Share
23rd September 2015
06:38pm BST
Furthermore, regardless of whether you think The Sunday Game’s treatment of it was right or wrong, was it really a surprise that there was a reluctance to confront it head on?
After all, the pundits knew that everyone in the Dublin team hotel would have been watching on and that the reaction to their comments by the player involved, his team-mates, family and friends was being broadcast live to a massive national audience.
Des Cahill, to be fair to him, did bring it up, but it was fairly inevitable that it would be dealt with in the way that it was.
All three pundits knew that McMahon had done something seriously wrong but were reluctant to let it take away from the celebration of a fantastic Dublin team, who had just won their third All-Ireland title in five years.
There was, for example, no repeat of the ‘he’s not that type of player’ defence used by Ciaran Whelan in an attempt to exonerate Jonny Cooper after an incident in the drawn game with Mayo.
There was no dodging of the issue by the panel, just a realisation that now was not the time to get into it in great detail.
If Dublin had lost and there was a huge reaction to the incident from The Sunday Game panel, they would have been accused of detracting from a Kerry victory.
On the biggest show of the season on the biggest day of the GAA calendar, the priority should be giving credit to the team who won the biggest prize of all.
Before I go on, let me lay it on the line that McMahon has a serious case to answer here.
It seems clear that he did gouge Donaghy’s eye and his account of what happened since has done him few favours.
Gouging an opponent’s eye is a grave offence and if McMahon is severely punished for it then he can have few complaints.
Given the farcical disciplinary cases in the GAA in recent weeks and months, it is nearly a chance for them to make a serious statement.
Throw the book at the Dublin defender and make it clear that from now on, bans are there to be served, no matter what the CCCC or the DRA have to say about it.
But let the GAA do that in time, maybe even sometime this week.
Regardless of what The Sunday Game say about it, it will be the GAA’s prerogative to take action in any case and what they do, as opposed to what The Sunday Game says, is the most important issue here.
That said, it’s understandable why people were unhappy about the way in which The Sunday Game treated the issue.
The programme never shies away from confronting the serious issues in the game.
Intentionally or not, it most certainly sets an agenda in the GAA, whether it was the (drastically over-the-top) criticism of Tiernan McCann for ‘Hairgate’ or Joe Brolly’s scapegoating of Sean Cavanagh for a tackle on Conor McManus that sped up the introduction of the black card.
In that way, it has made a rod for its own back in that if they’re going to go to town on Tiernan McCann for diving, then they have to do likewise to Philly McMahon for what was a far more serious offence, regardless of time, circumstances, or who they might upset.
I understand that point of view, but under the circumstances, I think they were right to treat it the way they did.
Let McMahon face judge, jury and executioner for what he did, but there’s a time and a place.
Conán Doherty says: NO
A pundit's job is to call it as he sees it.
Like them or loathe them, they're paid to give both an insight and an opinion.
They're paid to dissect talking points of a game, to highlight... highlights.
When Tiernan McCann dived, the entire nation gathered around their TV sets for the public flogging of a guilty offender so that they could feel like there was some form of justice served. So that they could get to sleep that night.
Had Colm O'Rourke skirted over the issue on what was the Meath man's finest performance of the season - for a reason - then he would've been hung out to dry for not having the balls to call a spade a spade. Everyone in Ireland - barring Tyrone - would've been up in arms and they'd still be looking for blood. McCann's blood.
But the panel called it as it was and we felt a sense of closure, that the player had been punished fittingly.
The annoying thing about the Philly McMahon incident is that some people are using it as an excuse to beat down Dublin. Dublin destroyed Kerry on Sunday, they have lit up this championship, they are one of the finest sides ever assembled and nothing - absolutely nothing - should be taken away from them.
What's worse is that others are almost using him as a scapegoat of an entire culture of bad blood. What he did wasn't right. It was disgusting. But don't insult our intelligence by pretending like flash-points like that are an isolated incident. Jesus, every time a player goes to ground he is nailed. Paul Finlay was running around punching men left, right and centre during the Tyrone quarter final and we chose a dive as the worst thing that happened that day.
Club games are worse. There's an animal, warfare culture deeply-rooted in the GAA that it's annoying to see one man being the fall-guy for it all. But why not even just say that? The Sunday Game panel didn't even attempt to address it. Straight after the game or later that night.
How does that happen? It wasn't the right time.
The right time for what? To analyse the game?
Since when did The Sunday Game take the moral high ground? Since when was it their concern to worry about the timing or ruining the buzz of a celebration for a player?
If a player doesn't want to be called out on gouging someone's eye, then don't gouge someone's eye.
If a player wants to hide behind 'amateurism' or watching The Sunday Game with their mothers or whatever other bullshit is being thrown in defence, then don't gouge someone's eye.
What if Kerry had three men sent off in that game and Dublin had them out of sight by half time? Would it not have been discussed? It's not the right time. They're amateur.
Where were these hand brakes when referee Padraig Hughes' reputation was being wrung on the clothes line? When Paul Grimley was being personally executed? Where was the moral compass when Sean Cavanagh pulling a player back was deemed worthy of writing him off as a man?
Nobody said that any of that was particularly delightful but at least they were calling it. At least they weren't pretending like these incidents didn't happen. Especially when everyone in the country wanted them discussed.
Why do you like certain pundits? Because they say things on TV that you want them to say. They argue your point for you. The point you want the rest of the world to hear. Most of the time, that's an opinion. That's where debate is generated from. That's where a lot of them are hated - because they give their opinions.
They're doing their jobs.
The only thing worse than a pundit with a sh*t opinion is one with no opinion at all.
Explore more on these topics:
