Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[BennyCake]

What's the rule on a player jumping into a tackle? Both feet were off the ground and he just jumped into a defender. I think it was Young or Keane did it. It resulted in a handy free for Keane. Might have been just before the goal.

It should have been a free out for charging should it not?

[tyroneman]

What's the rule on a player jumping into a tackle? Both feet were off the ground and he just jumped into a defender. I think it was Young or Keane did it. It resulted in a handy free for Keane. Might have been just before the goal.

It should have been a free out for charging should it not?

Yip. In my book that's a free out.

[David McKeown]

Going back to the advantage rule if I may.

For me it's a nonsense how some referees are currently interpreting it. Getting a shot at goal from a better position than a free is by definition an advantage. If it goes wide or is saved that's neither here nor there. The advantage was the shot. If an attacker doesn't want that advantage then fine just stop and take the free.

The idea of waiting to see the outcome of a shot is ludicrous. The rule isn't there to give a team two bites at the cherry. It's there for stopping defending teams benefitting when they cheat and break the rules.

If the attacking team wins a free and takes immediately and miss it do they get another chance at the free? 

Also the idea of waiting the full 5 seconds to see if a score has occurred is rubbish what about a high hanging shot from distance taken 5 seconds after the foul. Is the ref supposed to guess where it's going to land? Ie given he's only allowed 5 seconds does he blow for the free in case it falls into the keepers hands or does he wait to see if it makes it over.

As I say it's usualy perfectly obvious which is more advantageous the shot or the free. A free shot at goal from a better angle or shorter distance is more advantageous than a long range. A shot from a tight angle or with multiple defenders around is not. Similarly a shot a goal is more advantageous than a 13m free.

[blewuporstuffed]

What's the rule on a player jumping into a tackle? Both feet were off the ground and he just jumped into a defender. I think it was Young or Keane did it. It resulted in a handy free for Keane. Might have been just before the goal.

It should have been a free out for charging should it not?

Yip. In my book that's a free out.

yeah i think it should be a free out, i dont know how the defenders in that situation could have done anything differently to avoid 'fouling' him, bar standing out of the way

[blewuporstuffed]

Going back to the advantage rule if I may.

For me it's a nonsense how some referees are currently interpreting it. Getting a shot at goal from a better position than a free is by definition an advantage. If it goes wide or is saved that's neither here nor there. The advantage was the shot. If an attacker doesn't want that advantage then fine just stop and take the free.

The idea of waiting to see the outcome of a shot is ludicrous. The rule isn't there to give a team two bites at the cherry. It's there for stopping defending teams benefitting when they cheat and break the rules.

If the attacking team wins a free and takes immediately and miss it do they get another chance at the free? 

Also the idea of waiting the full 5 seconds to see if a score has occurred is rubbish what about a high hanging shot from distance taken 5 seconds after the foul. Is the ref supposed to guess where it's going to land? Ie given he's only allowed 5 seconds does he blow for the free in case it falls into the keepers hands or does he wait to see if it makes it over.

As I say it's usualy perfectly obvious which is more advantageous the shot or the free. A free shot at goal from a better angle or shorter distance is more advantageous than a long range. A shot from a tight angle or with multiple defenders around is not. Similarly a shot a goal is more advantageous than a 13m free.

This was exactly my point aswell., and in the example i gave, we were the benefactors of it, but if just didnt seem right to me.
IMO 9/10 when its in a scoring position , the referee should just blow the free, the only time he should allow the advantage is when the player gets away and is through on goal or has a very obviously easier shot at goal.
The advantage rule should only really be used more further out the feild, where the referee can let the play go on a bit more rather than stopping for a free. This is an advantage to teh time on the ball as it doesnt allow the defending team to purposely slow the game down by fouling.

[westbound]

Going back to the advantage rule if I may.

For me it's a nonsense how some referees are currently interpreting it. Getting a shot at goal from a better position than a free is by definition an advantage. If it goes wide or is saved that's neither here nor there. The advantage was the shot. If an attacker doesn't want that advantage then fine just stop and take the free.

The idea of waiting to see the outcome of a shot is ludicrous. The rule isn't there to give a team two bites at the cherry. It's there for stopping defending teams benefitting when they cheat and break the rules.

If the attacking team wins a free and takes immediately and miss it do they get another chance at the free? 

