http://www.livegaelic.com/features/defining-the-tackle-in-gaelic-football-a-dangerous-game/
Good opinion piece on the tackle and I'd agree with a lot of it. Tough to find a solution to this one though. One thing I'd like to see is a looser definition of the shoulder charge, it seems unless it's picture perfect in football (and doesn't knock the man over) it is a free while in hurling everything goes in this regard. IMO a blatant shoulder into the back or chest are the only shoulders that should be consistently frees, a slight deviation from the shoulder to shoulder principle shouldn't be a free as far as I'm concerned.
If we are ever to move towards an acceptable tackle it must be something that is easily decided upon by a referee who is in charge of a club league match and has no neutral officials to consult..where umpires and linesmen are partisan at best. I still feel that fouling would diminish if we applied the 4 steps rule in football and rewarded tacklers who bottle up opponents who are in possession. Too often we see scores and assists coming directly from carries of 7+ steps. If those off the ball knew they were going to be rewarded for good containment of a player, they would use that method more often and not resort to fouling as much.
Quote from: Mrs mills on July 25, 2013, 03:05:46 PM
If we are ever to move towards an acceptable tackle it must be something that is easily decided upon by a referee who is in charge of a club league match and has no neutral officials to consult..where umpires and linesmen are partisan at best. I still feel that fouling would diminish if we applied the 4 steps rule in football and rewarded tacklers who bottle up opponents who are in possession. Too often we see scores and assists coming directly from carries of 7+ steps. If those off the ball knew they were going to be rewarded for good containment of a player, they would use that method more often and not resort to fouling as much.
an excellent point, you get some referees that seem to allow 7-8 steps leaving it almost impossible to tackle the player fairly.
the ideal tackle is carried out by the defender who judges when the player has taken their full 4 steps and has to solo or bounce the ball and times the tackle accordingly to dispossess the player cleanly.
With such a loose interpretation of the number of steps allowed (4 or 5 for a big man, infinite amount for a small player) this is almost impossible
Quote from: Mrs mills on July 25, 2013, 03:05:46 PM
If we are ever to move towards an acceptable tackle it must be something that is easily decided upon by a referee who is in charge of a club league match and has no neutral officials to consult..where umpires and linesmen are partisan at best. I still feel that fouling would diminish if we applied the 4 steps rule in football and rewarded tacklers who bottle up opponents who are in possession. Too often we see scores and assists coming directly from carries of 7+ steps. If those off the ball knew they were going to be rewarded for good containment of a player, they would use that method more often and not resort to fouling as much.
That is fair enough but you would need to have a liberal/new interpretation of the handpass. Most guys can't handpass off both sides so a strict 4 steps will result in a lot of frees or fumbles.
Why should a ref not implement a rule because players can't perform a basic skill like throw handpassing??
Our acceptance of the skewing of rules never fails to amaze me. Watch any inter county game and you will see anything between 5 and 7 scores coming directly from over carrying the ball (directly meaning by the scorer or by the final passer in the move). When the GAA was asked to investigate how referees misinterpreted a ball carrier taking the ball into contact as an opportunity to take a further 4 steps without bounce or toe tap, it hid. If a tackler engages a ball carrier in contact, gets no reward for doing so and then sees the player afforded 4 or 5 more steps to break free from that tackle, surely it is demoralising. Check how many pulling or dragging fouls are then committed after this breaking free and you will get your eyes opened. Is it time for a 'Save the Tackler' campaign? I see a Hollywood script on the horizon.
Quote from: Mrs mills on July 26, 2013, 08:36:20 AM
Our acceptance of the skewing of rules never fails to amaze me. Watch any inter county game and you will see anything between 5 and 7 scores coming directly from over carrying the ball (directly meaning by the scorer or by the final passer in the move). When the GAA was asked to investigate how referees misinterpreted a ball carrier taking the ball into contact as an opportunity to take a further 4 steps without bounce or toe tap, it hid. If a tackler engages a ball carrier in contact, gets no reward for doing so and then sees the player afforded 4 or 5 more steps to break free from that tackle, surely it is demoralising. Check how many pulling or dragging fouls are then committed after this breaking free and you will get your eyes opened. Is it time for a 'Save the Tackler' campaign? I see a Hollywood script on the horizon.
