process would be why having seen the footage
1 was chosen (and what is the charge) when video can show 3/4 similiar instances,
I find it very difficult to believe that Armagh and Rian O’Neill have not been told what the charge is. Have you any evidence that this is the case?
Unless you want an appeal based on “you” not being told what the charge, evidence, process etc is??
The challenge that you describe is essentially not an appeal of Rian’s sentence but a demand that others are punished. Is there a precedent for this?
why was this incident deemed more worthy of sanction given the referee hadn`t made reference to it, so CC deemed this as wothy of a further sanction over and above the referees report
what was the decision making process around it
The default assumption is that the referee didn’t report it because he didn’t see it. That is the assumption we make on all matches and all reports. Have you a reason for not making that assumption here?
The process for looking at video evidence has been detailed elsewhere and with your experience of appeals I am surprised you haven’t picked up on it.
regarding the 3 and contributing to a melee( can`t see this going any further than an appeal), having been at the match, an argument re nugent was that he was subject to an unsolicited strike which can be seen, how could he be contributing if he was actually a victim
I wasn’t at the match and so have no personal view but I can quite understand that you can be attacked and then go on to contribute to a melee. An example being some one gives you a dig, knocks you to the ground, a melee ensues and goes on for several minutes, you pick yourself up and reenter the fray and land a punch. Any self defence case having been eroded in the intervening time.
Like I say, I wasn’t there. As a team, management and Board we are keeping schtum on this one. Quite right. That means most of us don’t know all that happened, don’t know the details of the charges or the evidence. But the assumptions being made by many fans that all gaps in the information must be filled by a version of events least friendly to us and that having made those assumptions that it can be construed as fact and the basis of appeals is troubling.
I draw your attention to an earlier post by Rufus. He might well be frustrated but he differentiates between what he knows and what he suspects/fears. We could all learn a lesson from that.
I hope we have 3 merited successful appeals. If they are not merited they should be thrown out. If they have been lodged speculatively then we should get our wrists slapped. I am embarrassed the 4th was ever submitted. Never again can we say to another county that they should take their medicine.