Also the idea of waiting the full 5 seconds to see if a score has occurred is rubbish what about a high hanging shot from distance taken 5 seconds after the foul. Is the ref supposed to guess where it's going to land? Ie given he's only allowed 5 seconds does he blow for the free in case it falls into the keepers hands or does he wait to see if it makes it over.

As I say it's usualy perfectly obvious which is more advantageous the shot or the free. A free shot at goal from a better angle or shorter distance is more advantageous than a long range. A shot from a tight angle or with multiple defenders around is not. Similarly a shot a goal is more advantageous than a 13m free.

I would disagree with this. A point (presumably guaranteed from the 13m free) is better for the attacking team than a wide or a save (presuming the shot at goal was not scored).

Also, even under the old advantage rule, if the player got a shot at goal away as he was being fouled; if it went in the ref would allow the goal and if it didn't the ref would give the free in. The difference being that under the old rule the ref had to make the decision instantaneously whereas now he has 5 seconds to decide.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I like the way the refs are applying the advantage rule. It's very much like the advantage rule in rugby except that there is a definite length of time the advantage can be played. It benefits the attacking team and surely that's the whole purpose, i.e to punish the team who fouls!

[PAULD123]

Going back to the advantage rule if I may.

For me it's a nonsense how some referees are currently interpreting it. Getting a shot at goal from a better position than a free is by definition an advantage. If it goes wide or is saved that's neither here nor there. The advantage was the shot. If an attacker doesn't want that advantage then fine just stop and take the free.

The idea of waiting to see the outcome of a shot is ludicrous. The rule isn't there to give a team two bites at the cherry. It's there for stopping defending teams benefitting when they cheat and break the rules.

If the attacking team wins a free and takes immediately and miss it do they get another chance at the free? 

Also the idea of waiting the full 5 seconds to see if a score has occurred is rubbish what about a high hanging shot from distance taken 5 seconds after the foul. Is the ref supposed to guess where it's going to land? Ie given he's only allowed 5 seconds does he blow for the free in case it falls into the keepers hands or does he wait to see if it makes it over.

As I say it's usualy perfectly obvious which is more advantageous the shot or the free. A free shot at goal from a better angle or shorter distance is more advantageous than a long range. A shot from a tight angle or with multiple defenders around is not. Similarly a shot a goal is more advantageous than a 13m free.

I disagree with you David. I agree with Westbound. The advantage is there to make sure a team is no worse off by getting a free or playing on. If you have a central 13m free then you are virtually guaranteed a point. The only thing more advantageous is an actual point (or goal). Having a shot at goal saved is less advantageous to the team than having a point. Therefore in final analysis no advantage occurred. So the free should be called back because after the snap shot is saved, as it is then clear it would have been better to have awarded the original free.

But think about it. An attacker is running clean-through on goal. He is fouled. What has happened is the defender is sacrificing a point for a goal chance. Clearly as a minimum the attacker deserves a simple free but he has still been cheated. So the advantage rule allows him to pass to teammate to have that goal chance. But by now it is a much worse goal chance than the clean-through attacker would have had. If you don't call back the free when the goal shot is saved then the cheater still wins. He denied a clear goal chance and the attacking team is told it is to their advantage to have a less good goal chance. That is self-contradictory.

Unless you allow the free to be called back then you are by definition being disadvantageous. If a defender cheats a player out a single shot then I see no problem is saying the advantage is in effect a free less good shot with a guaranteed free kick to come (just like in rugby)

[David McKeown]

Ok so am I right in thinking that you feel it should always be a free unless the ball has been put into the net or over the bar within 5 seconds so that even if a player is fouled takes 2 seconds to escape the foul another 3 seconds to advance towards goal and then shoots the free must come back because when the 5 seconds were up the ball hadn't yet been scored (even had it clearly been going in)?  To me thats a nonsense, the advantage is the shot if the attacking team don't want the advantage then simply don't take the shot.

Also the idea of giving a team two bites at the cherry should only encourage more effectively fouling to prevent that second opportunity.

Why is a team awarded two opportunities to score when advantage is played but not when a free is awarded?

The comparison to rugby I don't get either the relative value of a free in GAA v a penalty in rugby is completely different.  An average rugby match would have far fewer scoring opportunities than a GAA game so a similar advantage rule should not be applied.

