So what do ye think of the black card rule now?

[dlgael]

I think the black card came from good intentions but is going to be the talking point of the summer rather than the wonderful football it was introduced to encourage.
One high profile black card in Championship football will spark fury. The reason for this is inconsistency. You can highlight a number of incidents which to the letter of the law are black card offenses in every game of football, live or televised. At present from the 7 league games I've witnessed we've had inconsistency from the same ref across the same game, never-mind how frustrating it will get when you see inconsistencies between different games with different refs. I'm not saying I'd like to see more black cards per se, rather that I'd expect uniforming and consistency of approach across the games.
The rule states the offenses as follows
1. Deliberately pull down an opponent.
2. Deliberately trip an opponent with the hand(s), arm, leg or foot.
3. Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.
4. Threaten or to use abusive or provocative language or gestures to an opponent or a teammate.
5. Remonstrate in an aggressive manner with a Match Official.

From what I've seen 4 and 5 have not been implemented.
1, 2 and 3 have been horrendously inconsistently implemented, 3 in particular which has infuriated me over the past few months as it stops the running game which I enjoy.

[AZOffaly]

I think this comes down (as it always, inevitably, does) to the man in the middle. The key word in 1,2 and 3 is DELIBERATELY. One man's view of deliberate might well be another man's accidental. Referees are human, and will make the call as they see it, so expect a lot of that was deliberate/no it wasn't type arguments during the summer. I think what you'll see happen is referees will end up giving the benefit of the doubt, and if they can't be sure in their own mind they will lean towards accidental.

What should NEVER happen is a yellow card being awarded for a black card foul. If a lad accidentally trips an opponent (tangle of legs or whatever) he shouldn't receive a black card, but he shouldn't receive a yellow either!

[muppet]

I think this comes down (as it always, inevitably, does) to the man in the middle. The key word in 1,2 and 3 is DELIBERATELY. One man's view of deliberate might well be another man's accidental. Referees are human, and will make the call as they see it, so expect a lot of that was deliberate/no it wasn't type arguments during the summer. I think what you'll see happen is referees will end up giving the benefit of the doubt, and if they can't be sure in their own mind they will lean towards accidental.

What should NEVER happen is a yellow card being awarded for a black card foul. If a lad accidentally trips an opponent (tangle of legs or whatever) he shouldn't receive a black card, but he shouldn't receive a yellow either!

Agreed. This would be the equivalent of the 'there was contact' farce that now prevails in soccer.

[Jinxy]

Yeah, it would seem going by the crowd reactions at different games that people assume that any time an attacker ends up on the ground, a black card is warranted.

[magpie seanie]

3. Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.

So our legitimate side to side shoulder could be a black card?

I think the biggest horseshit that is talked is the "there's more scores so it's good for the game" type rubbish. Fair enough, defenders were doing illegal things and have now been forced to stop doing them but as I've always said - attackers can still take 6-8 steps and rarely be punished. Did defenders pull and drag as a reaction to overcarry or vice versa? I'm not sure. However, the current rule changes coupled with their implementation clearly favour the person in possession, running with the ball. I don't think that's right. If I had my way the rules would be leaning against players who took the ball into the tackle (use the ball, don't play rugby league).

[magpie seanie]

Yeah, it would seem going by the crowd reactions at different games that people assume that any time an attacker ends up on the ground, a black card is warranted.

An attacker from their team!

[sligoman2]

Well as expected a heated discussion.  Not sure i buy the packed defense argument anyone remember dublin v donegal in 2011 when the score was roughly 2 pts to 4 at half time.

Surely part of the reason is to eliminate puke football, which I think it has.  The definition of the tackle has not changed, just the punishment for breaking the rules.  It's hard to argue that you dont like the rule because now you can't drag someone to the ground and get away with it.

It's all Cavanaghs fault

[AZOffaly]

Well as expected a heated discussion.  Not sure i buy the packed defense argument anyone remember dublin v donegal in 2011 when the score was roughly 2 pts to 4 at half time.

Surely part of the reason is to eliminate puke football, which I think it has.  The definition of the tackle has not changed, just the punishment for breaking the rules.  It's hard to argue that you dont like the rule because now you can't drag someone to the ground and get away with it.

It's all Cavanaghs fault

It's actually not, and that's why I thought the whole Cavanagh thing was a joke. If you look at Kerry v Cavan, and look at the fouls Kerry committed in the forwards, in a game they were well in control of, there you'll see the reason for the black card.

[BennyHarp]

Well as expected a heated discussion.  Not sure i buy the packed defense argument anyone remember dublin v donegal in 2011 when the score was roughly 2 pts to 4 at half time.

