Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[westbound]

The advantage is where a team are in a better position to score than they would be if the free was given. A team can waste their advantage in the same way that they can waste their free but that's their own doing.
I don't think you should be given 2 shots for 1 foul.

that's prob the best way ive seen it put

I must try that at a game hardstation is at and see if the general consensus is the same among his clubmen

Haha in fairness, I dont blame the refs its the rule, but I just think soccer have it better where the ref either plays advantage or gives the free, in GAA its pretty much both play the advantage and unless its a score then its brought back for a free. too long of an advantage is my issue, should be a phase, ie if I have the ball 30m out get fouled but play the ball to a man off the shoulder and he solos and shoots surely thats enough advantage, but in current rules if that happens and the player puts it wide or short the team gets a free, they are rewarded for actually making a mess of their advantage.

They are not rewarded for making a mess of the advantage, the defending team is punished for the foul! The attacking teams gets 2 chances to punish the defending team in this case. Therefore the benefit of fouling is lessened and therefore the defending team will be less likely to foul. And where they do foul, they are more likely to be punished on the scoreboard.

If we accept that the aim is to reduce fouling in the game then the advantage rule as it currently stands is a reasonably good way to achieve that aim.

[Milltown Row2]

By the same token, if we really wanted to punish fouling we could give a free taker a 2nd go if he misses his 1st free kick.
It's the same thing.

Advantage is given all over the pitch, from cornerback to full forward. Teams much prefer to have possession and if not in the scoring zone, playing the ball out works better.

When the ref raises his hand he's playing advantage for a foul, player has two options, play a pass or shoot, after that,  the ref has 5 seconds to play it, it's simple enough to workout.

If the ball breaks down and team lose possession after 5 seconds that's that. If the player loses possession or advantage is lost then it's brought back to original foul!

By the same token if a player shoots and misses before the 5 seconds is out then no advantage for the obvious foul.

I can't see the issue. Players would be calling for just the free every time, the problem is, it's not the players place to call advantage or not.

[macdanger2]

One thing I would change about the rule (even if it's not usually enforced) is that if the player who has received the advantage commits a foul, the play is brought back and the original free is given. Currently, the rules say that the free is given against the player who had the advantage if he commits a foul (unless this has been changed since it was originally introduced?)

[Milltown Row2]

I don't know why you continue to think that we are confused as to how the rule works. We aren't. We aren't suggesting that refs are doing it wrong. We are simply suggesting that the rule is wrong and that the "fouled team" is getting too much of an advantage.

For me, the advantage shouldn't be that you have a free kick in reserve if required. The advantage you are getting is those extra yards gained, that better scoring opportunity, an option for a goal rather than a point etc.

No one is gaining an advantage if the chance they take is missed.

if advantage is played in corner back and the ball is played out is collected by the opposing team, do we say "you had an advantage and fucked it up, so play on" or as it's within the five seconds bring the ball back and play it out of corner back?

Is there a difference for defence advantage to forward advantage?

[Hound]

One thing I would change about the rule (even if it's not usually enforced) is that if the player who has received the advantage commits a foul, the play is brought back and the original free is given. Currently, the rules say that the free is given against the player who had the advantage if he commits a foul (unless this has been changed since it was originally introduced?)

It's absolute BS and to me it's a complete misinterpretation of the rule. A ref told me that he was specifically told at a training course that if a player overcarries during the 5 seconds, then you reverse the decision. But that makes absolutely no logical sense, as how could there have been an advantage? And most of the time the reason for the overcarrying is because the fouler is still all over the man in possession. So even if he doesn't foul him again, there's no clearly no advantage so the original free should be given.

I'd imagine the reason for it is to prevent the fouled player turning around and giving the fouler a dig. But the rules already cover this separately. 

[Milltown Row2]

One thing I would change about the rule (even if it's not usually enforced) is that if the player who has received the advantage commits a foul, the play is brought back and the original free is given. Currently, the rules say that the free is given against the player who had the advantage if he commits a foul (unless this has been changed since it was originally introduced?)

It's absolute BS and to me it's a complete misinterpretation of the rule. A ref told me that he was specifically told at a training course that if a player overcarries during the 5 seconds, then you reverse the decision. But that makes absolutely no logical sense, as how could there have been an advantage? And most of the time the reason for the overcarrying is because the fouler is still all over the man in possession. So even if he doesn't foul him again, there's no clearly no advantage so the original free should be given.

