Messages

I think it comes down to what is the advantage to be assessed against. Apologies if this doesn't make sense but it's a little difficult for me to explain.

Is the advantage to be compared to the free I.E are the team within 5 seconds better off than they would be if they had the free. If it's that then missing the shot for a point or not having a shot/clear advantage should result in the free. As should fouling the ball.

If the advantage is to be compared to the situation he was in then simply getting away is probably an advantage and any shot definitely is.   

I think it should be somewhere between the two. I really don't like the idea of two shots at goal etc. At the same time I think the advantage has to be meaningful. I think we are trying to achieve some kind of cross between the rugby approach to advantage and the soccer approach. For me I think we should be far closer to the soccer approach.

On an aside I remember a ref in a club game a good few years ago now take a unique approach to the advantage rule. He played advantage on every foul if either team got an advantage. He shouted advantage and when challenged told the players I have to play on because one of the teams now has an advantage. It was bizarre.

Personally I let it continue a 'good' 5 seconds in those critical areas (goal scoring ops) and other than him committing an aggressive foul himself or literally taking the piss in steps I'll bring back for the original

2 games in a row now (football) lads and management are still unsure of the rules for even the basics that have been about for years.

As David has said many times, its not a black and white set of rules, it is in most parts down to the ref's interpretation of the rules which largely pisses people off, but that's the way it is currently until a review is done to tidy it up

Before the advantage rule we used to have the 'slow' whistle which allowed us to give a player a chance to 'break' free of a challenge and possibly set up play, or score.  Sort of stuck on both now lol!

There was one last night in the Cork v Limerick match that made me wonder. Cork attacking near the end chasing a goal. Advantage given inside the 21. Player breaks free, and gets a shot away off target. Goes over the bar but he was clearly shooting for goal. Should that come back? I mean I know he scored but Cork needed a goal and got one from a free in the same position against Clare the last day out. I genuinely don't know what should happen in that scenario. Would the attacker have been better deliberately missing?

Remembered it, never thought that any of the players or management wanted that retaken. But it's a good point because had he missed it would have undoubtedly been brought back for a 21 yard free.

The introduction of the advantage rule was to reduce the amount of fouls happening in the game, creating less breaks better fluency.

When done well it's better for the game, think it works better in hurling.

To be fair I think (as proved in hindsight) there was still enough time left. Had it been three or four minutes later there might have been more call to get the free

Hi men! I am Giovanni from Italy, I come from Rome. I am an amateur soccer player and now I discover this new sport, i.e. Gaelic Football.
I have already read all the rules but I still have doubts.
Ok, let's get started.

1. When the player is in possession of the ball, the ball is held in his hands, he could:
  A. throw the ball in the air and catch it again with your hands? I think not, right?
  B. throw the ball in the air, hit it with any part of the body except arms and hands and then catch it in the hands? I don't think so, am I right?
  C. throw the ball and hit it with any part of the body, maybe like someone throws the ball in the air and then hits it with his head, legal?
  D. Bringing the ball with the hands at head height and then, without either throwing or releasing it, hitting the ball with the head or any part of the body except the hands, legal?

2. Rule: 1.5 When the ball has not been caught, it may be bounced more than once in succession.. So a player could control the ball with one hand (or two?) and play it basketball style as far as he wants? It would be much easier than soloing so how come we don't see it? The reason I expect is that 'caught' does not infer with both hands?

3. When a player tries to catch a ball in the air he may touch the ball several times with his hands as long as he has control of it. But could he continue to bounce the ball from his hand into the air as Hurling players do with stick and ball?
Rule: To play the ball up with the hand(s) and catch it again before it touches the ground, another player, or goal-posts
But, according to the rule, a player, once he touches the ball once in the air, cannot touch it a second or third time?
I believe as long as he can't control the ball the player could do it, but if we interpret the rule literally this wouldn't be legal, would it?

4. Situation: a player takes possession and hops the ball.

 A. After the hop he flicks it up in the air and catches it before it bounces the ground, a posts or a player.
 B. he flicks it to pass the ball to someone else.
 C. he flicks it to score a goal.
are A, B, C legals?

5. Situation: a player with the foot or with other parts of body but the hands tries a "Sombrero trick" and:
 A. in the air he strikes the ball to an other direction.
 B. in the air he strikes the ball and then he caught it.
 C. in the air he caught it and goes on.

6. Ladies Gaelic football allows this:
Rule: A player may toss up the ball with one hand and play it off with the same hand.
So a player toss up the ball with right hand, surpass a player and then he can catch it with right hand, legal?
What does mean this Rule: Showing the Ball or Turning Twice with the ball is NOT a foul providing it is done within the 4 step rule.
I mean what are the showing the ball or turning twice.

Thanks

I'll leave these to the resident ref but you have given PTSD with point 2. The way that rule is to be interpreted after the Clifford or Ganey (can't remember which) goal makes no sense. For a ball to be considered bounced it has to leave the hands, hit the ground and return immediately into the hand. As a result the the rule basically says you can continue to bounce the ball provided you never bounce the ball.

Personally I let it continue a 'good' 5 seconds in those critical areas (goal scoring ops) and other than him committing an aggressive foul himself or literally taking the piss in steps I'll bring back for the original

2 games in a row now (football) lads and management are still unsure of the rules for even the basics that have been about for years.