On a similar note, it seems that referees often allow play to continue and allow players to take extra steps when they've been fouled - almost like an advantage. Is this scenario covered in the rules anywhere?
Mrs Mills - I can see you're a welcome addition to this board. An excellent and very overlooked point on the 4 steps rule. It is the single most abused rule in the game yet nothing has ever been done to try to enforce it. A lot of ills of the game of football stem from this I feel. If the player in possession is allowed extra steps it leads to pulling, dragging and less clean tackling as the defender in turn treis to bend the rules in his own favour.
The point Zulu made on the should is also correct but an awful lot of people need their eyes tested when it comes to shoulder charges. I've regularly seen blatant ones in the back and chest described as "fair shoulders" and vice versa. Knocking a player to the ground with a shoulder (fair or otherwise) seems to be an unwritten foul.
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 26, 2013, 10:00:02 AM
the 4 steps rule. It is the single most abused rule in the game yet nothing has ever been done to try to enforce it. A lot of ills of the game of football stem from this I feel. If the player in possession is allowed extra steps it leads to pulling, dragging and less clean tackling
+1.
The whole emphasis is on letting the man with the ball do what he likes meaning it's impossible to legally dispossess him. Then you have Duffy blindly giving a free against Cooper when he made an excellent legal tackle because he thought " sure it must be a free if he knocked the ball away".
The result of it all is that a buck ambles around with the ball till the ref decides some tackle on him is a foul. If the carrier knew he was most likely to be blown for overcarrying he'd have to look up and play the ball off quick giving us a more open mobile type of game instead of rugby league without the tackles.
Hey lads, author of the piece in the OP here - thanks for sharing it, glad some of you liked it.
I think the steps not being enforced argument makes a lot of sense.
I also have a bit of sympathy for refs on it though. It can actually be very difficult to count steps even in slow motion, if you look at guys side-stepping and things like that the idea of a "step" is a bit nebulous, even more so because when there's a tackle going in the ref will usually have to look at upper bodies and not really be in a position to watch the foot movements as well. Think there's an argument to be made that a player should have to play the ball every X seconds rather than every X steps for that reason.
Quote from: Keane on July 26, 2013, 12:08:08 PM
... Think there's an argument to be made that a player should have to play the ball every X seconds rather than every X steps for that reason.
But that's already there? The whistle to be blown on either the 5th step, or the time equivalent?
Granted, not as well defined as X seconds, but defined nonetheless:
Rule 1.4
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer than the time needed to take four steps;
Yeah I knew that was in there, but it's pretty meaningless as it stands. It's actually pretty laughable that that's how they drafted it when you think about it, surely it would have made more sense to say "carried for a maximum of four consecutive steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer than three seconds".
Fair enough, it does leave it open to far too much personal (mis)interpretation (on the ref's part).
An ex-ref I know blew on the count of 5, which seemed fair enough.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 26, 2013, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: Keane on July 26, 2013, 12:08:08 PM
... Think there's an argument to be made that a player should have to play the ball every X seconds rather than every X steps for that reason.
But that's already there? The whistle to be blown on either the 5th step, or the time equivalent?
Granted, not as well defined as X seconds, but defined nonetheless:
Rule 1.4
(a) carried for a maximum of four consecutive steps or held in the hand(s) for no longer than the time needed to take four steps;
I think the accepted time is 5 seconds. I don't think the problem is the definition of tackles etc. I believe that they are well covered. The problem we have is the interpretation of the rules by managers, players and refs and also a lack of understanding of the rules among people watching the games. I have said this before and I think it is important that this be the case. All managers/club representative within a county should attend a yearly rules conference run by the head of referees ie Pat McEananey whereby the ruels are clearly set out and what the position of the ref is. Without a clear indication at some stage you will have the constant questioning of rules and at least the managers can get their players focused on the right rules and cannot have any excuse for questioning decisions.