I'd imagine the reason for it is to prevent the fouled player turning around and giving the fouler a dig. But the rules already cover this separately.

That's the rule, but it's rarity in fairness. Should possibly be a hop ball in that case.

[Milltown Row2]

So why give 5 seconds?

So either you want advantage or you don't.

It has to have a timescale, it's consistent and easy to apply imo..

[Milltown Row2]

I have no idea what you are talking about now.

Your post is about not giving a proper advantage to the player being fouled.

You feel the player is getting two bites of the cherry if he misses. If it's within the 5 seconds then he's well within his rights to bring it back and take the free. Be it an attacking free or defensive one. My view is he's not getting an advantage.

If we go down the road that you're suggesting players will automatically stop and take the free, thus making the rule useless. When the whole point of the rule was to keep the game flowing and reducing the stop starts.

So the question is do you want to keep the rule your way and watch players just stopping, as the odds then are stacked with the defending team. Play breaks down more often and we have a succession of frees.

Personally for me I prefer the rule as is, and that's coming from all angles.

[Armagh18]

Player should be allowed to say he doesn't want to play on and stop for the free.

[Milltown Row2]

Player should be allowed to say he doesn't want to play on and stop for the free.

I agree but not in the rules. A bitta common sense though from the ref and he'll cop on to that

[Milltown Row2]

I'm all for the advantage. For a player to go on in on goal rather than being hauled back for a 30m free etc. But if he does, the free should be forgotten about.

So if the managers say we've 5 seconds of advantage regardless ref! Where's our advantage? I get that constantly, so 5 seconds Is easily counted and applied.

Your views seem mainly concentrated on attacking play.

[Milltown Row2]

I'm all for the advantage. For a player to go on in on goal rather than being hauled back for a 30m free etc. But if he does, the free should be forgotten about.

So if the managers say we've 5 seconds of advantage regardless ref! Where's our advantage? I get that constantly, so 5 seconds Is easily counted and applied.

Your views seem mainly concentrated on attacking play.

We are talking about a change of rule here you know?

So at that point you would tell the manager that he is talking about the old rule and under the new rule a player gets the free or the advantage, not both. That can be applied right across the pitch.

I know, so are you getting rid of the 5 seconds or keeping that? You happy with the downside to your new rule? Slowing up play as everyone (I feel) will want to take the free, rather than lose possession.

I think just cause you feel it's giving people a second shot on goal, it isn't just for shooting goals

[Milltown Row2]

Yeah 5 seconds would be gone. If you play on, you play on.

As for the stop start, I think the natural instinct of a player who recognises that he has a clear & obvious advantage is to play on. At least when he plays on the game will continue as normal instead of it being dragged back for a free (a stoppage) 3 plays later if his team makes a balls of it. On other occasions he'll decide to settle for the free. Foul committed, free given. No big deal.

I honestly don't see the downside that you do.

I can see benefits in yours, but I personally,  at the coal face haven't had many issues with the advantage rule, it's great when a team gets advantage and works a score.

I can't remember anyone saying with any intent that advantage is over so his missed chance shouldn't be brought back.

Maybe watching it from the sidelines the view on it is different

[Milltown Row2]

I just don't understand why we would give someone another attempt at a score when they have missed one from a more advantageous position.

To me, it's like getting another free kick if you miss the first one.

A free kick/strike is under no pressure, an attempt to score during advantage while someone's trying to block or hook you is under pressure. If he gets score away fine, better spectacle, if not and within the five seconds it's brought back.

Yours sounds more like a mark type (in that they have time to move without being touched) which I think is complete shite!

Sure we'll agree to disagree 

[themac_23]

I just don't understand why we would give someone another attempt at a score when they have missed one from a more advantageous position.

To me, it's like getting another free kick if you miss the first one.

Yeah I think do away with the 5 second and make it that if the ball is played on then the advantage is over, for example it's hardly fair a player gets fouled and gets advantage slips a hand pass and player runs through on goal and keeper saves it or the player puts it wide, the fouled player took his advantage and the advantage was that his team got a shot at goal, i just think it's unfair on the defending team who stopped the goal to then get an east score against them. That's how it is in soccer if the advantage is played and the attacking team shoot and miss or keeper saves it then the advantage is gone.