Kilmacud Crokes V Dublin County Board Dispute
The Dublin Championship was met with more scandal when Kilmacud Crokes postponed their game against UCD, stating that it was not within five days of their game against Lucan Sarsfields in the quarter final. This had the effect that Kilmacud had breached Rule 116 of the official guide. The GAC met Kilmacud representatives on 17 October to discuss the matter. The meeting of the GAC resulted in Kimacud Crokes being excluded from the Senior Club Football Championship.
UCD offered Kilmacud a replay thus reinstateing Crokes, which would guarantee a Dublin representative in the Leinster Senior Club Football Championship. The semi final between the students and the Crokes was slated to take place on Thursday 26 October 2006. Kilmacud Crokes went on to play the game against the Students and were narrowly defeated, giving the Dublin Senior Football Championship its first finalist.
The winners of each semi final went on to the Dublin senior club football championship final. The losing teams were eliminated from the competition and there was no third and fourth place games, therefore a loss would prove to be the respective teams final fixture in the Dublin championship.
Dublin Senior Club Football favourites Kilmacud Crokes crashed out of the Dublin championship to UCD in a tight game. UCD went on their first final since 2002. The 2006 final was a repeat of the 2002 final, as Na Fianna crashed out of the Dublin championship to northside rivals St Vincents. UCD won the 2002 final against St Vincents who were seeking to retain their first title since 1984.
| Game | Date | Venue | Team A | Score | Team B | Score | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dublin SFC Semi-Final |
30 October | Parnell Park | St Vincents | 1-12 | Na Fianna | 0-05 | |
| Dublin SFC Semi-Final |
26 October | Parnell Park | UCD | 1-08 | Kilmacud Crokes | 0-10 |
Read more about this topic: Dublin Senior Football Championship 2006, Semi-Final
Famous quotes containing the words county, board and/or dispute:
“I believe the citizens of Marion County and the United States want to have judges who have feelings and who are human beings.”
—Paula Lopossa, U.S. judge. As quoted in the New York Times, p. B9 (May 21, 1993)
“Watteau is no less an artist for having painted a fascia board while Sainsbury’s is no less effective a business for producing advertisements which entertain and educate instead of condescending and exploiting.”
—Stephen Bayley (b. 1951)
“Your next-door neighbour ... is not a man; he is an environment. He is the barking of a dog; he is the noise of a pianola; he is a dispute about a party wall; he is drains that are worse than yours, or roses that are better than yours.”
—Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874–1936)