The problem is if you referee by the rulebook then there will be a free every 30 seconds or so. But everyone wants the game to flow. Theonly way for this to happen is to ignore rules/fouls. Each ref ignores different rules/fouls leading to inconsistent refereeing from match to match.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on July 26, 2013, 02:03:41 PM
The problem is if you referee by the rulebook then there will be a free every 30 seconds or so. But everyone wants the game to flow. Theonly way for this to happen is to ignore rules/fouls. Each ref ignores different rules/fouls leading to inconsistent refereeing from match to match.
Question; If a game is deemed not to be flowing, why is it always the referees fault and not that of the players doing the fouling?
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on July 26, 2013, 02:03:41 PM
The problem is if you referee by the rulebook then there will be a free every 30 seconds or so. But everyone wants the game to flow. Theonly way for this to happen is to ignore rules/fouls. Each ref ignores different rules/fouls leading to inconsistent refereeing from match to match.
When I first started playing as a kid you learned to "play the referee" or work out what he would and wouldn't allow. I think refs were a bit more consistent in what the allowed to go/penalised back then than they are now. Interpretations seem to change with the half time cuppa a lot these days....
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 26, 2013, 02:11:08 PM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on July 26, 2013, 02:03:41 PM
The problem is if you referee by the rulebook then there will be a free every 30 seconds or so. But everyone wants the game to flow. Theonly way for this to happen is to ignore rules/fouls. Each ref ignores different rules/fouls leading to inconsistent refereeing from match to match.
When I first started playing as a kid you learned to "play the referee" or work out what he would and wouldn't allow. I think refs were a bit more consistent in what the allowed to go/penalised back then than they are now. Interpretations seem to change with the half time cuppa a lot these days....
That's true.
At the moment I think a lot of players/managers and especially supporters don't know all the rules.
Which leads to a lot of shouting at refs during games, this is compounded with the inconsistency of the applications of the rules from referees.
With all the new rules coming next year, there will be more confusion and inconsistency.
I brought a foreign relation to a game once and had the following conversation;
'So why do they bounce and take a wee kick back to themselves?'
'That is a solo, or toe tap. You have to do this or bounce every 4 steps, but you can't bounce twice in a row.'
*PLAY CONTINUES*
'Did you say every 4 steps?'
'Yes ... but it isn't really applied very strictly.'
'Oh right. Why?'
'4 steps isn't enough, it's hard to make any real progress with the ball in hand, whilst being tackled, if you have to take a play every 4 steps.'
'Why don't they just give you more steps then?'
And therein lies the solution for me. Obviously some will say that every 4 steps allows defenders a chance to dispossess, and increasing that amount will reduce that chance. However I believe this will not be the case as the current interpretation (as alluded to by Mrs Mills) allows for 4 steps coming into and going away from, the tackler. Give 6 steps and apply the rule strictly and defenders will actually have a better chance of creating a turnover.
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on July 26, 2013, 02:03:41 PM
The problem is if you referee by the rulebook then there will be a free every 30 seconds or so.
Then it must be time to change the rule book if you can't play a game without committing a breach of rule every thirty seconds.
How come the same lads who do all this fouling when playing football can also play soccer and never commit a foul???
Quote from: Rossfan on July 27, 2013, 11:28:36 AM
Quote from: Stall the Bailer on July 26, 2013, 02:03:41 PM
The problem is if you referee by the rulebook then there will be a free every 30 seconds or so.
Then it must be time to change the rule book if you can't play a game without committing a breach of rule every thirty seconds.
How come the same lads who do all this fouling when playing football can also play soccer and never commit a foul???
I am not taking about me but players in general. In soccer players know what they can and can't get away with. This changes from game to game in the gaa. Even though the rules are almost the same in hurling, you will get away with a lot more physical contact. Some refs will be the same in football others will ref it more inline to the rulebook.