As David has said many times, its not a black and white set of rules, it is in most parts down to the ref's interpretation of the rules which largely pisses people off, but that's the way it is currently until a review is done to tidy it up

Before the advantage rule we used to have the 'slow' whistle which allowed us to give a player a chance to 'break' free of a challenge and possibly set up play, or score.  Sort of stuck on both now lol!

There was one last night in the Cork v Limerick match that made me wonder. Cork attacking near the end chasing a goal. Advantage given inside the 21. Player breaks free, and gets a shot away off target. Goes over the bar but he was clearly shooting for goal. Should that come back? I mean I know he scored but Cork needed a goal and got one from a free in the same position against Clare the last day out. I genuinely don't know what should happen in that scenario. Would the attacker have been better deliberately missing?

There ye go I bought off Edendork. Weekend ruined 😜😜

Got accosted today but it was by a friend so no problem with it. Someone I don't know I'm not as quick to buy one

There is something seriously wrong with you.

What kind of person uses the word enjoy in relation to a story like that?

Well, a lot of people here are all for the cultural enrichment we get from open borders. Vile, I know, but there you have it...

Again, wee Billy big balls behind a hidden name... Grim carryon.
It's what's driven twitter etc into the sewers.

Right. And your name's JoG2?! Does anyone here use their real name?

No one would be that stupid 

Even this bit doesnt make sense

5.44   
When an Aggressive Foul is committed, the Referee may allow the play to continue if the referee considers that this presents the potential of a goal-scoring opportunity or another advantage to the team offended by creating or capitalising on time and space. The Referee shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright and shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining that arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. If the referee deems no advantage to have accrued, the Referee may subsequently award a free for the foul from where it occurred, except as provided under Exceptions (v) and (vi) of Rule 2.2

The referee may allow the play to continue if there is a potential for an advantage in the next five seconds but can allow less if no advantage accrues in that lesser time.  What if no advantage accrues after say 3 seconds but one might still occur.  What does the ref do?  The tenses are wrong are they not?

I am even more confused now by the rule than I was when i didnt actually know what it was

Yesterday morning on the Met.ie website the forecast for Sunday had rain the later part of the day. Yesterday evening the forecast for rain was gone, and it predicted dry and sunny, Today the rain is back but a bit earlier and likely to be a problem. The BBC website predicts light showers. Weather forecasting in Ireland is not yet able to predict this far in advance.

Two types of meteorologist in the world. Those who don't know what the weather will be like and those who don't know that they don't know what the weather will be like.

And how is the fouled player to know he has an advantage? eyes in the back of his head?
It's a totally idiotic advantage rule when you can lose the advantage inside 4 seconds.

If a player does happen to notice that he has the advantage, can he stop play and say, 'thanks ref but I want the free kick not the so called advantage'?

No, he has to 'honestly' play on and make the ref call it that no advantage is being gained.

I think a ref would give the free in the case of getting bottled up, as it would be clear no advantage is being gained at the start of the bottling up.

It's where the attacking player overcarries for no ones fault but their own that a foul would be called.

Doesn't sound like a consistent application of the rules. If you give the advantage surely you have to let the 5 seconds play out in case you come out of being bottled up.

Never liked the advantage rule. I think it's trying to be all things to all men and ends up just being farcical

At least it's not in conflict with the rule book that's happened in the past. Again though I think it shows the need for root and branch reform.

It's also a bit of a nonsense to me. Get fouled. Get advantage. Get bottled up by good defending. Lose advantage.

How exactly do you claim the free kick then. Must you shoot or play the ball to an opponent or something?

Also how is a shot at goal (regardless of outcome) not an advantage over say a 21m free?

Also where is the rule on the advantage procedure contained?

During the advantage period of 5 seconds, I thought any technical fouls by the attacking player was a free against them. i.e you can't just stand there or overcarry to claim the free.

Eamonn Fitzmaurice said the ref came back for the advantage after Conroy overcarried in the 1st half.

I thought you could. Otherwise what's the point of the advantage it would actually at times be a disadvantage

No a technical foul during the advantage should result in reversal of the original decision

I thought you simply couldn't benefit from a technical foul during the advantage.  What if a foul occurs after you as you go to solo or toe tap preventing you from toe tapping does the ref signal play on and then immediately change their decision?  Can they not give an advantage in that scenario? 

I have never liked the advantage rule in GAA anyway its like a bad hybrid of the rule in soccer and rugby.

From a neutral perspective I just thought he had a strange game but I did say about the 63rd minute that whoever loses wont be happy with his performance.  That didnt change in the last 12/13 minutes

During the advantage period of 5 seconds, I thought any technical fouls by the attacking player was a free against them. i.e you can't just stand there or overcarry to claim the free.

Eamonn Fitzmaurice said the ref came back for the advantage after Conroy overcarried in the 1st half.

I thought you could. Otherwise what's the point of the advantage it would actually at times be a disadvantage

Gleeson the match winner for Galway.  FT Galway 0-16 Mayo 0-15

Some might argue it was Gough was the match winner. Some strange decisions from him second half. Didn't think he had a great performance