The hottest topic in the GAA right now.
The faceguard rule in hurling has become the black card of football this year in the comparable levels of consternation that they both cause.
It has been ferociously debated by hurling fans around the country, with many arguing that the rule protects players, and others claiming that the rule has a total lack of leniency.
We’ve seen lots of high profile issues so far this year, from Stephen Bennett setting the ball rolling, to Tadhg De Búrca, to Adrian Tuohy and now to Austin Gleeson.
The GAA Hour Show host Colm Parkinson feels that the rule is unfair on players due to the fact that any interference with a helmet receives the same punishment, without taking into account whether it’s dangerous or not.
What better man to tackle with this argument then, than Jarlath Burns, the Chairman of the GAA’s standing committee on playing rules.
“We’re (GAA Hour Show pundits) all agreeing that there should be red card for dangerous interference with a helmet, and a yellow card for other interference,” said Parkinson.
“If you turn that into a yellow card offence, it very quickly becomes a culture in the GAA,” replied Burns.
“No Jarlath, it’s making the Austin Gleeson one from Sunday a yellow card offence, and I think it’s very obvious how you can separate a dangerous pull of a faceguard, which is that jerking action that your talking about, which is 100% dangerous, and then there’s a fella sitting on the ground and his helmet is lifted off his head,” remarked the Laois man.
Waterford’s star man Austin Gleeson could potentially miss his side’s All-Ireland clash with Galway because of his incident with Cork’s Luke Meade on Sunday, and Parkinson feels the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
“This is not fair that these players are missing huge games on innocuous, silly little interferences. This isn’t dangerous, it just slipped off his head and happened in the heat of battle,” argued Wooly.
Burns, the former Armagh footballer, disagreed.
“I would disagree with you there, because if you look at the rule category 3 – ‘Behaving in a way that is dangerous to an opponent including deliberately pulling on or taking hold of a faceguard or taking hold of an opponents helmet in hurling.
“Now, deliberately, that’s where a referee’s own judgement comes in. If you look at some of the incidents from this year (Adrian Tuohy on Bonner Maher) Barry Kelly adjudicated on that and he decided that it wasn’t deliberate and that it was part of the heat of battle.
“Whenever somebody is lying on the ground and is absolutely no part of the play… I fail to see why it’s justifiable in any instance why anybody would want to touch anybody’s faceguard or his helmet.
Parkinson argued that covering all incidents, which are obviously varying in their nature, with the one precedent is wrong, and just makes it easier for the DRA and so on.
“It sounds to me like putting the blanket red card on everything is trying to make your life easier when it comes to defending them at DRA level, rather than what’s fair on players, because you haven’t answered the question of splitting the rulebook into dangerous and not dangerous.
Burns counter-argued that the rule covers this.
“The rule did already save Adrian Tuohy already this year and other players as well. I would argue that what Adrian Tuohy did to Patrick Maher, even though it was innocuous, it was still dangerous.”
Parkinson replied by claiming that leniency in the rule would give a referee more leeway, and would be more beneficial for players.
“It gives the referee more leeway to give a yellow rather than a red which seems a very severe punishment for some of these interferences. It seems very harsh.”
In the end, the pair agreed to disagree.
You can listen to this debate, and much more from The GAA Hour Hurling Show here from 5″00′.
