. Shoulder charge must be strictly side to side with two players moving in the same direction. This is a relatively well-defined challenge in the book. High-velocity shoulder challenges which don't follow meet that rule must be met with a dismissal. There's too much room for error.

SurelyToGod (Donegal) - Posts: 437 - 14/02/2024 10:30:21    2525993

Link

Replying To SurelyToGod:  "The rulebooks need to be rewritten from top-to-bottom and due to this a paralysis in changing existing rules has set in. Committees have gained much more traction in adding rules than removing or modifying rules. To bridge that gap, the GAA uses groups like the GAA medical committee to give legitimacy to Rules Committees. When there's discontent amongst patrons due to shortcomings of the rulebook, the Rules Committees will then issue a directive to the referees committee citing the Medical Committee to ask them to follow their interpretation of a rule. Eventually inter-county referees will (for a short period) referee in a certain way, but that message will be diluted the whole way down to grassroots level where many referees will not know there was any message at all.

There's a romanticism about certain kind of big hits in the GAA that needs to be left behind if the game is to survive. All rules relating to physical contact need to be pulled out and replaced with clear and concise language. All high-impact hits to the head must be a dismissal regardless of intent. The biggest stumbling block for this is the shoulder-to-shoulder challenge which is already refereed inconsistently at all levels. Shoulder charge must be strictly side to side with two players moving in the same direction. This is a relatively well-defined challenge in the book. High-velocity shoulder challenges which don't follow meet that rule must be met with a dismissal. There's too much room for error."
A good post, but just to point out you're actually incorrect about the rule on shoulder charges - both players don't have to be moving in the same direction.

Instead, that's just one of the three circumstances in which a shoulder charge is allowed:
1.7 Provided the player has at least one foot on the ground, a player may make a shoulder to
shoulder charge on an opponent:-
(a) who is in possession of the ball, or
(b) who is playing the ball other than when kicking it, or
(c) when both players are moving in the direction of the ball to play it.

(My emphasis on the word 'or', because that's key to the point here).

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2622 - 14/02/2024 11:26:43    2526006

Link

Replying To Bon:  "Some dive from Barrett"
Hogan hit Barrett with his elbow, drew blood, terrible attempt at a tackle, fully deserved red card.

Claretandblue (Westmeath) - Posts: 1921 - 14/02/2024 12:20:47    2526013

Link