[yellowcard]

The biggest problem in gaelic football at the minute is the influence that a referee can have over the outcome of a match. I could pick out any given match and probably pull out at least 15 incidences where a referee could justify giving a decision either way yet at the same time he could just as easily justify not giving the same decision. Too many times the rules are applied based on the referees interpretation. Its a worse situation at club level where the referees are under less scrutiny, they are of a poorer standard and worst of all they are biased against one side.   

[PAULD123]

Ok so am I right in thinking that you feel it should always be a free unless the ball has been put into the net or over the bar within 5 seconds so that even if a player is fouled takes 2 seconds to escape the foul another 3 seconds to advance towards goal and then shoots the free must come back because when the 5 seconds were up the ball hadn't yet been scored (even had it clearly been going in)?  To me thats a nonsense, the advantage is the shot if the attacking team don't want the advantage then simply don't take the shot.

Also the idea of giving a team two bites at the cherry should only encourage more effectively fouling to prevent that second opportunity.

Why is a team awarded two opportunities to score when advantage is played but not when a free is awarded?

The comparison to rugby I don't get either the relative value of a free in GAA v a penalty in rugby is completely different.  An average rugby match would have far fewer scoring opportunities than a GAA game so a similar advantage rule should not be applied.

Ok firstly, I certainly do think 5 seconds is way too long. 2-3 seconds is more than enough to decide on advantage. So I think we agree on that one.

I also think you make a good point about scores in rugby being harder to come by, but that doesn't change the fact that a point is always more advantageous than a miss.

If the defender fouls so absolutely that no advantage could ever occur then he will be getting a booking of black card. So fair enough, let them foul to that level if they want, they won't be doing it for long.

As for two opportunities - It is because they have been cheated out of a really good opportunity. If a defender wants to cheat a fella then he should be punished. Allowing only a less good chance is effectively rewarding the cheater. In the advantage play the attacking team should definitely be allowed a crack at the maximum and if that doesn't come off then be allowed to come back fro a crack at the minimum which is the minimum you desire for being hauled down 13m out.

It would be better and simpler to say that any free within 21m is always called back if no score is made in the following 2 seconds. Any free outside 21m depends solely on the chance to get a good possession/pass/shot away.

[yellowcard]

Keane kicked the ball away when Durcan went to take a kickout. He did similar in Limerick, throwing the spare balls away. Disgusting acts. There has to be a sterner punishment for this sort of behaviour.

Unsurprisingly I didnt hear them mention either on Sunday game either.

thought it was a despicable act by keane
was not surprised that no mention was made of it on tv
wasn't surprised at no mention by pat about the reilly shambles in limerick either

It was on a par with Cavanagh pulling down McManus last year and yet it never got mentioned once by any of the pundits in the aftermath. He deserved a good thump but Durcan was still reeling from his own mistake earlier in the match. It's the hypocrisy that is baffling. I don't have much time for Cavanagh but if he had done what Keane done there would have been an outcry. Instead we are constantly fed a diet of garbage that the best footballers playing football in its purest form are Kerry footballers. Rubbish if you ask me.

[Hardy]

Keane kicked the ball away when Durcan went to take a kickout. He did similar in Limerick, throwing the spare balls away. Disgusting acts. There has to be a sterner punishment for this sort of behaviour.

Unsurprisingly I didnt hear them mention either on Sunday game either.

thought it was a despicable act by keane
was not surprised that no mention was made of it on tv
wasn't surprised at no mention by pat about the reilly shambles in limerick either

It was on a par with Cavanagh pulling down McManus last year

Ah come on now.

[Asal Mor]

It was worse than Cavanagh, who just did what he had to do. But I'd call it childish rather than disgusting. A fart sniffing fetish is disgusting.

[FermGael]

Decided to go up to Owenbeg this afternoon and watch the Ulster Club games.
Two decisions by the referee puzzled me.
1. Slaughtneil defender was soloing out of defence with the ball. He bounced the ball and then lost control of the ball. He regained control by bouncing the ball one handed like a basketball player would and the referee gave a free against him for a double bounce. Was the referee correct?
2. Cavan Gaels player was tackled well and fisted the ball away.  The ball bounced once and the same player regained possession.  The referee played on. Was the referee correct ?

[Zulu]

No to first one and yes to second question.