Surely part of the reason is to eliminate puke football, which I think it has.  The definition of the tackle has not changed, just the punishment for breaking the rules.  It's hard to argue that you dont like the rule because now you can't drag someone to the ground and get away with it.

It's all Cavanaghs fault

Jaysus - do people actually use this term in real life?

[ONeill]

The refs need retrained in this ruling.

Or the rules needs changed

Or something.

[sligoman2]

Jaysus - do people actually use this term in real life?


Yes, we sligonians unfortunately use the term a lot along with a few other choice adjectives

[StephenC]

I agree about forwards taking steps. This seems to have crept in over the years as some sort of pseudo advantage rule, whereby a referee would allow a lad take a pile of steps if he was being fouled. That morphed into letting him take more steps if there was any contact at all.. That's something that does need to be addressed.

On the massed defence thing, it might work that way, I'm sure some teams will try it. But at the end of the day you have to score to win, and if they turn the ball over on the counter attacks, that's where gaps will appear. In the past someone like Donegal (not picking on them, every team did it) would counter attack, turn the ball over and foul immediately to let the cover defence get set up. That option is greatly reduced now.

Also, a key part of the blanket defence was to block runners. The illegal body check is now also eliminated.

How are the options to do this greatly reduced? Grab some lads arm and don't let go .... pull a jersey back .... bear-hug someone. Ok so teams can't pull someone to the ground but there's plenty of other ways to give up a free and let your defense get back. I don't feel that this tactic is in any way less of an option for teams this year than last year.
I can tell you that Donegal will be playing a swarm defense this year - pretty much the same as we did for the last few years. The rule around blocking runners can only help us. While we get a lot of stick for doing that, we were by far more the victim of such blocks. The Donegal game is based on runners breaking from defense. I'd safely say that Mark McHugh was one of the most blocked players in the whole country over the last few years.
So how do the black card rules force a team to alter it's defensive strategy? They don't. Look at Cavan this year, look at us. Plenty of massed defenses will be on display this year so don't be worrying.

[Ball Hopper]

Is the player receiving a black card considered sent off, or merely replaced? If sent off, he is not allowed participate in any of the post- game activities. Normally not a big deal, right?

Cavan captain was black carded tonight and he was allowed to collect the cup.  I think black card means replaced, so no harm done tonight.  Has anyone any experience of a captain being sent off by red card and then not allowed to receive the cup?  There would be a riot, no?

[Ringfort]

3. Deliberately body collide with an opponent after he has played the ball away or for the purpose of taking him out of a movement of play.

So our legitimate side to side shoulder could be a black card?

I think the biggest horseshit that is talked is the "there's more scores so it's good for the game" type rubbish. Fair enough, defenders were doing illegal things and have now been forced to stop doing them but as I've always said - attackers can still take 6-8 steps and rarely be punished. Did defenders pull and drag as a reaction to overcarry or vice versa? I'm not sure. However, the current rule changes coupled with their implementation clearly favour the person in possession, running with the ball. I don't think that's right. If I had my way the rules would be leaning against players who took the ball into the tackle (use the ball, don't play rugby league).

In general I'm willing to give the black card a chance but the next thing that needs sorted out as you and AZOffaly amongst others have alluded to, is FORWARDS OVERCARRYING. And I say that as an ex-forward who's sympathies have always lain with the lads lined out 10-15.

When the forward takes the ball into contact and the defender has the hand in he is allowed several big steps, small steps, shuffles and wriggles to get himself free before popping off a shot. It is not uncommon to count 8-9 steps taken in total. The only time you really see a ref blowing for carrying is if a forward turns one way, then the other, then back again, then around a fourth time. Sometimes in these cases there aren't a huge amount of steps taken but the player is penalised for 'taking too much out of it', which everyone hates, and he trudges off with his tail between his legs 

What needs to be looked at is forwards anywhere around 30 yards from goal, being legitimately tackled but using 7/8/9 steps to wriggle free and get a shot away. They are being tackled, they need to solo or hop the ball and risk losing it or pass it before getting bottled up.

Feel for backs myself these days.

[blewuporstuffed]

Is the player receiving a black card considered sent off, or merely replaced? If sent off, he is not allowed participate in any of the post- game activities. Normally not a big deal, right?

Cavan captain was black carded tonight and he was allowed to collect the cup.  I think black card means replaced, so no harm done tonight.  Has anyone any experience of a captain being sent off by red card and then not allowed to receive the cup?  There would be a riot, no?

I remember it happening in a Markey cup final.The captain sent of for a second yellow in extra time, and wasnt allowed to lift the cup then.
I thought it was a particularly harsh thing to happen at schools level.